“We’re receiving a report,” enunciated Mayor Bob Foster, doing his best to minimize the contentious discussion he knew was coming as the Long Beach City Council revisited its ban on medical-marijuana dispensaries and the temporary exemptions for 18, exemptions slated to terminate on August 12. “We’re not taking any action.”

What the council did do Tuesday night was unanimously vote to “receive and file a report reviewing the status of [the ban], the operations and activities of the medical marijuana collectives that were provided a six-month exemption, and enforcement against non-exempted marijuana collectives and cultivations [sic] sites within the City of Long Beach.” But they did so contentiously.

Part of the contention came from Councilmember Rae Gabelich, who asserted that the purpose of the report was supposed to have been a review of the status of the Pack decision as it moves toward its eventual review by the California Supreme Court; and moreover, that the purpose of the exemptions was not to give the 18 affected collectives time to wind down their operations, but to allow collectives that had gotten through the lottery process and complied with the City’s now-repealed medpot ordinance to continue operation until the Pack appeal is heard. Considering the three years’ worth of work the council has done to facilitate medpot patients getting their medicine, she said, “I don’t think that throwing the baby out with the bathwater at this point is what we’re really looking to do.”

But that is exactly the course of action Mayor Bob Foster, Police Chief Jim McDonnell, and City Attorney Bob Shannon made clear they wish to follow — a course favored by several city council members, most of whom remained quiet during the hour-long discussion.

“The basis for exempting the 18 [collectives] was not that they were good guys and everyone else was rogue, or that they operated properly and nobody else did,” said Shannon. “The basis was a very simple and equitable one: to give them the opportunity to recover the costs they assumed in good faith when we had the lottery in question. If you continue the exemption, you will no longer have that basis.”

Another point of contention concerned City Manager Pat West’s claim in a May 18 memo that “the District Attorney has indicated that they will not file felony drug charges against any dispensary operator in the City as long as the partial exemption from the ban exists,” which, as Gabelich pointed out, was “proven false” by the DA office’s pointing out that West’s claim was “not true.” A DA representative present at the meeting confirmed that the claim was inaccurate.

“We will still files cases whether you have an ordinance or not, whether you have a ban or not,” said Richard Doyle, head deputy of the Long Beach branch of the L.A. County District Attorney. “But [exemptions to the ban] will make it more difficult.”

The difficulty, explained Doyle, concerns the possibility of a non-exempt collective’s offering a defense based on receiving different treatment by the City than an exempted collective. “It makes it easier if there’s a ban,” he said.

McDonnell quibbled with Gabelich’s correct assertion that West’s claim had been proven false, but admitted there had been a “misunderstanding” that he said was based on semantics.

“But this misunderstanding would not have changed any of enforcement actions or strategies [that have taken place so far],” he said.

Several times during the meeting McDonnell pointed out the illegality of for-profit medpot enterprises, though it is unclear why he raised the issue, since the illegality of such actions has always been a given during City discussions of medpot dispensaries.

The spectre of profit was also raised by Foster when Carl Kemp, a representative for the Long Beach Collective Association (LBCA), spoke during public comment. “Do you deny that any of the collectives in your […] association are profit-making?” Foster queried. Kemp countered by saying that Foster ought to have proof of illegal activity before making such an implication, which led to the following exchange:

FOSTER: “I’m just asking you a question.”

KEMP: “I’m answering your question, Mr. Mayor.”

FOSTER: “No, you’re obscuring it.”

KEMP: “Sir, the chief of police or anybody who makes claims that there is profit being made has the onus [of proof]. Our books—”

FOSTER: “I know: are pristine.”

KEMP: “Sir, they’re available at the California State Assessor’s office.”

Foster then inquired about how much Kemp is paid by the LBCA collectives he represents. “That’s none of your business,” Kemp said, which led Foster to muse as to whether it would be strange for Kemp to receive a high level of compensation from collectives that are supposedly not-for-profit enterprises. Kemp parried by pointing to how common it is for nonprofit organizations to compensate staff, but Foster was dismissive: “I got the point, Mr. Kemp. If you in fact were completely [“on the level”?] I think you’d be much more transparent and forthcoming.”

Another point of contention concerned the behavior of the exempted collectives. In arguing for the necessity of a complete ban, McDonnell stated that the police department has received over 1,200 service calls related to dispensaries. However, when Gabelich attempted several times to ascertain whether any of those calls have been due to misbehavior on the part of any of the exempted collectives, McDonnell never answered directly — although he did say that the group of exemptions “does not affect the law, so we would not entertain putting aside them [from enforcement actions] if they’d broken the law” — and Foster eventually cut off Gabelich’s line of inquiry.

Ultimately, as Shannon pointed out, even if the council had wanted to extend the exemptions Tuesday night, they could not have, since the terms of the enacted ban ordinance include the six-month exemptions — which means the ordinance must be amended for the exemptions to be extended, a process identical to that of amending any other ordinance.

That is exactly what Gabelich wants; it’s just not clear she has much support. Although Vice-Mayor Suja Lowenthal received confirmation that the council may agendize discussion for such an amendment at any time, in the absence of such, come August 12 all marijuana cultivation by groups of four or more persons will be illegal under city ordinance.

Gabelich — for one, at least — finds that troubling.

“We back this up to what the intention of the Compassionate Use Act is all about,” she said. “Do we as a City have a solution for these folks, or are we just, ‘The idea here is to ban it and let them deal with their problems individually?’ Which means probably taking it back out on the street […] which I think is absolutely crazy.”

Whether or not it’s crazy, it’s about to become city law.