After a long delay in New Jersey, many medical marijuana patients are still waiting for their medicine. Then-Gov. John Corzine first signed the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act in January 2010, but since then, implementation of the measure has been slow. Although the state originally planned to have the necessary alternative treatment centers open in July 2011, the state’s first licensee, Greenleaf Compassion Center, is not scheduled to open until September of this year. A total of only five other planned facilities have been approved, four of which still have no approved location. Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer) has even called for a hearing into the cause of the delays, protesting that there is “no adequate explanation” for the current situation. Difficulties with organization, vetting the necessary officials, and objections by local authorities have all been cited by the Star-Ledger as causes.

Dr. Walter Husar, a neurologist from Rockaway, complains that along with disorganized lists of participating physicians, strict regulations are another barrier to safe access to the drug. Under the current system, patients must have an existing “bona fide” relationship with one of the limited number of participating physicians, as defined here.  The physicians must then submit an official statement recommending the patient. The doctor must then transfer a unique reference code to the patient, who can then use it to register him- or herself. The registration of a patient is only valid for 90 days, after which the doctor and the patient must repeat the process. According to Chris Goldstein with the Coalition for Medical Marijuana of New Jersey, this is the only state where only the doctors on an official list can prescribe marijuana. Sixteen other states, plus the District of Columbia, have medicinal marijuana programs. Access to marijuana in New Jersey is also limited to patients with one of a set list of serious medical conditions such as cancer, AIDS, and multiple sclerosis, with use for some conditions only permitted when other treatments have failed or particular complications are present.

Husar and other doctors report themselves flooded with calls from potential patients. However, in a stark demonstration of the difficulty of joining the program, more physicians than patients have been registered. Approximately 50 patients have been recognized as eligible for medical marijuana, while only around 150 physicians are participating, out of over 30,000 in the state.

Husar agrees that marijuana can be helpful for multiple sclerosis sufferers in particular, citing his 25 years of experience with such patients, some of whom obtained the drug illegally. He is, however, concerned that since there is still no legal source of medical marijuana, even the patients who are already registered with the program may be subject to legal penalties if they are caught with their medicine. Under New Jersey’s current laws, this is a serious risk. Possession of even the smallest amount is punishable by up to six months in prison and a $1,000 fine, while those caught growing even a single plant could be subject to a felony conviction, a fine of up to $25,000, and a prison sentence of up to five years.

The city’s long struggle to
control medical marijuana dispensaries took a new turn on Wednesday with
the collection of 50,000 signatures on petitions to overturn the city’s
proposed ban on dispensaries.

If the signatures are validated once they are formally
submitted on Thursday, it will put the city’s ban – scheduled to take
effect on Sept.6 – on hold until the March 5 municipal election.

Don Duncan, California director of Americans for Safe Access,
urged the City Council to rescind its ordinance and return to
negotiating with medical marijuana advocates.

"Very soon, the city will be faced with having to rescind its
ordinance or put the decision before Los Angeles voters," Duncan said.

"Because of the ban’s questionable future, the city ought to reconsider its tough stance on enforcing the ban."

Councilman Jose Huizar, who authored the citywide ban on the
dispensaries because of their proliferation, said he remained undeterred
by the threat of the referendum.

"We still plan to move forward with the idea that dispensaries
do not have a right to exist," Huizar said. "If there is a stay on the
ordinance, we will have no law in the city allowing the dispensaries and
we will enforce state and federal laws on marijuana."

There also has been an ongoing dispute between the state and
federal authorities on the issue. California voters approved medical
marijuana with Proposition 215 – a measure federal authorities argue is in violation of their laws on marijuana as an outlawed substance.

Huizar said the city has tried to work with the medical marijuana community without success.

"We passed a measure that we thought worked and we were hit
with 70 lawsuits," Huizar said. "It strikes me this is more about profit
than getting marijuana to people who need it."

Huizar called his proposal a gentle ban in that it allowed patients and caregivers to grow marijuana without punishment.

Kris Hermes, spokesman for Americans for Safe Access, said the
ease with which the signatures were gathered and the number should send
a message to City Hall. They needed 28,000 signatures to qualify for
the ballot; they collected 50,000.

"The patients and advocates have come forward and said the ban
is unacceptable and should be reconsidered," Hermes said, adding the
city chose to avoid considering ordinances from other cities that would
have been acceptable.

Assistant City Clerk Holly Wolcott said the city will use a
random sample of the signatures submitted to determine if the referendum
qualifies for the ballot. It would be placed on the regularly scheduled
March ballot to avoid any additional costs.

Los Angeles, CA — With plenty of time to spare,
medical marijuana advocates filed more than 50,000 signatures today
in an effort to overturn a recently passed ban on dispensaries
throughout the city. Despite a loud outcry from patient advocates,
the Los Angeles City Council adopted an outright ban last month on
medical marijuana distribution within the city limits. The ban came
after the city failed over a more than 4-year period to develop
regulations suitable for providing medical marijuana to the tens of
thousands of area patients.

What: Coalition press conference on filing
referendum signatures to overturn Los Angeles dispensary ban
When: Wednesday, August 29th at 12 Noon
Where: Room Terrace D at the Sheraton Universal Hotel, 333
Universal Hollywood Drive, Universal City, CA 91608

"Very soon, the city will be faced with having to rescind its
ordinance or putting the decision before Los Angeles voters," said
Don Duncan, California Director with Americans for Safe Access, the
country’s largest medical marijuana advocacy group. "Because of the
ban’s questionable future, the city ought to reconsider its tough
stance on enforcing the ban." The council recently voted to
collaborate with federal agents and to fund an unprecedented
enforcement effort aimed at shutting down hundreds of legally
compliant facilities in the city.

After the dispensary ban was passed by the Los Angeles City Council
on July 24th, a group calling itself the Committee to Protect
Patients and Neighborhoods with the help of PCI Consulting began
gathering signatures to overturn it. The city now has up to 30 days
to either rescind the ban or call a special election and put the
decision to Los Angeles voters early next year. Depending on timing,
the city may be forced to hold a separate election in addition to
the March primary and May mayoral election.

Prior to the July vote to ban dispensaries, ASA helped generate more
than ten thousands letters urging the council to adopt sensible
regulations rather than a complete ban. The city had weakly
attempted to develop regulations over the past few years, but the
resulting ordinance was so flawed that it was challenged by dozens
of lawsuits. Notably, more than 50 municipalities in California have
adopted dispensary regulations, which in almost all cases bring a
significant economic benefit and lower rates of crime in surrounding
neighborhoods.

Today’s filing also came a week after the California Supreme Court
dismissed as moot Pack v. City of Long Beach, the decision
on which the Los Angeles ban was predicated. "Given the recent
dismissal of the Pack decision by the California Supreme
Court, the ban has absolutely no basis," continued Duncan. "The city
should be figuring out ways to work with patients instead of
shutting the door on them without any viable reason other than sheer
contempt."

On the same day the city council adopted the ban on dispensaries, it
also voted to task the city attorney with drafting an ordinance to
regulate a certain number of facilities. Patient advocates have
consistently supported sensible regulatory proposals similar to one
recommended by Council member Paul Koretz and Council President Herb
Wesson, which would begin to address the needs of thousands of
qualified patients in the city.

Further information:
Referendum to overturn LA dispensary ban: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/LA_Referendum_1.pdf

Medical marijuana advocates said Wednesday they have gathered enough
signatures to place a referendum before voters that would halt the
forced closure of dispensaries next week and overturn a ban on new pot
clinics in Los Angeles.

More
than 50,000 signatures were collected during the past several weeks,
after the City Council approved an ordinance that would shutter hundreds
of pot shops by Sept. 6.

The city clerk’s office has 15 calendar
days to verify the signatures as those of registered voters. If the
measure qualifies for the ballot next year, the ban would be immediately
suspended. The City Council also could rescind the ordinance.

"Because of the ban’s questionable future, the city ought to
reconsider its tough stance on enforcing the ban," said Don Duncan,
California’s director for Americans for Safe Access, the country’s
largest medical marijuana advocacy group.

The drive to eliminate the ban is the latest offensive by pot advocates to keep clinics open.

The
city has fumbled with its medical marijuana laws for years, trying to
provide safe and affordable access to the drug for legitimate patients
while addressing worries by neighborhood groups that streets were being
overrun by dispensaries and pot users.

The city ordinance outlaws
the sale of the drug in stores and limits the growing or sharing of the
drug to three people. City officials have been notifying dispensary
owners that they must shut down or be subjected to court action and a
$2,500 fine for every day they remain open past the deadline.

City
officials previously ordered the closure of pot shops, but the process
failed amid lawsuits and conflicting rulings by appellate courts.

The
Committee to Protect Patients and Neighborhoods collected signatures
during the past month, saying they needed at least 27,425 names of
qualified voters to get the issue on the ballot.

Advocates also
are pinning their hopes on a lawsuit filed by a medical marijuana trade
association, arguing the city ordinance violates state law guaranteeing
legal access to marijuana for medical reasons.

Even if
dispensaries remain open, the operations still could face action by the
federal government, which has been ordering stores to close around the
state for the past 10 months. Federal prosecutors recently filed three
lawsuits and sent warning letters to more than 60 clinics in Anaheim and
La Habra.

Marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

Aaron Sandusky is seeking a
little help from his friends in the pro-medical-marijuana movement in
his defense against the federal government.

Sandusky, the president of G3 Holistic, a now-closed
medical-marijuana cooperative in Upland, has opened a legal defense fund
to help him pay attorney fees and some living expenses while he is
under house arrest awaiting his trial.

"This has been a very difficult thing for me to do. I have
always been the one giving," Sandusky said in an email. "I have never
had to ask for any help like this before but (because) the DEA has
seized all my personal assets, forced our business shut, put me on house
detention and are monitoring my every move, I don’t have many choices."

Sandusky and five others affiliated with G3 were arrested and indicted in June on federal drug-trafficking charges.

The six defendants, including Sandusky’s brother Keith, who is
also under house arrest, were charged in a conspiracy to manufacture
and to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, according to the
indictment.

The indictment also charges all the defendants with possession with intent to distribute marijuana.

Sandusky ran co-ops in Moreno Valley and Colton as well as a
warehouse in Ontario. The Upland shop was the only one operating at the
time of the arrest.

Sandusky said the public has heard about his situation and has been asking for ways to help, so he decided to open the fund.

"I know these are very difficult times to be asking people for
money but I don’t really have many choices and as you can imagine my
legal expenses are great," he said. "It’s really important that we win
this case by jury nullification, I’m hoping, and I believe we can
achieve it in this state and more important in L.A. County."

State voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996, allowing medical marijuana in the state.

But marijuana – medical or otherwise – is illegal under federal law.

"I think it’s important to let the public know what is going
on in this case and how our rights are being violated," he said. "This
is not only an attack on medical marijuana but an attack on our rights
as voters to enact laws, this was voted on and passed by the people."

Sandusky is one of about 100 people across the country who
have been indicted by the federal government since President Barack
Obama took office in 2009, said Kris Hermes, a spokesman for
Oakland-based Americans for Safe Access.

"So he’s among a lot of other people who are facing similar prosecution," he said.

The nationwide organization is aware of Sandusky’s situation
and is encouraging medical-marijuana advocates to support him in court
and with legal funds.

"Typically we post hearing dates, and we encourage folks to
show up for those hearings and when the trial occurs, and in Aaron’s
case he’s not waiving his speedy trial time so that’s fairly soon, we
would try and get people into the courtroom as supporters," Hermes said.

Hermes said Americans for Safe Access has been pushing the
federal government to stop its aggressive attacks against medical
marijuana not only in California, but around the country.

This week, as the average American begins to pay close attention to
the Presidential race during the party conventions, my organization, Americans for Safe Access,
is preparing to flood America — and especially swing states — with a
poster that asks the question, "Can Broken Promises Lose an Election? 1
Million Medical Marijuana Patients Will Decide." This message is
controversial, and many liberals who support President Barack Obama as
well as compassionate use are asking why we are targeting a President
who once made the boldest pro-access statement in history.

We are sending a message to President Obama and his supporters
because he is our President, and his decisions have grave consequences
for medical cannabis patients. His administration has rejected our
petition to overturn the federal definition of marijuana as without
"accepted medical use in the United States" — a decision that we will challenge in court on October 16th. Obama’s administration has raided more
medical marijuana facilities in three and a half years than Bush’s
administration did in eight. And his appointed U.S. Attorneys are
shutting down dispensaries left and right, including model operations whose medicine is a lifeline for patients.

ASA has been accused of creating a propaganda campaign that will help
Mitt Romney. But that’s not the reality on the ground. We are hearing
from our grassroots — and reading in polls
— that medical marijuana patients and their loved ones are considering
voting for third-party candidates or not voting at all. This trend is
most pronounced in the medical cannabis states that are also swing
states, like Colorado and Nevada. In a close election, a few percentage
points peeled off to a third party could make the difference in the
Electoral College, and we want to wake Obama up to that fact.

Medical marijuana does not have to be a partisan issue — lawmakers
on the Republican side of the aisle have supported and led efforts to
respect state laws on compassionate use in state capitols and in
Congress. Republicans and Republicans-turned-Independents such as Ron
Paul and Lincoln Chaffee have vocally supported medical cannabis access
and efforts to reschedule cannabis in the Controlled Substances Act — a
position we will advance in court just weeks before the election.

Patients Are Fed Up

Medical marijuana patients are sick and tired of being sick and
tired. We don’t want our issue to be treated like a criminal justice
issue, but as a healthcare issue. We need leadership that respects our
medical needs. Obama’s biggest mistake was trying to deal with medical
cannabis in a brief memo. He should have put together a team of agencies
along with governors of medical cannabis states to find a long-term
solution.

This is not in my control, it is in Obama’s hands. If I tried to
rally support for Obama, I wouldn’t get very far, because the patients
and their supporters who tell pollsters they support third-party
candidates wouldn’t listen. If Obama doesn’t wake up to the needs of
medical marijuana patients with an indication that his hard line could
be softened, these votes will be lost.

That is why I and other medical cannabis supporters are distributing posters throughout the nation.
We want Obama’s campaign to know that the reason they aren’t meeting
their volunteer goals in deep-blue counties, or are uncomfortably close
in polls in key swing states, is that people who would otherwise be
strong supporters are finding this president’s policies on cannabis too
hard to swallow. And we want Republicans to know that our movement is
not just a wing of Democratic party: we are looking for compassionate
leadership where we can find it.

Obama can make the difference

It’s not too late for the president to turn this around. We want to
hear that the Obama administration’s historically harsh crackdown on
medical cannabis access will be reconsidered, and only then we can begin
efforts at rallying supporting in states like Colorado and Nevada. With
polls showing the public’s overwhelming acceptance
of state compassionate use laws, and with an outdated Controlled
Substances Act the subject of our court battle in October, there is no
reason for President Obama to go down in history as America’s latest
hardline drug warrior.

If the subject of our posters bothers you, please email the Obama
campaign and not me. I am just articulating the sentiment of the one
million legal medical marijuana patients. Only Obama can ask for their
votes.

Campaigns to become the first U.S. states to legalize marijuana for recreational use in Washington and Colorado have raised $3 million ahead of a November vote, far outpacing the opposition.

Proponents of pot legalization in Washington state have raised nearly $2 million since the initiative qualified for the ballot in January, and about $1 million in Colorado since its measure earned a place on the ballot the following month, according to the most recent state campaign figures.

In Oregon, where a voter referendum qualified in July, the legalization campaign reported less than $1,000 in contributions. All three state measures go on the ballot in November, when Americans vote for president and other offices.

With their war chests, backers of legalization drives in Washington state and Colorado have already bought television ads in a bid to convince voters, especially those who have never smoked pot, of merits of legalizing and taxing it.

Legalizing the drug for recreational purposes would run afoul of the federal government, which says that marijuana is a dangerous narcotic.

The referendums in the three Western states, among the 17 that already allow marijuana for medical purposes, comes as some states battle with the federal government over its raids of medical marijuana dispensaries.

“If one of these initiatives wins, it will really be a breakthrough,” said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which seeks alternatives to the current U.S. policy to combat drug use.

“And in the end, just as there has been a federal-state conflict involving medical marijuana, we anticipate there will be similar conflicts when states begin to legally regulate marijuana like alcohol,” he said. “But the only way we think change can happen is through this process.”

Polls indicate support in Colorado and Washington for legalizing pot.

A July poll by Survey USA of 630 registered voters in Washington state said 55 percent backed the marijuana legalization ballot measure. The margin of error was 4 percent.

Rasmussen Reports said its June poll of likely Colorado voters showed 61 percent supported legalizing and regulating pot. The survey had 500 respondents and a margin of 4.5 percent.

Billionaire Peter Lewis, the Ohio-based chairman of Progressive Insurance who helped finance successful state-level campaigns for medical marijuana, has emerged as the Washington state legalization measure’s largest supporter with total contributions this year of $875,000.

A representative for Lewis declined requests for comment.

Drug Policy Action, a group related to New York-based Drug Policy Alliance, has given $600,000 this year to the Washington legalization campaign.

The Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project has given the two registered groups behind the Colorado campaign most of their roughly $1 million in funds, state records show. Lists of donors to Marijuana Policy Project and Drug Policy Action are not publicly available.

Legal at 21

The ballot measures in all three states would legalize marijuana for people 21 and older, impose state-level taxes on the drug and allow sales of the drug at special pot stores.

A representative for the U.S. Justice Department had no comment in response to multiple requests. The Obama administration’s Office of National Drug Control Policy has argued that pot use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease and cognitive impairment.

“One of the canards the other side puts out is that keeping marijuana, even in small amounts, illegal is essentially equivalent to a modern day prohibition for alcohol, which is a total joke,” said Cully Stimson, chief of staff for the conservative Heritage Foundation, which opposes legalization.

Stimson said having only a couple drinks a day is healthy. “With marijuana use, the purpose is to get high,” he said.

Despite such arguments, opponents of legalization have so far fallen short in fundraising. State campaign figures show that Smart Colorado has raised the most of any anti-legalization group, but its 2012 total stands at less than $40,000.

Holcomb said her pro-legalization group bought more than $1 million in TV air time in Washington state this month.

In Colorado, the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol spent $800,000 for fall season television ads, said Mason Tvert, co-director of the group.

Editing by Vicki Allen

Source: Reuters (Wire)
Author: Alex Dobuzinskis, Reuters
Published: August 25, 2012
Copyright: 2012 Thomson Reuters

The Drug Enforcement Administration mailed letters Thursday to 23 medical marijuana businesses in Western Washington, warning they could be prosecuted and the properties seized if they are operating within a school zone.

“Please take the necessary steps to discontinue the sale and/or distribution of marijuana…within 30 days,” read the letter, signed by Matthew G. Barnes, special agent in charge of the Seattle office.

Neither the DEA nor the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which supported the action, would release the names of the 23 dispensaries or disclose which cities they’re located in.

Barnes said in a statement that “additional notifications” will be sent “as necessary.”

“I am confident that once notified of the ramifications and penalties associated with renting a property for marijuana distribution purposes, property owners will take appropriate steps to rectify the situation on their own. The DEA will not turn a blind eye to criminal organizations that attempt to use state or local law as a shield for their illicit drug trafficking activities,” Barnes said in a statement.

The letters, which threaten property forfeiture and criminal prosecution, follow similar federal action against medical marijuana operations in Eastern Washington, Northern California and Colorado targeting storefronts near schools. In other states, the federal actions at times have clashed with state or local laws allowing dispensaries, flaming renewed debate in the 16 states and the District of Columbia which allow medical marijuana.

“We need to enforce one message for our students: drugs have no place in or near our schools,” the U.S. Attorney for Western Washington, Jenny Durkan, said in a statement.

Washington’s medical marijuana law doesn’t authorize dispensaries. An effort to legalize and regulate them passed the state Legislature last year, but was vetoed by Gov. Chris Gregorie, leaving Washington with one of the most unregulated medical marijuana industries in the country.

Gregoire’s veto left intact a law that allows 10 patients to band together to form a 45-plant “collective garden.” Some medical marijuana storefronts have used a broad interpretation of that provision to form networks of collective gardens, with off-the-street patients signing into an open slot in a garden.

The state law allows local governments to regulate medical marijuana operations. Seattle, home to more than 140 medical marijuana-related businesses, lightly regulates them, requiring only basic business business licenses and compliance with city building safety codes.

Earlier this week, three people involved in running two Seattle dispensaries pleaded guilty to federal drug-dealing charges following raids on several storefronts in November.

The raids come as Washington voters will be considering legalizing, taxing and regulating recreational marijuana use. Durkan hasn’t spoken out on the measure, Initiative 502, except to remind voters that marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

From The Seattle Times Blog

Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Author: Jonathan Martin
Published: August 23, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Seattle Times Company
Contact: opinion@seatimes.com
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/

The Los Angeles City Council has lost it.

In a slap in the face to voters and patients, the City Council voted yesterday to direct the LAPD to coordinate with the DEA and the district attorney to enforce its recent ban on medical marijuana dispensaries, which is scheduled to go into effect on September 6.

The ban seems unlikely to stick: It is subject to both a legal challenge and a referendum petition. If advocates collect enough signatures, the odds strongly favor voters rejecting the ban. A 2009 MPP-commissioned poll found that 77% of L.A. County voters preferred regulation and licensing to a ban. Only 14% favored a complete ban on dispensaries. It is hard to overstate how out of touch this action is with voters. Los Angeles voters not only support medical marijuana; in 2010, 54% voted for Prop. 19, which would have allowed for marijuana to be sold for adults’ use. Meanwhile, some courts have found that cities canʼt ban dispensaries and that doing so is preempted by state law. The California Supreme Court is taking up the issue.

But even if the ban is overturned by voters or in court, the damage done by calling in the feds could be extreme and irreversible for some. Letters from federal prosecutors threatening property forfeiture have resulted in hundreds of dispensaries closing statewide. Under California law, the penalties for violating the ban (if it wasnʼt overturned in courts) would be civil fines or misdemeanors. But in federal court — where perfect compliance with state law is no defense — harsh felony penalties could be imposed.

How many patients will have to go to the streets and risk muggings and contaminated marijuana if the LAPD and feds shut down their access? How many properties will become vacant? How many compassionate retailers will lose their livelihood or perhaps even their freedom? City law required dispensaries to employ security guards. How many crimes will result from the security guards being gone, as well as from this large market moving underground and due to the diverted law enforcement time?

In March 2013, I expect that Los Angeles voters will repeal the ban. As they do so, theyʼll also have a chance to elect new council members for more than half of the seats. It’s about time politicians realize that if they wage a war on medical marijuana, their political futures may become collateral damage.

For more information on the outrageous ban, you can listen to an archive of MPP’s Sarah Lovering on KPFK. Sarah’s segment aired on Uprising! this morning, Thursday, August 23. It begins about 20 minutes in, or one-third of the way.

The state Supreme Court backed off ruling on a closely watched medical marijuana case Wednesday, saying the case was now moot.

The move could clear the way for lifting a county moratorium on new
pot clubs, after the case led the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
to suspend local dispensary rules. That left local providers in limbo
amid a broad federal crackdown and a growing number of California
governments banning pot clubs altogether.

"It’s terrific news," said Ben Rice, a local attorney who represents
several local dispensaries. "Everybody’s real hopeful that the county’s
going to engage all these folks again in regulating medical marijuana in
the county."

While the court declined to hear the much-anticipated case, the
effect is as good as a win for medical marijuana advocates. Under
Supreme Court rules, the disputed appeals court ruling no longer has
legal force.

The case began when the city of Long Beach passed regulatory rules
demanding a steep payment from operators for the chance to enter a
lottery allowing them to open their doors in city limits.

Dispensary operators sued, arguing that local governments had no
business regulating an area governed by federal drug laws, and a state
appeals panel agreed. But rather than simply toss the regulatory scheme,
the judges cited federal law and blocked any local regulations, even
going so far to suggest local officials could be prosecuted for passing
them.

The clubs’ risky legal strategy had backfired, and they dropped it
after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, Pack v. City of Long
Beach. Long Beach also later joined scores of California cities in
lowering a total ban on dispensaries, making the case moot.

In the meantime, the ruling seemed to contribute to a trend of pot
club prohibitions that came despite broad public support for Prop 215,
the ground-breaking 1996 medical marijuana law that has since been
adapted to 16 states.

In California, 20 counties and at least 179 cities – including Los
Angeles, the second-largest city in the U.S. – now ban dispensaries,
according to the advocacy group Americans for Safe Access.

"A lot of cities used the Pack decision as cover to ban everything,
outright," said H. Allen Hopper, criminal justice and policy director at
the American Civil Liberties Union’s Northern California chapter, who
filed a joint brief in the case on behalf of Santa Cruz County and San
Francisco.

County Counsel Dana McRae said she expects to return to the Board of
Supervisors with an update on the case, which could include a discussion
of the county’s moratorium on new dispensaries.

Passed in May 2011, the original county regulations were welcomed by
local operators, setting business operations standards and location
restrictions. Board of Supervisors Chair John Leopold, who helped author
the law, said it was too early to say what the county might do next.

All eyes now turn to another potential Supreme Court ruling on a ban
on dispensaries in Riverside, in a case involving a collective called
the Inland Empire Patient’s Health and Wellness Center. Advocates hope
to prohibit bans, citing Prop 215.

"We’re back now to the same legal landscape that existed before the
Pack appellate court decision. Counties are free to regulate, and
whether or not they can completely ban is a very uncertain proposition
given the Supreme Court review pending in the Riverside case," Hopper
said.

Kris Hermes, a spokesman for American for Safe Access, agreed the
medical marijuana industry is watching the Riverside case. But he added
that he hoped the state Legislature would take up the matter as well.

"We’re not necessarily waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on this
issue. We’re also hoping the Legislature will adopt sensible
regulations," Hermes said.