Pubdate: Tue, 15 Jan 2013
Source: Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Ontario, CA)
Copyright: 2013 Los Angeles Newspaper Group
Contact:  http://www.dailybulletin.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/871
Authors: Wes Woods II, Eric Bradley and Rick Orlov

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT MAY HAVE FINAL WORD ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA BANS

Two medical marijuana cases going before the state Supreme Court could
determine whether dispensary bans by dozens of California cities are
legal.

The City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient's Health and Wellness
Center is scheduled to begin Feb. 5 at the University of San Francisco
School of Law over the city's legal authority to ban the dispensaries,
which was upheld by an appeals court last year.

In another upcoming case, City of Upland v. G3 Holistic Inc., G3
lawyers are expected to argue that cities can't ban the dispensaries
because they're allowed under Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use
Act, which legally allows doctors to prescribe marijuana to patients.

Some cities contend they have the power to close the dispensaries
based solely on zoning laws.

Medical marijuana advocates have said that more than 170 bans were in
place across California at one point. The city and county of Los
Angeles have both attempted to ban dispensaries but were forced to
back down.

City officials also lean on federal law that says marijuana - medical
or otherwise - is illegal.

"We're watching the Riverside case very closely yes," said T. Peter
Pierce, an attorney for Los Angeles-based Richards, Watson & Gershon,
which is representing Upland in its Supreme Court case.

"Once the Supreme Court decides, they would apply that decision in the
G3 case as well as to all medical marijuana decisions."

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Riverside, or local
governments, it would affirm an appellate court ruling in the G3 case.

Attorneys representing G3 Holistic filed an appeal in December 2011 to
the Supreme Court after the 4th District Court of Appeal in Riverside
sided with Upland's ban on dispensaries on Nov. 9, 2011, based on its
zoning code language.

A similar decision was reached in the Riverside case that same
day.

J. David Nick, an attorney for Inland Empire Patient's Health and
Wellness Center, said he thinks a decision in the Riverside case would
allow the Supreme Court to "remand things back to the appellate,"
which would allow appellate courts to make decisions based on the
Supreme Court case.

Navigating state and federal marijuana laws has created a quagmire for
local governments as they attempt to regulate or ban the drug, which
is legal in California for medical purposes but illegal under federal
law.

Last July, an appeals court struck down Los Angeles County's ban on
all dispensaries in unincorporated areas.

Justices said that the state's medical marijuana laws authorize
cooperatives and collectives to grow, store and distribute cannabis,
contrary to the county's ban passed in 2010.

"The phrase 'regulate the location, operation, or establishment' does
not mean ban, prohibit, forbid, or prevent all medical marijuana
collectives and cooperatives from operating within the entire
jurisdiction 'solely on the basis' that they engage in medical
marijuana activities," Judge Robert Mallano wrote.

If full-on bans are ruled illegal, that could leave cities in a
precarious position.

For the city of Los Angeles, the Supreme Court hearing on the
Riverside case is not expected to have any immediate impact.

"These cases concern whether local government can ban dispensaries,"
said Jane Usher, a special assistant city attorney.

The Los Angeles City Council had voted to ban dispensaries but
reversed its decision after medical marijuana advocates collected
enough signatures to put a referendum on the ballot to overturn the
prohibition.

But, Usher said, the city is closely watching to see if the court will
spell out how cities can govern pot shops.

"We anticipate that the Supreme Court may use these cases to set forth
its views regarding the scope of the regulatory authority of local
government," Usher said.

"If the court takes that opportunity, we will recommend the city
follow the court's lead in any new medical marijuana
regulations."

Kris Hermes of Americans for Safe Access said the Riverside case will
have an impact on the ability of cities to address safe and legal
access to medical marijuana.

"With dozens of local regulatory ordinances through the state and more
than 170 municipal bans, there is a patchwork of access that patients
have to navigate," Hermes said.

Hermes said advocates for medical marijuana hope Los Angeles will
change its regulations and avoid the need for a further legal battle.

G3 Holistic president Aaron Sandusky was upbeat about the state
Supreme Court case and his chances to win.

Sandusky was found guilty Oct. 12 in federal court in Los Angeles of
operating medical marijuana dispensaries in Upland, Colton and Moreno
Valley. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison last week.

Sandusky was convicted of two counts of violating federal marijuana
law, one for conspiracy to manufacture marijuana plants, possession
with intent to distribute marijuana plants, and to maintain a
drug-involved premises, as well as a second count of distributing
marijuana plants.

"I am very hopeful, although I'll be in jail still even if I win that
Supreme Court case," Sandusky said last month. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D