Pubdate: Fri, 10 May 2013
Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel (CA)
Copyright: 2013 Santa Cruz Sentinel
Contact: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/submitletters
Website: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/394

COURT RULING ON MEDICAL POT DISPENSARIES SHOULD HELP LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS DEAL WITH ISSUE

The California Supreme Court has brought some clarity sense into the
debate over medical marijuana -- but it's only a step forward in what
remains a vexing issue for local cities and counties.

In ruling Monday that local governments have the authority to ban pot
dispensaries from operating within their jurisdictions, the court
correctly interpreted the state constitution. Here's what Justice
Marvin Baxter wrote:

"The California Constitution recognizes the authority of cities and
counties to make and enforce, within their borders all local, police,
sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with
general laws."

Medical marijuana advocates are upset and anxious over this ruling,
saying it thwarts the intent of voters in legalizing medical marijuana
and will end up with patients having to turn to criminal enterprises
to get the drug.

But advocates also must realize they never had the law on their side
about whether local governments can exert authority over activities
within their borders.

So how, you might ask, does the court ruling then relate to the 1996
voter-approved measure legalizing medical marijuana? The court
answered this by noting the law only gave legal status to a previously
illegal activity -- and did not preempt local control over
dispensaries. Justices left open the possibility, though, the
Legislature could expand the law. So far, however, state legislators
have failed to create any coherent state policies on how to make
medical marijuana legally available for patients who would benefit
from the drug, which was the intent of the original measure approved
by voters.

The ruling upholds the right of at least 180 cities in the state,
including Watsonville and Scotts Valley, to ban dispensaries. At the
same time, larger cities in the state, including San Jose, Oakland and
San Francisco, permit dispensaries and tax the revenue. But in other
jurisdictions, dispensaries exist in a kind of governmental limbo.
Pending this court case, for instance, Santa Cruz County supervisors
imposed a moratorium on dispensaries after adopting an ordinance
governing where they could be located. The county's next move could be
to lift the moratorium and permit dispensaries, or to revisit this
issue and move in a different direction.

Last month, the Santa Cruz Planning Commission denied a proposed River
Street medical marijuana grow and dispensary, which was strongly
opposed by neighbors.

The court decision did not affect the dichotomy between federal
statutes and state law -- the federal government says it is illegal to
possess or use marijuana -- and the obviously lax oversight and
regulation of medical marijuana cards. This lack of oversight has
clearly led to widespread abuse of legalized medical marijuana. While
voters in the states of Washington and Colorado have already moved to
legalize possession of pot, allowing quasi-legalized marijuana is a
public health issue that so far has not been addressed by the state of
California. We remain unconvinced legalizing the widespread use of
another intoxicating substance is good public policy.

We're glad the court has agreed cities and counties can regulate the
spread of dispensaries, but also think state lawmakers could clear the
remaining medical marijuana haze by establishing consistent principles
governing dispensaries' location and the legitimacy of their
operations.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt