Case of pot delivery practices filed by 24 California cities has been put down.
Fresno District Supreme Court Justice Rosemary McGuire has dismissed a lawsuit filed by two dozen California cities trying to overturn state regulations allowing home delivery of cannabis in areas where it is illegal to sell businesses . Judge McGuire, in agreement with attorneys for the State Bureau of Cannabis Control, wrote, “State ordinance does not prevent cities from enforcing local ordinances that restrict home delivery. Based on this conclusion, the court finds that this matter is not ripe for a decision and dismisses the suit against all plaintiffs. "
The lawsuit states, "The state regulation allowing delivery anywhere in the state violates a promise made in Proposition 64. The electoral measure promised that local governments would have a veto right over the sale of cannabis in their jurisdictions."
On November 8, 2016, California voters passed the proposal, also known as the Adult Control, Regulation, and Taxation Act of Marijuana. It allows adults 21 and older to own and grow certain amounts of recreational marijuana. The ordinance passed by the state's Cannabis Control Bureau "is in direct contradiction to local autonomy," claimed J. Scott Miller, a city lawyer.
Photo by David Gabric on Unsplash
Lori Ajax, director of the cannabis control bureau, cited a provision that "a local jurisdiction must not prevent a state licensee from supplying cannabis or cannabis products on public roads". Steve Churchwell replied that "vans using public roads cannot stop and a person can walk to the front door of a house to deliver cannabis to a buyer."
The attorney general defended the policy allowing state-licensed cannabis dealers to ship across California, saying it was legal. Deputy Attorney General Ethan Turner argued, "Cities can still require companies that supply in their jurisdiction to obtain a business license from the city and comply with local regulations."
Churchwell responded, "We have agreed with the legislative [state] analyst that delivery will be allowed through the jurisdiction, not delivery to a physical address, which this ordinance allows."
Eighty percent of California's cities still do not allow the sale of recreational marijuana. The products were heavily taxable and strict rules have limited the effect of the passage from Proposition 64. Earlier this year, Judge Charles Smiley of the Alameda County Supreme Court signed an order that reduced the marijuana crime charge to offenses and the marijuana offense charge to violations, in a move toward limiting legal action against Indicates possession and use.
Scott Chipman, vice president of Americans Against Legalizing Marijuana, said: “Voters have been promised and expected local control, and should have it, especially with deliveries from outside their cities. If the state wants to take away local control, voters will have to vote again. "
Miller, the local government attorney, added, "This invasion of the local government legislature is the recognizable violation and sufficient to establish prestige and mature controversy."
The court dismissed a lawsuit against pot deliveries in California
The Law on the Control, Regulation, and Taxation of Adult Marijuana
Alameda County's judge orders thousands of marijuana cases to be reduced