8G Consent 2011 0516 - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

(L) On August 25, 2008, Edmund G. Brown, the California Attorney General, issued "Guidelines for the Security and Non - Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use" ( "the Attorney General Guidelines "), which sets regulations intended to ensure the security and non - diversion of marijuana grown for medical use by qualified patients. Health and Safety Code §11362.81(d) authorizes the Attorney General to "develop and adopt appropriate guidelines to ensure the security and non- diversion of marijuana grown for medical use by patients qualified under" the Compassionate Use Act. Nothing in the Guidelines imposes an affirmative mandate or duty upon local governments, such as San Leandro, to allow, sanction or permit the establishment or the operation of facilities dispensing or cultivating medical marijuana within their jurisdictional limits. (M) In adopting this Ordinance, the City Council takes legislative notice of the following cases that it finds relevant to its actions: 1. People v. Mentch (2008), 45 Cal.4th 274 [California Supreme Court holding that a "primary caregiver" status requires a specified showing of consistently providing care, independent of any assistance in taking medical marijuana, at or before the time of assuming the responsibility of assisting with medical marijuana]; 2. People ex rel. Lungren v. Peron (1997), 59 Cal.App.4th 1383 [California Court of Appeal recognizing the limited scope of the CUA and the MMPA, and holding that filling out a form that designates a commercial enterprise as the qualified patient's "primary caregiver" is insufficient to establish a caregiver status]; 3. Ross v. Raging Wire Telecommunications, Inc. (2008), 42 Cal.4th 920 [California Supreme Court holding that an employee may be terminated for the use of medical marijuana]; 4. Claremont v. Kruse (2009), 177 Cal.App.4th 1153 [California Court of Appeal holding that neither the CUA nor the MMPA expressly or impliedly preempt local exercise of land use and zoning police powers, therefore, cities retain their police power to regulate and, if necessary, restrict the operation of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives]; 5. People v. Mower (2002), 28 Ca1.4th 457 [California Supreme Court holding that the defenses accorded by the CUA are limited to "patients and primary caregivers" for the possession and cultivation of marijuana]; 6. People v. Urziceanu (2005), 132 Cal.App.4th 747 [California Court of Appeal noting that courts consistently have rejected attempts to broaden the scope of the CUA and the MMPA and recognizing that the CUA did not create a constitutional right to obtain marijuana]; 7. People v. Hochanadel (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1997 [California Court of Appeal holding that the operators of a storefront dispensary which sold marijuana to individuals did not operate within the CUA and the MMPA, and did not constitute a primary caregiver such that it was entitled to protections under the CUA and MMPA];