Jump to content

Recent Status Updates

  • Photo
      17 Jul

    I need help with one of my plants?

    Show comments (2)
View All Updates


California Court Appeal rules on Medical Marijuana

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 TimJ


    Pot Head

  • Members
  • 4,416 posts
  • LocationPomona, California

Posted 09 March 2012 - 11:41 PM

March 7th, 2012
Posted by Kris Hermes

Landmark decision denies localities the right to ban dispensaries outright

Last week the California Court of Appeal issued another landmark decision on medical marijuana, which is sure to have a far-reaching ripple effect throughout the state. The Fourth Appellate District ruled in City of Lake Forest v. Evergreen Holistic Collective that localities may not pass outright bans on medical marijuana dispensaries, facilities which a majority of Californian patients rely on for their medication. In its 48-page published decision, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the lower court’s ruling that “local governments may impose a per se ban on medical marijuana dispensaries without contradicting state law.”

This is the first time an appellate court in California has rejected the argument that local governments can use their land use authority to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries from operating outright. The court reasoned that SB420, also known as the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA), allows for medical marijuana dispensaries as a matter of statewide concern, so localities cannot simply ban them. The court’s decision brings into question nearly 200 such bans across the state. Unless or until it’s appealed and taken up on review by the California Supreme Court, the Lake Forest case throws a significant wrench into the efforts of medical marijuana opponents and favors the rights of patients to safely and legally obtain their medication.

That said, the Lake Forest decision was a mixed bag for the medical marijuana community. Even while agreeing with another recent landmark decision in People v. Colvin, that “a patient or primary caregiver [need not] personally [] engage in the physical cultivation of marijuana” in order to enjoy the protections of California law, the Lake Forest court held that dispensaries must cultivate all of the marijuana they sell on-site.

[W]e conclude off-site dispensaries are not authorized by California medical marijuana law because nothing in the law authorizes the transportation and possession of marijuana to stock an off-site location.

Unfortunately, in this regard, the Lake Forest court got it wrong. The MMPA explicitly protects patients from arrest and prosecution for transportation of marijuana when engaged in collective medical marijuana activity. This part of the court’s decision is not only bad public policy, but has no basis in the law.


  • 0

#2 topcat1666


    Ganja God

  • Members
  • 10,618 posts
  • Location la la land

Posted 11 March 2012 - 12:15 PM

If you're right this should stand against a Callie supreme court appeal.

  • 0

#3 TimJ


    Pot Head

  • Members
  • 4,416 posts
  • LocationPomona, California

Posted 15 March 2012 - 08:26 AM

A must read...
This is strong armed tactics and intimidation by Law Enforcement..
No Due Process again and again..

This case will set the precedence For Medical Marijuana across America Folks...
Tactics used by the DEA in charge locally.. He sits outside in a Parked Vehicle at times just to let Aaron Sandusky know he is there...
Now another Raid...
Meanwhile you never here about another Dispensary just east near Upland High School...
Nobody Nobody bothers them...
In fact many Dispensaries are opened again and waiting for the real case in the Supreme Court..
No DEA in any of those Places either..
Its quit Obvious that the DEA and locals who oppose Medical Cannabis in Upland have a Axe to grind...
To the Point it even violates California State Law..

UPLAND California-- The federal Drug Enforcement Administration served a search warrant Monday at G3 Holistic Inc., a medical marijuana dispensary that has been at odds with the city for the past couple of years.
The Appellate Court on Nov. 9 ruled in favor of the city's ban, but G3 appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court, which decided in January to review the case.


  • 0