Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 10, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 17 Preemption —City 1rdinance ans Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Dispensaries argue ban is void because it is preempted by state medical marijuana laws Citation: County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medicinal Cannabis Collective, 207 Cal. App. 4th 601, 143 Cal. Rptr. 3d 716 (2d Dist. 2012) CALIFORNIA (07/02/12)—This case addresses the issue of whether a county's complete ban on "medical marijuana dispensaries" conflicts with, and is thus preempted by, California's medical marijuana laws. The Background/Facts: On December 7, 2010, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors banned medical marijuana dispensaries in all zones in unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles (the "County") effective January 6, 2011. The County Code ("LACC") § 22.56.196B provides that "medical marijuana dispensaries which dis- tribute, transmit, give, or otherwise provide marijuana to any person, are prohibited in all zones in the County." In March of 2011, the Countyfiled a nuisance action against Alterna- tive Medicinal Cannabis Collective (doing business as Alternative Medicinal Collective of Covina), Erik M. Andresen, Kara Reyes, Justin W. Samperi, Martin Hill, and Mardy and Nordy Ying (collectively, the "Dispensaries"). It alleged that the Dispensaries violated § 22.56.196 B of the County Code by operating or permitting the operation of a medical marijuana dispensary in the County when such use was banned in all zones in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. The County moved for a preliminary injunction. The trial court granted the motion. It enjoined the Dispensaries "from operating or permitting to operate a medical marijuana dispensary . . . from any . . . location within the unincorporated area of the County . . .." The Dispensaries argued that the County's ban on all medical marijuana dispensaries conflicted with, and thus was preempted by, California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996 ("CUA") (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5) and the Medical Marijuana Program Act ("MMPA") (Health & Saf. Code (§§ 11362.7 et seq.)). The CUA authorized the use of marijuana for medical purposes. The MMPA authorized the operation of a "medical marijuana cooperative, collective, dispensary" in a "storefront . . . outlet." The County contended that its ban was a peuniissible land use regula- tion that was consistent with, and not preempted by, state medical marijuana laws. The superior court agreed with the County. It characterized the pro- ©2012 Thomson Reuters 5