California Supreme Court picks February 5th for oral arguments to decide whether municipalities can ban local distribution of medical marijuana
January 11th, 2013Posted by Kris Hermes
The California Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments this week in a case that has received widespread attention inside and outside of the medical marijuana community. The appellate court ruling in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center is being reviewed by the High Court in order to address the issue of whether municipalities can use zoning regulations to ban outright the local distribution of medical marijuana.
Oral arguments in the Riverside case will be held in a special session of the California Supreme Court on Tuesday, February 5th at 10:15am at the University of San Francisco (USF) School of Law.
In addition to the Riverside case, a number of other appellate court rulings from southern California focusing on the same issues were granted review by the Court, including County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medicinal Cannabis Collective, 420 Caregivers v. City of Los Angeles, City of Lake Forest v. Evergreen Holistic Collective, and People v. G3 Holistic.
Notably, two of these appellate rulings held that local officials may not ban distribution and must develop regulations instead. Specifically, the County of Los Angeles decision from July 2012 overturned a local ban on dispensaries, reversing the lower court’s preliminary injunction from the previous year. The appellate court in County of Los Angeles held that “medical marijuana collectives…are permitted by state law to perform a dispensary function,” and that “[Los Angeles] County’s total, per se nuisance ban against medical marijuana dispensaries directly contradicts the Legislature’s intent.” The Court further concluded that, a “complete ban” on medical marijuana is “preempted” by state law and, therefore, void.
Yet, other appellate court decisions have sided with municipal governments in their cynical effort to push out any form of safe and legal access to medical marijuana.
Rest assured, however, that Americans for Safe Access will work with the lawyers in the Riverside case to obtain a ruling from the California Supreme Court favorable to patients across the state. Just as with its amicus ‘friend of the court’ brief filed last year in the Riverside case, ASA will continue to fight for safe access. “While municipalities may pass reasonable regulations over the location and operation of medical marijuana collectives, they cannot ban them absolutely,” read ASA’s amicus brief. “These bans thwart the Legislature’s stated objectives of ensuring access to marijuana for the seriously ill persons who need it in a uniform manner throughout the state.”
See you at USF next month!
January 15th, 2013 at 10:41 am
help us fight the proposed ban on Medical Cannabis in Antioch, CA!
January 18th, 2013 at 12:10 pm
Students enrolled in People Power and the Media class at Columbia College Chicago were given the opportunity to research a topic and to share their opinion in the public domain via blog and podcast. The topic selected was the controversial medical marijuana dispensaries in California and the clash between state and federal drug laws.
This is their blog:
The investigation of business owner, Matthew Davies, began in September of 2011 after a routine traffic stop where Davies was pulled over for speeding. From there, Davies told the officer he was responding to an alarm at his medical marijuana warehouse. This was just one incident in the chain of events that led up to Davies’ arrest even though he was allegedly following the California state law for his medical marijuana dispensary. He is now facing a minimum of ten years in prison after being indicted by the Federal Government. This situation is very unfortunate for something that is so unclear. California exercised the state’s reserved power to not punish medical marijuana users and distributers when recommended by a doctor, so they are not in any violation with the Federal Controlled Substance Act.
The Federal Controlled Substance Act deemed marijuana, as a drug with “no currently accepted medical use,” however, there is research available proving otherwise. The University of California, San Francisco, conducted studies in December of 2011 where inhaling cannabis reduces pain significantly and can reduce the medical side effects including nausea, vomiting and loss of appetite from heavy medication such as morphine and oxycodone.
It’s also understood that the Federal Government has the right to overrule any state law that contradicts Federal law due to the “Supremacy law,” which is Article VI, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution. However, the mere fact that the Federal Government’s stance on the use and distribution of medical marijuana being far different than the state of California’s stance needs to be addressed, ASAP.
In the early days of the Obama Administration, Attorney General, Eric H. Holder Jr., announced that medical marijuana users and caregivers would not be targeted, according to a Washington Post article in 2009. California voters approved the sale of medicinal marijuana according to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. What makes this unclear is that Federal law should not be able to “trump” state law – it is a separate jurisdiction. According to the New York Times, the Federal Government could sue the states on the grounds that any effort to regulate marijuana is pre-empted by Federal law, but such a severe response could raise complications for the Obama Administration.
It is sensible for the Federal Government to get involved if and when medical marijuana dispensaries are operating illegally. If the Federal Government sees the distribution of selling medical marijuana illegal, they need to address the businesses doing it illegally rather than raiding the dispensaries of professional doctors and managers. It is undeniable that time and money would have been better spent if the Government shut down the dispensaries throughout California that were selling marijuana illegally to minors and non-patients. With that said, Matthew Davies was the operator of a legally owned dispensary and is therefore being unlawfully prosecuted. Our call to action is that the Federal Government needs to find an equal balance with state laws in order to prevent innocent people from being wrongly accused.
Respectfully,
Margaret, Emily, Jessica, Ramon, Kyra, Ashleigh, Bridget, and Molly, members of the People Power in the Media course taught by Hope Daniels, Associate Professor/Teaching Fellow, School of Media Arts, Columbia College Chicago.
February 7th, 2013 at 11:17 am
Paul Chabot is evil. He is trying to climb the ladder if politics on the backs of ill patients. He is a big NO BODY!
April 7th, 2013 at 7:29 pm
I feel that is among the so much significant information for me. And i’m happy studying your post. But really should observation on some normal issues, The internet site taste is great, the articles is truly fantastic. Excellent activity, cheers.
April 27th, 2013 at 11:01 am
Admiring the dedication you put into your blog and detailed information you provide. It’s awesome to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same outdated rehashed material. Excellent read! I’ve bookmarked your site and I’m adding your RSS feeds to my Google account.