Pubdate: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 Source: Grunion Gazette (Long Beach, CA) Copyright: 2010 Grunion Gazette Contact: http://www.gazettes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3434 Author: Jonathan Van Dyke APPEALS COURT REVIVES MARIJUANA DEBATE A lawsuit against the city's medical marijuana ordinance gained some traction today (Wednesday) with a ruling from the California Second Appellate District Court. The appeal ruling on Pack et al. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County et al. asks that all parties appear in court on Feb. 8 to "show cause" why relief requested from the law should or shouldn't be granted. The plaintiff, Ryan Pack, had filed a lawsuit against the original Long Beach ordinance regulating medical marijuana collectives seeking an injunction because the local ordinance went against federal and state constitutional law (including the state voter approved constitutional amendment that legalized use of medical marijuana). But the Superior Court ruling said there was no basis for the suit. The appellate court overturned that ruling. "It's important to note that this is a process order," City Attorney Robert Shannon said. "There are no decisions on merit. Any speculation where it might end up is just that. "They stayed it in order to allow the parties to address one issue - the issue of federal preemption." The sale and possession of marijuana is illegal federally. California law allows the possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes. The lawsuit's challenge lies with whether Long Beach has the right to regulate a substance that the federal government says is illegal. "(This is asking) can a state, or local entity in this case, enact laws regulating marijuana, when, in fact, marijuana is criminalized federally," Shannon said. "(The ruling) appears to raise that issue." A representative for attorney Matthew Pappas said the office was excited and pleased with the ruling - Pappas could not be reached for comment today. Shannon said he wanted to emphasize that the current medical marijuana ordinance, which was passed earlier this year by the City Council, was not nullified by this latest ruling. "It does not stay the enforcement of the ordinance," he said. Last week, the City Council voted to impose further restrictions on the ordinance it had approved in April. That could change depending on how the council views this latest development, Shannon said. "The City Council could say, 'Let's see what the court decides,'" he added. "They could do that, but they're not required to do that." - --- MAP posted-by: Matt