Pubdate: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 Source: North County Times (Escondido, CA) Copyright: 2009 North County Times Contact: http://www.nctimes.com/app/forms/letters/index.php Website: http://www.nctimes.com Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1080 Author: Edward Sifuentes Referenced: The ruling http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B210084.PDF Cited: Americans for Safe Access http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/dispensaries STATE APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS LA CITY'S DISPENSARY BAN Decision Could Have Widespread Significance, Attorney Says In a legal blow to medical marijuana advocates, a state court ruled last week that local governments can ban medical marijuana dispensaries from setting up shop in their jurisdictions. The state's Second District Court of Appeal said in its decision that the city of Claremont in Los Angeles County could ban dispensaries without violating the state's medical marijuana laws. Those laws include the 1996 Compassionate Use Act, which legalized marijuana for medical use, and the 2004 Medical Marijuana Program Act, which lets people cultivate marijuana collectively. That is because neither law "compels the establishment of local regulations to accommodate medical marijuana dispensaries," according to the court's ruling. The Sept. 22 opinion could have wide-ranging implications for cities and counties statewide, including San Diego County and other cities in the region that are drafting new ordinances to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries, said an attorney involved in the case. "What this court said is that if you are arguing that a city cannot ban a dispensary, that argument is no longer valid," said Jeffrey Dunn, a San Diego attorney who represented the city of Claremont in the case. Several cases are moving though the state's court system addressing various legal questions on what cities and counties can and can't do to regulate dispensaries. San Diego County officials and medical marijuana activists said they are especially watching a case involving the city of Anaheim in Orange County. Some medical marijuana activists say they believe the county is closely following the Anaheim case because the supervisors here want to permanently ban medical marijuana dispensaries, not regulate them. Supervisor Pam Slater-Price has said she would be willing to ban dispensaries in the county. Other supervisors have declined to say whether they would support such a ban, but the majority of the board has been outspoken opponents of the state's medical marijuana laws. In 2006, the supervisors filed a lawsuit to overturn the state's 1996 medical marijuana law. The supervisors unsuccessfully challenged the law all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear an appeal in May. Earlier this month, the supervisors extended a temporary ban on dispensaries through August 2010. Some medical marijuana foes called for an outright ban on the establishments, which they contend promote teen drug use and attract crime into neighborhoods. The Anaheim case, which was heard last week by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, has attracted widespread attention among medical marijuana activists and local governments. If the court upholds the ban, it may encourage other cities and counties to ban dispensaries, medical marijuana activists say. A ruling is expected in the Anaheim case within 90 days. Joe Elford, an attorney with the medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, said the two cases are different. That's because the Anaheim law not only bans dispensaries, but makes it a crime to operate them. "Unlike the Anaheim case, the Claremont case does not involve criminal penalties ... so I don't think it will impact the Anaheim case," Elford said. The Second Court of Appeals also did not analyze in detail whether the Claremont law pre-empts the state's medical marijuana program, Elford said. Pre-emption is a legal term meaning that when laws conflict, the law from the higher jurisdiction supersedes the lower one. Dunn said he agreed that the criminal aspect of the Anaheim law makes it different from the Claremont case. But he said he disagreed that the court did not significantly consider the question of pre-emption. The opinion thoroughly analyzed state preemption law and determined that cities and counties can retain their power to regulate and, if necessary, restrict dispensaries in their jurisdiction, Dunn said. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake