Truth Seeker
New Member
The California Supreme Court has let stand a ruling that Californians who want to use marijuana for medicinal purposes don't have to grow their own plants.
Just don't expect it to have much of an effect on local ordinances, attorneys for the city of Redding and county said Wednesday.
In essence, what the court did last week was decline to hear Attorney General Kamala Harris' appeal of a dismissal of charges against a Hollywood medical marijuana dispensary operator. She argued his customer base, in People v. Colvin, was too large for his users to participate collectively in its operation.
Rubin Cruse, county counsel, saw no conflicts for Shasta's ordinances, which prohibit dispensaries from operating in unincorporated areas but allows qualified patients or their primary caregivers to grow plants at the patient's home. He said the lower court in the case did not address the validity of city ordinances.
"The court determined that the defendant was operating in compliance with the city of Los Angeles' ordinances," he wrote in an email. "Because the defendant was in compliance, the court did not have to rule on the validity of those ordinances."
Rick Duvernay, Redding city attorney, said the two cases that might speak to the local government's ability to regulate collectives have yet to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Those are the Pack and Riverside cases.
In the Pack case, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled efforts by Long Beach officials to regulate collectives went beyond Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, and conflicted with federal law.
In Riverside, the 4th District Appellate Court upheld the city's ban on collectives despite Proposition 215 and the state Medical Marijuana Program of 2003, known as SB 420.
Duvernay wrote that advocates are reading too much into the Colvin case when what it determined is that the attorney general cannot legislate "to fill in gaps and create substance where the Legislature left things vague.
"The state Legislature has clearly delegated to local agencies the ability to legislate in this arena, so long as Prop. 215 is respected," he said.
Redding bans medical cannabis dispensary storefronts, though collectives consisting of nine or fewer patients are unregulated by the city.
A case-management and pretrial conference is scheduled July 23 at Shasta County Superior Court. That case will determine whether Redding's dispensary ban will stand.
The city contends none of the city's dispensaries are growing medical marijuana on site and because of that the storefronts have engaged in unfair or unlawful business practices by violating local and state medical marijuana laws.
Only about seven storefronts remain open in the city as most of the 16 that were operating under the city's former permit system either closed before the Dec. 1 ban took effect or settled with Redding to shut down.
Redding is asking the court to order the permanent closure of dispensaries and require each dispensary to pay $2,500 for each day in operation past the ban.
Redding Wellness Collective, one of the dispensaries that shut its doors, was dismissed from the case on May 23.
The Shasta County Sheriff's Office, meanwhile, on Tuesday announced its deputies, along with the county's planning department and district attorney's office, would be enforcing its medical marijuana ordinance. They plan to do compliance checks based on complaints received from the public.
Complaints should be referred to the planning department at 225-5532 or the sheriff's marijuana team at 722-9161, ext. 40.
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: redding.com
Author: Jenny Espino
Contact: Staff and Contacts for Redding Record Searchlight
Website: Redding, Shasta County attorneys: Medical marijuana court ruling to have little effect locally » Redding Record Searchlight
Just don't expect it to have much of an effect on local ordinances, attorneys for the city of Redding and county said Wednesday.
In essence, what the court did last week was decline to hear Attorney General Kamala Harris' appeal of a dismissal of charges against a Hollywood medical marijuana dispensary operator. She argued his customer base, in People v. Colvin, was too large for his users to participate collectively in its operation.
Rubin Cruse, county counsel, saw no conflicts for Shasta's ordinances, which prohibit dispensaries from operating in unincorporated areas but allows qualified patients or their primary caregivers to grow plants at the patient's home. He said the lower court in the case did not address the validity of city ordinances.
"The court determined that the defendant was operating in compliance with the city of Los Angeles' ordinances," he wrote in an email. "Because the defendant was in compliance, the court did not have to rule on the validity of those ordinances."
Rick Duvernay, Redding city attorney, said the two cases that might speak to the local government's ability to regulate collectives have yet to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Those are the Pack and Riverside cases.
In the Pack case, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled efforts by Long Beach officials to regulate collectives went beyond Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, and conflicted with federal law.
In Riverside, the 4th District Appellate Court upheld the city's ban on collectives despite Proposition 215 and the state Medical Marijuana Program of 2003, known as SB 420.
Duvernay wrote that advocates are reading too much into the Colvin case when what it determined is that the attorney general cannot legislate "to fill in gaps and create substance where the Legislature left things vague.
"The state Legislature has clearly delegated to local agencies the ability to legislate in this arena, so long as Prop. 215 is respected," he said.
Redding bans medical cannabis dispensary storefronts, though collectives consisting of nine or fewer patients are unregulated by the city.
A case-management and pretrial conference is scheduled July 23 at Shasta County Superior Court. That case will determine whether Redding's dispensary ban will stand.
The city contends none of the city's dispensaries are growing medical marijuana on site and because of that the storefronts have engaged in unfair or unlawful business practices by violating local and state medical marijuana laws.
Only about seven storefronts remain open in the city as most of the 16 that were operating under the city's former permit system either closed before the Dec. 1 ban took effect or settled with Redding to shut down.
Redding is asking the court to order the permanent closure of dispensaries and require each dispensary to pay $2,500 for each day in operation past the ban.
Redding Wellness Collective, one of the dispensaries that shut its doors, was dismissed from the case on May 23.
The Shasta County Sheriff's Office, meanwhile, on Tuesday announced its deputies, along with the county's planning department and district attorney's office, would be enforcing its medical marijuana ordinance. They plan to do compliance checks based on complaints received from the public.
Complaints should be referred to the planning department at 225-5532 or the sheriff's marijuana team at 722-9161, ext. 40.
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: redding.com
Author: Jenny Espino
Contact: Staff and Contacts for Redding Record Searchlight
Website: Redding, Shasta County attorneys: Medical marijuana court ruling to have little effect locally » Redding Record Searchlight
