Laserfiche WebLink
8. City of Lake Forest v. Moen et al. (Case No. 30 -2009- 0029887- CU- MC -CJC) <br /> [trial court granting Lake Forest's preliminary injunction and finding that (a) a city's <br /> power to enact land use or zoning laws, and a city's enforcement of existing local laws is <br /> not preempted by the Compassionate Use Act and Medical Marijuana Program Act; and <br /> (b) under Government Code Section 37100, Lake Forest could not have promulgated <br /> local regulations allowing the use, sale or distribution of marijuana because marijuana <br /> remains an illegal drug under the Federal Controlled Substances Act]; <br /> (9) People v. Kelly (2010), 47 Cal.4th 1008 [California Supreme Court ruling that <br /> Health & Safety Code Section 11362.77 which limits the quantity of medical marijuana a <br /> qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess without a physician's <br /> recommendation, unconstitutionally amended the voter - approved Compassionate Use <br /> Act, by burdening a qualified patient's defense to criminal charges, as individuals may <br /> possess and cultivate any amount of marijuana reasonably necessary for his or her <br /> medical condition for purposes of a defense in a criminal case]. <br /> (N) Marijuana remains an illegal substance under the Federal Controlled Substances <br /> Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801, et seq. and is classified as a "Schedule 1 Drug," which is defined as a•drug <br /> or other substance that has a high potential for abuse, that has no currently accepted medical use <br /> in treatment in the United States, and that has not been accepted as safe for its use under medical <br /> supervision. Furthermore, the Federal Controlled Substances Act makes it unlawful for any <br /> person to cultivate, manufacture, distribute or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, <br /> distribute or dispense marijuana. The Controlled Substances Act contains no statutory <br /> exemption for the possession of marijuana for medical purposes. <br /> (0) The City Council, in adopting this Ordinance, takes legislative notice of the <br /> following federal cases: <br /> 1. United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (2001), 532 U.S. 483 <br /> [finding that there is no medical necessity defense or exemption for the possession of <br /> . medical marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act]; <br /> 2. Gonzalez v. Raich (2005), 545 U.S. 1 [holding that under the Commerce Clause <br /> of the U.S. Constitution, the Congress can prohibit the manufacture, cultivation, <br /> distribution and possession of marijuana pursuant to the Federal Controlled Substances <br /> Act, even as such prohibitions apply to marijuana manufactured, cultivated, distributed or <br /> possessed under the auspices of the Act]; and <br /> 3. James v. City of Costa Mesa et al. (Case No. SACV 10 -402 AG (MLGx)) <br /> [District Court ruling denying plaintiffs' preliminary injunction and finding that medical <br /> marijuana users are not qualified individuals under the Americans with Disabilities Act <br /> because marijuana remains an illegal drug under the Federal Controlled Substances Act]. <br /> (P) The City Council, in adopting this Ordinance, takes further legislative notice of <br /> the existence and content of the following reports concerning the negative secondary effects and <br /> adverse impacts of facilities dispensing medical marijuana: September 2009, "California Police <br /> Chiefs Association Position Paper on Decriminalizing Marijuana"; "Medical Marijuana <br /> -4- <br />