CITY CAN HARDLY AFFORD TO FIGHT ITS COLLECTIVES

Passing an ordinance ordering the closure of Redding's
medical-marijuana cooperatives is the easy part.

Making it stick promises to be a long and expensive battle for the city.

Agree or disagree with the huge pro-marijuana crowd that picketed and
then packed the City Council Chambers Tuesday night, it's clear that
it represented a movement. Its members are motivated, organized,
lawyered up, backed by professional advocacy groups and fully
prepared to fight for what they believe to be their rights.

And after the council's unamious vote to shut them down as of Dec. 1,
several collectives' operators said they had no intention of closing
voluntarily. At least one attorney was already in court Wednesday
seeking an injunction against the co-op shutdown.

Redding City Attorney Rick Duvernay argued passionately on behalf of
the city's course. He stressed city officials' potential legal
jeopardy from U.S. attorneys determined to crack down on marijuana
sales - a distant prospect but a serious one - as well the need for
continued oversight of collectives.

Even so, he freely acknowledged that the city "can and likely will be
sued" in response to the order to close co-ops.

Unfortunately, nobody talked about the cost of those lawsuits - or
about the cost of shutting down dispensaries that have a mind to resist.

In an article that's all too timely, The Los Angeles Times reported
this week that various California cities have spent anywhere from
$100,000 to $1 million in legal efforts to shut down unwelcome
marijuana sales. And even still, some didn't succeed. (Others closed
storefronts, but officials confessed marijuana use and sales were
undiminished.)

Duvernay says a recent appeals court decision handing cities more
authority to ban collectives and especially the recent U.S. Justice
Department crackdown on commercial medical-marijuana sales make the
city's task easier, as a legal matter. And indeed, if the federal
prosecutors bring down a hammer on co-ops - or their landlords -
they'd disappear faster than you can say "civil asset forfeiture."

If the city's serious, maybe it should go all in and call the federal
cavalry for help.

We don't think driving collectives underground is a sensible
approach. Like it or not, under current law there's a lot of
marijuana around, protected by Proposition 215. Hiding it won't make
it go away.

But even worse would be spending a million dollars - money the city
can scarcely afford these days - on a protracted and uncertain legal battle.

Would it be crazy to go from licensing businesses one month to trying
to sic the U.S. attorney's office on them the next? Yes, but such
crazy decisions are precisely what you get with a chaotic and
contradictory set of laws.