Connect with us

News

Anticipated Decision

California’s highest court: Cities can ban MMJ collectives–but this is not the last word on the issue

Despite a voter approved law that legalized medical cannabis and a political groundswell calling for much-needed changes and reform, the state’s highest court today ruled that cities and counties have the legal right to ban collectives and other MMJ operations and storefronts. However, new legislation, ballot initiatives, etc.–all of which are circulating right now–could chan

Published

on

California’s highest court: Cities can ban MMJ collectives–but this is not the last word on the issue

Despite a voter approved law that legalized medical cannabis and a political groundswell calling for much-needed changes and reform, the state’s highest court today ruled that cities and counties have the legal right to ban collectives and other MMJ operations and storefronts. However, new legislation, ballot initiatives, etc.–all of which are circulating right now–could change all that.

Advocates for MMJ and others say that allowing local agencies, in this case the City of Riverside,  to enact such bans thwarts the state’s Compassionate Use Act (CUA)—and pushes law-abiding patients to secure cannabis from drug dealers.

The ruling is tied to City of Riverside V. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center (IEPH&WC). In this case, Riverside city officials sought to ban IEPH&WC, citing its zoning ordinances that did now allow medical cannabis facilities.

“While the California Supreme Court ruling ignores the needs of thousands of patients across the state, it simply maintains the status quo,” says Joe Elford, chief counsel with Americans for Safe Access, the country’s leading medical marijuana advocacy group, which filed an amicus ‘friend of the court’ brief in the Riverside case. “Notably, the High Court deferred to the state legislature to establish a clearer regulatory system for the distribution of medical marijuana, which advocates and state officials are currently working on.”

MMJ proponents, such as ASA, say well-regulated (as opposed to outright banned) dispensaries can help decrease crime in surrounding neighborhoods and provide something the Compassionate Use Act (and the state’s related Medical Marijuana Program Act, MMPA) intended: a safe and legal means to secure the medicinal plant.

“Patients should not be pushed into dark alleys in order to obtain a medicine that has been deemed legal by the voters of California,” Don Duncan, ASA’s California Policy Director, said prior to court’s ruling being released today. “The ball is in the legislature’s court to establish statewide regulations that both meet the needs of patients and keep communities safe.”

ASA also noted that the court’s decision acknowledged the legality and legitimacy of storefront providers of medical cannabis.

“However, the court also recognized the legality of dispensaries, more than 1,000 of which currently exist and operate throughout the state. More than 50 localities in California officially regulate the distribution of medical marijuana, while nearly 200 cities ban the activity outright. Notably, the court emphasized that, ‘nothing prevents future efforts by the Legislature, or by the People, to adopt a different approach.,’” according to a written statement by ASA.

Prior to the ruling, several observers had speculated that the high court would likely not choose to strip local agencies of their abilities to govern their own jurisdictions.

The court, in its ruling, said the “issue in this case is whether California’s medical marijuana statues preempt a local ban on facilities that distribute medical marijuana. We conclude they do not.”

“Nothing in the CUA or the MMP expressly or impliedly limits the inherent authority of a local jurisdiction, by its own ordinances, to regulate the use of its land, including the authority to provide that facilities for the distribution of medical marijuana will not be permitted to operate within its borders,” the court’s ruling reads.

Proposition 215, passed by California voters in 1996, followed by the CUA and MMP, encouraged state officials and the federal government to adopt a distribution plan, according to ASA. However that never happened. In 2003, the California legislature adopted the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA), which addressed the issue of distribution, but left much of the authority to local governments. While nearly 200 cities have banned MMJ, more than 50 local jurisdictions, such as San Jose, West Hollywood and Berkely, decided to adopt common-sense regulations, as opposed to outright bans or onerous zoning/land-use provisions. ASA has argued for years that such bans are illegal and contrary to state law.

Activists and supported say they are planning for a cannabis legalization drive in California for either 2014 or 2016. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano just introduced a bill that would provide hard-and-fast state MMJ regulations.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *