Last week’s appellate court ruling invalidating the City of Long Beach’s medical-marijuana dispensary permitting ordinance promises to cast a long shadow on the already murky legal debate about Santa Barbara’s pot dispensaries, and those throughout the entire state, for some time to come. The panel of appellate judges ruled Long Beach’s comprehensive — and expensive — permitting process for dispensary operators flew in the face of federal drug law, which regards such activity fundamentally unlawful.
It’s one thing, the justices ruled, to allow behavior that’s not legal under federal law but that’s effectively been “decriminalized” under state law. It’s quite another, they said, to pass an ordinance that affirmatively authorizes such behavior by charging a one-time processing cost — $15,000 — collecting annual fees — $10,000 a year — and organizing a lottery to determine which dispensaries are permitted. Santa Barbara City Attorney Steve Wiley termed the ruling “important,” but acknowledged he might have a hard time divining a bright legal line clarifying what permitting requirements would pass muster under the Long Beach ruling. The more actively a city regulates dispensaries, Wily said, it increases the risk of stepping over that line. But just how passive a city must be in drafting such regulations, he said, remains uncertain. “I’m not clear where that leaves cities in regulating dispensaries,” he said.
Paul Wellman (file)
LEGAL HAZE: With the new Long Beach ruling clouding the waters, attorneys will have an even harder time providing city councils and dispensary owners clear advice on how they can stay on the right side of the law. Santa Barbara City Attorney Steve Wiley (above) said he’d bet his right arm the ruling winds up with the California Supreme Court.
Lawyers representing those in the marijuana dispensary industry, like Joe Elford with Americans for Safe Access, expressed concern that local communities might overreact to the Long Beach ruling. “We worry local government might be tempted to throw their hands in the air and say there’s nothing we can do and just ban dispensaries,” he said. Elford acknowledged the ruling made the line “even more murky.” But he added, “Nowhere in the ruling does it say any and all efforts at regulation are preempted; it just says you have to be more specific about how you do it.” For example, the court frowned upon Long Beach’s requirement that all dispensaries send their wares off to be tested for chemical contamination. To require an applicant to commit an illegal act — distribution of an illegal substance — the judicial panel ruled, was like asking a burglar “to commit an additional act of burglary.” Cities, they said, just can’t require that.
Wiley and Elford agree the ruling is hardly the last word. “I’d bet my right arm this winds up at the [California] Supreme Court,” said Wiley. Should that happen, he estimates it would take at least 18 months for the matter to be resolved. Barring that, Elford said, he’d file a motion to have the opinion de-published, meaning it would no longer pack any weight as legal precedent.
The case was brought by a couple of dispensary operators who sued after their application failed to make it through the Long Beach lottery. Although they prevailed in their appeal, their future in the marijuana dispensary business remains unclear. As with much relating to medical marijuana law, there’s far more clarity about what’s not acceptable than what is. It’s well established, for example, that dispensaries have to be set up as collectives, co-ops, or not-for-profit operations. What’s not at all clear is how much money can change hands between buyer and seller without violating the very nebulous terms of this understanding.
According to Wiley, the Long Beach ruling did little to clarify under what conditions a storefront dispensary can operate within the guidelines of California law. But it did explicitly state, he said, that small collectives where all members tilled the soil were legal. To what extent the Long Beach ruling can be applied to the City of Santa Barbara, where a maximum of three dispensaries can be legally permitted, also remains to be seen. But Dr. David Bearman, a specialist in cannabinoid medicine, objected that it would be “absurd” to require cancer patients to cultivate the soil in some collective endeavor before allowing them the medical marijuana that helps blunt the harsher side effects of chemotherapy. “They’d likely be dead before any crop came up,” he said. “This is what happens when you have lawyers practicing medicine.”
The Long Beach ruling practically got lost in last week’s hubbub about a new round of cease and desist letters sent by the U.S. Attorney’s office to some of the largest dispensary operators throughout the state. Unlike the last time a wave of such letters went out — when George Bush was still in the White House — this time none were mailed to Santa Barbara operators. Many in the medical marijuana industry expressed outrage that President Obama and his attorney general William Holder seemed to have reversed their prior pledge not to expend Department of Justice resources prosecuting medical marijuana cases. City Attorney Steve Wiley said such critics misread Obama’s policy in the first place and suggested recent plans unveiled — in cities like Oakland — for large scale industrial factory cultivation of pot may have given the Obama administration second thoughts. Elford suggested the whole exercise could be nothing more than the legal equivalent of a head fake. “You can huff and you can puff, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to blow my house down,” he said.
For Josh Lynn, Santa Barbara ‘s former acting District Attorney now in private practice, the recent letters were “100 percent political.” He suggested that in lean economic times, medical marijuana dispensaries — often fat with cash — make a tempting target for law enforcement officials empowered with the ability to seize the assets of those suspected of engaging in illegal enterprises. Lynn, who represented the owner of one of the biggest dispensary operations to be prosecuted in Santa Barbara, lamented the utter lack of clarity when it comes to the actual law governing medical marijuana. “As a lawyer, it’s my job to advise clients what they can and can’t do under the law,” he said. “But right now, I wouldn’t know how to advise someone how to do things legally. And I’m an attorney.”


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Interesting parallels in the documentary on Prohibition running now on PBS.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2011 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Did you know the local ordinance drawn up by Whiley and the Santa Barbara City Council is both illegal and immoral? The ordinance requires clubs to give city staff and police access to patients records at any time, clearly a violation a patients right to privacy. They also, like Long Beach, it requires that every batch of cannabis be sent out for testing (ruled illegal in the Long Beach case). What else, oh yes, they require no less than 8 security cameras and a full time security guard, and they limit the hours and days of operation or should I say they dictate when a patient can purchase medicine...oh and BTW, every club who has sued the city has won or the city has settled. I am closely watching the case of the City of Santa Barbara vs. The Compassion Center of Santa Barbara. I have a hunch that this further waste of our tax dollars (thanks again Whiley Cyote) will result in the local ordinance being thrown out altogether. Next time do us a favor, let medical professionals dictate health issues, you are a lawyer and not a qualified physician. BTW no less than 5 well respected local doctors wrote legal statements in support of the Compassion Center and called it a valuable asset to the medical community... but Whiley and the 3 Block Heads (Self, Rowse, & Francisco) didn't even flinch.
Archer (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2011 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"...patients that suffer from pain or patients who are sick from chemotherapy..."
If the users were actually restricted to that class, this would be a non-issue. But its not, people can get a scrip using every lame excuse they can think of... and it is to get high. Smoking pot to get the high is NOT medicinal, that's recreational drug use. Recreational use is NOT what these dispensaries are *supposed* to be for, yet the staggering volume of "patients" (a laughable term considering the real motivations) is absurd.
Soon after this post, the usual suspects will start chiming in with a "safer than alcohol" argument - proving their use is for effect, not true "medical" need. The whole thing is a farce. While it may or may not be true that pot is safer than hooch, that's not the impetus for compassionate use true MEDICAL need is.
It is sad because these same folks that are banging the drum (and the bong) so hard for the wrong reasons are actually the ones that are ruining the whole program for those with a true "Medical" need. Sorry, your scrip for tennis elbow, hangnail, or whatever other ridiculous excuse you used is NOT equivalent to that of the glaucoma or cancer patient, get honest.
As for the argument against City/County inspection of records violating "Medical Privacy"... Get Real. How many licensed medical professionals are keeping those records in your pot shop? Any Licensed Pharmacists involved? Anybody with any actual medical training even? Besides, the "medical records" of the "patients" are not available at the pot shops, just the ID's of the card holders - and perhaps their usage. That's not an argument that you'll win.
As a side note, in the last few weeks, the Obama administration enacted a policy prohibiting ANY "Medical Marijuana" card holders anywhere from legally owning firearms. Not just a temporary ban while you have the prescription, not just while you use it, no... you are now banned for life from owning a gun by Federal law. I kid you not. That's a whole different issue, but I'd bet there is a fair amount of card holders facing 10yr prison terms for this that don't even know about the law.
Let the flames begin....
cartoonz (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2011 at 12:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let us remember that currently, and for at least the last few decades, that it is the 'conservative' side of our politics that results in this insanity. Even good liberals and progressives can be spooked by all the narrow Reefer Madness propaganda; especially when two-buck Chuck is so readily available.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2011 at 6:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
land of the free?
spacey (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2011 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Geez, McD, we finally agree on something!
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2011 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The voters passed CA Prop 215 by 56% in 1996.
It says, " To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, *or any other illness* for which marijuana provides relief. "
The text and actual wording of the Proposition says, "or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief" That sentence was painted deliberately with a very broad brush. The law allows physicians to decide what is best for patients' symptom relief.
Cannabis is much safer for pain, anxiety and insomnia than Xanax or oxycontin or alcohol and any number of legal substances.
Who are you (cartoonz) to split hairs and decide who should or shouldn't meet the definition of benefiting from the therapeutic, medicinal effects of medical marijuana.
This is about symptom relief. It's not about getting high.
Educate yourselves.
sez_me (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2011 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Re-legalize marijuana and reject the post-prohibition propaganda lies.
Marijuana was legal until 1937, and the morals of America that conservatives decry as being down the drain didn't happen until "after" it was made illegal.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 16, 2011 at 2:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The ordinance requires clubs to give city staff and police access to patients records at any time, clearly a violation a patients right to privacy."
- Archer
That's only applicable between doctor and patient.
waz (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2011 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The voters passed CA Prop 215 by 56% in 1996."
It just doesn't matter.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as Supremacy of National Law , establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.
Currently, the cultivation and sale of marijuana (medical or otherwise) violates federal law. Personally, though I do not indulge myself, all indications are that marijuana is much less dangerous to use than alcohol. But, it just doesn't matter. We can do all we want on a local level, but The Supremacy Clause of The Constitution says otherwise.
And, DonMcDermott. They lefties have been in charge of almost everything for nearly three years now. The federal law hasn't changed one bit.
waz (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2011 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"waz," California law is very protective of patient's rights to privacy, far beyond simply doctor/patient confidentiality:
"Generally, any information, in electronic or in physical form, that could individually identify you (such as name, address, email address, telephone number, or social security number) in connection with your medical information is confidential and may not be disclosed without your authorization unless allowed by law. This could include information held by your physician, your pharmacy, your psychologist or therapist, hospitals or other health facilities, and companies that maintain your medical information for billing, treatment, research or other purposes."
http://www.ohi.ca.gov/calohi/MedicalP...
The range of groups subject to penalties is quite broad, and wrongful disclosure carries the burden of fines and civil penalties.
Chester_Arthur_Burnett (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2011 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)