New research by Bridget Freisthler, an associate professor of social welfare at UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs, shows that hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries in L.A. are clustered in better-off places and are rare in areas with higher crime rates, such as South L.A. This contradicts some police claims that these dispensaries are responsible for an increase in crime.

Freisthler began her research this year, but says she wants to examine data over a longer period of time to get more results. This September she received a $2.7 million grant from the National Institute of Health to continue her research.

Freisthler’s studies have taken place in L.A. and Sacramento. The finding’s for the two cities were remarkably different. Freisthler found that L.A. areas with dispensaries have larger white populations, education levels and lower rates of poverty and unemployment. In Sacramento, though, it was the opposite. Unemployment and poverty rates were higher in areas with dispensaries.

Earlier this week a different study trying to find correlations between crime rates and marijuana dispensaries was released by Rand Corp. The Rand Corp. study found there to be more crime when dispensaries were eliminated.

“UCLA did not find anything different, but had more complicated findings,” Dale Gieringer, the director of California NORML said.

Gieringer said that the difference between Sacramento and L.A. shown in Freisthler’s study is because of differing political responses of Sacramento and L.A.

Gieringer also said that it is difficult to conduct studies in this area because police rarely keep the records necessary for it. He does not, however, think any more research is needed.

“More research is not needed so much as more common sense by our public officials,” Gieringer said.

Gieringer said that crime rates are lower in areas with dispensaries and increase when they leave because “dispensaries remove marijuana from the criminal market into the arena of publicly regulated businesses, so this will naturally decrease drug-related crime.”

At least one union official scoffed at the proposal of stricter tobacco policies, and the superintendent said employees were going through enough hardships this year without restricting their use of the legal drug as well. But health officials and anti-drug coalition members are going over their heads to the school board in an effort to gain support for prohibiting tobacco use on all district-owned properties — including maintenance buildings and other structures.

Tresa Watson, director of the county’s anti-drug coalition, said she was pleased to learn from Board Chairman James Yant this week that the board is slated to discuss the matter during Tuesday’s workshop.

Prior to that, she believed the matter was closed when Superintendent Bryan Blavatt publicly stated that district officials were tabling the measure in light of employees facing challenges of losing holiday pay while spending more toward retirement, among other budget impacts.

“I think this will be a good start to some conversation about this issue,” Watson said. “But I’m excited to get the discussion going. At this point, I’ll take anything I can get to be honest with you.”

Under current school district policies, tobacco use is prohibited inside school buildings. Teachers or other staff members who want to smoke or chew must do so outside and are typically directed to do so out of sight of students.

Maintenance or other employees who work in other buildings don’t have the same restrictions since they already work away from students. However, under the proposed changes, they would have to travel off the grounds to smoke or chew.

Board members Cynthia Moore and Matthew Foreman agreed they were open to discussion about the policy, but cautioned they have concerns. The other three board members could not be ready for comment.

Moore said she believes implementing the policy would need to be negotiated with the unions. Foreman said he would want to hear from all parties impacted before making a decision.

“It’s a complex issue that brings different reactions out of different people for different reasons,” Foreman said. “I think it would be premature for me to take a side before the meeting.”

Watson said she’s been working for more than a year-and-a-half stemming from a push across the state by health officials to create tobacco-free environments.

Arguments in favor of the initiative include that being 100 percent tobacco free creates a healthier environment, reduces productivity losses due to smoking breaks and that smoking areas model “negative social behavior.”

However, Watson said she doesn’t want to come off as pushy. But she would like to work with the district to have something done.

“Hopefully, they move forward with something, even if it isn’t a 100 percent tobacco-free policy,” Watson said. “I guess if they squash it they squash it. I mean, what else am I going to do then? But at least we’re having the conversation about it and that’s a start.”

President David Boren’s newly formed Tobacco Advisory Committee met Thursday afternoon for its first and only open meeting to discuss the campuswide smoking ban. The committee, which consists of students, faculty and staff, was formed by Boren earlier this month to determine the best way to implement a smoking ban at OU. The committee members also will debate if a ban on all tobacco products or just smoking is the best decision for the OU community.

No matter what the committee members decide, they also will make recommendations for how far the ban will reach and what will happen if the ban is violated.

At the meeting, Boren reiterated his reasons for the ban — health costs and the costs associated with litter and damage.

“The concern really starts with the concern for our colleagues and friends and members of our community from the point of view on the impact on health that continued use of tobacco causes,” Boren said.

College of Public Health dean Gary Raskob spoke about the risks smoking in public places, such as the impact on cardiovascular health.

“[There is] very strong evidence that there is a relationship between these policies and heart attack rates,” Raskob said.

After health concerns, the committee discussed the financial burdens smoking puts on university cleanup.

Trash-can damage by cigarette butts is costly, said Allen King, director of landscaping. It costs $1,200 per year to repair and repaint trash cans across campus, King said.

Benches are expensive to repair, too, at $90 each, he said.

Boren and a small group picked up litter across campus on Tuesday — mostly cigarette butts concentrate around benches where a trashcan wasn’t more than 20 feet away, Boren said.

The president said litter alone can cost $150,000 a year, but another factor is health care costs.

“One of the things that shocked me, for example, was that the average smoker has $1,800 a year more, on average, in health care costs than the average non-smoker,” Boren said.

In addition to the expenses Boren cited, he and the committee agreed if this ban is passed, it will make smoking inconvenient for faculty, staff and students, and they have an obligation to provide resources to kick the habit.

“These are not easy addictions to break, so one of the things we have is something called Healthy Sooners, and they give out quick kits, aids to help stop smoking,” Boren said.

Human Resources director Julius Hilburn added that Blue Cross and Blue Shield, an insurer of many university employees, offers multiple approaches to quitting smoking, including acupuncture and hypnosis.

The committee members said they understood some members of the OU community will still smoke.

In meetings during the next few months, the committee will discuss:

• if the ban should include more than just smoking;

• if there will be designated smoking areas;

• and what will be the punishment for violating the smoking ban.

No future meeting has been set yet, Raskob said.

It followed a year-long intelligence gathering operation involving HM Revenue & Customs, Lincolnshire Police and Lincolnshire Trading Standards. Four shops in the lower High Street were raided on August 19 and fake cigarettes and those on which duty had been dodged were seized. Sara Barry, head of safer communities at Lincolnshire County Council, said: “Lincolnshire Trading Standards carried out a year-long project with partner organisations in Lincoln to crack down on all types of illegal tobacco sales, including counterfeit products.

“This involved raids on retailers last month which resulted in the seizure of 11,845 non-duty paid or counterfeit cigarettes, removing these dangerous products from the shelves and helping protect consumers.

“Packets of counterfeit cigarettes are generally much lighter and considerably cheaper than branded ones which is how people can identify them, although the price is also what can make them seem appealing.”

Philip Morris International, which produces Marlboro cigarettes, has released figures which show the scale of the problem in Lincoln.

A research company found 13.8 per cent of empty cigarette packets picked up the city in the fourth quarter of last year were contraband.

Ros Watson, co-ordinator of the Smokefree Lincs Alliance, disputes the industry’s fears that moves to plain packaging could see more counterfeiting.

She said: “We are working to remove counterfeit products from the shelves in the county but dispute the industry exaggeration of the problem and claims that new legislation will make the problem worse

“The truth is we have already turned a corner and the number of smuggled cigarettes on our streets is about half that of ten years ago.

“Current branded packaging offers no challenges to counterfeiters and in many cases is difficult to tell apart from the real thing.

“Plans to introduce plain packaging would be unlikely to have an impact on this existing problem.

“On the contrary, research shows that they improve the impact of health warnings, reduce illegal and misleading messages about the harm from ‘light’ and ‘mild’ brands, and are less attractive to young people.”

The end of smoking in restaurants and the growing popularity of non-smoking bars is leading to a rebound in the cigar bar business. Birmingham’s latest entry in the fast-growing market, Highland Cigar Lounge & Hookah Bar, is expected to open Friday behind the popular Highland Package store. Owner Jimmy Gorji and his brother David spent three months building out an old storage room at the back of their store into a posh bar.

Patrons will be able to buy cigars from a selection of 30 to 40 brands ranging in price from $6 to $20, David said this week. The bar will offer liquor and beer from the selection of 55 brands the package store sells on tap.
The brothers expect to capture customers who have just had dinner at the nearby Hot & Hot Fish Club and Bottega restaurants, and to grab a share of Birmingham’s hookah-loving immigrants from all over the Middle East.
The hookah, for the uninitiated, is that octopus-looking water pipe from which Middle Easterners have smoked flavored tobacco for centuries.
The brothers, who spent 20 years working in construction after immigrating to the U.S. from Azerbaijan, did the work themselves to keep costs down, David said.
“The space was there, so we put it to use,” he said. “We might as well do something with it.”
The new bar will be managed by Luke Hampton, who has worked at Marty’s and the Wine Loft.

A lawsuit that produced a $10.1 billion judgment against cigarette-maker Philip Morris is headed back to Madison County circuit court after the Illinois Supreme Court declined on Wednesday to hear the company’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that revived the litigation. In 2003, then-Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron awarded plaintiffs $10.1 billion in compensatory and punitive damages after a two-month trial of a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Illinois smokers.

Plaintiffs represented by St. Louis attorney Stephen Tillery contended that Philip Morris (now Altria Group Inc.) deceived consumers when it advertised that certain of its cigarettes were “light” and contained “lowered tar and nicotine.” They said the company knew that Marlboro Lights were not safer than nonlight cigarettes and might even be more dangerous to health.
The case appeared dead after the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court judgment in 2005, finding that the company’s use of the terms of “light, low or reduced” to describe cigarettes were specifically authorized by the Federal Trade Commission. But the U.S. Supreme Court, in a December 2008 decision, Altria Group Inc. v. Good, found that the FTC did not authorize use of those terms.
Just days after the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Tillery petitioned to reinstate the case in the circuit court, so that “new facts” established in the Good case could be considered. But Circuit Judge Dennis Ruth dismissed the petition, ruling it had been filed too late. In February, the 5th District Appellate Court reversed Ruth’s finding that the petition was filed too late and sent it back to the circuit court for “further proceedings.”
In a one-sentence ruling, the state Supreme Court declined on Wednesday to hear the company’s appeal of that ruling. Supreme Court spokesman Joe Tybor said Justice Robert R. Thomas did not participate but said he would file a dissent later.
“The Illinois Supreme Court today issued a sound decision in Price v. Philip Morris that we believe charts the way for the circuit court to hear arguments regarding whether these terms were ever authorized by the FTC,” Tillery, of the Korein Tillery law firm, said Wednesday. Tillery said the decision could signal a willingness by the state Supreme Court to reconsider its 2005 decision in light of the Good case.
Altria attorney Murray Garnick said the court’s reversal of the Madison County judgment still stood. He said the court’s decision on Wednesday meant that Ruth would consider the plaintiffs’ petition on its merits, not on the time of its filing.
Either side would be entitled to appeal an unfavorable ruling by the judge and Garnick said he expected the matter would remain in litigation for “quite a number of years.”
The trial of a similar class action on behalf of Missouri smokers got under way in St. Louis last week. It is expected to last until about Thanksgiving.

A lawsuit that resulted in a $10.1 billion judgment against cigarette maker Philip Morris apparently is headed back to the Madison County circuit court. In a one-sentence ruling, the high court declined to hear the company’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that revived the litigation earlier this year. In 2003, then-Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron awarded plaintiffs $10.1 billion in compensatory and punitive damages after a two-month trial of a class-action lawsuit, Price v. Phillip Morris.

The plaintiffs, represented by St. Louis lawyer Stephen Tillery, contended that Philip Morris (now Altria Group Inc.) deceived consumers when it advertised that certain of its cigarettes were “light” and contained “lowered tar and nicotine.” They said the company knew that Marlboro Lights were not safer than non-light cigarettes and might even be more dangerous to health.
The case appeared dead after the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court ruling in 2005, finding that the company’s use of the terms “lights” and “lowered tar and nicotine” were specifically authorized by the Federal Trade Commission but the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 2008 decision, found that the FTC did not authorize use of those terms.
Tillery’s petition to reinstate the case in the circuit court — on the basis of “new facts” established in the U.S. Supreme Court case — was denied in December but the denial was reversed by the 5th District Appellate Court in Mount Vernon in February and the state Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to hear the company’s appeal of that decision.

A coalition of medical marijuana patients and activists, including former state Sen. John Vasconcellos, kicked off a campaign Wednesday to repeal an ordinance passed by elected leaders that they say will harm patients and the economy. “It’s an abominably poor legislation,” the 79-year-old Vasconcellos said at a news conference in front of City Hall. “It doesn’t reflect the people’s will, the law of the land, and the science.”

Vasconcellos, who retired six years ago after serving as a California state legislator for 38 years, is the honorary chair of the Citizens Coalition for Patient Care, a group of patients, collectives, and activists who are challenging the City Council’s action via a referendum process.
After a nearly two year-long process, the council on Tuesday passed an ordinance that will limit the number of medical marijuana collectives to 10 in limited commercial and industrial areas, implement a first come, first served registration process, and restrict marijuana cultivation to on-site only.
Medical marijuana facilities are not currently allowed to operate in San Jose and those that have opened in recent years are doing so illegally and would not be grandfathered in under the ordinance, according to the mayor’s office.
Components of the ordinance include a limitation on the number of collectives to no more than two per district and restricting the collectives from operating in sensitive retail areas, such as ground floors of shopping centers.
The conditions of the ordinance are simply not “workable,” Vasconcellos said Wednesday. While he hasn’t figured out what a practical ordinance would be, he said patients just want a chance to have a say in the matter.
He said by passing this ordinance, the council is ignoring Proposition 215, the ballot measure that voters approved by a 62 percent vote in 1996 to legalize medical marijuana.
“So who are they working for, the minority?” Vasconcellos said. “It’s been 15 years since it’s been legalized and they’re still fighting it.”
Vasconcellos is a medical marijuana patient himself and though he lives in Santa Clara, he is a member of Cinnabar Health Collective in San Jose.
The Citizens Coalition for Patient Care has 30 days to repeal the ordinance before it goes into effect. The group is leading an effort to collect 45,000 signatures — allowing for marginal error — although the legal requirement is 30,000 signatures.
The group is holding an organizing meeting Wednesday night at the UFCW Local 5 facility, located at 240 S. Market St.

More and more consumers are turning exclusively to credit and debit cards to pay their daily bills, leaving their cash in the bank. Some medical marijuana patients say that’s a problem because some metro area dispensaries have had their credit card machines pulled from the stores. One dispensary asked us to find out why, and we learned the problem might be with the credit card machine vendors.

The metro area dispensary owner who contacted us says her vendor blamed it on major credit card companies, saying the companies no longer approve of medical marijuana purchases.

However, one medical marijuana lawyer thinks it’s the vendors who are a little worried about the federal laws.

Robert Lipscombe says he’s a Vietnam veteran and needs medical marijuana for post traumatic stress disorder.

On Wednesday morning when he went to fill his prescription at the dispensary he goes to, he pulled out a credit card to pay for the medical marijuana.

“She said, ‘You can’t use your credit cards in here no more,’ and I said, ‘What?’” Lipscombe said.

We talked to the owner of the dispensary Lipscombe is a patient at. She didn’t want us to use her name or dispensary’s name.

“My customers are outraged,” the woman said.

She says it all started a few days ago when her credit card machine vendor called.

“I got a phone call from United Payment Services and they said, ‘Shut the machines down right now,’ and I asked why, and they said Visa and Mastercard were no longer allowing purchases to be used for medical marijuana,” the dispensary owner said.

A Visa spokesperson says they haven’t changed their policies. Mastercard hasn’t returned emails or calls from 9NEWS.

United Payment Services, based in California, told us they weren’t interested in commenting on the story.

“They basically told me the same thing they told you, ‘No comment,’” the woman said.

“How dare you deny me, the right to purchase my medication,” Lipscombe said.

9NEWS called several dispensaries around the metro area. A few tell us vendors are indeed pulling their machines, but most dispensaries are still taking credit cards.

“I have heard of a handful of credit card vendors pulling out. It’s an unfortunate trend. They apparently have mixed feelings about the federal law,” Brian Vicente, a medical marijuana advocate and lawyer with Sensible Colorado, said.

On June 29, 2011, the U.S. Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole sent a letter to district attorneys saying, “… Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law … Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financial laws …”

It’s unknown if that’s the reason why credit card machines are being pulled.

The dispensary owner says as a result she had to spend several thousand dollars to install an ATM machine in her dispensary.

“It’s a huge inconvenience to my patients,” the woman said.

Lipscombe says it isn’t fair, especially because he’s on a fixed income.

“I am insulted, I am angry, very angry,” Lipscombe said.

Dispensaries having this problem are also concerned they’ll be more of a target for thieves because of all the cash inside their establishment.