Laserfiche WebLink
ANALYSIS <br />Business licenses are imposed by cities within the State of California oftentimes solely for <br />revenue purposes, but are permitted by state law to be imposed for revenue, regulatory, or for <br />both revenue and regulatory purposes. (Cal. Gov. Code sec. 37101.) Assuming a business <br />license ordinance is for revenue purposes only, it seems that a local public entity would not have <br />any liability for the mere collection of a tax, whether on legal or illegal activities. However, any <br />liability that would attach would be analyzed the same as discussed above. In the end, a local <br />public entity could hardly be said to have aided and abetted the distribution or possession of <br />marijuana in violation of the CSA by its mere collection of a generally applicable tax on all <br />business conducted within the entity's jurisdiction. <br />OVERALL FINDINGS <br />All of the above further exemplifies the catch-22 in which local public entities are caught, in <br />trying to reconcile the CUA and MMPA, on the one hand, and the CSA on the other. In light of <br />the existence of the CUA and the MMPA, and the resulting fact that medical marijuana is being <br />used by individuals in California, local public entities have a need and desire to replate the <br />location and operation of medical marijuana facilities within their jurisdiction.6 10 <br />However, because of the divergent views of the CSA and California law regarding whether there <br />is any accepted "medical" use of marijuana, state and local legislators, as well as local public <br />entities themselves, could be subject to criminal liability for the adoption of statutes or <br />ordinances furthering the possession, cultivation, distribution, transportation (and other act <br />prohibited under the CSA) as to marijuana. Whether federal prosecutors would pursue federal <br />criminal charges against state and/or local legislators or local public entities remains to be seen. <br />But, based on past practices of locally based U.S. Attorneys who have required seizures of large <br />amounts of marijuana before federal filings have been initiated, this can probably be considered <br />unlikely. <br />° Several compilations of research regarding the impacts of marijuana dispensaries have been <br />prepared by the California Police Chiefs Association and highlight some of the practical issues <br />facing local public entities in regulating these facilities. Links provided are as follows: <br />"Riverside County Office of the District Attorney," [White Paper, Medical Marijuana: History <br />and Current Complications, September 2006];"Recent Information Regarding Marijuana and <br />Dispensaries [El Cerrito Police Department Memorandum, dated January 12, 2007, from <br />Commander M. Regan, to Scott C. Kirkland, Chief of Police]; "Marijuana Memorandum" [El <br />Cerrito Police Department Memorandum, dated April 18, 2007, from Commander M. Regan, to <br />Scott C. Kirkland, Chief of Police]; "Law Enforcement Concerns to Medical Marijuana <br />Dispensaries" [Impacts of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries on communities between 75,000 and <br />100,000 population: Survey and council agenda report, City of Livermore]. <br />© 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 39 All Rights Reserved <br />65A-100