Laserfiche WebLink
September 10, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 17 <br />Zoning Bulletin <br />that "regulate the location or establishment" of medical marijuana <br />dispensaries. The court looked at the ordinary meanings of "restrict" and <br />"regulate" and found they suggested a "degree of control or restriction fall- <br />ing short of 'banning,' 'prohibiting,' forbidding, 'or 'preventing'. " The court <br />determined that had the Legislature intended to include an outright ban or <br />prohibition among the local regulatory powers authorized in § 11362.768, <br />subdivisions (9 and (g), it would have said so. The court found, therefore, that <br />the Legislature decided in § 11362.775 to insulate medical marijuana collec- <br />tives and cooperatives from nuisance prosecution "solely on the basis" that <br />they engage in a dispensary function. "To interpret the phrases further re- <br />strict the location or establishment' and `regulate the location or establish- <br />ment' to mean that local governments may impose a blanket nuisance prohibi- <br />tion against dispensaries would frustrate the Legislature's intent and purpose <br />in enacting the MMPA and CUA, " said the court. <br />For similar reasons, the court also held that § 11362.83, which provides that <br />the MMPA does not prohibit local governments from adopting "local ordi- <br />nances that regulate the location, operation, or establishment of a medical <br />marijuana cooperative or collective," does not authorize local governments <br />to ban, prohibit, forbid, or prevent all medical marijuana collectives and <br />cooperatives from operating within the entire jurisdiction solely on the basis <br />that they engage in medical marijuana activities authorized by the MMPA. <br />Case Note: <br />The court also concluded that the CUA § 11362.5(b)(2), which states that <br />nothing in its section should be construed to "supersede legislation prohibit- <br />ing persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, " does not autho- <br />rize local governments to completely ban medical marijuana dispensaries. <br />The court said that in light of the provisions and intent of the MMPA, merely <br />operating a medical marijuana collective or cooperative authorized by § <br />11362.775 cannot be deemed to constitute "engaging in conduct that <br />endangers others" or "condonling] the diversion of marijuana for nonmedi- <br />cal purposes." <br />8 ©2012 Thomson Reuters <br />