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
be truly considered to be operating as a "cooperative. "2 If these requirements are satisfied as to a <br />"storefront" dispensary, then it will be permissible under the MMPA. Otherwise, it will be a <br />violation of both the CUA and the MMPA. <br />QUESTION <br />If the governing body of a city, county, or city and county approves an ordinance <br />authorizing and regulating marijuana dispensaries to implement the Compassionate <br />Use Act of 1996 and the Medical Marijuana Program Act, can an individual board or <br />council member be found to be acting illegally and be subject to federal criminal <br />charges, including aiding and abetting, or state criminal charges? <br />ANSWER <br />2. If a city, county, or city and county authorizes and regulates marijuana <br />dispensaries, individual members of the legislative bodies may be held criminally <br />liable under state or federal law.3 <br />ANALYSIS <br />A. Federal Law <br />Generally, legislators of federal, state, and local legislative bodies are absolutely <br />immune from liability for legislative acts. (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 6 (Speech and <br />Debate Clause, applicable to members of Congress); Fed. Rules Evid., Rule 501 <br />(evidentiary privilege against admission of legislative acts); Tenney v. Brandhove <br />(1951) 341 U. S. 367 (legislative immunity applicable to state legislators); Bogan <br />v. Scott-Harris (1998) 523 U.S. 44 (legislative immunity applicable to local <br />legislators).) However, while federal legislators are absolutely immune from both <br />criminal and civil liability for purely legislative acts, local legislators are only <br />immune from civil liability under federal law. (United States v. Gillock (1980) <br />445 U.S. 360.) <br />Where the United States Supreme Court has held that federal regulation of marijuana by way of <br />the CSA, including any "medical" use of marijuana, is within Congress' Commerce Clause <br />power, federal law stands as a bar to local action in direct violation of the CSA. (Gonzales v. <br />Raich (2005) 545 U.S. 1.) In fact, the CSA itself provides that federal regulations do not <br />` A "cooperative" is defined as follows: An enterprise or organization that is owned or managed <br />jointly by those who use its facilities or services. THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE <br />ENGLISH LANGUAGE, by Houghton Mifflin Company (4th Ed. 2000). <br />' Indeed, the same conclusion would seem to result from the adoption by state legislators of the <br />MMPA itself, in authorizing the issuance of medical marijuana identification cards. (Cal. Health <br />& Safety Code secs. 113 et seq.) <br />© 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 33 All Rights Reserved <br />65A-94
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.