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