Marijuana

24 California Cities Sue to Stop Home Weed Deliveries

Most California cities already ban recreational cannabis stores. A few want to ban home deliveries as well.

|

Dmitry Tishchenko/Dreamstime.com

A coalition of California local governments is suing the state's top marijuana regulator for legalizing the home delivery of recreational cannabis.

On Thursday, 24 cities and Santa Cruz County filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC), alleging that the BCC's decision in July 2018 to allow for door-to-door pot delivery statewide violated Prop. 64, California's legalization ballot initiative.

That measure, passed in November 2016, ended marijuana prohibition but left local governments with wide discretion over how to regulate the newly legal industry. That includes the power to ban recreational cannabis businesses outright, something 80 percent of California's 482 municipalities have done, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The dispute over home delivery pits the power of these local governments against those citizens who, having been deprived of nearby brick-and-motor stores, depend on delivery services for ready access to marijuana.

"The negative impact delivery bans would have on the industry and the state cannot be understated," Josh Drayton of the California Cannabis Industry Association tells the Los Angeles Times, warning that a ban on deliveries would force users "into the illicit market."

Opponents of home marijuana delivery argue that when Prop. 64 let local governments ban marijuana-related businesses, that naturally included marijuana delivery businesses. Their lawsuit also points to a failed bill last year that would have kept local governments from prohibiting home marijuana deliveries, saying this is evidence that existing law gives local governments that power.

Supporters of home delivery point out that Prop. 64 did not let local governments ban the transportation of marijuana through their jurisdictions. A law passed by the California legislature further establishes that "a local jurisdiction shall not prevent delivery of cannabis or cannabis products on public roads."

The lawsuit argues that even if cities can't regulate deliveries on public roads, they still have the power to pass rules on what happens at private addresses.

As a matter of what the law says, the cities suing the BCC may have a point about the state overreaching. As a matter of what would be good policy, the justification for limiting home deliveries is remarkably weak.

For all the problems with banning a physical weed store, it at least targets something that anti-cannabis people can see and be offended by. A ban on home delivery, by contrast, targets behavior that is almost entirely undetectable. It basically limits what cannabis consumers can do in their own home, which undermines the whole purpose of repealing the state's marijuana prohibition in the first place.

At best, these bans will only force consumers to drive to the next town over to purchase marijuana. More likely, it will just mean more consumers continue to rely on an untaxed, unregulated black market. That might not trouble libertarians, but it cuts against the stated goals of home delivery opponents, who justify their bans by saying they want to prevent the criminal activity that will come along with any commercial cannabis activity.

The lawsuit will take a while to wind through the courts. In the meantime, California potheads might want to order as much home-delivery weed as they can.

Advertisement

NEXT: Parents at UC-Berkeley Easter Egg Hunt Must Sign Waivers Due to Risk of 'Catastrophic Injuries and Death'

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.

  1. If it takes more than half hour to arrive, the weed is free?

    1. ALTERNATE JOKE: One of Mr. McFeely’s special deliveries.

    2. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 8000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop ,,
      Check For info Here,
      CLICK HERE???????? http://xurl.es/m7biw

  2. Go ahead do it but I will not comply and you won’t catch me.

    LOL @ You Losers!!!

  3. all so much easier and tax-free when we traded it amongst ourselves.

    1. But there was no market for it. The state had to first create a market for it.

    2. The only reason proggies got behind the idea of legalizing pot was the promise of exhorbitant taxes. They could care less about rights. After all, white affluent proggies never get in trouble for pot, so there was no need to legalize it as white affluent proggies only care about the plight of white affluent proggies. Only the idea of taxes to help build bullet trains to nowhere got them on board the legalization bandwagon.

      I’m serious. During the push for the first California decriminalization effort, I posited the idea that pot should be fully legal and taxed only to the level that cigarettes and alcohol were. My proggie friends looked at me in horror for daring to hold such an idea. After talking to them it became clear to me that the only reason they were for it was the idea of being able to tax the shit out of pot.

  4. The only thing more evil than pot deliveries are pot deliveries via scooters. No…wait…via unlicensed scooters. Pure fucking evil incarnate.

  5. At some point I think they will go after the black market very aggressively. Drug war redux

    1. It’s already started in CA. Newsom is planning to have the National Guard raid non licensed pot farms.

  6. What criminal activity do they think will accompany commercial activity?

  7. What criminal activity do they think will accompany commercial activity?

  8. What criminal activity do they think will accompany commercial activity?

    1. Illegal drug sales, duh!

  9. Under the same argument by the locals. Can they pass a law to prevent state SWAT teams from entering a house.

    1. They can, but who’s going to enforce it? The cops?

  10. Just because you damn fools legalized it without going through the proper procedures of bribing the legislature, don’t think you can actually USE recreational marijuana.

  11. This is CA trying to crush its commercial competitors. When it was medical MJ, clubs were doing this – especially in San Diego Cty – because the govt was busting legit stores. just harassing and breaking their balls, so they folded up the storefronts and went delivery. (It was awesome, I might add.)

    So now that it’s legal the govt and its cronies want to crush the deliveries because no one will buy weed from the way-the- fuck-overpriced “legal” shops. The price is way above what you can get from delivery or ‘friends’ who grow, so this is CA trying to fuck over the consumers and sellers. I hope CA splits right on the fault and drops into the fucking ocean. Or maybe just a terrible disease that afflicts only politicians in Sac-town.

    1. Bad news: Sac-Town is on the wrong side of the fault. If half of California decides to slide into the ocean, the epicenter of the state’s stupidity will remain.

  12. “The lawsuit will take a while to wind through the courts.”

    There’s so much evidence to examine!

    (OK, how do *you* explain the kind of judicial rulings we’ve been getting lately?)

  13. The lawsuit argues that even if cities can’t regulate deliveries on public roads, they still have the power to pass rules on what happens at private addresses.

    How perfectly backward.

    1. No property is really “private” in the US. The state claims authority to regulate basically everything.

  14. Well, what did you expect from the Nanny State of Kalifornia?

  15. Libertarian Mome.n……..

    Ah fuckit.

  16. Lmao, brick and motor. Is that what you call weed trucks?

  17. It sounds to me that the law suite has not been thought out. Would a person as a resident of one of these cities rather have the pot customer to drive to the store, purchase the pot and partake of his purchase before he gets home or order it online and wait for it be delivered before partaking of it? Having it delivered seems to me to be the safer method. Just saying!

  18. It sounds to me that the law suite has not been thought out. Would a person as a resident of one of these cities rather have the pot customer to drive to the store, purchase the pot and partake of his purchase before he gets home or order it online and wait for it be delivered before partaking of it? Having it delivered seems to me to be the safer method. Just saying!

  19. It sounds to me that the law suite has not been thought out. Would a person as a resident of one of these cities rather have the pot customer to drive to the store, purchase the pot and partake of his purchase before he gets home or order it online and wait for it be delivered before partaking of it? Having it delivered seems to me to be the safer method. Just saying!

  20. I would love to start a cannabis delivery service. I would call it ShrubHub.

    1. Herbie Rides Again

  21. 80 percent of municipalities have banned pot shops? Oh California truly is progtopia!

    1. Given that they go out of their way to create opportunities to tell you what you cannot do, then yes, it really is progtopia.

  22. I am getting $100 to $130 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 2 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you?

    c?h?e?c?k t?h?i?s l?i?n-k >>>>>>>>>> http://www.Geosalary.com

  23. I’m pretty sure the California Vehicle Code is going to end up cock blocking the prude local governments. It says that local governments can’t regulate the roads beyond public safety. And it is gonna be pretty hard to claim “public safety” without any evidence and given Prop 64 legalizes the product being delivered. Local governments tried to ban food trucks and it blew up in their face for this reason. How do these losers even know whether a delivery service is delivering in their jurisdiction?

    1. License plate scanners, massive data bases, facial recognition, snitches, . . .

  24. The more legal it gets, the more laws you break engaging in marijuana commerce…

  25. Daniel. true that Esther`s storry is surprising… on tuesday I got a great Smart ForTwo since getting a check for $5857 this last 5 weeks and a little over ten grand this past-month. this is actually the nicest work I have ever had. I actually started 9-months ago and straight away started to bring in over $73.. per-hour. I follow the details here,

  26. Daniel. true that Esther`s storry is surprising… on tuesday I got a great Smart ForTwo since getting a check for $5857 this last 5 weeks and a little over ten grand this past-month. this is actually the nicest work I have ever had. I actually started 9-months ago and straight away started to bring in over $73.. per-hour. I follow the details here,

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.