My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
65A - RPT - REGARDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA INITIATIVE
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2013
>
03/18/2013
>
65A - RPT - REGARDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA INITIATIVE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/6/2017 4:28:57 PM
Creation date
3/14/2013 4:00:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Planning & Building
Item #
65A
Date
3/18/2013
Destruction Year
2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
112
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
WHITE PAPER ON MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES <br />by <br />CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION <br />Editor: Dennis Tilton, M.A.Ed., M.A.Lit., M.C.J., J.D. <br />Adjunct Professor of Criminal Justice, Political Science, & Public Administration, Upper Iowa University <br />Sheriff's Legal Counsel (Retired), San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department <br />INTRODUCTION <br />In November of 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215. The initiative set out to make <br />marijuana available to people with certain illnesses. The initiative was later supplemented by the <br />Medical Marijuana Program Act. Across the state, counties and municipalities have varied in their <br />responses to medical marijuana. Some have allowed businesses to open and provide medical <br />marijuana. Others have disallowed all such establishments within their borders. Several once issued <br />business licenses allowing medical marijuana stores to operate, but no longer do so. This paper <br />discusses the legality of both medical marijuana and the businesses that make it available, and more <br />specifically, the problems associated with medical marijuana and marijuana dispensaries, under <br />whatever name they operate. <br />FEDERAL LAW <br />Federal law clearly and unequivocally states that all marijuana-related activities are illegal. <br />Consequently, all people engaged in such activities are subject to federal prosecution. The United <br />States Supreme Court has ruled that this federal regulation supersedes any state's regulation of <br />marijuana - even California's. (Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 125 S.Ct. 2195, 2215.) "The Supremacy <br />Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal law and state law, <br />federal law shall prevail." (Gonzales v. Raich, supra.) Even more recently, the 9ch Circuit Court of <br />Appeals found that there is no fundamental right under the United States Constitution to even use <br />medical marijuana. (Raich v. Gonzales (9th Cir. 2007) 500 F.3d 850, 866.) <br />In Gonzales v. Raich, the High Court declared that, despite the attempts of several states to partially <br />legalize marijuana, it continues to be wholly illegal since it is classified as a Schedule I drug under <br />federal law. As such, there are no exceptions to its illegality. (21 USC secs. 812(c), 841(a)(1).) <br />Over the past thirty years, there have been several attempts to have marijuana reclassified to a <br />different schedule which would permit medical use of the drug. All of these attempts have failed. <br />(See Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 125 S.Ct. 2195, fn 23.) The mere categorization of marijuana as <br />"medical" by some states fails to carve out any legally recognized exception regarding the drug. <br />Marijuana, in any form, is neither valid nor legal. <br />Clearly the United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Its decisions are final and <br />binding upon all lower courts. The Court invoked the United States Supremacy Clause and the <br />Commerce Clause in reaching its decision. The Supremacy Clause declares that all laws made in <br />pursuance of the Constitution shall be the "supreme law of the land" and shall be legally superior to <br />any conflicting provision of a state constitution or law. I The Commerce Clause states that "the <br />© 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. <br />All Rights Reserved <br />65A-62
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.