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
B. IMPOSED BANS BY ELECTED LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS <br />While the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 permits seriously ill persons to legally obtain and use <br />marijuana for medical purposes upon a physician's recommendation, it is silent on marijuana <br />dispensaries and does not expressly authorize the sale of marijuana to patients or primary caregivers. <br />Neither Proposition 215 nor Senate Bill 420 specifically authorizes the dispensing of marijuana in any <br />form from a storefront business. And, no state statute presently exists that expressly permits the <br />licensing or operation of marijuana dispensaries. 95 Consequently, approximately 39 California cities, <br />including the Cities of Concord and San Pablo, and 2 counties have prohibited marijuana dispensaries <br />within their respective geographical boundaries, while approximately 24 cities, including the City of <br />Martinez, and 7 counties have allowed such dispensaries to do business within their jurisdictions. <br />Even the complete prohibition of marijuana dispensaries within a given locale cannot be found to run <br />afoul of current California law with respect to permitted use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, so <br />long as the growing or use of medical marijuana by a city or county resident in conformance with state <br />law is not proscribed. 96 <br />In November of 2004, the City of Brampton in Ontario, Canada passed The Grow House Abatement <br />By-law, which authorized the city council to appoint inspectors and local police officers to inspect <br />suspected grow houses and render safe hydro meters, unsafe wiring, booby traps, and any violation of <br />the Fire Code or Building Code, and remove discovered controlled substances and ancillary equipment <br />designed to grow and manufacture such substances, at the involved homeowner's cost.97 And, after <br />state legislators became appalled at the proliferation of for-profit residential grow operations, the State <br />of Florida passed the Marijuana Grow House Eradication act (House Bill 173) in June of 2008. The <br />governor signed this bill into law, making owning a house for the purpose of cultivating, packaging, <br />and distributing marijuana a third-degree felony; growing 25 or more marijuana plants a second- <br />degree felony; and growing "25 or more marijuana plants in a home with children present" a first- <br />degree felony. 98 It has been estimated that approximately 17,500 marijuana grow operations were <br />active in late 2007.99 To avoid becoming a dumping ground for organized crime syndicates who <br />decide to move their illegal grow operations to a more receptive legislative environment, California <br />and other states might be wise to quickly follow suit with similar bills, for it may already be <br />happening. 100 <br />C. IMPOSED RESTRICTED ZONING AND OTHER REGULATION BY ELECTED <br />LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS <br />If so inclined, rather than completely prohibit marijuana dispensaries, through their zoning power city <br />and county officials have the authority to restrict owner operators to locate and operate so-called <br />"medical marijuana dispensaries" in prescribed geographical areas of a city or designated <br />unincorporated areas of a county, and require them to meet prescribed licensing requirements before <br />being allowed to do so. This is a risky course of action though for would-be dispensary operators, and <br />perhaps lawmakers too, since federal authorities do not recognize any lawful right for the sale, <br />purchase, or use of marijuana for medical use or otherwise anywhere in the United States, including <br />California. Other cities and counties have included as a condition of licensure for dispensaries that the <br />operator shall "violate no federal or state law," which puts any applicant in a "Catch-22" situation <br />since to federal authorities any possession or sale of marijuana is automatically a violation of federal <br />law. <br />Still other municipalities have recently enacted or revised comprehensive ordinances that address a <br />variety of medical marijuana issues. For example, according to the City of Arcata Community <br />© 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 15 All Rights Reserved <br />65A-76
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.