The Weed City Council is standing firm in its belief that section 5.04.450 of its existing Municipal Code prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries and collectives from receiving a business license.
While many other cities throughout the state and Siskiyou County have enacted or are considering moratoriums on the opening of new medical marijuana dispensaries, Weed feels that is unnecessary because of its Municipal Code.
Section 5.04.450 states that a business license cannot be issued if the business in question is in violation of any law. Because marijuana is illegal under federal law in all circumstances, the city is taking the position that businesses of this nature are in direct violation of the code (the key word being ‘any’ law, whether it be federal or state).
During last week’s city council meeting, after hearing the concerns of resident Brendan Butler that the Municipal Code section cited is ambiguous, Weed councilors approved a motion to have the city attorney revise section 5.04.450.
Weed city counsel Bob Winston said he thinks the Municipal Code is legally defensible. However, he said the code could be clarified to make it less ambiguous. “I recognize that we need to tighten it up a little bit,” Winston said.
In his response to a public comment at last week’s meeting, Mayor Dave Pearce said the existing Municipal Code is clear as he understands it.
Pearce noted that Weed area residents can drive to Mount Shasta to fill their prescriptions, as that city has two collectives currently in operation.
Pearce said individuals with recommendations under the provisions of Prop. 215 and AB 420 are entitled to grow their own marijuana.
Resident Brendan Butler said he has received requests from several individuals interested in renting his building to open a medical marijuana business.
Butler said he believes the wording of the Municipal Code is much too ambiguous.
He emphasized that he does not use marijuana or drink alcohol and that the outcome is, for him, a moral and business issue.
“The wording is much too ambiguous as to be enforceable and allows for unfair application of the business licence process,” Butler stated.
He cited specific passages in the code which he feels are open to interpretation.
“The specific reasons should be stated (in the Municipal Code),” said Butler. “Even before any logical argument, why would anyone want to pass any ordinance that would deny sick people medication?”
Also speaking at the meeting was Aletha Bonner of Lake Shastina, who made several empassioned pleas to the council to reconsider their position on the issue.
At one point, she dumped a purse full of prescription medication vials on the podium, stating that medical marijuana has allowed her to forgo many of the pharmaceuticals and that it has been more effective.
Because the council stood firm on its interpretation of existing Municipal Code 5.04.450, the next agenda item, which was to consider a 45 day moratorium on the issuance of licenses for marijuana dispensaries, was not necessary.
Follow up with city counsel
After the meeting city counsel Bob Winston said no determination has yet been made on how the Municipal Code will be “tightened up.” He said the revised version would not necessarily have to specifically reference dispensaries or collectives.
“It will be up to the city council,” Winston said, noting that any change to city code would have to be approved by them.
“It would be a standard boiler plate kind of thing,” he added. “It gives the city clerk the ability to screen out apparently illegal activity (as he or she issues permits).”
Winston explained that Municipal Code section 5.04.450 dates back to 1962, which is the year that Weed was incorporated.
He said the city most likely adopted the ordinance, as it did many others at that time, from other cities, and there was not necessarily a specific situation in Weed that warranted its institution.
Test cases to come
Winston said he has been following the medical marijuana issue closely and, in his private practice, has had several inquiries on the subject.
“There are a whole lot of folks interested in determining the legality of prop 215 and SB 420 right now,” he said.
He said nothing in the two pieces of California legislation says anything about store front businesses being allowed.
Banning cultivation, something that some communities are attempting to do, is much more problematic, according to Winston. “Growing is explicitly allowed,” he said, noting that he feels communities like Montague and Yreka may run into legal difficulties on this point.
Winston said that each Siskiyou County community is approaching the issue in a different way and that the laws and guidelines will become clearer as they are tested in court.
“Hopefully nobody will make a test case out of us,” he said.
|
|
|
The Weed City Council is standing firm in its belief that section 5.04.450 of its existing Municipal Code prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries and collectives from receiving a business license.
While many other cities throughout the state and Siskiyou County have enacted or are considering moratoriums on the opening of new medical marijuana dispensaries, Weed feels that is unnecessary because of its Municipal Code.
Section 5.04.450 states that a business license cannot be issued if the business in question is in violation of any law. Because marijuana is illegal under federal law in all circumstances, the city is taking the position that businesses of this nature are in direct violation of the code (the key word being ‘any’ law, whether it be federal or state).
During last week’s city council meeting, after hearing the concerns of resident Brendan Butler that the Municipal Code section cited is ambiguous, Weed councilors approved a motion to have the city attorney revise section 5.04.450.
Weed city counsel Bob Winston said he thinks the Municipal Code is legally defensible. However, he said the code could be clarified to make it less ambiguous. “I recognize that we need to tighten it up a little bit,” Winston said.
In his response to a public comment at last week’s meeting, Mayor Dave Pearce said the existing Municipal Code is clear as he understands it.
Pearce noted that Weed area residents can drive to Mount Shasta to fill their prescriptions, as that city has two collectives currently in operation.
Pearce said individuals with recommendations under the provisions of Prop. 215 and AB 420 are entitled to grow their own marijuana.
Resident Brendan Butler said he has received requests from several individuals interested in renting his building to open a medical marijuana business.
Butler said he believes the wording of the Municipal Code is much too ambiguous.
He emphasized that he does not use marijuana or drink alcohol and that the outcome is, for him, a moral and business issue.
“The wording is much too ambiguous as to be enforceable and allows for unfair application of the business licence process,” Butler stated.
He cited specific passages in the code which he feels are open to interpretation.
“The specific reasons should be stated (in the Municipal Code),” said Butler. “Even before any logical argument, why would anyone want to pass any ordinance that would deny sick people medication?”
Also speaking at the meeting was Aletha Bonner of Lake Shastina, who made several empassioned pleas to the council to reconsider their position on the issue.
At one point, she dumped a purse full of prescription medication vials on the podium, stating that medical marijuana has allowed her to forgo many of the pharmaceuticals and that it has been more effective.
Because the council stood firm on its interpretation of existing Municipal Code 5.04.450, the next agenda item, which was to consider a 45 day moratorium on the issuance of licenses for marijuana dispensaries, was not necessary.
Follow up with city counsel
After the meeting city counsel Bob Winston said no determination has yet been made on how the Municipal Code will be “tightened up.” He said the revised version would not necessarily have to specifically reference dispensaries or collectives.
“It will be up to the city council,” Winston said, noting that any change to city code would have to be approved by them.
“It would be a standard boiler plate kind of thing,” he added. “It gives the city clerk the ability to screen out apparently illegal activity (as he or she issues permits).”
Winston explained that Municipal Code section 5.04.450 dates back to 1962, which is the year that Weed was incorporated.
He said the city most likely adopted the ordinance, as it did many others at that time, from other cities, and there was not necessarily a specific situation in Weed that warranted its institution.
Test cases to come
Winston said he has been following the medical marijuana issue closely and, in his private practice, has had several inquiries on the subject.
“There are a whole lot of folks interested in determining the legality of prop 215 and SB 420 right now,” he said.
He said nothing in the two pieces of California legislation says anything about store front businesses being allowed.
Banning cultivation, something that some communities are attempting to do, is much more problematic, according to Winston. “Growing is explicitly allowed,” he said, noting that he feels communities like Montague and Yreka may run into legal difficulties on this point.
Winston said that each Siskiyou County community is approaching the issue in a different way and that the laws and guidelines will become clearer as they are tested in court.
“Hopefully nobody will make a test case out of us,” he said.
