Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/21/2016

Home

May 25, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 10 Zoning Bulletin found that the City's requirements did not require anything that the Con- trolled Substances Act forbids. Further, the court found that "the Con- trolled Substances Act 'does not direct local governments to exercise their regulatory, licensing, zoning, or other power in any particular way.' " Thus, the court concluded that the City's exercise of those pow- ers "with respect to the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries that meet state law requirements would not violate conflicting federal law." Moreover, the court pointed out that, with limited exceptions not relevant here, federal law confers immunity on any "duly authorized officer of any State, territory, [or] political subdivision thereof,. . .who shall be law- fully engaged in the enforcement of any law or municipal ordinance re- lating to controlled substances." The court concluded that Luna's premise that the City's implementation of its permitting and testing requirements for medical marijuana dispensaries was in violation of federal law was therefore "false." With respect to "obstacle preemption," the court similarly found that Luna failed to argue how the City Code stood as an obstacle to the purposes and objectives of Congress. Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act to combat recreational drug abuse and curb drug traffick- ing, said the court. The court found nothing in the City's regulatory program for medical marijuana stood in the way of those purposes. To the contrary, the court noted that "common sense suggests that a strong local regulatory regime governing medical marijuana related conduct would tend to prevent the transformation of purported nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries into `profiteering enterprises' that contribute to recreational drug abuse and drug trafficking." Finding that the City Code's regulation on medical marijuana dispen- saries neither conflicted with federal law nor stood as an obstacle to the purposes and objectives of federal law, the court concluded that Luna's request for an injunction against enforcement of the Code's permitting requirements was properly denied. See also: Qualified Patients Ass 'n v. City of Anaheim, 187 Cal. App. 4th 734, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 89 (4th Dist. 2010). Case Note: The City had argued that Luna lacked standing (Le., the legal right to bring the challenge to the ordinance). The Court of Appeal disagreed. It found that Luna had suffered an injury as a result of being forced to shut down, and therefore had standing to assert its challenge to the City's asserted legal basis for seeking the injunction against Luna. 4 © 2016 Thomson Reuters