NEWS: ACLU Sues Over Threats to Medical Marijuana

COMMENTARY | The manufacture and sale of medical marijuana has been legal in California since the 1990s and in Michigan as the of the 2008 election. Several cities in Michigan and California have created city ordinances banning medical marijuana and the ACLU is suing.

In Michigan, the cities of Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills and Livonia, all suburbs of Metro Detroit have banned the growing, processing and sale of medical marijuana which Michigan voters legalized in a hotly contested vote in 2008. Last month in California, Orange County and Los Angeles (L.A.) County banned medical marijuana dispensaries from delivering the drug to patients. Orange county is home to 120,000 people and L.A. County to more than 1.5 million residents. Michigan city populations in Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills and Livonia totals almost 140,000 people.

Medical marijuana has been legal in California for over nearly two decades, but only about two years in Michigan. Michigan voters The ACLU is suing Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills and Livonia for the repeal of city ordinances that ban medical marijuana. ACLU attorney Dan Korobkin calls the city ordinances "egregious violations of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act."

As a Michigan voter in the 2008 election, I voted to pass the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act. I am a mother and educator. In my years in adult and alternative education, marijuana and especially medical marijuana was a hotly discussed topic. Most students and voters, then and now, felt very strongly about the issue regardless of which side they were on.

Despite being a parent and knowing the dangers inherent in passing the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, I voted in favor of the bill. I did promote the passage of the bill as I might do on other issues because medical marijuana is sensitive topic. I couldn't in good conscience, however, cast a "no" vote and deny patients the well-researched pain-relieving benefits of marijuana. I will never use medical marijuana. I will never apply to manufacture or sell medical marijuana. I will not allow medical marijuana in my home, simply because of possible danger or temptation to minors.

If one of my children or my loved ones was prescribed marijuana by a qualified physician, however, I would not want to be the person preventing them access to relief. If the patient was in my care, I would work closely with the physician to provide the best care I could and administer the medical marijuana properly. That's what I do with every medication, pain reliever, drug, herb and even vitamin, over the counter or prescription.

Marijuana is not the only drug that requires close supervision. Many prescriptions medications and even some over-the-counter drugs have been shown to be more dangerous than marijuana. The bottom line: Medications are chemical, synthesized and produced commercially. Good health requires that we monitor anything we ingest, smoke, inhale or otherwise take in to our bodies. Good parenting requires that we monitor for our children until they are able to do so for themselves.

Source: Yahoo News

NEWS: Long Beach pot law gets legal setback

COURTS: Judge must determine if city can regulate a federally illegal drug.

The future of Long Beach's medical marijuana regulations - and potentially of medical marijuana throughout the state - is in question after an appeals court ruling Wednesday.

The 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled that a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge must reexamine his decision Nov. 2 upholding Long Beach's new medical marijuana ordinance.

At issue is whether Long Beach's issuance of permits for medical marijuana collectives is a violation of federal law, which considers marijuana an illegal drug. That is exactly what the plaintiffs, medical marijuana patients Ryan Pack and Anthony Gayle, argue in their lawsuit.

The appeals court ruled that the lower court didn't fully address the matter.

"The issue of federal preemption was raised but not considered in the trial court," the appeals court says in its order. "This court believes that this is an important unresolved question that should be addressed."

Long Beach's law requires collectives to meet a range of requirements before they can be given a permit to operate. Among other things, the ordinance prohibits collectives from locating in residential zones, near schools or near each other, and it requires that the marijuana be grown within the city limits.

The appeals courts decision to stay the lower court's ruling doesn't have an immediate impact on the enforcement or enactment of Long Beach's law.

Matthew Pappas, the attorney for the plaintiffs, couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday, but City Attorney Bob Shannon didn't seem to consider the appeals court decision a loss.

"I am frankly relieved a court is finally addressing the elephant in the room - the elephant in the room being the impact that federal law has on state law," Shannon said.

Under a 1996 voter-approved proposition, California allows the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes if recommended by a doctor. Advocates say that cities and counties must provide patients with reasonable access to the drug, which is used by cancer patients, AIDS patients, those with chronic pain and others.

If the Los Angeles County court rules that Long Beach's ordinance violates federal laws, Long Beach would likely have to repeal or rewrite its ordinance.

The ruling could set a precedent for similar cases around the state, or if appealed, it could eventually work its way up to the state Supreme Court. Any decision there could have far-reaching effects on California's medical marijuana laws, possibly reinterpreting what state or local governments

"It's a bigger issue than just simply Long Beach's ordinance," Shannon said.

That, he said, is why it seems strange that medical marijuana advocates would use such a tactic in fighting Long Beach's regulations. The city is fighting five other legal challenges of the ordinance as well, but none of them uses federal preemption.

"Even if you accept the argument that there is preemption, how does it benefit medical marijuana advocates? It doesn't," Shannon said.

Long Beach is one of many California cities that have attempted to regulate or outright ban medical marijuana in recent years as the number of collectives and dispensaries has skyrocketed.

Almost daily, it seems, there are new developments in marijuana laws around the state.

On Tuesday, the County Board of Supervisors voted to create a ban on medical marijuana outlets in unincorporated areas of the city.

Last week, the Long Beach council voted to rework its ordinance to make it more restrictive by implementing new rules, such as prohibiting collectives near parks. The move, which came after months of debate over the initial version of the law but before permits had been issued, sparked an outcry from the local medical marijuana community.

Source: Long Beach Press Telegram

NEWS: Another lawsuit filed over fire sprinklers at medical marijuana collective

The owner of a Lake Elsinore medical marijuana collective has sued the city and City Council, accusing both of failing to comply with building and safety codes because automatic fire sprinklers are not installed in City Hall or the Cultural Center.

The suit filed on behalf of Carlos Stahl, owner of R Side Medical, seeks a court order requiring the city to put fire suppression systems in both Main Street buildings, which have been declared historic.

It is the second time this year that Stahl has sued the city and the second time the city has been sued because of the lack of fire sprinklers in both buildings.

City Manager Bob Brady declined Thursday to comment on the lawsuit.

Stahl sued the city in May in a dispute over the operation of his collective. City code enforcement officers revoked his business license this year when it was determined he was dispensing medical marijuana despite a city ban on the sales.

City officials said previously the business license issued to Stahl only allowed the sale of clothing, apparel and holistic medicines and included a notation barring the sale of medical marijuana. A copy of the license Stahl possessed did not include the notation.

The collective has been shut down by the city three times but continues to operate, Stahl said.

"The city has been very, very harsh on us," Stahl said Thursday.

Stahl's May lawsuit seeks to declare as unlawful city ordinances banning medical marijuana sales and to bar the city from enforcing the ordinances. A hearing is scheduled in December.

The new suit seeking the installation of fire sprinklers, Stahl said, is not being used as "a bargaining chip with the city."

"If I'm going to have to clean my house, you'd better clean yours," Stahl said.

In the suit filed Monday in Riverside County Superior Court, Stahl said the city has not followed the same rules it calls on others to follow, though state and local building codes require public agencies to comply with such measures just as the public.

In order to occupy both buildings, the suit states, City Hall and the Cultural Center are required to have automatic fire sprinkler systems that have been tested and approved.

"The city has not ... retrofitted the buildings according to code," Stahl said.

Stahl's lawsuit seeking fire sprinklers mirrors one filed by the owner of Trevi Entertainment Center, Michel Knight, whom Stahl has referred to as a "mutual acquaintance" in a letter to Brady.

Knight filed the suit a week after the planning commission revoked his conditional use permit that allowed live music, dancing and entertainment in his Mission Trail business. Knight agreed in June to drop the lawsuit in a deal that allowed him to offer live entertainment at Trevi.

Councilman Thomas Buckley said, "Stahl seems to be using the exact same red herring that Michel Knight used. I think the community should find that disturbing. The apparent connection between Michel Knight and Mr. Stahl is extremely disturbing."

Source: The Press-Enterprise