Medical pot: California Supreme Court allows cities to ban weed dispensaries
By Howard Mintz
hmintz@mercurynews.com
Posted: 05/06/2013 10:09:32 AM PDT
Updated: 05/06/2013 11:20:35 AM PDT
Americans for Safe Access, a leading marijuana advocacy group, said in a statement Monday that various groups will now push for state legislation would create uniform regulations statewide for dispensaries.
Patricia Smith, Chair of the Nevada County Chapter of ASA, is taking time, today, Monday - May 6th - to walk the halls of our Capitol Building in Sacramento. Along with other ASA members from around the state and Washington DC - ASA representatives are lobbying for the cannabis community - during the ASA SUMMIT, organized by ASA, national.
SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court on Monday upheld the right of local governments to ban medical marijuana dispensaries, leaving intact a growing movement to outlaw the pot businesses despite a 1996 state law that permits the use of weed for medical purposes.
In a 7-0 decision, the state's high court concluded that cities and counties have a right to restrict the dispensaries within their boundaries, rejecting the arguments of medical marijuana advocates who maintain local governments cannot bar activity that is legal in California. The ruling could now be used to bolster cities that want stricter regulatory rules on pot dispensaries that are allowed to operate.
"While some counties and cities might consider themselves well suited to accommodating medical marijuana dispensaries, conditions in other communities might lead to the reasonable decision that such facilities within their borders, even if carefully sited, well managed and closely monitored, would present unacceptable local risks and burdens," Justice Marvin Baxter wrote for the unanimous court.
At least 180 cities across the state and Bay Area have enacted bans in recent years, from Hollister to Petaluma to Moraga. But the region's largest cities, San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland, have permitted the dispensaries, taxing the revenues while communities in between increasingly become dispensary-free zones.
Many local governments have opted to ban the dispensaries due to worries about problems surrounding them, such as lax control over the distribution of a drug that remains illegal under federal law. The Supreme Court case is the latest legal struggle over the issue, which has repeatedly tested the limits of the voter-approved law that allows the use of marijuana to treat illnesses such as cancer, glaucoma and AIDS.
The Supreme Court found that the 1996 medical marijuana law did not address local regulation of dispensaries; it only provided that patients cannot be prosecuted for possessing medical pot under state law. The ruling called the law a "limited foray" into the medical marijuana arena, and stressed that the Legislature tried to forbid cities from enacting bans.
As a result, Baxter wrote, local governments have the power to use regulations, such as nuisance laws, to ban certain activity.
"Nothing in the (1996 law) 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 wrote.
The Supreme Court decision came in a challenge to Riverside's dispensary ban. Riverside, backed by groups such as the League of California Cities, argued that local governments have strong rights to regulate land uses, particularly an unusual one such as a medical pot dispensary.
David Nick, the lawyer for the Riverside dispensary that challenged the ban, could not immediately be reached for comment.
But medical marijuana advocates say the bans undermine the intent of the state law, which they argue was meant to provide uniform access to medical cannabis across the state for patients who need it most. With the bans in place, many patients are forced to drive long distances to obtain the drug -- for example, Peninsula patients for the most part must travel to either San Jose or San Francisco to find a dispensary.
Americans for Safe Access, a leading marijuana advocacy group, said in a statement Monday that various groups will now push for state legislation would create uniform regulations statewide for dispensaries.
The Supreme Court's decision was not unexpected. Legal experts have predicted the justices would be reluctant to strip cities of the right to enact the bans.
By Howard Mintz
hmintz@mercurynews.com
Posted: 05/06/2013 10:09:32 AM PDT
Updated: 05/06/2013 11:20:35 AM PDT
Americans for Safe Access, a leading marijuana advocacy group, said in a statement Monday that various groups will now push for state legislation would create uniform regulations statewide for dispensaries.
Patricia Smith, Chair of the Nevada County Chapter of ASA, is taking time, today, Monday - May 6th - to walk the halls of our Capitol Building in Sacramento. Along with other ASA members from around the state and Washington DC - ASA representatives are lobbying for the cannabis community - during the ASA SUMMIT, organized by ASA, national.
SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court on Monday upheld the right of local governments to ban medical marijuana dispensaries, leaving intact a growing movement to outlaw the pot businesses despite a 1996 state law that permits the use of weed for medical purposes.
In a 7-0 decision, the state's high court concluded that cities and counties have a right to restrict the dispensaries within their boundaries, rejecting the arguments of medical marijuana advocates who maintain local governments cannot bar activity that is legal in California. The ruling could now be used to bolster cities that want stricter regulatory rules on pot dispensaries that are allowed to operate.
"While some counties and cities might consider themselves well suited to accommodating medical marijuana dispensaries, conditions in other communities might lead to the reasonable decision that such facilities within their borders, even if carefully sited, well managed and closely monitored, would present unacceptable local risks and burdens," Justice Marvin Baxter wrote for the unanimous court.
At least 180 cities across the state and Bay Area have enacted bans in recent years, from Hollister to Petaluma to Moraga. But the region's largest cities, San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland, have permitted the dispensaries, taxing the revenues while communities in between increasingly become dispensary-free zones.
Many local governments have opted to ban the dispensaries due to worries about problems surrounding them, such as lax control over the distribution of a drug that remains illegal under federal law. The Supreme Court case is the latest legal struggle over the issue, which has repeatedly tested the limits of the voter-approved law that allows the use of marijuana to treat illnesses such as cancer, glaucoma and AIDS.
The Supreme Court found that the 1996 medical marijuana law did not address local regulation of dispensaries; it only provided that patients cannot be prosecuted for possessing medical pot under state law. The ruling called the law a "limited foray" into the medical marijuana arena, and stressed that the Legislature tried to forbid cities from enacting bans.
As a result, Baxter wrote, local governments have the power to use regulations, such as nuisance laws, to ban certain activity.
"Nothing in the (1996 law) 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 wrote.
The Supreme Court decision came in a challenge to Riverside's dispensary ban. Riverside, backed by groups such as the League of California Cities, argued that local governments have strong rights to regulate land uses, particularly an unusual one such as a medical pot dispensary.
David Nick, the lawyer for the Riverside dispensary that challenged the ban, could not immediately be reached for comment.
But medical marijuana advocates say the bans undermine the intent of the state law, which they argue was meant to provide uniform access to medical cannabis across the state for patients who need it most. With the bans in place, many patients are forced to drive long distances to obtain the drug -- for example, Peninsula patients for the most part must travel to either San Jose or San Francisco to find a dispensary.
Americans for Safe Access, a leading marijuana advocacy group, said in a statement Monday that various groups will now push for state legislation would create uniform regulations statewide for dispensaries.
The Supreme Court's decision was not unexpected. Legal experts have predicted the justices would be reluctant to strip cities of the right to enact the bans.
