Ruling removes rare tool keeping marijuana in check California Green Rush is on!

Since the Obama administration's decision — about which it has since waffled — to let states go their own way when it comes to medical marijuana, California's cities have struggled to tame the still-illegal trade, to accommodate patients without letting lawbreakers run unrestrained.
But a recent California Court of Appeal decision makes that effort far more difficult.
Ruling in Pack vs. City of Long Beach, the court threw out a city ordinance much like Redding's that licensed and strictly regulated medical-marijuana shops. The decision, in essence, says that California authorities can decline to prosecute marijuana users or growers — can look the other way — but that actually licensing marijuana sales is a step too far, violating the federal Controlled Substances Act.
The judges presumably have their law straight. As a practical matter, though, the decision will create a far more chaotic situation.
The upside of police licensing like Redding's is that it gives co-ops incentives to restrict the nuisances, to avoid sales to minors and unauthorized "patients," to be good neighbors. And it lets the police keep a close, consistent eye on businesses where the potential for criminality is obvious. Police Chief Peter Hansen says he sees widespread abuse of doctors' recommendations to let casual pot smokers avoid prosecution, but the collectives themselves, he says, generally work hard to comply with the law.
Without local licensing, though, they'll have far less incentive to work with law enforcement. And while no decision has been made, the city's likely response will be to order dispensaries to simply close.
That won't bother many locals a bit. But it's hard to see how people will sell or use less marijuana just because the trade goes back underground — especially since marijuana gardens are ubiquitous and criminal prosecution of users and growers has become a rarity.
Redding's licensing system helps manage a gray market that is, under the law, half criminal and half legitimate. A sane way to bridge that legal divide is exactly what California needs. Unfortunately, for now, the courts say sanity is illegal.

Click to expand...

SAN BERNARDINO - Leticia Pepper won't face county representatives in court until March 2012, but she's already gearing up for a battle that may take her to the state Supreme Court.
Pepper is the attorney representing Crusaders for Patients Rights, the self-proclaimed Christian organization that filed a lawsuit against San Bernardino County in April, after the Board of Supervisors banned medical marijuana dispensaries in all unincorporated areas.
The ordinance, passed April 5 by the board, also prohibited patients and caregivers from growing marijuana outdoors.
Pepper and CPR say the county's ordinance puts a heavy burden on sick patients. In the suit, plaintiffs say the county didn't follow the California Environmental Quality Act when it adopted the ordinance. The vocal attorney also says the county is violating state laws regarding medical marijuana.
"What the county is doing is illegal under Prop 215, which says any law must be designed to make access safe and affordable," Pepper said by phone Friday, on her way to a conference in Los Angeles.
In the Morongo Basin, the county ordinance restricts dispensaries from being established anywhere outside Twentynine Palms or Yucca Valley. Yucca Valley has one dispensary currently operating. Twentynine Palms city officials voted last year to ban dispensaries there.
Pepper claims the county didn't follow the CEQA process because harvesting marijuana indoors can actually create environmental hazards like pests and mold. Pepper also said growing marijuana inside, without natural sunlight and climate conditions, degrades its quality and effectiveness.
"The main thing is that it's better for the environment if people can grow marijuana outside .... To make a law that people can't do something when there's no good reason for it is illegal," she said.
During a public meeting of the board of supervisors in March, several people spoke against the county's plans, saying they did not have the means to grow their own marijuana and would be severely limited in their access to it if there were no dispensaries.
Before adopting the ordinance, the county put a moratorium on dispensaries in 2009 while it studied the issue, citing "a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare." Ten months later, the board of supervisors reviewed data from other agencies and claimed crime, loitering and traffic troubles would all result if dispensaries were permitted.
Pepper said the lack of sufficient evidence reviewed by the county is one of many missteps supervisors made before adopting the ordinance.
"Nobody had any evidence about why it wasn't bad for safe and affordable access. They also didn't have any evidence from their local law enforcement. They had stuff the California Chief of Police put together in a white paper," Pepper said.
The California Police Chiefs Association is named as an interested party in Pepper's suit. The association tried to remove itself from the suit, but a judge denied the request.
Neil Derry, 3rd District Supervisor, whose district includes the Morongo Basin, said his main concern was safety.
"Under a court decision, one individual can grow up to 99 (marijuana plants)," Derry noted by phone Friday. "My biggest concern is someone jumping the fence and stealing them. If you want to set up a greenhouse in your backyard and control it, I have less concern over that."
He said having a home where more than 100 large plants could grow in someone's backyard "isn't conducive to a safe neighborhood."
Pepper said even if a judge rules in the county's favor, she's prepared to keep fighting, saying, "If we have to go all the way up to the California Supreme Court, we will."

Click to expand...