Pubdate: Thu, 17 Nov 2011
Source: Record Searchlight (Redding, CA)
Copyright: 2011 Record Searchlight
Contact:  http://www.redding.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/360
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

CITY CAN HARDLY AFFORD TO FIGHT ITS COLLECTIVES

Passing an ordinance ordering the closure of Redding's 
medical-marijuana cooperatives is the easy part.

Making it stick promises to be a long and expensive battle for the city.

Agree or disagree with the huge pro-marijuana crowd that picketed and 
then packed the City Council Chambers Tuesday night, it's clear that 
it represented a movement. Its members are motivated, organized, 
lawyered up, backed by professional advocacy groups and fully 
prepared to fight for what they believe to be their rights.

And after the council's unamious vote to shut them down as of Dec. 1, 
several collectives' operators said they had no intention of closing 
voluntarily. At least one attorney was already in court Wednesday 
seeking an injunction against the co-op shutdown.

Redding City Attorney Rick Duvernay argued passionately on behalf of 
the city's course. He stressed city officials' potential legal 
jeopardy from U.S. attorneys determined to crack down on marijuana 
sales - a distant prospect but a serious one - as well the need for 
continued oversight of collectives.

Even so, he freely acknowledged that the city "can and likely will be 
sued" in response to the order to close co-ops.

Unfortunately, nobody talked about the cost of those lawsuits - or 
about the cost of shutting down dispensaries that have a mind to resist.

In an article that's all too timely, The Los Angeles Times reported 
this week that various California cities have spent anywhere from 
$100,000 to $1 million in legal efforts to shut down unwelcome 
marijuana sales. And even still, some didn't succeed. (Others closed 
storefronts, but officials confessed marijuana use and sales were 
undiminished.)

Duvernay says a recent appeals court decision handing cities more 
authority to ban collectives and especially the recent U.S. Justice 
Department crackdown on commercial medical-marijuana sales make the 
city's task easier, as a legal matter. And indeed, if the federal 
prosecutors bring down a hammer on co-ops - or their landlords - 
they'd disappear faster than you can say "civil asset forfeiture."

If the city's serious, maybe it should go all in and call the federal 
cavalry for help.

We don't think driving collectives underground is a sensible 
approach. Like it or not, under current law there's a lot of 
marijuana around, protected by Proposition 215. Hiding it won't make 
it go away.

But even worse would be spending a million dollars - money the city 
can scarcely afford these days - on a protracted and uncertain legal battle.

Would it be crazy to go from licensing businesses one month to trying 
to sic the U.S. attorney's office on them the next? Yes, but such 
crazy decisions are precisely what you get with a chaotic and 
contradictory set of laws.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom