Congress has cut federal funding for public media — a $3.4 million loss for LAist. We count on readers like you to protect our nonprofit newsroom. Become a monthly member and sustain local journalism.
This archival content was written, edited, and published prior to LAist's acquisition by its current owner, Southern California Public Radio ("SCPR"). Content, such as language choice and subject matter, in archival articles therefore may not align with SCPR's current editorial standards. To learn more about those standards and why we make this distinction, please click here.
What L.A.'s 'Close Down Your Medical Marijuana Dispensary' Letter Looks Like

Photo by katherine_hitt via Flickr
Letters were sent yesterday to over 400 medical marijuana dispensaries telling them to shut down by June 7th. The reason? They opened during a moratorium set in 2007 while city council tried to figure out how to regulate them. That took three years and Los Angeles' collection of pot shops grew to over 500.
Now a letter being sent to 437 dispensaries is telling them to close up for face consequences. To see exactly what owners are reading, we've obtained the letter from the City Attorney's Office:
Dear Business/Property Owner: On June 7, 2010, Article 5.1 of Chapter IV of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (Medical Marijuana Collective) will become operative. You are being sent this courtesy notice regarding certain limited portions of Article 5.1. We recommend that you review this new article in its entirety, which can be found on the City of Los Angeles website: www.LAcity.org (under Council File Management System, Council File Nos. 08-0923 and 08-0923-S5).
Section 45.19.6.2 of Article 5.1 provides that medical marijuana establishments that registered with the City Clerk prior to November 13, 2007 and that satisfy several listed conditions may register with the City Clerk under the new article and must comply with its requirements within 180 days.
Conversely, Section 45.19.6.7 of Article 5.1 provides that “any existing medical marijuana collective, dispensary, operator, establishment, or provider that does not comply with the requirements of this article must immediately cease operation….”
The establishment at the above referenced address is operating as a medical marijuana provider and did not register with the City Clerk prior to November 13, 2007. Consequently, this establishment does not, and cannot, comply with the requirements of Article 5.1. Under Section 45.19.6.7, this establishment must therefore immediately cease its operations.
Please be further advised that Section 45.19.6.8 (A) of Article 5.1 provides that: “It is unlawful for any person to cause, permit or engage in the cultivation, possession, distribution or giving away of marijuana for medical purposes except as provided in this article, and pursuant to any and all other applicable local and state laws.”
Under this section, a property owner may not permit the premises to be used for any medical marijuana activity, and an operator may not engage in the cultivation, possession, distribution or giving away of marijuana for medical purposes, except as provided in Article 5.1.
Violation of any section of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is a misdemeanor, punishable by six months in jail and/or a $1000.00 fine (LAMC § 11.00 (m)) and a nuisance, subject to a daily civil penalty in the amount of $2500.00 (LAMC § 11.00 (l)). In addition to existing remedies under federal, state, and local law, Section 45.19.6.9 of Article 5.1 authorizes the City to seek injunctive relief, revocation of the certificate of
occupancy for the location, disgorgement and payment of any and all monies unlawfully obtained, costs of abatement, costs of investigation and attorney fees.
For questions or advice regarding Article 5.1, please consult your attorney.
As Editor-in-Chief of our newsroom, I’m extremely proud of the work our top-notch journalists are doing here at LAist. We’re doing more hard-hitting watchdog journalism than ever before — powerful reporting on the economy, elections, climate and the homelessness crisis that is making a difference in your lives. At the same time, it’s never been more difficult to maintain a paywall-free, independent news source that informs, inspires, and engages everyone.
Simply put, we cannot do this essential work without your help. Federal funding for public media has been clawed back by Congress and that means LAist has lost $3.4 million in federal funding over the next two years. So we’re asking for your help. LAist has been there for you and we’re asking you to be here for us.
We rely on donations from readers like you to stay independent, which keeps our nonprofit newsroom strong and accountable to you.
No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, press freedom is at the core of keeping our nation free and fair. And as the landscape of free press changes, LAist will remain a voice you know and trust, but the amount of reader support we receive will help determine how strong of a newsroom we are going forward to cover the important news from our community.
Please take action today to support your trusted source for local news with a donation that makes sense for your budget.
Thank you for your generous support and believing in independent news.

-
After rising for years, the number of residential installations in the city of Los Angeles began to drop in 2023. The city isn’t subject to recent changes in state incentives, but other factors may be contributing to the decline.
-
The L.A. City Council approved the venue change Wednesday, which organizers say will save $12 million in infrastructure costs.
-
Taxes on the sale of some newer apartment buildings would be lowered under a plan by Sacramento lawmakers to partially rein in city Measure ULA.
-
The union representing the restaurant's workers announced Tuesday that The Pantry will welcome back patrons after suddenly shutting down six months ago.
-
If approved, the more than 62-acre project would include 50 housing lots and a marina less than a mile from Jackie and Shadow's famous nest overlooking the lake.
-
The U.S. Supreme Court lifted limits on immigration sweeps in Southern California, overturning a lower court ruling that prohibited agents from stopping people based on their appearance.