MEDICAL POT LAW TRUMPS ANAHEIM

City's Ban on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Conflicts With the State
Constitution.

Superior Court Judge David Thompson last Friday essentially punted
the issue of whether the city of Anaheim's law that essentially bans
anything that remotely resembles a medical marijuana dispensary is in
conflict with state law. Qualified Patients Association, an
association of medical marijuana patients and caregivers, had
challenged the law and sought an injunction against its enforcement.

Judge Thompson denied the injunction, sidestepping a number of
pertinent issues. The real challenge to Anaheim's law will come in
court in about five months, but it won't be in Judge Thompson's court.

It is unfortunate that the injunction on behalf of patients was
denied, but it is unlikely that Anaheim's law will survive a court
challenge. It is clearly in conflict with state law. Given that
cities are subdivisions of the state under the California
constitution, it is simply irrelevant that marijuana is prohibited
under federal law. While state and federal law enforcement agencies
may sometimes cooperate, the primary duty of state law enforcement
agents is to enforce state law, not federal law.

State law is clear on the issue of medical marijuana. Section 11362.5
of the Health and Safety Code contains the language of Proposition
215, passed by voters in 1996, which carves out an exception to state
marijuana prohibition laws for qualified patients and their
caregivers. Senate Bill 420, which is Section 11362.7 of the code,
among other things expanded the definition of caregiver and provided
guidelines for the number of plants a qualified patient can have
under cultivation.

Both laws declared that their intent was to encourage and expand
access to medical use of marijuana by sick people in a safe and
controlled manner. Anaheim's law, which defines a dispensary as
anyone who provides marijuana to more than one patient and outlaws
them within the city, clearly does the opposite, severely restricting
safe access by qualified patients.

The city said it passed the law because of problems associated with a
particular dispensary in the city. An armed robbery and illegal drug
use occurred there, city officials said. But Qualified Patients, the
group challenging the law, had come into existence without the city
being aware of it, largely because it was not creating
law-enforcement problems. How much sense did it make to forbid
dispensaries, when one was operating without creating problems for
law enforcement?

Anaheim's law may be legal -- at least for now. But it is unwise and
mean-spirited. It richly deserves to be overturned.