NEWS: Judge Rejects LA Ordinance Limiting Pot Dispensaries

Los Angeles - A judge issued an injunction today blocking major portions of Los Angeles' medical marijuana ordinance, but a councilman vowed to enact "emergency legislation" that would prevent the ruling from opening the door to new dispensaries.

The ordinance, which took effect in June, limited the number of dispensaries to the 187 that had registered with the city and opened before a 2007 moratorium.

It also prohibited new dispensaries from opening if any of them closed, with the goal of reducing the number of marijuana outlets in the city to 70.

However, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Anthony Mohr ruled today the city had improperly extended its moratorium, creating confusion over the deadline for dispensaries to register with the city and violating the rights of other dispensary operators.

Mohr said the city could amend the ordinance to make it enforceable, but issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the existing restriction on more dispensaries.

Mohr acknowledged his ruling could lead to a proliferation of dispensaries in the city.

Councilman Ed Reyes said he would meet with his City Council colleagues on Monday to discuss "emergency legislation" to stop new dispensaries from opening while the City Attorney's Office tweaks the ordinance to address the judge's concerns.

"I'll be working, along with my colleagues, to protect our city," said Reyes, who spent years working on the ordinance that was partially struck down.

"We're going to be considering emergency legislation, looking at different ways to implement any type of planning (and) police power tools we have, any type of enforcement tools that we have to make sure that the people who choose to abuse this environment will find that the city is going to protect our neighborhoods to the extent possible."

Mohr did not invalidate other parts of the ordinance that restricts where the dispensaries can be located.

The chief counsel for Americans for Safe Access, which supports medical marijuana, said he was "delighted by the ruling."

"The ruling states localities cannot ban medical marijuana dispensaries, or as the court puts it, regulate them out of existence," Joe Elford told City News Service.

"The decision also protects the privacy rights of medical marijuana patients by making it clear that law enforcement cannot simply by whim obtain patient records from dispensaries."

Source: MyFox LA

NEWS: Medical marijuana case appears headed back to trial

One of the most closely watched medical marijuana court cases in California, which centers on whether cities and counties have the power to ban dispensaries, appears headed back to trial after the state Supreme Court declined to review a recent appellate court decision.

Qualified Patients Assn. sued Anaheim in 2007, arguing that the state’s medical marijuana laws preclude a ban on dispensaries. The case was appealed before a trial, and the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana declined to rule on the issue in August, returning it to the lower court.

Last week, the state’s highest court decided not to review that decision, and on Monday the appellate court closed the case. The city could still ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take it up.

“Right now, it doesn’t look like we are going to do that,” said Moses W. Johnson IV, an assistant Anaheim city attorney. “It’s even a bigger uphill battle to get the U.S. Supreme Court interested.”
Johnson said he expects a trial would be quick and the losing side would appeal.

Anthony Curiale, the attorney for Qualified Patients Assn., was traveling and could not be reached.

The state Supreme Court’s decision left standing a ruling by the appeals court that federal law does not preempt the state’s medical marijuana laws. Anaheim had argued that dispensaries are illegal under the Controlled Substances Act, and Orange County Superior Court Judge David R. Chaffee had sided with the city. Chaffee will probably preside over the trial.

“We’re obviously quite happy to see the California Supreme Court deny the review,” said Joe Elford, chief counsel for Americans for Safe Access, a national organization that advocates for medical marijuana programs. “You’ve got another published opinion saying federal law does not preempt state law, and this one did so very forcefully.”

-- John Hoeffel

Source: Los Angeles Times

NEWS: Pot ruling prompts revision of dispensary ban

COSTA MESA – A recent appeals court decision that cities should not invoke federal law as grounds for banning medical marijuana dispensaries has prompted Costa Mesa to revise its ban on the facilities.

The Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend a revision of the ban to the City Council.

The new ordinance would state that the city has never sought prosecution of medical marijuana dispensaries and "does not intend to do so in the future." However, it would leave misdemeanor and infraction penalties in place, even though the Fourth District Court of Appeal frowned on criminalizing dispensaries "solely on the basis" of medical marijuana activities.

The city's move came in response to the appeals court's decision Aug. 18 in Qualified Patients Association vs. City of Anaheim.

The court declined to decide the legality of dispensary bans for procedural reasons, and returned the case to trial court with instructions. Its ruling is not binding on cities.

The ruling does provide a view on the court's thinking on some aspects of the issue, such as federal drug law, criminal penalties, and what sort of regulations might be allowed.

The court rejected the idea of a conflict between state and federal laws on marijuana. Such a conflict would exist if the state required people to possess marijuana, but permission is not the same as a requirement, the court said.

Citing the decision in Felix Kha's lawsuit against the Garden Grove Police Department, the court ruled that no conflict arises "based on the fact that Congress has chosen to prohibit the possession of medical marijuana, while California has chosen not to."

It concluded, "the city may not justify its ordinance solely under federal law, nor in doing so invoke federal preemption of state law that may invalidate the city's ordinance."

Although state law prohibits criminal prosecution of medical marijuana groups under drug laws, the court said that it remains to be determined whether local governments may use nuisance abatement laws to ban dispensaries.

It suggested that some restrictions could be allowed, such as one on dispensaries that do not grow marijuana on-site.

The Costa Mesa ordinance, in response, would specifically ban dispensaries using off-site growers.

Current city law defines a dispensary as any one person involved with medical marijuana; the revision would change that to three people.

Commissioner Colin McCarthy was the lone no vote. He said the city was getting ahead of itself by aligning with the court's interpretation rather than waiting for binding orders.

Sue Lester, a council candidate who runs a dispensary, praised the commission for "taking the high road."

Source: OC Register