Pubdate: Fri, 04 Feb 2011
Source: Corning Observer (Corning, CA)
Copyright: 2011 Freedom Communications
Contact: http://www.corning-observer.com/sections/letters-to-editor/
Website: http://www.corning-observer.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/5071
Author: Julie R. Johnson

MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION SUIT DISMISSED

A lawsuit filed against Tehama County and its marijuana cultivation
ordinance has been dismissed.

Tehama County Superior Court Judge Richard Scheuler made the ruling
last week. It was distributed to the Tehama County Board of
Supervisors Tuesday afternoon.

"I'm very pleased. I thought we would prevail and we did," said Tehama
County Supervisor Bob Williams. "I thought Judge Scheuler was very
thorough in his ruling. We knew the ordinance was legal and within our
rights."

The lawsuit was filed on June 7 by J. David Nick and Editte Lerman on
behalf of plaintiffs Jason Browne, Dawn Browne, William Browne,
Michael Black, Grant Nott, LIndsey Crooks, Brian Loucks, Jason Cater,
Josh Hall and Thomas Scott, and claims the county's ordinance makes it
legally impossible for them to exercise their Proposition 215 right to
cultivate medical marijuana for themselves.

In his argument to the court, Tehama County Counsel Will Murphy said
"the burden to sustain such a challenge is steep ... The challenger
must demonstrate that the ordinance inevitably poses a present total
and fatal conflict with state law."

In his ruling, Scheuler said the court "finds as a matter of law that
the state medical marijuana law does not preempt the field of county
zoning," and the county's marijuana ordinance is not pre-empted by any
state law nor does it violate or conflict with any state law.

He also ruled against the plaintiffs' claims the ordinance is
unconstitutional and that it violates the right of equal protection
and right of privacy.

"All freedoms may be limited," Scheuler stated in his
ruling.

The judge said the ordinance does not restrict or modify the limited
criminal defense offered by medical marijuana laws.

Scheuler ruled the county's creating the "potential for zoning
enforcement as to medical marijuana is not the same as criminalizing
it," and it clearly "does not prohibit medical marijuana, but equally
clearly it does seek to govern location and manner," through zoning
regulations.

"No legal activity is free of zoning laws," he states.

The marijuana cultivation ordinance, adopted by the Board of
Supervisors on April 6, declares it a public nuisance to grow
marijuana anywhere within 1,000 feet of a school, school bus stop,
church, park or youth-oriented facility.

It also states no more than 12 mature or 24 immature marijuana plants
can be grown in an area 20 acres or less, and if both mature and
immature plants are growing there shall be no more than 24 total.

In an area greater than 20 acres but less than 160 acres, no more than
30 mature and 60 immature plants, with no more than 60 total at one
time can be grown, the ordinance states, and in an area 160 acres or
greater no more than 99 plants, whether mature or immature.

The ordinance requires outdoor gardens be surrounded by an opaque
fence at least six feet high and located 100 feet or more from the
property boundaries; and requires every patient garden to be
registered with the county health services agency.

According to Scheuler, the ordinance "reveals what appears to be a
standard zoning ordinance through which the County seeks to protect
the health safety of the community."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt