Should neighborhood councils have more oversight over local cannabis issues? – University time
Of 14 neighborhood councils in Los Angeles, only one has a cannabis committee.
Some people who are part of the Southern LA Neighborhood Council Alliance ââ which is made up of 14 neighborhood councils – let’s say that should change as the legalization of recreational marijuana in California in 2016 affects local residents, who should have a say in what goes on.
But the lingering stigma of cannabis has led some committees to shy away from the idea, according to Kathy Guyton, correspondent secretary of the Empowerment Congress West Area Neighborhood Development Council, the only neighborhood council with a cannabis committee.
Companies that want a cannabis license must “offer to appear before the nearest neighborhood council to answer questions about their candidacy â, according to the City of Los Angeles Cannabis Department Policy. But businesses are not required to provide the neighborhood with community benefits, Guyton said. This could change if neighborhood councils get more involved in providing some oversight.
âWhen we started talking about cannabis, we got a little help from the communityâ, Guyton said. “Cannabis isn’t just smoke, it’s manufacturing, it’s a lab test. All of this will bring jobs and money to our neighborhoods.
According to the ECWA website, the Cannabis Regulatory Committee is used to “give a voice and provide a platform for local stakeholders to participate in the selection of cannabis companies in the community.
Ordinary people should take more control of the process, said Kika Keith, a city resident who said she agreed with the idea of ââcannabis committees.
Once community members are “made aware of the health benefits of cannabis, as well as the laws and education, then all of a sudden we are creating a really great position of power in this billion dollars.” âKeith said.
The City of Los Angeles Cannabis Department Regulators hold âon-demandâ Cannabis Regulatory Commission meetings, but of the 32 meetings listed, 20 of them are listed as canceled because there were no voting issues. ‘was present at the time.