LEAVES CITIES, COUNTIES UNCERTAIN

A long-awaited state appellate decision regarding medical marijuana
dispensaries has both sides waiting for more.

Some hoped the decision out of a Anaheim lawsuit would loosen up
prohibitions against establishing the collectives, while some hoped it
would give local governments the final authority to decide where to
put them or whether to allow them at all.

But exactly what California's 4th District Court of Appeal ruling will
mean for the counties and cities - many of which passed interim bans
on medical marijuana dispensaries until the decision on the Anaheim
case - is up in the air.

One news account referred to it as a "cliffhanger."

Anaheim was sued by the Qualified Patients Association. The case ended
up in the appellate Court of Appeal, which released a mixed ruling
Thursday.

The three-judge panel agreed with medical-marijuana patients that a
lower court erred in declaring that federal law, which prohibits any
use of marijuana, pre-empted state law that allows for specific
medical-marijuana activities.

But the appellate panel also determined that the lower court
"correctly concluded that plaintiffs failed to state a cause of
action" related to the Unruh Act, which the court said pertains to
business establishments, not legislative acts.

In short, many feel the ruling failed to provide the clear precedent
that both sides were anticipating on whether California cities have
the right to ban dispensaries.

However, the attorney for medical marijuana patients called it a
"significant victory" that prohibits cities from standing solely on
federal law to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries.

The city of Orland and Glenn County also have temporary marijuana
dispensary bans in place, but have yet to have challenges to them. The
city of Willows does not have a marijuana dispensary ban.

Orland's ban runs to Dec. 6, and the county's ban remains in effect
until next March in the unincorporated areas.

Both governments issued the bans in order to study how to regulate and
where to place such facilities in their jurisdictions, officials said.

Orland City Manager Paul Poczobut Jr. and City Planner Nancy Sailsbery
said they had not read the court's rulling as of Tuesday and referred
questions to the city attorney Tom Andrews who drafted Orland's ordinance.

Andrews said he is still looking at the court ruling to see how it
fits with the present dispensary moratorium. However, he does not
think the city will take any action until after the November election
where state voters will decide on legalizing recreational marijuana
use.

He said the recent court ruling still does not reject the idea of
local control of such facilities, so the city could use a police
presence and local zones to monitor these establishments in the future.

Willows City Manager Steve Holsinger said he is not familiar with the
recent court ruling, but he is surprised at the premise federal law
does not apply to marijuana dispensaries.

He said the city does not issue permits for any business that operates
against federal or state laws.

"I am dumbfounded sometimes by court rulings that create a dichotomy
for local governments," Holsinger said.

He added marijuana use is clearly against federal law, but it amazes
him there is a possiblility Willows cannot use that to regulate
marijuana dispensaries and cooperatives. Yet at the same time, the
city must protect nuisance birds like egrets under federal
regulations.

As a result, the city must decide which law to enforce based on the
ruling of the week, he said.

And while Holsinger said he believes there are likely medical benefits
to marijuana, he thinks dispensaries are not the answer for
distributing it.

He also feels there probably are as many problems associated with
dispensaries as there are patients that benefit from them - based on
reading blog's such as one by Chico's police chief, Holsinger said.

Glenn County Counsel Huston Carlyle was out of the office Tuesday and
unavailable for comment.

The Orange County Register contributed to this report.