S.B. County:

DISPENSARY BAN CHALLENGED

Opponents of San Bernardino County's medical marijuana ordinance filed
a lawsuit Thursday, claiming that the ban on dispensaries was approved
illegally.

Crusaders for Patients Rights, the group that filed the suit, is
seeking an injunction to block enforcement of the law, approved by the
Board of Supervisors last month.

The county ordinance outlaws all dispensaries, defining them as any
group of three or more people involved in cultivating or distributing
marijuana. It also restricts patients from growing their own
marijuana, banning any outdoor cultivation.

The ordinance provides an exemption for state-licensed facilities to
cultivate or distribute marijuana, but opponents say the provision is
meaningless because such facilities are not allowed by federal law to
do so.

California law allows people to use marijuana to treat a variety of
ailments, provided they have a doctor's recommendation. Most Inland
cities, however, prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries, and federal
law bans the use of marijuana for any reason.

Letitia Pepper, an attorney for the group, said the county violated
state law by not conducting an environmental impact review, saying the
ban on outdoor cultivation would lead some patients to grow indoors
and increase energy use.

The county approved a notice of exemption, stating that the ordinance
did not require such a study.

County spokesman David Wert said the county ordinance did not have any
impact on the environment.

"It sounds to me like they're grasping at straws trying to undo
something they just don't like," he said.

The lawsuit also accuses the county of violating opponent's free
speech rights by limiting what they could discuss at the March 22
meeting where the Board of Supervisors approved the ordinance. During
that meeting, Board Chairwoman Josie Gonzales asked speakers to limit
their comments to land-use issues.

Pepper said opponents should have been allowed to discuss the
importance of medical marijuana for patients and how the ordinance
would limit their ability to obtain cannabis.

"You can't limit people's comments about why or why not this is a good
ordinance," Pepper said.

But Wert said speakers at the hearing, while told to stick to land-use
issues, did delve into other topics and "no speech was stifled."