Appeals Court says No Banning Dispensaries in California Cities

[Payaso]

​

The California Court of Appeals has just ruled that cities in this state can not ban medical marijuana dispensaries that grow cannabis at their locations. This is what Prop 215 envisioned, a network of caregivers providing cannabis to patients directly from the grow operation.

In a somewhat strange and unexpected ruling issued yesterday, the California Court of Appeals ruled that California cities cannot ban medical marijuana dispensaries so long as they cultivate cannabis at the same location. The 48-page ruling came in the case of the City of Lake Forest vs. Evergreen Holistic Collective, one of several collectives the city shut down for violating its ban on pot clubs. Because state law allows for marijuana collectives to cultivate and distribute cannabis to members, the court stated, "a local government cannot ban as a nuisance exactly [original emphasis] what the Legislature contemplated would occur at cooperative and collective medical marijuana cultivation sites."

One of the lawyers attached to the case is Matthew Pappas, whose separate lawsuit against the city of Long Beach resulted in a ruling last year that struck down large portions of the city's controversial ordinance requiring collectives to apply for expensive permits that also required them to grow onsite, and which many observers, including the city itself, has interpreted to mean that California cities cannot regulate marijuana clubs at all.

In a letter to Kendra Carney, a deputy city attorney for Long Beach, that he provided to the Weekly, Pappas argued that the Lake Forest ruling further strikes down Long Beach's ordinance--city code 5.89--which it has used to prosecute all but a select group of 18 dispensaries that not won the city's lottery and came up with tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional fees and construction costs to comply with the city's permitting process. (None of those 18 clubs have received operating permits so far).

Read more about his strange and unusual ruling by visiting this link:

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2012/03/california_cities_cannot_ban_m.php

 

[greenmatter]

good article! i would love to know how many dollars have been spent in court costs nationwide on the subject of MMJ. sounds like there are going to be a few more spent trying to figure things out before they just legalize ......... which should have been done LONG ago

 

[guest8905]

cool thnks

 

[wantaknow]

i liketo see them get there money back from the municapalitys

 

[Payaso]

Appeals Court says No Banning Dispensaries in California Cities

The California Court of Appeals has just ruled that cities in this state can not ban medical marijuana dispensaries that grow cannabis at their locations. This is what Prop 215 envisioned, a network of caregivers providing cannabis to patients directly from the grow operation.
​

In a somewhat strange and unexpected ruling issued yesterday, the California Court of Appeals ruled that California cities cannot ban medical marijuana dispensaries so long as they cultivate cannabis at the same location. The 48-page ruling came in the case of the City of Lake Forest vs. Evergreen Holistic Collective, one of several collectives the city shut down for violating its ban on pot clubs. Because state law allows for marijuana collectives to cultivate and distribute cannabis to members, the court stated, "a local government cannot ban as a nuisance exactly [original emphasis] what the Legislature contemplated would occur at cooperative and collective medical marijuana cultivation sites."

One of the lawyers attached to the case is Matthew Pappas, whose separate lawsuit against the city of Long Beach resulted in a ruling last year that struck down large portions of the city's controversial ordinance requiring collectives to apply for expensive permits that also required them to grow onsite, and which many observers, including the city itself, has interpreted to mean that California cities cannot regulate marijuana clubs at all.

In a letter to Kendra Carney, a deputy city attorney for Long Beach, that he provided to the Weekly, Pappas argued that the Lake Forest ruling further strikes down Long Beach's ordinance--city code 5.89--which it has used to prosecute all but a select group of 18 dispensaries that not won the city's lottery and came up with tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional fees and construction costs to comply with the city's permitting process. (None of those 18 clubs have received operating permits so far).

Read more about his strange and unusual ruling by visiting this link:

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazin...nnot_ban_m.php
​

 

[greenmatter]

am i seeing double ?

 

[northstate]

Hells Yeah! Fire up the lights! Great news and very strange and unusual indeed. Thanks for the heads up Payaso.NS

 

[mr.brunch]

progress maybe?
come on the u.s, lead the way!
maybe the uk gov. will finally become a bit more compassionate

 

[Dorky]

From what I heard is now that the tast force is done with SD they are gonna be working there way up the coast.

 

[Hammerhead]

Excellant news... So does that mean a dispensory can stay open if they grow on the premises. If they do that do they have to stay with 6 mature plants OR 12 immature plants AND up to 8 ounces of processed cannabis flowers on site??

 

[Hammerhead]

If the dispensory does grow on site do they need to keep there #'s @ 6 mature plants OR 12 immature plants AND up to 8 ounces of processed cannabis flowers on site.????

 

[kmk420kali]

Excellant news... So does that mean a dispensory can stay open if they grow on the premises. If they do that do they have to stay with 6 mature plants OR 12 immature plants AND up to 8 ounces of processed cannabis flowers on site??

Yeah, they can have that...PER MEMBER-- Let's see...we have like 12,000 Members--

Seriously tho, this is the worst Decision I think I have seen in a while!! If they all have to have these Mega-Grows on site...that lets the Rippers (Both Civilian and DEA) know exactly where to come get the whole thing!! I mean shit man...it is nothing for a D to run through 3 or 4 hundred pounds a year (that is very conservative)!! Think of the size grow to sustain it exclusively!!

 

[DoobieDuck]

Payaso thanks for posting, Kali do you think this will force more small dispensaries to spring up and aren't the cities and counties banning, trying their best to limit those as well? Couldn't a large operator have a network of small stores? We'll see more cases before this is over. Peace..DD

 

[headband 707]

This does not mean they are not going to try to get more, more, more money and drag it out in other ways.. There is no way I believe anything these guys say at this point not till they are disbanned at this point from cannabis altogether including Obummer /Harpo. This should be a none issue and certainly NOT in our so-called Gov hands. headband 707

 

[canavi]

Why not just have two immature plants on site to say you are at least cultivating there. That way you can still have your super small footprint dispensary. Then get the rest from your secret grow op and bring shipments in multiple times every day like they do in the coffeeshops in amsterdamn. Legal loophole? I think so....

 

[SeaMaiden]

I think that, while it's a screwy ruling (re: on-site growing), it's a better ruling than what came previously. Especially with regard to the ability to legally challenge cannabis cultivation & storefronts (anything cannabis, is what it really is) being declared a PER SE PUBLIC NUISANCE.

In other words, they can try (cities & counties) to just put that on paper, but it can be legally challenged. And this ruling says that they cannot simply declare it per se nuisance because they want it to be, they have to show more cause at this point. It is also a legal declaration, now citable, that the intent of the CUA and MMPA were not for cities and counties to make acquisition of medication impossible for some people, but in fact the opposite.

While this ruling isn't quite what I and a lot of us would have preferred, again, I reiterate, it's better than the previous ruling.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

^one step at a time.

 

[SeaMaiden]

I read ALL 48 PAGES, and it says nothing about limiting numbers or amounts.

 

[kmk420kali]

I think that, while it's a screwy ruling (re: on-site growing), it's a better ruling than what came previously. Especially with regard to the ability to legally challenge cannabis cultivation & storefronts (anything cannabis, is what it really is) being declared a PER SE PUBLIC NUISANCE.

In other words, they can try (cities & counties) to just put that on paper, but it can be legally challenged. And this ruling says that they cannot simply declare it per se nuisance because they want it to be, they have to show more cause at this point. It is also a legal declaration, now citable, that the intent of the CUA and MMPA were not for cities and counties to make acquisition of medication impossible for some people, but in fact the opposite.

While this ruling isn't quite what I and a lot of us would have preferred, again, I reiterate, it's better than the previous ruling.

While I agree with the essence of what you are saying, from a practical and Legal standpoint, it is essentially going to shut down all clubs anyway--
The small ones do not have the $$ or the space to grow all their medicine on site...and the larger ones would be going WAY over plant counts for Federal interaction--
Over 100 plants, mandatory 5 years fed time...with no Medical Defense-- Over 1000 plants, Mandatory 10 years-- Keep in mind, this would also mean that most, if not all Medicine would have to be grown indoors...further boosting the plant count, as you will not be having those pound plus outdoor plants--
This is not a "Win"...they knew what they were doing when they Decided this, and you can bet, they will be watching and regulating this to the hubs!! Bring ANY Meds from an outside source...now you are in violation of State Law, and they will press it to the max!!

Keep in mind, I am not a "Nay-Sayer"...I also believe in "Baby Steps"...but this is not that...this is a huge step backwards--

 

[SeaMaiden]

I'm in a county where dispensaries, collectives, any type of storefront access are completely and totally banned. I see this as a step forward, even if it's got issues.