Yucaipa Passes Urgency Ordinance Banning Marijuana Dispensaries

YUCAIPA PASSES URGENCY ORDINANCE BANNING MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES
link to original article

by Michael Quigley, Staff Reporter, (Source:Yucaipa and Calimesa News Mirror)
Regional News

California
-------
The Yucaipa City Council passed an urgency ordinance last week that temporarily bans the establishment of any dispensary in Yucaipa to distribute marijuana even for medical purposes.

In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215, known as the "Compassionate Use Act." The intent of the proposition was to enable doctors to prescribe marijuana as a treatment for some illnesses, including glaucoma, cancer and AIDS. In 2002, the California Supreme Court ruled that Prop. 215 was valid. A year later, the California Legislature enacted SB 420, which outlined limitations on the dissemination of marijuana for medical purposes as well as acknowledged the legality of marijuana possession in limited amounts provided its use were prescribed by a licensed physician.

Essentially, these actions enabled physicians rather than bureaucrats to decide the best treatment for specific illnesses.

Although there is far less than unanimous agreement about whether marijuana is an effective treatment for patients, there is strong support from both the scientific and medical community generally, at least with respect to the efficacy of marijuana as a treatment for certain illnesses.

The California Medical Association and the California Nurses Association have joined many similar organizations across the country, including the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Nurses Association and even the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine in recognizing marijuana as an effective method of treating at least some of the symptoms associated with some forms of cancer and AIDS.

Both the CMA and the CNA filed amicus briefs with the United States Supreme Court when the state of California sued the federal government for arresting California citizens in possession of marijuana legally under California law.

It was the federal government's position in two relatively recent cases decided by U. S. Supreme Court that federal law, which prohibits the possession of marijuana for any purpose, supercedes California law.

In both cases, the Supreme Court agreed with the federal government. These decisions have left the status of California law with respect to marijuana in legal limbo. Moreover, it has left individual cities within the state in doubt as to what to do next.

Under federal law, marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 drug, in the same group with cocaine, methamphetamines and heroin. Drugs in this category are considered highly addictive as well as dangerous and without any medicinal value. These kinds of drugs are strictly outlawed under all circumstances, whereas doctors can prescribe other highly addictive drugs such as codeine because its therapeutic benefit is recognized.

One problem with categorizing marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug is that it is less addictive than alcohol or caffeine and far less addictive than nicotine, which ranks second only to heroin in its addictive properties. Moreover, there is not even one recorded incident of someone dying from an overdose of marijuana, whereas the risk of dying from binge drinking or chronic alcoholism is generally recognized.

Some have gone so far as to argue that the health and safety risks of marijuana have been exaggerated precisely because marijuana would pose a significant threat to the economic health of both the alcohol and tobacco industries were marijuana legalized to the same extent.

The narrower issue right now, however, is whether the city of Yucaipa should enact an ordinance that permanently bans the dissemination of marijuana within city limits even for medical purposes.

The city's director of community development, John McMains, acknowledged that no one has applied to the city for a permit to do so. The urgency ordinance passed last week just ensures that no one can open a dispensary until the city council has had an opportunity to look at the situation in greater depth.

There are at least two major questions facing the council with respect to a permanent ban on marijuana in Yucaipa, even for medical purposes. Assuming that the majority of the council members agreed with the majority of California voters that the decision whether to make marijuana available for some medical purposes should be up to the doctors, these council members would still have to weigh the legal risks of this position.

A number of California cities, especially in the San Francisco Bay Area, have passed ordinances that decriminalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Were Yucaipa to do the same, would this kind of ordinance, which clearly conflicts with federal law, render the city vulnerable legally as an accomplice in any federal prosecution? Moreover, should the city choose to do nothing at all with respect to this issue, could the city's inaction be construed as tacitly abetting people to violate federal law?

A second and in some respects even more complicated question is related to how marijuana can be disseminated even under California law, which does not allow dispensaries to sell marijuana. At least the original intent of the law was to enable patients with a prescription to grow a limited amount of marijuana for personal use only. The law was expanded to enable patients to pool their resources, so to speak, in cooperatives. The idea was that only patients with prescriptions could belong to these cooperatives and that, even if money did change hands in the process, no one could make a profit from the sale of marijuana.

What has happened is that some of the "cooperatives" appear to be operating as cash crop businesses. Moreover, some law enforcement officials and other local government agencies are reporting crime problems related to these dispensaries.

The Yucaipa City Council passed the urgency ordinance unanimously. Mayor Dick Riddell voted for the ordinance, however, only after McMains assured him that doing so did not bind the city to anything permanently. "No," McMains replied. "This ordinance simply precludes anyone from opening a dispensary before the city council has had an opportunity to deliberate on these matters in greater depth and detail."