Texas Abortion Law Part II: What To Do Next

Part I was a look at parts of the law itself and the Supreme Court dissents.   

I was hoping here to start a list of things to do in response to the Texas abortion law ("The Texas Heartbeat Act"), but I still had questions that reading the law itself doesn't clarify. Articles and comments offer conflicting interpretations. So let me list some of my original questions:

1. What's a fetal heartbeat? 
2. What's the difference between a fetus and an unborn child?
3. Who may be sued?
4. Who may sue/prosecute someone for performing an illegal abortion?
5.  Can people be sued for helping Texas women get abortions outside of Texas?
6. What are the penalties for performing or aiding and abetting an illegal abortion?

Question #1 Since the law makes hearing a fetal heartbeat the point when abortion may not be performed,  medical opinions (which differ from what the law makers apparently intended) on when the fetal heartbeat can be heard may well be significant.  

#2 probably does not have significant legal consequences, though people will argue about this endlessly.

#3  The answer appears to be people who help people get abortions and doctors who perform them, but not the women who get abortions.  Though 'help' is pretty vague.

#s 4 and 5 are key issues.  #4 because the law was designed to avoid being blocked by courts because governmental entities can't prosecute.  #4 because the law doesn't seem clear on this.  

#6 I'm still having trouble figuring out.

Finally, I suspect that they threw all kinds of crap into this law to:

• See what would stick
• Jam up the courts
• Scare people out of seeking and offering abortions
• Because they could

What's a fetal heartbeat?

This piece From NPR says sonogram 'heartbeats' are really noises generated by the machine and aren't real heartbeats.

"The Texas abortion law that went into effect this week reads: "A physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child."

"When I use a stethoscope to listen to an [adult] patient's heart, the sound that I'm hearing is caused by the opening and closing of the cardiac valves," says Dr. Nisha Verma, an OB-GYN who specializes in abortion care and works at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The sound generated by an ultrasound in very early pregnancy is quite different, she says.

"At six weeks of gestation, those valves don't exist," she explains. "The flickering that we're seeing on the ultrasound that early in the development of the pregnancy is actually electrical activity, and the sound that you 'hear' is actually manufactured by the ultrasound machine."  [emphasis added]

So, will the time frame be challenged to when an actual heart beat and not a synthetic sonogram machine heart beat is heard?

 

What's the difference between a fetus and an unborn child?

The Texas law definitions include:

"(7)AA"Unborn child" means a human fetus or embryo in any stage of gestation from fertilization until birth."

But (again from NPR):

"In fact, "fetus" isn't technically accurate at six weeks of gestation either, says Kerns, since "embryo" is the scientific term for that stage of development. Obstetricians don't usually start using the term "fetus" until at least eight weeks into the pregnancy."

But, I guess legislatures can create legal definitions that differ from scientific definitions.  All you need is a majority.  

Who may be sued?

It's clear from the law that the physician performing the abortion and anyone aiding or abetting someone getting an abortion, including paying for the abortion may be sued.  But some people think the woman herself can't be prosecuted.  The law says:

("b)AA This subchapter may not be construed to:

(1)AA authorize the initiation of a cause of action against or the prosecution of a woman on whom an abortion is performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter;"

But is that only for that subsection of the law?   This AP article agrees that abortion patients can't be sued:

"It allows any private citizen to sue Texas abortion providers who violate the law, as well as anyone who “aids or abets” a woman getting the procedure. Abortion patients themselves, however, cannot be sued."

The following passage from a Texas Planned Parenthood site also suggests the woman herself is exempt:

"This provision lets anyone sue an abortion provider and anyone else who helps a patient access abortion care that is prohibited by SB 8. Anyone who successfully sues an abortion provider will be entitled to at least $10,000 and a court order preventing them from providing abortions in the future."

But what exactly does 'aid and abet' or 'help' mean?  If I tell someone where they can get an abortion, is that against the law?  Presumably not because the law states:

"(g)AA This section may not be construed to impose liability on any speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the states through the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or by Section 8 Article I,TexasConstitution."

Using the logic of Citizens United, people could argue that giving a woman money or an airplane ticket is a form of free speech.  (Of course you can argue anything.  But it has to persuade the judges.)

There are also some issues that arise because an abortion before the heartbeat is still legal in Texas.  What if aid is given earlier but the eventual abortion is later?

Who can sue someone for performing an illegal abortion?

[An attorney friend pointed out, when I used the word 'prosecute' that citizens can sue, but not prosecute.  Only governmental units can do that.  And probably, but I'm not sure, agencies like Departments of Justice or Legal Departments.] 

I think this is relatively clear.  No governmental entities can prosecute.  Only private individuals anywhere can sue.  From Planned Parenthood again:

"That means anyone, anywhere in the country — from anti-abortion protesters to out-of-state lobbyists — can sue an abortion provider, abortion funds, or anyone who “aids and abets” someone seeking an abortion that is prohibited by SB 8, regardless of whether they are directly involved or even know the patient."

Here's the law:

"shall be enforced exclusively through the private civil actions described in Section 171.208. No enforcement of this subchapter, and no enforcement of Chapters 19 and 22, Penal Code, in response to violations of this subchapter, may be taken or threatened by this state, a political subdivision, a district or county attorney, or an executive or administrative officer or employee of this state or a political subdivision against any person, except as provided in Section171.208. 

Preventing the state or state subdivisions from prosecuting was done to avoid the law from being blocked by the courts.

However, although they can't prosecute:

(h)AANotwithstanding any other law, this state, a state official, or a district or county attorney may not intervene in an action brought under this section. This subsection does not prohibit a person described by this subsection from filing an amicus curiae brief in the action.

  I don't completely understand this, but my understanding is a court could block a government entity from taking action.  But it can't block all potential people who might sue, before the fact.  That's the logic argued by the five member majority of the Supreme Court.  

Can people be sued for helping Texas women get abortions outside of Texas?

My assumption has been 'no.'  How could they forbid Texans to do something that's legal in another state?  That would be like saying gambling and smoking marijuana are illegal in Texas and Texans can't do those things in states where they are legal. I've searched the new law for the word "Texas" and it shows up 16 times - mainly before Constitution and various Codes.  Since women having abortions can't be sued by this statute.  They could do this.  And since the doctors and clinics aren't in Texas, it doesn't seem likely Texas would have jurisdiction over them.  That leaves people who might help pregnant women get out of Texas for an abortion.  I'm guessing they just left it vague and are leaving it up to their vigilantes to test this in court.  I haven't been able to find this exact question addressed online.  

If an attorney or two can clarify this that would be helpful.

What are the penalties for performing or aiding and abetting a women to get an abortion? 

There's a minimum $10,000 per abortion performed by doctors for the doctors.  And for people who aided and abetted.

(2) statutory damages in an amount of not less than $10,000 for each abortion that the defendant performed or induced in violation of this chapter, and for each abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter that the defendant aided or abetted; 

It gets even stickier:

(2) knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this chapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this chapter;

So, first we get "knowingly engages in conduct" but at the end we get "regardless of whether the person knew."   Perhaps they mean if you knew you were taking someone to get an abortion, but even if you didn't know it would be an illegal one.  So, if you take someone to get a legal abortion, but it turns out there's a fetal heartbeat and the abortion is performed anyway, you would be liable.  There is language that says it's "an affirmative defense" if the defendant can prove they conducted research that led them to believe that the doctor would comply with the law.  But the proof "with a preponderance of evidence" of that the research is on the defendant.  

That can only be intended to stop people from getting legal abortions as well as illegal abortions.    

Defendants who win their cases cannot be awarded legal fees.

(i)  Notwithstanding any other law, a court may not award costs or attorney’s fees under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or any other rule adopted by the supreme court under Section 22.004, Government Code, to a defendant in an action brought under this section.

So if you're wrongfully accused, you still have to pay all your attorney fees.  I don't think, though, that if an organization provides free attorneys, they could be sued for 'aiding and abetting.'  But maybe only because the legislators didn't think of it.  

Conclusions 

• The intent of this law was to make it as difficult as possible for women to get abortions in Texas by making it illegal
• to perform an abortion after a fetal heart beat can detected
• to assist anyone trying to get an abortion
• The law was written so that Governmental entities couldn't prosecutors and allowing ordinary citizens to sue.  This was done to avoid having the law blocked by a court. (It worked with the Supreme Court's initial ruling.)
• The penalties $10,000 per abortion are high enough to discourage most doctors from performing proscribed abortions and to scare most people from helping women to get an abortion
• Unclear to me is whether the legislators think this will also prevent Texas women from getting abortions outside of Texas
• They probably don't have jurisdiction, but since ordinary citizens will file the lawsuits, there's a good chance that many will even for abortions outside of Texas
• We can only start imagining some of the consequences:
• I've already seen one Tweet where a guy was going to get women pregnant and then claim the $10,000 award for turning them in.  (He didn't realize you can't sue the women.) 
• This adds to the encouragement of vigilantes that Trump began and we can see predators pursue pregnant women and the people around them
• There will be a surge of revenge law suits filed against people whether they've been involved in a legal abortion, illegal abortion, or no abortion at all
• Planned Parenthood's income will rise steeply
• Rape and incest are not excepted in this legislation.  Any man who wants to father as many children as possible will be tempted.  
• Relations between sexual partners will change
• perhaps birth control use will go up for women and some men
• men could sue or threaten to sue anyone they think might help their pregnant girl friend or spouse get an abortion, including her parents
• Underground abortions will increase and more women will die from them
• There will be a market for bogus, but profitable, abortion potions/techniques that 
• probably won't work
• could harm the mother and/or fetus
• There will be political consequences because a fairly large majority of US citizens approve of abortion.  They will become more active running for office and voting

That's just a couple minutes of conjuring up ideas.  I'm sure you can think of many I've missed.  The next step is determine the most effective ways to fight this law and to help Texas women who need an abortion to get one.  

[NOTE:  I'm not an attorney.  I'm trying to glean from the law itself and from what reputable reporters have to say about the law.  I understand that statues are complicated and may seem clear in one section, but there may be another section that voids it.   Don't base any medical or legal action on this blog post.  It's just my way of sorting out some of the issues.]

Slick Medical Marijuana Marketing Hits Anchorage

OK, when we moved to Alaska 35 years ago, it was legal to possess a small amount for personal use though the law is less clear today.  It's technically illegal, but hasn't been challenged, and it doesn't get a lot of law enforcement attention in small amounts.

ADN Medical Marijuana Insert

What got my attention was a slick flier in the Anchorage Daily News on Wednesday announcing a three day clinic in Anchorage - July 18-20.

"Need your medical marijuana card? 

Get Legal Now!

After reading the flier - and having recently been reminded that 'real journalists' call people to find out more -  I contacted a doctor I know  and asked what he knew about this - like, could any doctor get someone a marijuana card?

He said that he understood that a licensed doctor could apply to the state to be licensed to prescribe medical marijuana, but that the head of his group had told the doctors that he would not approve any of the group doing so.  He has prescribed Marinol on occasion.

Then I called the number on the flier and got Mike Smith who said he owned this business.  He's very upbeat, but asked if I'd been to the website.  Damn, I'm calling.  But of course I should have checked the website first.  I will get this straight eventually.  But he was very nice about it.

Smith is from Seattle and was in Anchorage for the three day clinic along with two doctors.  One, Dr. John McGroarty (see comment below from Bill Fikes), who he brought up from Seattle with him and is licensed in Alaska, and a second doctor whose name wasn't being advertised.  I wasn't sure if the second doctor was a local or not.  He said most doctors don't want to be associated with marijuana, they're still using morphine and other drug company products.

He also referenced an Alaska Dispatch piece Jill Burke did last week.  There's a lot more in that piece and I'll limit myself to what I learned that I didn't see in the Dispatch article.  He did say the Dispatch article seemed to inflate their income from this because it didn't consider the costs.  The Dispatch wrote:

With 700 clients assisted so far this year, he's roughly pulled in $250,000. How much of that revenue ends up as profit isn't known.

I was curious where, once one got a medical marijuana card, one could then get the prescription filled.  It's illegal to sell marijuana in Alaska, according to Smith, but someone with a medical marijuana card can legally give away a clipping to someone else with a card.  He spoke of there being something like a coop among local medical marijuana card holders where people share what they have. 

Smith mentioned that the federal government has the patent (Patent No. US 6,630,507 B1)
for cannabis and that I could find it on their website.  He also said the government had given the patent to a New York firm.  After Googling around, it seems to be a little more complicated.  As I read the Patent abstract later, I noticed that it mentions  "nonpsychoactive cannabinoids." The patent is on the compounds that do not cause the buzz that recreational users are after.  And Wikipedia explains the patent and the licensing of the patent, probably better than the various, more promotional, medical marijuana sites:

U.S. Patent no. 6630507

On October 7, 2003, a U.S. patent number 6630507 entitled "Cannabinoids as Antioxidants and Neuroprotectants" was awarded to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, based on research done at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). This patent claims that cannabinoids are "useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases such as ischemia, age-related, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia."^[46][47]

On November 17, 2011, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR part 404.7(a)(1)(i), the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, published in the Federal Register, that it is contemplating the grant of an exclusive patent license to practice the invention embodied in U.S. Patent 6,630,507, entitled “Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants” and PCT Application Serial No. PCT/US99/08769 and foreign equivalents thereof, entitled “Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants” [HHS Ref. No. E-287-1997/2] to KannaLife Sciences Inc., which has offices in New York, U.S. This patent and its foreign counterparts have been assigned to the Government of the United States of America. The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide, and the field of use may be limited to: The development and sale of cannabinoid(s) and cannabidiol(s) based therapeutics as antioxidants and neuroprotectants for use and delivery in humans, for the treatment of hepatic encephalopathy, as claimed in the Licensed Patent Rights.^[48]

On June 12, 2012, KannaLife Sciences, Inc. signed an exclusive license agreement with National Institutes of Health – Office of Technology Transfer ("NIH-OTT") for the Commercialization of U.S. Patent 6,630,507, "Cannabinoids as Antioxidants and Neuroprotectants" (the "'507 Patent"). The '507 Patent includes among other things, claims directed to a method of treating diseases caused by oxidative stress by administering a therapeutically effective amount of a non-psychoactive cannabinoid that has substantially no binding to the NMDA receptor. Cannabinoids are any of a group of related compounds that include cannabinol and the active constituents of cannabis (marijuana).

I'd seen the commercialization of pot in LA, but this was the first time I've noticed it here. 

And Fairbanks, you buy your cards August 3 and 4 at Pike's Waterfront Lodge.  That's the one owned by former Republican legislator  and Lt. Governor candidate Jay Ramras, right?  Unlike in Anchorage where they had their clinic in a law firm that defends, among other folks, people on drug charges, I guess in Fairbanks they had to pay for space.   That might explain why prices in Fairbanks are $50 more for those with their medical records and $25 more for those without.  I guess the law firm where they had the clinics in Anchorage gave them a better deal. 

Bike Ride Venice and Ballona Creek

I've been wanting to check out the Ballona Creek bike trail, but it's just a little further than I've wanted to ride in the morning.  But today my son agreed to meet me at Venice and we'd do it.  Below are some pictures from the ride.  Summary:  Ballona Creek trail good because it goes a long ways without stops.  Bad because it doesn't go where many people probably want to go and it's pretty much a concrete basin for the LA river to drain into the ocean.  It feels like the trail has been begrudgingly added so "shut up and stop complaining."

Still deep in Venice, here's a mural by R. Cronk on one of the streets ending at the boardwalk.

It turns out the Kush doctor wasn't closed down, it just moved down the boardwalk.  It's a couple shops to the right of this marijuana evaluation center.  Near the skate plaza.

Art with a sense of humor.  These pirates protect an apartment (?) building overlooking the Marina.

Some of the original inhabitants in a small patch of the remaining wetland/grassland that was turned into Marina del Rey.  I don't think they were compensated or given new homes when their space was turned into condos and boat harbors back in the 6os and 70s.

Eventually we got to the turn off from the bike trail in the Marina to the Ballona Creek trail.  There were rock sculptures for about 1/4 of a mile. 

I thought these were surf scoters when I saw them, but now I'm not so sure.  They look a lot like the surf scoters I saw in Juneau, but they have white beaks and not white on their foreheads. [Naomi - comments below - thinks they are coots.]

Eventually, we got to the end of the trail.  I knew we'd passed Baldwin Hills, but I wasn't sure where we were.

LA's new light rail construction was there.  It turned out we were at Jefferson and National.

At this point biking was less pleasant, but J got out his android and figured going back on Venice would be more direct.

Not sure what this is, but we passed it as we rode along National to Venice.  We're still south of Washington here.

UPDATE 7:36pm:  Thanks to Naomi and Pam (MPB) I now know this is by architect Eric Owen Moss:

Samitaur Tower

 Culver City, California

The Samitaur Tower is an information tower, constructed at the corner of Hayden Avenue and National Boulevard immediately across from the new Expo light rail line arriving from downtown Los Angeles in June, 2011. That intersection is the primary entry point into the re-developed zone of Culver City.

Conceptually, the tower has both introverted and extroverted planning objectives. Internal to the burgeoning site area of new media companies, graphic designers, and general office tenants, the tower will symbolize the advent of this important new urban development, provide a changing art display for local viewing, and offer a variety of graphic content and data on its five screens concerning coming events and current achievements of the tenants who occupy that part of the city.

Anon also provided a link to the Dec. 20, 2010 New Yorker article on Moss and his work in Culver City.  MPB also posted the abstract of the New Yorker article in the comments.  Thanks both of you. 

On  Venice we stopped at Emerald Royal Thai Restaurant for a noodle lunch.  It was good.

We passed the Museum of Jurassic Technology before we took our separate ways home.  I've been here before.  It's one of LA's most quirky little museums, with a bizarre collection of items.   Well worth it for those who like the out of the ordinary (in the bizarre sense.)  But we'd had a good ride already and didn't stop. 


And before long I was home.

California's Prop 19 to Legalize Marijuana

See what we miss in Alaska by not having billboards?

Actual Billboard

Sunday's front page LA Times article about the marijuana initiative by Shari Roan begins:

"In 1969, Carol McDonald was 28, married and the mother of two young children, out for an evening of fun with a couple who smoked marijuana. By the end of the evening she was on her way to a 19-year addiction."

Then it wanders through research that finds marijuana fairly benign to studies that are more critical.  And it looks at a lot of issues.

• Impact on Mexican drug cartels?
  A:  Make them less powerful or Make them push harder drugs harder. 
  
  
• Impact on addiction? 
  A:  Addicts will be treated rather than jailed or more people will become addicted.
  
  
• Impact on driving? 
  A:  Little or moderate impact, but significant if mixed with alcohol or no lab detectable effects on driving ability.
  
  
• Impact on lungs? 
  A:  Hard to tell "because a large portion of heavy marijuana users also smoke tobacco, which muddies the picture of marijuana's effects."
  
  
• Impact on brain functions?
  A:  "Experts tend to agree that smoking marijuana causes short-term memory loss, they disagree widely on the overall cognitive effects of the drug."
  
  
• Impact on people moving up to harder drugs?
  A:  Not really, but the younger kids are when they start, the more likely to be addicted.
  
  
• Impact on school performance?
  A:  Not as bad as alcohol, but will put you behind.
  
  
• Impact on marijuana use?
  A:  No one knows, but some say use will go up, others say with legal medical marijuana and widespread illegal use, it shouldn't increase by much.

Some things are generally agreed on:

• "that marijuana should be avoided during pregnancy and that it is harmful for people with mental illness or who are at risk for developing a serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia." 

•  " Marijuana is addictive for about 9% of adults who use it (compared with about 15% who use alcohol and 15% who use cocaine), according to federal data. Because it is the most widely used illegal substance in the country, marijuana dependence is more common than addiction to either cocaine or heroin despite its lower addiction potential."

"The bottom line is that marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes," Gutwillig added. "It's far less addictive than either of them. People tend to use marijuana in smaller amounts. It does not have alcohol's noxious association with violence and reckless behavior. And you can't overdose."

Then there are some concerns about how the law will be implemented.  Finally it gets back to Carol McDonald.  After chronicling her years of addiction, the article ends

Even after what she went through, McDonald said she would like to see marijuana legalized so that people who have problems with the drug will be steered into treatment.

Even "as someone who has been far down the rabbit hole, I still don't think it's as dangerous as alcohol," she said. "But if I'd had any inkling of what it would do, I would have been more careful."

My take is that marijuana is a symbolic issue.  It goes back to the 60's.  If you were around then and believe the 60's represented a blossoming of freedom, opposition to hypocrisy, and the beginning of a new awareness of human rights and the environment, then you probably lean toward legalizing pot.

If you were around then and think those times began the slow collapse of the family and American tradition, then marijuana is the symbol of all that was wrong back then and you're likely to oppose legalizing pot.  (If you feel that way about the 60's, but weren't around then, you might not make the ideological link between pot and the 60's, especially if you experienced pot as you grew up.)

Alcohol brings a lot of problems to our society and one could argue that marijuana would just add to that.  But it seems to me that marijuana is far more benign than alcohol and we don't ban many things that carry risks (driving cars, owning guns, bungee jumping, etc.)  And banning marijuana (and other drugs) has spawned a huge illegal trade which is having catastrophic impacts on Mexico and the US. 

It seems reasonable to me to try this out in California and see what happens, see if we can't make things work better with legal marijuana than with illegal marijuana.  It won't be without harmful side effects, but we already have huge harmful side effects with it being illegal.

Besides, it's practically legal already according to an LA Times piece by George Skelton:

In California, selling marijuana for non-medicinal use is a felony. But possessing less than one ounce — about a sandwich baggie-full — is a low misdemeanor punishable by a fine.

Starting Jan. 1, pot smoking will be even less of a state crime. Under a bill recently signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, it will be deemed an infraction, equivalent to a traffic ticket.

Since 1996, when voters approved Prop. 215, it has been legal in California to grow, sell and smoke marijuana for medical purposes, subject to local control. A "patient" needs only a doctor's "recommendation," not a prescription.

Merely a quarter of buyers at medicinal pot shops "are truly in need of it because of a medical condition," says attorney George Mull, president of the California Cannabis Assn., which advocates "reasonable regulation of medical marijuana." [emphasis added]

But I haven't studied this proposition in detail and lots of prominent people oppose Prop. 19. 

The LA Times endorses a NO vote.

Their print version on October 10 says that both the Republican and Democratic candidates for governor (Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown) and for US Senator (Carly Fiorina and Barbara Boxer) and US Senator Dianne Feinstein oppose Prop 19.

So does the attorney for the California Cannabis Association quoted in the Skelton piece above:

Mull opposes Prop. 19, illustrating a split in the marijuana community.

And it would still be a Federal felony setting up a showdown between the Feds and the State.  Where are all those states' rights conservatives on this issue? 



Ballotmedia also has a lot of information on Prop. 19 including the full text.

Venice Beach T Shirts and Legal Marijuana - at least for now

Here's a bit of what we saw coming home Wednesday from the Skate Plaza. I'm just reporting and not necessarily supporting any of the sentiment on the T-shirts for sale at Venice Beach.

No, this isn't a T shirt. It's painted on the wall above the T shirt shops.

The man on the left told us this was one of the dispensaries for medical marijuana and the doctor (on the right) could see if we needed a prescription. For some reason, I was pretty confident he'd find some condition that would qualify me if I asked. That was Wednesday. Friday, the top front page story of the LA Times was headlined, "DA preparing to crack down on pot outlets."

. . . In the city of Los Angeles, some estimates put the number of dispensaries as high as 800. The city allowed 186 to remain open under its 2007 moratorium, but hundreds of others opened in violation of the ban while the city did nothing to shut them down.

In August, Cooley and Sheriff Lee Baca sent a letter to all mayors and police chiefs in the county, saying that they believed over-the-counter sales were illegal and encouraging cities to adopt permanent bans on dispensaries.

Mark Kleiman, a professor of public policy at UCLA and an expert on drug policy, was not surprised that local prosecutors had decided to attack the rapid proliferation of marijuana stores.

"I think it's a natural response to the rather flagrant marketing practices of a bunch of the dispensaries. The medical veneer has been wearing thinner and thinner," he said. "I've always wondered why those things were legal when they didn't look legal to me."

Other front page stories included the Dodgers' victory over St. Louis and the Disney Concert Hall debut of the LA Philharmonic's new superstar conductor Gustavo Dudamel. It's nice to the music story getting such high profile coverage.

I guess this was a conductor wannabe who
ended up at Venice Beach instead.