California high court: Pot shops can be banned
SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court ruled on Monday that cities and counties can ban medical marijuana dispensaries, a decision likely to further diminish the network of storefront pot shops and fuel efforts to have the state regulate the industry.
In a unanimous opinion, the court held that California's medical marijuana laws — the nation's first and most liberal — neither prevent local governments from using their land-use powers to zone dispensaries out of existence nor grant authorized users convenient access to the drug.
“While some counties and cities might consider themselves well-suited to accommodating medical marijuana dispensaries, conditions in other communities might lead to the reasonable decision that such facilities within their borders, even if carefully sited, well-managed, and closely monitored, would present unacceptable local risks and burdens,” Justice Marvin Baxter wrote for the seven-member court.
The ruling was made in a legal challenge to a ban enacted by the city of Riverside in 2010, but an additional 200 jurisdictions have similar prohibitions on retail pot sales, the advocacy group Americans for Safe Access estimates. Many were enacted in the past five years as the number of dispensaries swelled and amid concerns that the drug had become too easy to get. A number of counties and cities were awaiting the Supreme Court ruling before moving forward with bans of their own.
Of the 18 states that allow the medical use of marijuana, California is the only one where residents can obtain a doctor's recommendation to consume it for any ailment the physician sees fit, not just for conditions such as AIDS and glaucoma. The state also is alone in not having a system for regulating growers and sellers.
“The irony in California is that we regulate everything that consumers purchase and consume, and somehow this has been allowed to be a complete free-for-all,” said Jeffrey Dunn, a lawyer who represented Riverside. “Cities and counties looked at this and said, ‘Wait a minute. We can't expose the public to these kind of risks,' and the court recognized that when it comes to public safety, we have independent authority.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
- Blizzard-stricken East digs out amid forecast 2nd-guessing
- House passes bill aimed at expediting natural gas exports
- Pittsburgh travelers feel effects of Northeast blizzard
- Medicare payments to tie doctor, hospital payments to quality rather than volume of care
- Dems delay Iran sanctions proposal
- Senate Intelligence chairman demands Obama return CIA torture report
- Orcas could land on endangered list
- Small drone crashes at White House complex, origin unclear
- Pentagon puts ‘fork’ in news about ex-captive Bergdahl
- Thieves go for the gold in San Francisco