Pubdate: Tue, 07 May 2013
Source: Bakersfield Californian, The (CA)
Copyright: 2013 The Bakersfield Californian
Contact:  http://www.bakersfield.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/36
Author: James Burger

POT RULING A SETBACK, NOT DEFEAT, ATTORNEY SAYS

The state supreme court ruling on medical marijuana dispensaries was 
not a defeat for the pot shop movement, a leading attorney said here 
Monday, but a setback.

Phil Ganong, an attorney representing several medical marijuana 
collectives in Kern County, said the ruling does not invalidate his 
pending cases against a law passed by voters in 2012.

In opposing the ordinance, the collectives argued that two state laws 
that permit the ownership and use of medical marijuana trumped any 
local restrictions or bans on storefront operations.

But that argument was firmly rejected Monday by the high court.

The ordinance, called Measure G, sharply limited where medical 
marijuana cooperatives could open storefront distribution centers.

Supervisors then enacted the law but challenges to its environmental 
validity and implementation by the county remain, said Mark Nations, 
chief deputy county counsel.

 From a policy standpoint, Nations and Bakersfield City Attorney 
Virginia Gennaro said Monday, the state high court's ruling doesn't 
change much about the way the city and county deal with storefront 
medical marijuana shops.

The Bakersfield City Council has already banned, by resolution, the 
location of storefronts in any zoning district of the city.

"It's a very good ruling for cities who want to regulate," Gennaro 
said. "We've had a resolution on the books for years. The only 
difference between us and Riverside (the plaintiff in the case that 
went to the state Supreme Court) is that we have a resolution and 
they have an ordinance. Both require civil action to close an 
existing medical marijuana dispensary."

Dispensaries exist within the city limits and, for the most part, the 
city has chosen not to pursue a system of code enforcement or civil 
legal action to force closures of the shops, Gennaro said.

The county does not have a complete ban in place. But a storefront 
collective or cooperative cannot locate within one mile of a church, 
public school, park, child day care or any other medical marijuana operation.

And the county has been aggressive about using code enforcement 
procedures to back up that rule.

Since 2012, nearly all of the storefront operations in the county 
have shut down and multiple lawsuits challenging the county law have 
been filed.

Ganong said he was disappointed with the California Supreme Court's 
ruling. But, he said, "I am not surprised, having watched the oral arguments."

He predicted that many communities will choose to create restrictions 
on clinic operations and force patients who legitimately need 
marijuana for medicinal purposes to retreat into the "gray" market.

"It's going to swell the profits of organized crime," he said, and 
expose innocent people to criminals to maintain their health.

But Kern County Supervisor Mike Maggard said he took Monday's ruling 
as a validation of county voters' decision and the county's 
enforcement of Measure G.

"We're happy that the Supreme Court has upheld the rights of local 
government to address land-use issues within its boundaries," he said.

"It will make it easier for us to make sure we have some sort of 
management of an industry that doesn't want to be managed."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom