Lake County News | California

May 29th
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size


California Supreme Court upholds ruling on local medical marijuana cultivation bans

E-mail Print PDF

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday denied a petition and depublication request regarding an appellate court decision that upheld the right of local governments to completely ban medical marijuana cultivation by patients.

The court took the action in the case of Maral v. Live Oak, in which last November the Third District Court of Appeals upheld the city of Live Oak's complete ban on medical marijuana cultivation.

The Supreme Court's refusal to review the decision means it stands as a legal precedent under California law, according to Cal NORML, which sponsored the lawsuit seeking the petition and depublication.

The organization called the court's action “a disappointing setback” in a Wednesday statement.

Working on Cal NORML's behalf, in January, attorney Joe Elford – who in 2012 represented Don Merrill and several other plaintiffs who sued the county of Lake over its interim marijuana cultivation ordinance – petitioned the Supreme Court to depublish the Live Oak decision, arguing that such bans violate Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, and SB 420.

SB 420's Medical Marijuana Program, or MMP, sets a statewide cultivation guideline of six mature or 12 immature plants and specifically authorizes local governments to establish higher – but not lower – guidelines.

“We are deeply disappointed by the court's decision,” said Cal NORML Director and Proposition 215 co-author Dale Gieringer. “They have effectively undermined Proposition 215's stated purpose 'to ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes.'”

The court issued no explanation for its decision – considered usual practice for depublication petitions – which Cal NORML said effectively opens the legal door for further bans throughout the state.

Live Oak, which does not allow dispensaries, was the first government entity in California to completely ban all patient cultivation, Cal NORML reported.

According to court documents, the Live Oak City Council unanimously passed the ordinance in December 2011.

The Live Oak ordinance was challenged by individuals including James Maral, acting both as an individual and as a trustee of Live Oak Patients, Caregivers and Supporters Association.

Cal NORML said Maral suffers severe medical problems that he had been treating with medicine grown at home.  

Maral argued that Proposition 215 and SB 420's Medical Marijuana Program granted him the right to cultivate medical marijuana, and that the ordinance was an “impermissible amendment” to the Compassionate Use Act, based on court documents.

But the appellate court, citing the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center Inc., found that the objectives of Proposition 215 and the MMP “were 'modest,' and those acts did not create a 'broad right' to access medical marijuana.”

“Rather than granting a blanket right to use marijuana for medical purposes, the CUA (Compassionate Use Act) only immunizes specific persons from criminal prosecution under two sections of the Health and Safety Code. Thus, the CUA grants only 'a limited immunity from prosecution,'” the court said.

Further, the CUA “creates only a limited defense to certain crimes, 'not a constitutional right to obtain marijuana,'” according to the Third Appellate Court decision.

That decision also found that the Compassionate Use Act and the MMP “do not preempt the authority of cities and counties to regulate, even prohibit, facilities that distribute medical marijuana.”

The appellate court said the reasoning of the Riverside case applies to the cultivation of medical marijuana as well as its distribution, as both are addressed in the Compassionate Use Act and the MMP, and accordingly the court concluded that those laws “do not preempt a city’s police power to prohibit the cultivation of all marijuana within that city.”

Other local governments, including Fresno county and city, have moved to ban personal use cultivation  as well, Cal NORML said.

While Cal NORML said the Wednesday decision does not preclude the possibility of a future challenge to local cultivation bans in another appellate district, plaintiffs face difficult odds in light of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Email Elizabeth Larson at . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

Subscribe to me on YouTube
Comments (20)Add Comment
written by a guest, March 27, 2014
keep drinking that vodka its much better for ya..
Civil rights
written by a guest, March 27, 2014
What you don't know Greg the Mexican Mafia has taken over the meth lab business and The sheriff is there buddy.

. The focus is on the local white native population who is growing marijuana because they are competition to the Mexican Mafia who are the sheriffs cronies.

written by Greg_Cornish, March 27, 2014
Greg Cornish wants to come back to the topic at hand. I talk about meth often. I'm not as concerned with what people want to put in their bodies.
It's unfortunate
written by Greg_Cornish, March 27, 2014
It's unfortunate that the people who use Medicinal Marijuana don't join hands with the environmentalists and people fighting large grows in neighborhoods. Instead it appears they bedded down with the wrong side and have ruined in for themselves in a few counties and cities completely with probably more to follow.

It appears to me rather than grandstanding BOS meetings by bringing in non native crowds, they'd have been far better off taking the hat in hand approach.

Kindly Please
written by a guest, March 27, 2014
Not to post the copyright materials. Wondrous creatures find displeasure when the workings of the creative spirit is reincarnated without asking.
re pk
written by a guest, March 27, 2014
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

#1 for educational purposes
What version of law are you reading? No where in any law does it say that if you don't use quotation marks that is interpreted as claiming as your own, Your really streatching this b.s out!
So if what you and Greg are saying is correct shouldn't Greg have givin credit to the artist that he copied the coffin picture from?
Why is a beautiful poem such a big deal?
Seems kinda shallow and childish don't you think?
Fair Use Clause
written by P.K., March 27, 2014
deals with exemptions from paying for the use of copyrighted materials. It does not exempt you from citing sources. It has no application here.

And simply posting the poem without giving any indication that it did not originate with you - even using quotation marks would have done that - is claiming it as your own.
one more thing greg
written by soja101, March 27, 2014
Thanks for the def. of plagiarism.
But you forgot to post anything about the fair use clause of copy right law.
re greg
written by soja101, March 27, 2014
Did you see anywhere on my post that i said this was my poem? NO!
i don't pretend to take credit from anyone, I knew that this poem fit this situation, that is why I posted it.
It always seems curious that every time someone shoots down your theories with actual truth and quotes from great people, the only thing you do is try and pick apart people's grammar and say complete b.s. about things like plagiarism.
Maybe if you actually tried to internalize the material and apply it to your own way of thinking and living, you might see the world in a different and better light.
I don't know about you but I never read anywhere in the disclaimer for l.c news that you have to reference the author.
But just for you, the quote was from KAHLIL GIBRAN'S The Prophet, which was published in 1923 by Alfred. A. Knopf, a publisher from New York.
I do hope though Greg with all my heart that you read the book and start opening your mind to the fact that we are all BORN FREE
and NO man should rule over another, weather it be outlawing plants, or forcing someone to pay a fee( i.e taxes) for things the person paying doesn't believe in, or silencing speech, or anything that denies a person the natural right to just BE!
People are all different no worse, no better, just different!
Your ideas cannot be mine because they are yours, you thought them! My ideas are mine!
I as a free person cannot accept being forced to adhear to the ideas (i.e. laws) of another man, because those laws or ideas were thought of only by the man that was writing them, and only bennefit the same man.
Should read
written by Greg_Cornish, March 27, 2014
But plagiarism cant take place in high school

But plagiarism can take place in high school
Hate to embarrass you
written by Greg_Cornish, March 27, 2014
But plagiarism cant take place in high school when you pretend its your own writing as you did here without giving proper credit to the real author. High school is where everyone learns this. I'm sorry to make a fool of you and back it up with links each and every time you challenge me, but I guess some people are just hard headed.

I'm finished with you now. Read up next time. There's always a chance you might win in the future.

noun: plagiarism; plural noun: plagiarisms
1. the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

Full Definition of PLAGIARIZE
transitive verb
: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive verb
: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
— pla·gia·riz·er noun
See plagiarize defined for English-language learners »
See plagiarize defined for kids »
Examples of PLAGIARIZE

He plagiarized a classmate's report.
She plagiarized from an article she read on the Internet.

re greg
written by soja101, March 27, 2014
You need to stop using words you don't understand.
Plagiarism is when you use copy righted material to reap profits.
Fair use is when you use material for educational purposes ( like me educating you right now )
and for news reports. Which is completely legal and is used in every single documentary ever made!
Again try and read and educate yourself before you post things that aren't correct.
I am glad to see at least you researched the poem, read the whole book you might learn something!
written by Greg_Cornish, March 27, 2014
And your failure to recognize humor is endearing. smilies/grin.gif

But you're right about one thing. I don't find poetry very interesting.

Also, I've seen how LCN deals with plagiarism - in this case, Kahil Gibran - they sometime strike the plagiarism and ban the plagiarizer.
re greg
written by soja101, March 27, 2014
A skylark is a small bird.
But your childish stupid remarks,because you are not educated enough to read poetry is always lame but keep tryin.
I love to watch you make yourself look ignorant!
written by Greg_Cornish, March 27, 2014
but who shall command the skylark not to sing?

Buick removed them from their lineup in 1999.
Can't BS a BS'r...
written by a guest, March 27, 2014
You all just want to get stoned! Admit it as your dishonesty is transparent! Looks like the first poster has plenty of access to her stash too!
This has nothing to do
written by P.K., March 27, 2014
with legitimate MMJ needs. This is about shutting down those with NO need who are trying to manipulate state law so they can grow commercially. Those with a legitimate need are getting caught in the crossfire.

It reminds me of a kid asking for desert:
-"can I have some icecream?"
-"yes, but just a little"
-"NO. I want more more more more!"
-"if you're going to act like that, you don't get any"
No one has a problem
written by Greg_Cornish, March 27, 2014
No one has a problem with "verifiable medical patients." But the voters who support the decisions of the BOS have long ago seen through the ruse.

The first ordinance demonstrates that the BOS recognized the need you speak of, but then when faced with commercial growers taking over the program to promote activities that had nothing to do with medicine, they were slowly and methodically backed into a corner and forced to fight for the sake of the environment and safety of its citizens.

Local control over growing is absolutely essential in maintaining balance.

San Francisco, Los Angeles and Sacramento are not going to incur the same problems growing present, that Lake County incurs. Yet they are the high power centers that make laws that affect areas they know little about. We need the tools in Lake County to control our own destiny.

P.S. The majority of support for me and the BOS came from Environmentalists. Republicans are not known to be environmentalists. Anti large pot grow folks have a broad based support that crosses all political spectrums.
Civil rights
written by a guest, March 27, 2014
This does not mean that the citizens cannot make in just laws go in front of voters like we are doing on N .
So in other words the people of that county and city must agree with the law before it passes.

Just like any county ordinance.

This does not allow corupt county officials to pass Marjuana laws that re criminalize patients.

Not a single verifiable medical patient that is at the state minimum has ever been convicted with cultivation of marijuana.

No matter what you do the California Constitution decriminalized growing of marijuana for medical patients that are following their doctors guidelines sorry Republican Supreme Court you cannot overturn the law in the constitution you can just try to undermine it.

The California State Supreme Court is not a fair representation of the people of California and thus they make decisions on laws that we pass in order to stop us from having our civil rights.

This ruling was originally put forward to dis-allow counties to tax and regulate marijuana.

This again is the rich Trying to keep control of precious resources for themselves in order to take advantage of our class system and take the money from the poor patients who were growing it themselves and not buying it from the rich gangs and entrepreneurs.

In addition all this sets precedence for is that the appellate court decision holds some merit. It does not mean that it is full of merit. The California State Supreme Court chooses cases that are presented to them for appeal. Just because they chose not to review this case does not mean that the appeal has no merit.

It just means that the republican conservative California State Supreme Court who was put in place by Republicans who are only a 23% majority in California want to keep medical marijuana tightly restricted so their cronies can make extra cash off of it.

You really need to do some research greg I think that you are a moron for not realizing that the situation with medical marijuana is very very bigger than you.

Remember the very first oprdinance?
written by Greg_Cornish, March 27, 2014
Well, through your protests to bring growing into the commercial realm you're sealing you're fate.

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

Last Updated ( Thursday, 27 March 2014 12:43 )