Gov. Jerry Brown signs bill to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries

 By
Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

Gov. Jerry Brown signed off on a bill intended to reaffirm local authorities' power to create and enforce local ordinances restricting the establishment, location and operation of storefront dispensaries. The law will go into effect January 1, 2012. Photo Credit: Kat Russell / Daily Sundial

Local law enforcement now have the authority to regulate the operation and locations of marijuana collectives in California, according to a bill signed Aug. 31.

AB 1300 will go into effect Jan. 1, 2012, and was created to clarify what local authorities are entitled to regulate and what restrictions marijuana collectives must adhere to, according to the bill, authored by Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield.

Law enforcement will now be able to apply both civil and criminal penalties in order to protect the health and safety of the patients and the communities, he added.

There has been a debate surrounding medical marijuana since the 1996 passing of Prop 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act. Prop 215 was intended to ensure seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes, as recommended by a physician.

The law also outlines legal tolerance for cultivation and possession of medical marijuana for patients and their primary care givers.

“These storefront dispensaries are invaluable to patients,” said Kris Hermes, spokesman for Americans for Safe Access. “By our estimates, a vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of legal patients in California rely on storefront dispensaries.”

Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich supported the bill, and wrote in a letter stating AB 1300 would affirm the rights of cities and counties to enforce local regulations.

Cities and counties have faced civil suits from marijuana collectives, which have sued on the basis that local ordinances are inconsistent with state law and unconstitutionally discriminate against medical marijuana dispensaries.

In the case City of Los Angeles v. Hill, the courts determined that nothing will prohibit a county from adopting ordinances or policies which would restrict the location or establishment of a medical marijuana dispensary.

Despite the maelstrom of legal debate, medical marijuana dispensaries continue to be a legal grey area.

“Right now (dispensary operators) are saying they can put them wherever they want,” said a  spokesman for LA County Sherriff Leroy Baca. “What this bill does is strengthen the ability of local jurisdiction, whether it be Long Beach, Alhambra or Los Angeles, to say ‘no you cannot.’”

Americans for Safe Access opposed the bill’s legislation and urged its members to exhort the governor to veto the bill, Hermes said. He added the organization does not believe the bill does enough to establish the legitimacy and rights of local marijuana distribution facilities.

Language in the bill is just vague enough to enable hostile local officials to interperate the bill to mean they can place outright bans on marijuana distribution within their city limits, Hermes said.

“Without these dispensaries, patients are driven into the illicit market to obtain their medication and that’s harmful to the patients, harmful to society as a whole and really doesn’t serve the general public,” Hermes said.

There is still very little regulation of medical marijuana, and the question remains whether the proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries in California is consistent with the will of the voters when Prop 215 was passed.

“Since there are virtually no legally binding state requirements on ‘pot shops,’ this new law is a first step toward much needed reform,” Blumenfield said in a press release.  “It will help prevent medical marijuana abuses, preserve local control, and elevate our debate about medical marijuana.”


Disclaimer: The Daily Sundial is not responsible for comments posted on dailysundial.com. In accordance with the Communications Decency Act of 1996 the Sundial is not liable for the content of comments. By commenting, all persons posting on dailysundial.com have agreed to our comment policy. If a comment does not abide by the comment policy the Sundial reserves the right to delete comments without warning. The Daily Sundial advises persons commenting not to abuse their First Amendment rights, and to avoid comments of hate speech or encouraging violence.

  • Legald6269

    @ Patient Patient – Please read Prop 215.  There is nothing in Prop 215 about the “right of patients to form a cooperative or collective.”  215 only decriminlaized possession of marijuana by two classes of people – patients and their caregivers.  And AB1300 only clarified the inherent power of municipalities to control local land use and zoning regulations.

  • Anonymous

    Won’t AB 1300 likely be found to unconstitutionally restrict the right of patients to form a cooperative or collective–the very right that was established via Prop. 215? SB 420′s plant-count-limits was found to be unconstitutional for this very reason (voter initiatives have supremacy over laws passed by the legislature).

    Me thinks this court battle is going to be a long, drawn-out, fiscally wasteful mess.

    It’s a good thing the CA economy is doing so well. Otherwise, we couldn’t afford to divert money from schools, police & other services to fight lengthy court battles that–if won–would result in a decreased tax base (CA currently makes hundreds of millions in taxes from the sale of medicinal cannabis, but none when those very same sales are taking place in parking lots & parks).

    • outspoken

      Thank you! Obtained & paid all done the LEGAL way!