AgdaPkt 2011-10-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 18 Attachment 1 trafficking; and, furthermore, it is uncertain whether even with the dedication of significant resources to the problem, the City would be able to prevent illegal conduct associated with medical marijuana distribution facilities, such as illegal cultivation and transport of marijuana and the distribution of marijuana between persons who are not qualified patients or caregivers under the CUA and MMPA; and WHEREAS, the City Council further takes legislative notice that concerns about nonmedical marijuana use arising in connection with the CUA and the MMPA also have been recognized by state and federal courts in case decisions. (See, e.g., Bearman v. California Medical Bd. (2009) 176 CalApp,4th 1688; People ex rel Lungren v, Peron (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1386 to 1387; Gonza/es v, Raich (2005) 545 U.S. 1); and WHEREAS, the City Council further takes legislative notice that the use, possession, distribution and sale of marijuana remain illegal under the CSA (Bearman v. California Medical Bd. (2009) 176 CaJ.App.4th 1588); that the federal courts have recognized that despite California's CUA and MMPA, marijuana is deemed to have no accepted medical use (Gonza/es v, Raich, 545 U.S. 1; United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (2001) 532 U.S. 483); that medical necessity has been ruled not to be a defense to prosecution under the CSA (United States v, Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483); and that the federal government properly may enforce the CSA despite the CUA and IVIMP (Gonza/es v, Raich, 545 U.S. 1); and WHEREAS, the United States Attorney General in October 2009 announced formal guidelines for federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes which appear to ease enforcement of federal laws as applied to medical marijuana dispensaries which otherwise comply with state ATTY/ORD.353/MEDICAL MARIJUANA ADDING ARTICLE 59 TO RWC ZONING CODE 093011 5