CONFUSING STATE, NATIONAL POT POLICIES MUST BE RECONCILED

THE medical marijuana laws never have been as simple as California
voters intended. Now, though, the tangle of federal, state and local
policies is getting downright silly. Before something really bad
happens, authorities must nip this confusion - pardon the expression
- - in the bud.

Fifteen years after Prop. 215 made marijuana for medical use exempt
from anti-drug laws, the story is going five directions at once.

The Obama administration announced a stepped-up effort this month to
shut down dispensaries that purport to sell medical marijuana but
actually deal recreational pot for big money. U.S. attorneys also are
considering action against media that accept dispensaries' ads.

The feds' moves could be applauded by those who support the letter
and spirit of the original state referendum and want to see the
medical marijuana movement protected from the taint of lawbreakers.

Except that, while this is going on, federal drug laws that conflict
with state drug laws seem to be getting in the way of cities' efforts
to make sure the medical marijuana dispensary system operates
properly. And local officials hold out little hope for a quick resolution.

Just as a Superior Court ruling last week upheld Los Angeles' ability
to limit the number of dispensaries in the city, a state Court of
Appeal ruling stymied the effort by striking down a Long Beach
ordinance. Just to show how complex all of this has grown, read the
following passage from the

Advertisement

state court's ruling. Wrote the court: "There is a distinction in law
between not making an activity unlawful and making the activity
lawful. An activity may be prohibited, neither prohibited nor
authorized, or authorized."

It's just another semantic twist in the game that began with the
crucial distinction between "decriminalizing" and "legalizing"
medical marijuana. In 2010, some opponents of the successful L.A.
ballot initiative to tax dispensaries made the tricky argument that
to tax them was to legitimize them. Now we have the state court
saying that when a city regulates the numbers, locations and
activities of marijuana dispensaries, it is in effect authorizing
storefront marijuana sales - and that's against U.S. law, which
trumps California law.

If you're befuddled, don't blame yourself. This really is confusing.

The L.A. City Attorney's Office hopes the state Supreme Court will
overturn the Long Beach ruling, but that wouldn't happen for at least a year.

Meanwhile, cities like L.A. are trying to figure out how to make sure
they have an appropriate number of dispensaries, in the right places
(keeping them away from schools and parks, and spread out from each
other), providing the right service without inviting lawsuits.

More confusion: Earlier this month, Rand Corp. published a study
concluding that crime increased in surrounding areas when a medical
marijuana dispensary was shut down. Weeks later, the study was
retracted amid complaints that it was fundamentally flawed. What's
the truth? Rand is reviewing its data.

Two trends hang over all of this.

Marijuana traffickers are reported to be taking advantage of the
legal gray areas by growing pot in backyards and open farmland, often
avoiding arrest by claiming the pot is for medical use.

And marijuana opponents are seeing confirmation of their fear that
medical use would crack open the door to general acceptance of pot.

A Gallup national poll released last week showed 50 percent for and
46 percent against full legalization. This appears to be the first
time more Americans have supported it than opposed it - as some
headline writers put it, an "all-time high."

Also last week, the California Medical Association called for
legalization. However, the stance seems based more on doctors wanting
to avoid pressure to sign off on patients' marijuana use than on a
belief that pot is good for you.

These warring trends and policies set up the possibility that one of
the voters' objectives will be thwarted. Either the public's taste
for legitimate medical marijuana dispensaries will suffer from
cities' inability to impose needed restrictions, or the legal
confusion will allow illegitimate growers, sellers and buyers to proliferate.

As with some other issues - think of illegal immigration - the
absence of a workable and consistent national policy has created a
patchwork of approaches in the 16 states where medical marijuana is
legal, as well as a mess for local law enforcement.

Californians should remind their federal representatives what voters
here want and demand a national policy to match.

Fifteen years in, this shouldn't be so complicated.