California Appeals Court Upholds Local Bans on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

Yesterday a California appeals court upheld local bans on medical marijuana dispensaries in Riverside and Upland, concluding that they do not conflict with state law. The 4th District Court of Appeal ruled that state laws permitting cultivation, possession, and nonprofit distribution of marijuana for medical purposes do not preclude cities and counties from barring storefront operations within their borders. Americans for Safe Access says 168 cities and 17 counties already ban dispensaries. The 4th District's ruling is likely to raise those numbers, especially in light of last month's decision overturning Long Beach's dispensary licensing system. In that case, the 2nd District Court of Appeal said municipalities can regulate dispensaries but cannot formally authorize them without violating federal law. Local officials who are worried about conforming to that distinction now have a much simpler, court-endorsed option. "This really puts the green light out to all city attorneys that they can take action immediately to shut [dispensaries] down," anti-drug activist Paul Chabot told the Los Angeles Times. "The tide is turning against so-called medical marijuana in California."

[Thanks to Richard Cowan for the tip.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Oh shit, they passed another law against marijuana?!? Does this mean I won't be able to hit the bong tonight? No, it doesn't.

  • Terrorist-Killing Barack||

    My DOJ fully supports the ruling. Clearly, that's why I have our soldiers deployed around the world killing suspected terrorists and their families and neighbors: so the American Volk can enjoy their freedoms at home.

  • Rothbardian statists||

    have no problems with using the police power of the agricultural city-STATE to violently attack anyone who tries to assert his or her right to move freely about the land. Rothbardians care more about their precious land enTITLEments and making sure no one crosses their "borders" which are really just arbitrary restrictions on the free movements of people.
    Officer, am I free to gambol?

  • Metazoan||

    + 1 to TKB!

  • jasno||

    A flame that burns twice as bright lasts twice as long...

    While WI was the greatest HnR troll we've seen since... since the last one, I think it's gamboled itself to death.

    It might be funny again.. maybe if we could go a story or two without it. But, really, gambol on.. go resurrect STEVESMITH or something.

  • ||

    STEVE SMITH NOT DEAD, JUST ATE TOO MANY HIKERS AND IS HIBERNATING IT OFF!

  • Yes, please pass....||

    and prance your heart away....you don't need to keep asking permission!

  • Metazoan||

    In honor of another current thread: what the fuck?

  • Medicinal Marijuana||

    is beloved by libertarian STATISTS. Ironically, they want the drug to be grown on "private" property, which is nothing more than land with artificial barriers to movement placed on it by the agricultural city-STATE.
    Officer, am I free to gambol?

  • Metazoan||

    I call it. +1 to me!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Who gets the point for this? Sullum?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Oops, too late.

  • ||

    Personally I think it's cheating. It should go to the writer.

  • ||

    I move that a first-level squirt of pixelated diarrhea (see, e.g. Medicinal Marijuana @ 4:08 pm) should be scored for the immediately preceding post.

    Do I hear a second?

  • ||

    I created the rule, and it goes to whoever claims it. If Sullum wants it, he can come and get it.

    Also, remember, if she spoofs you, you get x10! This is where the points can really count!

  • ||

    This is going to be one hell of a weekend, 2k will be a drop in the bucket.

  • ||

    But think of the scores we'll be able to achieve!

  • ||

    it goes to whoever claims it

    Ah, eat what you kill. Seems oddly appropriate.

    Carry on.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I believe that marijuana should be grown on plots of private property fenced off from everyone else. Everybody caught trespassing will be shot on sight. It's the only way to uphold true property rights.

  • Golly, I think....||

    ....you have stumbled upon something there! State-conditioned potheads begging to have their pot taxed! Who would have ever thought? A "socialist-democratic reefer"? What fun is that. Licensed, stamped, state barriers to entry erected....blah blah blah

    Presented by P. Lorillard and CALLING Philip Morris for Virginia Slims.

    Please Tax Agent, bless me with your tax bill before I get loaded.

  • Free Range Pot||

    Dear Eco Officer -- am I free to grow in uninhabited zones or will State EcoTaxAgents shoot me on sight?

  • Agriculture is evil||

    GodState EcoAgents BANPROHIBITBLOCK use of land.

    State_Employed Environmentalist: "dear congressman, can you give me another $100-million grant?"

  • Bingo||

    In other California news, Sasha Grey reading to 1st graders pisses off parents. Maybe she's just looking to settle down and pop out a few of her own.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Sasha Grey is awesome.

  • ||

    You should hear some of the crap my older daughter's teachers say. Pretty much as bad as what any porn star would relate, if she forgot that she was with a bunch of young kids, anyway.

  • squishua||

    I'm in favor of decentralized authority even if it means certain areas can adopt policies I think are rotten.

    If they recognize the right of cities and counties to ban dispensaries despite State law, they must likewise recognize their right to permit them despite State (and Federal) law.

  • ||

    No, no, no.

    Bans are additive, liberty is subtractive. What, do you think you're free to gambol?

  • JD||

    I'm attempting to care about this but in light of most of the California medical marijuana industry coming out against this, in addition to it being a Friday afternoon, I find I haven't a fuck to give.

  • JD||

    Coming out against the legalization proposition, I mean.

  • jasno||

    So what? This only affects retail storefronts. The market will adapt, just as it always has. The cat's out of the bag - people have tried retail MJ distribution and they like it(hence its astounding popularity).

    In other news, it sounds like the Campaign Against Marijuana Planting had its state funding cutoff. Unfortunately I found that out while reading this.

  • Federal Dog||

    ""The tide is turning against so-called medical marijuana in California."

    Cops, lawyers, court personnel, prison employees, and rehab/therapists around the world who bank on prohibitionism will fight to the death to keep their billions in black markets profits.

    Fuck the people dying of cancer and headless cadavers littering the Mexican deserts. They are merely collateral damage in the desperate fight to keep everything illegal and personally profitable.

    And they wrap their greed up as some sort of Law and Order show virtue. I loathe those bloodthirsty, greedy, racketeering shits.

  • ||

    and instead of blaming your (alleged) perpetrators of this STUPID ASS FUCKING WAR ON MJ, what are *you* doing to change the situation?

    besides wanking on reason about all the others' whose fault it is.

    aint part of the solution, yer part of the problem

  • ||

    Since you put it that way, I'm going to go outside, get into my car and go make pot legal...or something.

    Dumbass.

  • ||

    no, seriously. it's all about righteous anger on a blog, but what do you DO?

    work on citizen initiatives, volunteer time at a medical mj clinic, stand outside your city hall holding a placard?

    what?

  • ||

    Me I donated money to the legalize campaign. Plus I have a monthly to MMP, and LEAP. It's not much, but it's something.

    Plus of course I tell EVERYONE I know how much bullshit it all is. Even when they are sick of hearing about it.
    Causes some problems with the new in law (cop) but I don't care. He needs to hear it.

  • ||

    I agree. As a cop, I tells lot of people about this stuff too. When people here that many cops are pro medical mj a d pro legalized mj I think it helps too .

  • ||

    I haven't done the volunteer thing, but the other things, I have. I've also done registration drives (L party, natch) and fundraising things, in addition to donating time and whatever I could afford materially, but that's neither here nor there. (I'd probably give money to Reason, but they've shown in the past few weeks that they prize page hits over regular readers...DRINK!...All I'm saying is Postrel wouldn't let some punks come over and shit all over her blog...DRINK!...)

    We're in a freakin' comment section of a political blog, we could follow every single fucking comment with, "Oh, nice rant, why not leave yer mom's basement and do something about it?!"

    Impotent righteous anger and off-topic meandering bloviation are part and parcel of the blog commenting experience. You should have realized that by now, and not come off as the finger pointing activist "HEY MAN! You're part of the problem, DUDE!" dude.

  • ||

    d00000000000000000000000000d!

  • ||

    Exactly.

  • Federal Dog||

    I work to flip convictions based on unconstitutional police misconduct.

    I keep busy.

    Put me out of work. Seriously.

  • ||

    fwiw, and i am not saying this flippantly. if cops don't at least OCCASIONALLY push constitutional bounds, that's a bad thing...

    that's how bounds ARE ESTABLISHED, case law is made, etc. etc. legal precedents are set, and in many cases, constitutional limits ARE established and often... for the better.

    UNfortunately, some people do get hurt in the process.

    i'm not saying it should be done routintely, and god knows cops should not be ignorant of case law nor TRY to break constitutional restrictions, but in many cases nobody knows WHERE those restrictions are until X is overturned etc.

    iow, if you are a cop and you have done 500 interrogations, 300 arrests, and seized evidence 400 times, and you have never had something suppressed and./or even made new case law. you are probably not doing your job.

  • ||

    and part of the reason for this, btw... is that legislatures so often write insanely piss poor, constitutionally invalid (vague, overly broad, etc. etc.) law.

    the primary difference is that legislators have ample time to research, seek out legal opinion, debate, discuss, etc. whereas the street cop often does not

  • Federal Dog||

    Given the lack of education and training cops have, this is tantamount to having drop-outs nullify foundational constitutional rights.

    Get back in your place. I will help you find it again. Keep your fucking hands to yourself, and take a basic course on con law.

    If you can follow it.

  • ||

    yawn. troll-o-meter: .01

    if you are arguing that cops should have greater education and training,... i agree

    but i know plenty of cops who know far more about const. law in various areas than the average cop, and even many prosecutors who specialize in those areas.

    but again, considering you can have 5 judges agree and 4 judges disagree GIVEN ample research, argumentation, amicus briefs, etc. etc. with what cop X did in a given situation, clearly this shit is not as black and white as you think, nor does schooling necessarily mean you come ot the same OR the "right" answer.

    again, this is a living breathing thing.

    my point is that cops should never lie about what they did, but that they should certainly at least to an extent ENTER those unknown, untested areas, or those unknown untested areas never GET tested.

    this is how the system is supposed to work

    and cops are often forced to clean up the piss poor job legislators do, and to some extent - judges

  • Federal Dog||

    Let's be clear: you stole dunphy's handle and abuse it to attack people. You are not only a troll, but a troll who steals identities, and attacks people over legal issues you do not even begin to understand.

    We waste millions a year cleaning up the messes that cops who cannot think cause.

    Obey the law. Do your job. Keep your hands to yourself. And do not pretend that you even begin to have the cognitive capacity to rewrite foundational limits placed on your conduct.

  • ||

    cop spoof video angers officials (it's not supertroopers, but it aint bad!)

    http://www.policeone.com/socia.....officials/

  • Coeus||

    I love policeone. It really shows the above-the-law cop mentality. Read the comments on this one: http://www.policeone.com/patro.....P-trooper/

    As always, there are a few good apples. At least that's something.

  • ||

    cop posters are much like reason posters. the histrionics there don't (fortunately) represent the average cop any more than the average reasonoid blogger represents libertarianism

    and thank fucking god for that...

    but the video IS awesome

  • Apatheist||

    This only shows that people with schizophrenia are more likely to do mj. Which makes sense. Causation/correlation, how the fuck do they work?

  • ||

    and for all we know, schizos who do MJ *may* handle it better than those who don't. i have no fucking idea, but neither do these people.

    however, the operative argument would be

    assume that X% of the population will develop schizophrenia

    assume that mj DID increase changes of somebody developing schizophrenia.

    let's say, a chronic (lol) user had x+Y% chance of developing it, where Y is some positive #.

    is there any positive incidence of Y such that mj prohibition, medical mj prohibition, and throwing people in JAIL for using MJ would be justified?

    i think libertarians would argue there is no Y that meets that criteria, especially because we know anecdotally literally scores (if not hundreds) of people who have done a LOT of fucking weed and never got schizophrenia

    also, what's the average "cost" to society monetarily etc. for somebody who contracts schizophrenia.

  • ||

    So rectal smokes a lot of pot is what you're saying?

  • BakedPenguin||

    +1 to me.

  • Apatheist||

    They suggest nothing, in fact they admit they don't know what the fuck they are talking about:

    "We really do not understand how these drugs might increase schizophrenia risk," said Dr. Stephen Kish, also of CAMH. "Perhaps repeated use of methamphetamine and cannabis in some susceptible individuals can trigger latent schizophrenia by sensitizing the brain to dopamine, a brain chemical thought to be associated with psychosis."

  • ||

    yup. it's GROSSLY speculative at this point.

  • ||

    no, it's NOT the finding. it says they are LINKED. that means CORRELATION. it does not state definitively that there is a CAUSAL relationship

    read it again.

    nor COULD it state definitively a causal relationship BASED on the data they collected.

  • ||

    again, i am not going to get all scientificky and shit but this is saying they have noticed CORRELATION

    correlation =/= causation.

    that's what i am saying. go back and read what you wrote.

  • ||

    but again, it doesn't matter how many "n" they are, it' still causation

    in brief, people who are admitted for (for example) meth addiction are not THE SAME as people who aren't. it's entirely possible for instance that the kind of mental markers that makes one prone to try meth and.or succumb TO addiction are ALSO present in people more likely to become schizo.

    don't get me wrong. is it possible that using meth (or MJ) makes it more likely that a given person will develop schizophrenia? sure

    but this study shows no CAUSAL relationship between the two

  • ||

    ugh edit... "they are, it's still CORRELation"

  • ||

    also, what's the average "cost" to society monetarily etc. for somebody who contracts schizophrenia.

    The St. Gabby Giffords case is still racking up costs, both tangible and unforeseen (Insert Iron Law); multiply this by the factor of known DX'd cases, then extrapolate for marginal data.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement