Pubdate: Fri, 20 Jan 2012
Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel (CA)
Copyright: 2012 Santa Cruz Sentinel
Contact: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/submitletters
Website: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/394
Author: Jason Hoppin

POT CLUB REGULATIONS HEADED TO CALIFORNIA'S HIGH COURT

SANTA CRUZ - One of the most significant threats to the state's 
medical marijuana industry since voters approved Proposition 215 in 
1996 is going before the state's highest court, with the future of 
medical marijuana dispensaries at stake.

The seven justices will decide whether pot shop regulations violate 
federal law, agreeing Wednesday to review a lower court decision that 
not only said they did, but suggested local officials could be jailed 
for issuing them. The October decision put the brakes on a burgeoning 
statewide effort to regulate storefront pot shops, including in Santa 
Cruz County, and has roiled the medical marijuana industry.

"I think what's at stake here is the delivery method," said Santa 
Cruz County counsel Dana McRae, who joined with the American Civil 
Liberties Union to ask the court to overturn the ruling. "There's 
nothing that a local government can do to license that storefront."

Last year, the county passed pot club rules outlining where the clubs 
could locate and regulating their business practices. But the county 
board beat a hasty retreat following the decision in the Long Beach 
case, which came before any local permits were issued and has 
reverberated throughout California.

Citing the case, many cities have taken steps to ban dispensaries 
within city limits. That includes California's biggest city, Los 
Angeles, where the City Council is expected to take up the issue.

The case, Pack v. Long Beach, and a second companion case have not 
yet been scheduled for a hearing.

The Long Beach decision was issued just as federal authorities in 
California's initiated a crackdown on the state's medical marijuana 
trade, targeting both those who provide pot to dispensaries and 
owners of the buildings that house them.

The California Supreme Court will hear the case against that 
backdrop. The marijuana trade is clearly illegal under federal law, 
but medical marijuana backers have long complained that the feds 
should stay out of a state decision to provide pot to medically needy patients.

Ben Rice, an attorney who represents several local pot clubs, said he 
was optimistic after the court decided to review the decision, hoping 
it could be reversed or at least depublished, which means it applies 
to the case has no precedential value.

But losing at the Supreme Court potentially would have a 
game-changing effect on California's medical marijuana operations, he 
acknowledged.

"The landscape would be dramatically impacted because we would have 
incredible pressure put on cities and counties who have been trying 
to be responsible and trying to regulate how patients get their 
medicine," Rice said. "It means it would be up to local cities and 
counties whether they want to put their resources into shutting them down."

If that occurs, that would leave home growers or grow-your-own 
collectives as one of the only options for medical marijuana patients 
to get their pot.

Marc Whitehill, founder of the Boulder Creek Collective, last week 
moved his operation to a new Mid-County location, partly in response 
to the short-lived county regulations. He said a court victory would 
not stop the federal crackdown, and does not think a loss represents 
the end of the world.

"I don't think so. I think California made a commitment to medical 
cannabis and it's been going on for 15 years. I don't know how you 
stuff the rabbit back in the hat," Whitehall said.

"Places that are clearly committed, progressive areas - Santa Cruz, 
San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley - we're not going to all shut down," 
he added. "When you start a new industry, nobody ever promises you a 
clear path or an easy ride."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom