District Attorney Steve Cooley said Tuesday he will continue prosecuting operators of dispensaries that sell medical marijuana, regardless of a proposed city ordinance that would allow cash “transactions” between patients and those cultivating the drug.

“Any proposed ordinance allowing for the sales of marijuana is in direct conflict with California’s Compassionate Use Act and Medical Marijuana Program,” according to a statement from the district attorney’s office.

“The City Council has no authority to amend state law or Proposition 215,” according to the statement. “Such authority is solely possessed by California voters. They voted for and passed the Compassionate Use Act, which only authorizes the possession, use and cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes. The sale of marijuana is illegal under state law.”

The City Council’s Public Safety and Planning and Land Use Management committees on Monday watered down a proposed ordinance crafted by the City Attorney’s Office, with the revised version stating, “cash contributions, reimbursements and compensations shall be allowed, provided it’s in compliance with state law.”

The full City Council delayed a vote on the topic until next Tuesday after several amendments were proposed at Wednesday’s meeting.

Before the amendments, the proposed ordinance allowed only collectives — not dispensaries — to grow marijuana for patients. It defined collectives as groups of people with severe medical problems, their primary caregivers, and people they authorize to cultivate marijuana for them.

The proposed ordinance barred collectives from deriving any profit, allowing them only to recoup “out-of-pocket costs of [medical marijuana’s] collective cultivation.”

Several committee members raised concerns that such provisions would virtually eliminate access to a drug that helps relieve chronic pain.

“This is not about creating the Starbucks of marijuana sales,” City Councilman Ed Reyes said. “This is about creating access for people who really need it and to do that, there has to be some form of transaction because it costs money to cultivate, it costs money to have a facility, it costs money to have a staff, so they should be reimbursed for that.”

David Berger, a special assistant to City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, likened the amendments to “putting lipstick on a pig.”

“You’re just going to call it something else,” he said Monday. “It is for all intents and purposes a sale — you’re just going to take away the profit element by hiking up the costs of operation.”

Despite his reservations, Trutanich Tuesday said his office will “provide an ordinance that comports with the committee’s wishes.”

However, he added, “I think [the City Council is] bound by state law as we are, and the law appears to be pretty clear that sales are banned.”

“I think at this point, we want to be clear that we don’t pass something that’s going to subject those that are truly collectives to prosecution by another authority.”

Berger said the proposed ordinance — even with the amendments to which he objected — would still result in the closure of most dispensaries.

The two City Council committees also directed the chief legislative analyst’s office to draft a separate ordinance to mirror that of West Hollywood, which allows over-the-counter sales at four dispensaries.

Councilman Paul Koretz, who used to sit on the West Hollywood City Council, said the permanent ordinance proposed by the city attorney’s office is “unworkable.”

“I think we have one goal here, which is to provide access but at the same time eliminate the problems that medical marijuana dispensaries have been causing. And to do that, I would ask colleagues why we have to take the hardest-ass approach to the law that we could, rather than trying to take the approach that will make this as practical as possible.”

Under the measure, medical marijuana “collectives” would be allowed to grow pot for members with serious illnesses but would not be able to sell marijuana for a profit.

A collective is defined as a group of people with severe medical problems, their primary caregivers and people they authorize to cultivate marijuana for them.

Over-the-counter sales of medical marijuana would be outlawed, and collectives would have to be at least 1,000 feet from other collectives, schools, playgrounds, child care facilities, religious institutions, public libraries, public parks hospitals and rehab centers.

The latest version still prohibits the sale of marijuana for profit but would allow dispensaries to recoup “out-of-pocket costs of their collective cultivation.”

It also would allow edible marijuana products that enable people to ingest the drug without smoking it, and gets rid of a provision that would have required medical marijuana collectives to provide authorities with lists of its members.

It also broaches the concept of limiting the number of dispensaries by council district or community plan area.

Under the proposed permanent ordinance, dispensaries that began operating before Sept. 14, 2007, and registered with the city clerk’s office before Nov. 12 of that year would be given 180 days to comply with the ordinance.

Any dispensaries that opened after Sept. 14, 2007, would have to comply with the rules immediately.

Voters legalized medical marijuana when they approved Proposition 215 in 1996, but there has been little agreement about regulating dispensaries.

Initially, only individuals were allowed to grow pot, but the law was amended in 2003 to allow collectives to grow the plants.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown has said medical marijuana outlets are supposed to operate as nonprofit groups, but few do.

Trutanich and Cooley have said most of the 1,000 or so pot shops in the Los Angeles area are in violation of state law.