The California marijuana supply companies lawsuit was initially scheduled for April, however was pushed again due to the novel coronavirus outbreak. It is now on observe to be heard subsequent month within the Fresno County Superior Court. The California Attorney General’s Office, submitting a quick on behalf of the state’s Bureau of Cannabis Control, used the phrase “bizarre” to explain the trouble to overturn state coverage allowing marijuana deliveries no matter native bans or guidelines.

As our Los Angeles marijuana business attorneys know, most of these within the trade are in favor of a statewide supply choice. However, 25 localities have formally objected to the coverage. In response, the lawyer common’s temporary insisted that the BCC’s marijuana supply coverage aligns with state regulation.

The lawyer common’s temporary, a response to the native governments arguing pot supply violates state regulation – together with Proposition 64 and the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis and Regulation Safety Act. The native governments’ lawsuit alleges the BCC’s coverage violates the availability of Prop. 64 that permits for native regulation of hashish commerce. The temporary calls the native governments’ argument in opposition to marijuana supply “bizarre” as a result of MAUCRSA particularly states that native jurisdictions “shall not prevent delivery of cannabis or cannabis products” – but that’s precisely what the native authorities companies are arguing they need to have limitless energy to do. Allowing localities to ban not solely all gross sales however supply of marijuana would defeat voters’ goal and goals of Prop. 64.

This assertion was made along with quite a few authorized arguments in opposition to the native governments’ anti-marijuana supply stance. Some of these embody:

  • The lawsuit isn’t based mostly on an precise battle between native and state regulation, however moderately totally on hypothetical what-ifs.
  • Local police lack the ability to forestall personal people ordering authorized product for supply.
  • Both Prop. 64 and MAUCRSA explicitly enable pot supply all through the state.
  • The authorized marijuana market is weak to break down if the court docket sides with the native governments on this.

To that final level, the state famous that if a metropolis isn’t going to permit authorized gross sales and it received’t even enable supply from lawful firms working in different jurisdictions, than the one alternative individuals may have shall be black market gross sales. If that’s the one choice people have, then the entire goal of a authorized, regulated, statewide industrial marijuana market is defeated.

An lawyer representing the native authorities companies advised one media outlet that neighborhood leaders solely agreed to cut back their opposition of legalized leisure marijuana once they got assurance they might proceed regulation of the trade inside their jurisdiction. The BCC, they argue, lacks the statutory authority to undertake regulation that permits supply vans loaded with “millions of dollars  worth” of merchandise in any respect hours of the day and evening and hand it out from door to door. (It’s price noting the state cap that anybody can drive round with at any given time is $5,000.)

California Marijuana Attorneys Weigh Pot Delivery’s Fate

Our Orange County marijuana delivery attorneys know that regardless of the court docket decides might have far-reaching affect on the state, contemplating that two-thirds of cities and counties throughout the state have marijuana enterprise bans.

As for the power of the cities’ argument, one query will definitely be whether or not hashish deliveries fall inside the cope of economic hashish actions that native authorities companies have the ability to ban. Another vital level is more likely to be the problem of police powers.

But it doesn’t matter what the superior court docket decides, it’s doubtless this matter shall be unresolved for a while. An attraction is nearly a assure, and a few count on this case will make it to the California Supreme Court, a prospect that would take a number of years.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, ancillary firms, sufferers, docs and people dealing with marijuana prices. Call us at 714-937-2050.

Additional Resources:

County of Santa Cruz et al v. Bureau of Cannabis Control, June 8, 2020, Fresno County Superior Court

Source link