AB 1300: “Regulate” doesn’t mean “eliminate”
By Damian Nassiri
Governor Jerry Brown recently passed AB 1300 into law and it affects all medical marijuana collectives in the state. AB 1300 goes into effect January 1, 2012 and it says cities and counties can now “regulate the location, operation or establishment” of medical marijuana collectives. Thanks for the clarification. What exactly did you mean, Governor, when you say cities can “regulate the establishment”? This does nothing to provide clear guidance on whether cities can ban collectives or not.
City attorneys will likely use this new law to support their position that they can ban collectives. Medical marijuana attorneys like myself will argue in court that if they meant to say that you could ban collectives, then they should have expressly stated in the law that “cities can ban collectives”—but they did not. Regulate does not mean eliminate. Instead we are left with an ambiguous law that will likely just lead to more litigation.
Cities and counties that are against medical marijuana collectives will continue to pass their bans regardless of this new law. Because the new law does not expressly prohibit cities from banning collectives, those cities and counties that are considering moratorium or bans will plod forward in their attempts to rid their cities of the perceived “problem” of collectives.
I believe some cities may cynically use this law to choke off safe access by passing laws that allow, for example, only one collective. Whittier has already done this. Some cities may try to regulate collectives out of existence by enacting draconian laws that severely limit where collectives may be located. Los Angeles has done this. By cutting off safe access, however, cities with excessive “regulation” efforts will be in violation of the spirit of the Compassionate Use Act, which is to allow for safe access. Thus cities could subject themselves to even more lawsuits for violating patients’ and collectives’ constitutional rights.
However, those cities that want to move forward and accept collectives could be encouraged by this law to do the right thing and enact an ordinance that actually “regulates” dispensaries as opposed to banning them. Garden Grove is one such city in Orange County that has recently passed an ordinance with will regulate and allow collectives to operate in the city with a business license. This bold move will allow the city to take advantage of an enormous new tax revenue stream, while helping the local economy with medicine and jobs.
Another major problem with the new law is that it says that cities can pass criminal laws to enforce their medical marijuana collective laws. For example, a city could make it a misdemeanor or in some cases a felony to operate without a business license from the city. This is absolute nonsense because it conflicts with existing law. The Medical Marijuana Program Act in California currently states that qualified patients who collectively cultivate cannot be criminally prosecuted solely for their collective cultivation activities—which includes the distribution of the medicine to members. Accordingly, AB1300 will likely lead to more litigation, something that, unfortunately, seems to be the trend when it comes to collectives.
Damian Nassiri is the founding attorney of Cannabis Law Group, a law firm dedicated to the rights of patients, collectives and growers. His firm offers consultations and nonprofit incorporations to those who are interested in starting their own medical marijuana collective. You can reach Cannabis Law Group at (714) 937-2050 or visit his law firm’s website at www.cannabislawgroup.com.
