E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
David McNew / Getty Images file
Marijuana is shown at the Perennial Holistic Wellness Center, a medical marijuana dispensary, on July 25 in Los Angeles.
For the first time, the California Supreme Court will enter the medical marijuana debate Tuesday and hear arguments on whether municipal governments can ban retail pot dispensaries within their jurisdiction.
In the years since California voters legalized medical marijuana in 1996, about 200 cities and counties have outlawed pot shops, according to Americans for Safe Access, a pro-dispensary group. But Tuesday’s hearings in the state’s high court will mark an unprecedented test on whether cities can legally restrict them.
The hearing stems from a Southern California case from two years ago when a dispensary sued the city of Riverside, Calif., on its decision to ban pot shops. The dispensary claimed that cities and counties cannot ban or restrict something the voters have already approved.
“What the appellate court decided was that cities have a choice, and, in fact, 14 cities in the county of Santa Clara decided to ban dispensaries, San Jose being really the only one to allow it,” San Jose City Councilman Sam Liccardo told NBCBayArea.com.
Many of the citywide bans on pot dispensaries were enacted after the U.S. Department of Justice said in 2009 that prosecuting pot sales would be a low priority under the Obama administration, prompting an explosion of retail medical marijuana outlets in Southern California.
"These places are popping up everywhere, and the typical city that had one or two, two became four and four became 16 or 20," Jeffrey Dunn, an Orange County lawyer who will be arguing in favor of the local bans on Tuesday, told The Associated Press. "What has happened as a practical matter is this state law, which authorizes the medical use of marijuana, and federal law that prohibits it, has forced cities and counties to be the ones to regulate this like any other entity that crops up in our business districts."
But advocates for medical marijuana say that California’s laws allow local governments to set limits on dispensaries, but not to ban them entirely.
"If it's the case localities can ban, you could end up with the entire southern and middle portion of the state banning dispensaries, which clearly does not promote uniformity throughout the state or safe access" to marijuana, Americans for Safe Access legal director Joe Elford told the AP.
Liccardo said he supports limiting the number of dispensaries but wants the cities to have the final decision.
“It is disconcerting if the state rules that cities don’t really have the ability to control when, how and where dispensaries operate,” Liccardo said. “It’s very important for a lot of communities because we know there are a lot of impacts with dispensaries – not all of them are good.”
Courts have delivered mixed results on the issue in the state.
In two other cases, an appeals court in Southern California struck down Los Angeles County's two-year-old ban on dispensaries, and another appeals court upheld the ban in Long Beach, Calif., ruling federal law pre-empts municipalities from allowing dispensaries.
But Alex Kreit, a Thomas Jefferson School of Law professor said the Supreme Court may be reluctant to strip cities of the right to enact the bans, likening the situation to states that permit counties to be "wet" or "dry" in allowing alcohol sales.
"It is really unusual for a locality to try to outright ban something that is legal under state law," Kreit told the San Jose Mercury News. "But I still think it's going to be an uphill battle for the medical marijuana argument in this case."
Related stories
- In Los Angeles, advocates push dueling medical marijuana measures
- Medical benefits of marijuana still hazy
- Feds to target $20 million ‘Weed Wars’ medical marijuana dispensary in Calif.
Leave a Comment:
You don't need to ban something to keep it away from people. Simply making it cost-prohibitive works just fine.
These counties, cities, and towns, can simply write in the regulation that makes it very expensive to open up shop -- same way liquor licenses work in some states. I'm not saying I agree, but it's what it'll come down to.
What's the point of that? A black market emerges, and the city ends up in the same situation as before.
Why do people need to be kept away from it? You want the government telling people what they can and can't put in their bodies? @!$%# your tyranny.
@Macdeezy: You've heard of "dry towns" before, right? It's not a black market, they'll just make people go elsewhere to buy it.
@Satanick: You need to learn to read.
Sure, all the potheads will drive 4-5 hours to get their nickel bags.
This is no different then a " wet " city vs a " dry " city..
OR
A City that allows nude bars, and some those that do not.
Just because it is legal in the state, does not mean it has to be sold in individual cities.
The whole idea of legalizing “medical” marijuana and outlawing pot shops is/was a road to failure, legally, medically and socially. There is enough evidence for this drug to be banned altogether. Maybe one day, when we get serious and become mature as a nation, we will look back and laugh at our gullibility.
Wow, wtwofKC, aren't we self righteous! As a lifelong migraine headache sufferer whose family physician has recommended pot for pain relief -- since the side effects of the other drugs are so bad -- I would hate to drive hours with a splitting headache for my medicine because of uptight stiffs like yourself. I think once we get serious as a nation, we will look back and laugh at sad puritans like yourself.
steve-3228573
Migraines can be terrible but, many questions remain to be answered whether or not marijuana should be a medical option. I am also aware that 17 states have legalized the medical use of marijuana, plus, it is also legal in DC.
Proponents of medical marijuana argue that it can be a safe and effective treatment for the symptoms of cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, glaucoma, epilepsy, and other conditions. They cite dozens of peer-reviewed studies, prominent medical organizations, major government reports, and the use of marijuana as medicine throughout world history.
Opponents of medical marijuana argue that it is too dangerous to use, lacks FDA-approval, and that various legal drugs make marijuana use unnecessary. They say marijuana is addictive, leads to harder drug use, interferes with fertility, impairs driving ability, and injures the lungs, immune system, and brain. They say that medical marijuana is a front for drug legalization and recreational use.
The Institute of Medicine published in its Mar. 1999 report titled "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base":
"Marijuana has been proposed numerous times as a treatment for migraine headaches, but there are almost no clinical data on the use of marijuana or cannabinoids for migraine.
Our search of the literature since 1975 yielded only one scientific publication on the subject. It presents three cases of cessation of daily marijuana smoking followed by migraine attacks -- not convincing evidence that marijuana relieves migraine headaches.
The same result could have been found if migraine headaches were a consequence of marijuana withdrawal. While there is no evidence that marijuana withdrawal is followed by migraines, when analyzing the strength of reports such as these it is important to consider all logical possibilities.
Various people have claimed that marijuana relieves their migraine headaches, but at this stage there are no conclusive clinical data or published surveys about the effect of cannabinoids on migraine."
On the other hand, David L. Bearman, MD, physician and medical marijuana expert, in a letter printed in the Feb. 3, 2005 edition of Los Angeles City Beat, wrote:
"Not only are there thousands of migraine patients who benefit from cannabis, but cannabis has been cited by such historical medical luminaries as Sir William Osler, M.D. (considered the father of modern medicine) and Dr. Morris Fishbein (long-time editor of JAMA) as the best treatment for migraines (back in the days before the Congress ignored the AMA and over the AMA’s objection, passed the Marijuana Tax Act)."
"A couple of the con statements on the use of cannabis to prevent and/or relieve the symptoms of migraine headaches correctly note that there have been no double blind studies done. This observation does not abrogate thousands of years of anecdotal evidence and over one hundred years of support by prominent figures in the medical establishment... While double blind studies are certainly important, in the United States such studies have not been allowed...
Dr. Russo, a well respected neurologist, author, researcher and North American Consultant to GW Pharmaceuticals, tried for four years to get the federal government to approve just such a double blind research project. They refused...
Just as a historical note; when aspirin was first used for treating headaches no double blind studies were done, yet we still believe that aspirin treats headaches. Aspirin was based on centuries of use of willow bark by Native Americans. Aspirin was grand-mothered in by the 1938 Food, Cosmetics and Drug Act and to the best of my knowledge has never received modern FDA approval because it never had to. Many experts say that if aspirin had to undergo the contemporary FDA approval process it would be far from a shoe in to receive that approval."]
"There is enough evidence for this drug to be banned altogether."
And that is?????
A moderately interesting case.
We have a defacto approval of marijuana use at the federal level, despite the law.
Then we have the states weighing in yes or no, with some localities now trying to enforce the federal law.
Based on the results of states trying to enforce immigration laws and the DOJ lawsuits resting on the "superemacy clause," I would think the local governments are hosed.
The White House Rules!!!
Issue marijuana vending licenses, just like liquor licenses. Limit the number of licenses. The city gets money, the people get marijuana, local businesses prosper, everybody is happy.
Sounds fine to me, They can then keep a lid on it so to speak
Good one, Odin!
While your at it, ban prescription drugs. Their side effects, of course, are scientific.
Yep, and just like Oxycontin, marijuana is way over-prescribed. Beyond Chemo-therapy, there's no efficacy proven with this. Despite popular belief among the masses, marijuana is dangerous. Seriously, "medical", what a crock of $hit. Just legalize it already.
But keep smokin', it'll keep you guys nice and controllable. While you're lookin' for your next high, I'll be living the good life with my excellent job, great income, nice house, car, and pretty much anything I care to have or do--along with a fully functioning brain. I've yet to meet a long term user whose cognitive ability wasn't severely impaired from weed.
My only real regret (for the users) is that far too many are unlikely to become contributing members of society and my taxes will go into paying for their medical care.
You must be either Chapo's pool boy or girl friend. Keep it illegal then there is a black market and your butbuddy can make lots of money. It is to bad you sissies out there gave up your guns cause the nexty thing you need to do is go after the DEA and march them into the sea. Don't worry I am sure you can buy some from the ATF, they have been giving automatics here in Milwaukee
@GatorChE, You have no clue what you're talking about. One fact remains -- the last three presidents all enjoyed marijuana recreationally. So what were you saying about cognitive ability? Your opinions are rooted in the propaganda you must listen to each and every day. My family physician recommended med marijuana for chronic headaches -- because it works, and because the pharmaceuticals don't work that well and have horrible side effects.
You're not a doctor, are you.
I'm so sick of you self-righteous morons making arguments that have absolutely no basis in fact.
Not a doctor, no. But I know a couple who have studied both the physiological AND psychological effects of cannabis. AND, I'll bet my science-based sources are better than yours:
http://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/directors-page/messages-director/2013/01/marijuanas-lasting-effects-brain
Also, perhaps I should expand on my username a little: ChE stands for chemical engineer. Let's also add that I have direct research experience with drugs (other than marijuana) and their effects.
YOUR source of justification is that the last three presidents were drug users? Seriously, do we really need to expand on that discussion?
Don't worry, my taxes will keep your kids healthy--at least until you show them how to use a bong. After, that they can come work for my kids. Well, maybe not. We use drug testing as a condition of employment.
Enjoy that reefer. Remember, I'm the one who said that it's OK to legalize. :)
Black market bull-chit.
Cigarettes are legal. But I must get mine on the "black market", because of the high taxes in the store.
Making marijuana legal will INCREASE the cost.
Arizona, I want it legal so I can grow a few plants for myself. I have no concern how others spend their money or what they put in their body. After a long week of work, I find it relaxing to go for a hike, read, see a movie, go out to dinner with friends and family, have a glass of wine, puff on a pipe, etc...
And I would vote for that Stink. As long as you didn't "share".
Careful, 'Weed!
Our government can't do much right, but they can track down and prosecute someone who doesn't pony up the excise tax on a legal product quite well.
KISS: Just legalize it.
Municipal governments are parasite revenuers who only serves the elite.
If you mean those who use parks, ambulances, police services, schools, and garbage services - those elites, then I agree.
Two bars and a liquor store on every block is OK, but pot shops, oh heavens no.
The pot dispensaries must not be greasing the local politicians campaigns enough...
LEGALIZE marijuana...save us all some money! This will stop the mexicans from trying to bring it across the border, they'll have no REASON to do it!
No, I don't smoke it but hey, it grows from the ground, it's not made from ingredients from WALMART.
Poison ivy also "grows from the ground".
And if someone wants to roll around in poison ivy, why should I care? I sure wont be doing it, and as long as they aren't trying to chase me and wrap me in ivy, to each their own.
Regulate, yes. Ban completely, no, that's unconstitutional.
Just regulate it like adult oriented businesses. Save us all the court costs and lawyer fees.