“We agree with plaintiffs the trial court erred as a matter of law in concluding federal regulation of marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 812 et seq. ) preempted California’s decision in the CUA and the MMPA to decriminalize specific medical marijuana activities under state law. We therefore reverse the judgment of dismissal and remand the matter to allow plaintiffs to pursue their declaratory judgment cause of action.”
thesis format oum
cheap custom essay writing
diagnostic essay examples
how to improve thesis writing
nus mba essays
literary analysis thesis examples
find search viagra edinburgh free
college paper grader
term paper font size
two sided hypothesis
order cheap viagra online uk
cialis cual es su generico
essay on language development in early childhood
hotel front desk experience resume
architecture+final year thesis topics
citations in an essay
who can help write my paper for money
go to site
how to add junk mail folder on iphone hotmail
harvard business school essay
thesis statement high school worksheets
Appeals Court upholds State law on Dispensaries and finds it does NOT conflict with Federal law
By Steve Kubby, Director, The American Medical Marijuana Association
The California 4th District Court of Appeal of Anaheim’s ordinance that prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries and makes it a crime to operate them, has been reversed and the matter has been sent back to court. The decision has been a long time in coming – opening arguments were heard in September 2009 — represents a major victory
The origins of the case date back to July 2007, when Anaheim unanimously approved its ordinance.
A group of medical-marijuana patients sued the city in Orange County Superior Court, but a judge dismissed that case. So the patients appealed to the state court, saying that the Anaheim ordinance was unfair to ‘qualified patients’ and was counter to the state’s Compassionate Use Act, approved by California voters in 1996.
A decision was expected last July and eagerly awaited by attorneys and both sides. But the court delayed its decision until today.
A support (amicus) brief filed by State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) in his personal capacity stated that, “the clear intent of the [Medical Marijuana Program Act] in providing an exemption under the nuisance law was to preempt local ordinances and enforcement efforts based on nuisance law of any kind,” and “To permit otherwise would undermine the expressly stated intent of the legislation.” As an Assemblymember at the time, Mr. Leno was one of the principal co-authors of SB 420, the Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2003.
Credit for this important win goes to Joseph Elford, Chief Counsel for Americans for Safe Access, for his amicus brief, that played a key role in the decision.