California Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds Local Bans on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

IEHWCIEHWCToday the California Supreme Court unanimously upheld the authority of local governments to ban medical marijuana dispensaries within their borders. California's Compassionate Use Act (CUA) and Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) allow patients and their designated caregivers to cultivate cannabis through collectives without triggering criminal prosecution or nuisance actions under state law. But the court concluded that "nothing in the CUA or the MMP expressly or impliedly limits the inherent authority of a local jurisdiction, by its own ordinances, to regulate the use of its land, including the authority to provide that facilities for the distribution of medical marijuana will not be permitted to operate within its borders." 

Neither the CUA nor the MMP explicitly requires cities to allow the operation of medical marijuana collectives within their borders. Those statutes do not pre-empt local bans by implication either, the court said, since state law does not require cannabis collectives; it merely makes people who operate them immune from certain specified consequences. "Persons who refrain from operating medical marijuana facilities in Riverside are in compliance with both the local and state enactments," the court observed.

The decision, involving a Riverside ban challenged by the Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, opens the door to similar ordinances in other jurisdictions that are hostile to medical marijuana. As the court noted, the state legislature, which is considering a bill regulating dispensaries, could still choose to pre-empt local bans. That is what I-502, the initiative that legalized marijuana for recreational use in Washington, does, giving the state liquor control board the final say on where pot stores will be located. By contrast, Colorado's Amendment 64 specifically allows a local veto, and the regulatory bill moving through the legislature makes local approval a condition for opening a marijuana store.

"Today's decision allowing localities to ban will likely lead to reduced patient access in California unless the state finally steps up to provide regulatory oversight and guidance," says Tamar Todd, a senior staff attorney with the Drug Policy Alliance. "The good news, though, is that this problem is fixable. It is time for the state legislature to enact state-wide medical marijuana oversight and regulation that both protects patient access and eases the burden on localities to deal with this issue on their own. Localities will stop enacting bans once the state has stepped up and assumed its responsibility to regulate."

The California Supreme Court's opinion is here. Damon Root noted the upcoming decision this morning.

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    To regulate the use of its land? As in the jurisdiction's authorities own the land?

  • ||

    Of course, FoE. What is property tax if not rent?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I pay extra property tax so that my water comes out of the tap tastier and the fire trucks get to my house faster.

  • ||

    And access to that best of public utilities: Epi's mom.

  • ||

    Epi's mom isn't free
    No, there's a hefty fuckin' fee
    Epi's mom costs a buck O five

  • Paul.||

    And those trucks get to your house faster because they're not all high on dope. Community standards!

  • Juice||

    You mean they're not all potted out on weed?

  • TheZeitgeist||

    If municipalities can ban Burger King within their borders in CA, I don't see how dope portals get a pass. Looks to me like a case of not knowing when to pick your legal battles.

  • CE||

    Looks like California needs a 14th Amendment?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Anyway, when it comes to government action, that which is not expressly forbidden is permitted.

  • Another David||

    In practice, that which is not expressly forbidden will still get you thrown in prison when the authorities don't like your face.

  • Juice||

    Weird. I heard a commercial on the radio for Americans for a Conservative Direction this morning. It was weird. It just kept talking about how conservative they were. And they're apparently "very conservative."

  • H. Protagonist||

    Because fuck you, that's why.

  • WomSom||

    Sounds like a pretty good deal to me dude. Wow.


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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.