[420 Girl]

California's Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court's permanent injunction that bars a medical marijuana dispensary from operating in Claremont.

Local cities have expressed agreement with the decision, saying it strengthens their hand in dealing with dispensaries.

Rancho Cucamonga City Attorney Jim Markman said the decision helps cities like the ones he represents in controlling their zoning.

"We have an outright ban in every one of those cases," said Markman, who is also city attorney for Brea and La Mirada.

"The Claremont opinion is very helpful," assuming the decision stands at the California Supreme Court level and beyond, Markman said.

"Just because you sell marijuana to people with a prescription, does that mean you're a primary caregiver? This drives a stake in the heart of that theory."

Claremont filed the case against Darrell Kruse to shut down his dispensary. They succeeded, and Kruse lost the case on appeal, which was published Sept. 22.

"We have always felt local government has the right to designate land uses," Claremont Assistant City Manager Tony Ramos said. "We always felt all along we would win this case, because it was based on a land-use issue."

Claremont city attorney Sonia R. Carvalho concurred.

"Obviously we're pleased with the decision," said Carvalho. "We're also pleased the court of appeals has made clear once and for all the (medical marijuana) compassionate use act does not pre-empt the city's local land-use powers.

"As this case makes clear, the law does not prevent the city's ability to regulate or prohibit dispensaries."

Kruse said he has to pay at least $120,000 in legal fees and does not plan again to operate a dispensary.

Pro-marijuana activists believed the decision was short-sighted and hurt patients.

Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project, said because he was not a legal expert he would not weigh in on legal technicalities - but he was not pleased.

"If cities because of this are more inclined to ban dispensaries, that creates a problem for patients who need safe access for medicine. The thing that bothers me about cities doing this is it feels short-sighted to me," he said.

"It's unmistakable California law requires patients with a doctor's recommendation to have it and grow it for themselves, but there will always be a group of people who can't grow it because of no space or whatever. For a city, wouldn't you rather have folks getting medical marijuana from above-ground businesses rather than street corner drug dealers? My question is why are they supporting drug dealers, which is what they're doing."

Mirken added: "I suspect that in a town like Claremont with a substantial elder population, a significant number of persons would benefit from medical marijuana but have no idea how to grow or get it safely."

Paul Chabot, founder of the Coalition for a Drug Free California, described the verdict as "a small victory" in the war against drugs.

"There are so many court cases going on, not just in California, but around the country largely funded by pro-drug legalization lawyers. There's always a court case in the hopper which could affect cities and states on any given day."

Chabot described Claremont as "a great example of a city in California that sort of got hit pretty hard by pro-marijuana folks but once educated on the good and bad behind the initiative, eventually they made the right decision."


http://www.420magazine.com/forums/in...uling-pot.html