Pinch
Well-Known Member
Pleasanton, CA- A lawsuit filed last week against a Central Valley city signals the growing concern of medical marijuana advocates over a municipal backlash against cannabis clubs up and down the state.
Oakland-based Americans for Safe Access sued Fresno on Monday for enacting a ban on medical marijuana dispensaries, which the group says violates California laws entitling patients and caregivers to the medicinal herb.
But almost nine years after Golden State voters approved a compassionate-use law, what that law and a 2003 implementation law allow remain somewhat vague. Many cities, experiencing or fearing an explosion of dispensaries, recently have enacted moratoriums on any new ones to allow time to develop regulations.
"The last six months have shown a big increase in people feeling more courageous to try to open a local dispensary, and their inquiries to their cities (are) what has spurred a lot of these responses," said Americans for Safe Access organizer Hilary McQuie. "It became understood as the process, even though it's not necessary to have a moratorium just to develop regulations."
What's not permissible, she said, is an outright ban.
"It's not appropriate, nor is it legal, to disallow dispensaries from operating in that locality," McQuie said.
Neither California's Proposition 25 of 1996, nor a 2003 law creating a photo-identification system for patients and caregivers, clearly addresses where and how patients and caregivers are to procure marijuana for medical use. The 2003 law does provide that card-carrying patients who associate "in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes" aren't subject to criminal punishment.
Fresno's City Council in October passed an ordinance banning medical marijuana dispensaries that serve three or more patients; the city's police chief advised the council to pass it as a health and safety issue. A Fresno city spokesman didn't return a call Friday seeking comment on the lawsuit.
Meanwhile, dozens of California cities have put the brakes on any new dispensaries while they mull regulations. Rohnert Park on Tuesday became the latest, enacting a 45-day moratorium.
With cities and counties scrambling to develop their own dispensary policies, California seems poised to become a regulatory patchwork.
Not a problem, McQuie said: "It's OK for local areas to have varying regulations around dispensaries just like local governments have zoning for other types of businesses."
Cities should look for an already-proven model, and McQuie said Oakland fits the bill. It's not perfect, she said – medical marijuana advocates still believe the city needs more than four clubs, with longer hours and fewer restrictions.
But a city report issued in early April found that "during their first seven months of operation, the permitted cannabis dispensaries have shown that, in general, they can function without creating a nuisance in the neighborhood or draining police resources." It also found "they likely increase the sales of other businesses in the neighborhood."
Other cities should put that in their pipes and smoke it, McQuie suggested, and "take courage from Oakland's example."
What California cities ought not to be doing is awaiting a U.S. Supreme Court decision in a case brought by patients Angel Raich of Oakland and Diane Monson of Oroville. That case deals only with Congress' authority to restrict wholly intrastate medical use of marijuana, and no matter how the court rules, California's laws will stand, McQuie said.
"The outcome is irrelevant to dispensaries," she said. "Our fear is that local law enforcement won't understand that they're supposed to be following California law when there's a conflict between California and federal laws."
Source: San Mateo County Times
Copyright: © 2005 ANG Newspapers
Contact: Josh Richman at jrichman@angnewspapers.com.
Website: insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_2698878
Oakland-based Americans for Safe Access sued Fresno on Monday for enacting a ban on medical marijuana dispensaries, which the group says violates California laws entitling patients and caregivers to the medicinal herb.
But almost nine years after Golden State voters approved a compassionate-use law, what that law and a 2003 implementation law allow remain somewhat vague. Many cities, experiencing or fearing an explosion of dispensaries, recently have enacted moratoriums on any new ones to allow time to develop regulations.
"The last six months have shown a big increase in people feeling more courageous to try to open a local dispensary, and their inquiries to their cities (are) what has spurred a lot of these responses," said Americans for Safe Access organizer Hilary McQuie. "It became understood as the process, even though it's not necessary to have a moratorium just to develop regulations."
What's not permissible, she said, is an outright ban.
"It's not appropriate, nor is it legal, to disallow dispensaries from operating in that locality," McQuie said.
Neither California's Proposition 25 of 1996, nor a 2003 law creating a photo-identification system for patients and caregivers, clearly addresses where and how patients and caregivers are to procure marijuana for medical use. The 2003 law does provide that card-carrying patients who associate "in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes" aren't subject to criminal punishment.
Fresno's City Council in October passed an ordinance banning medical marijuana dispensaries that serve three or more patients; the city's police chief advised the council to pass it as a health and safety issue. A Fresno city spokesman didn't return a call Friday seeking comment on the lawsuit.
Meanwhile, dozens of California cities have put the brakes on any new dispensaries while they mull regulations. Rohnert Park on Tuesday became the latest, enacting a 45-day moratorium.
With cities and counties scrambling to develop their own dispensary policies, California seems poised to become a regulatory patchwork.
Not a problem, McQuie said: "It's OK for local areas to have varying regulations around dispensaries just like local governments have zoning for other types of businesses."
Cities should look for an already-proven model, and McQuie said Oakland fits the bill. It's not perfect, she said – medical marijuana advocates still believe the city needs more than four clubs, with longer hours and fewer restrictions.
But a city report issued in early April found that "during their first seven months of operation, the permitted cannabis dispensaries have shown that, in general, they can function without creating a nuisance in the neighborhood or draining police resources." It also found "they likely increase the sales of other businesses in the neighborhood."
Other cities should put that in their pipes and smoke it, McQuie suggested, and "take courage from Oakland's example."
What California cities ought not to be doing is awaiting a U.S. Supreme Court decision in a case brought by patients Angel Raich of Oakland and Diane Monson of Oroville. That case deals only with Congress' authority to restrict wholly intrastate medical use of marijuana, and no matter how the court rules, California's laws will stand, McQuie said.
"The outcome is irrelevant to dispensaries," she said. "Our fear is that local law enforcement won't understand that they're supposed to be following California law when there's a conflict between California and federal laws."
Source: San Mateo County Times
Copyright: © 2005 ANG Newspapers
Contact: Josh Richman at jrichman@angnewspapers.com.
Website: insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_2698878
