Global Econ – Luis

California Department of public health

Trough the Medical Cannabis Dispensary program and Medical Marijuana Program (MMP), the California Department of public health regulates, permits and inspects medical cannabis dispensaries in cities like San Francisco

Medical Cannabis Dispensary Program

This program regulates medical cannabis dispensaries in accordance with the state and local laws, it has the duty to inspect per permitted medical cannabis dispensary twice annually and respond to complaints.

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) administers the Medical Marijuana Identification Card (MMIC) program. The Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) was established to provide a voluntary medical marijuana identification card issuance and registry program for qualified patients and their caregivers.

What is the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) and what does it do?
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) manages the State’s MMP as authorized by SB 420. Several counties also use the term “MMP” for their programs. The MMP developed the “Medical Marijuana Identification Card” or “MMIC” and operates the internet system to verify these MMICs.
The MMIC identifies the cardholder as a person protected under the provisions of Prop 215 and SB 420. It is used to help law enforcement identify the cardholder as being able to legally possess certain amounts of medical marijuana under specific conditions.
In order to qualify for it the person needs to discuss it with a physician. In order to qualify for the protections of Prop 215 and SB 420, the person needs
A serious medical condition, as defined by SB 420, is any of the following: AIDS; anorexia; arthritis; cachexia (wasting syndrome); cancer; chronic pain; glaucoma; migraine; persistent muscle spasms (i.e., spasms associated with multiple sclerosis); seizures (i.e., epileptic seizures); severe nausea; any other chronic or persistent medical symptom that either substantially limits a person’s ability to conduct one or more of major life activities as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or if not alleviated, may cause serious harm to the person’s safety, physical, or mental health.
It is only possible to obtain a MMIC at a Local County Public Health Department and not through the physician or an evaluation center. The MMIC is voluntary to patients, and all that is required under Senate Bill 420 (SB 420) is your physician’s letter recommending the use of medical marijuana. All county offices and contact information is atwww.cdph.ca.gov/programs/mmp.
Can a minor apply for a MMIC?
Yes. A minor (under 18 years of age) can apply as a patient or caregiver under certain conditions. Minors may apply for themselves as qualified patients if they are lawfully emancipated or have declared self-sufficiency status. If the minor has not declared self-sufficient status or is not emancipated, the county’s program is required to contact the minor’s parent, legal guardian, or person with legal authority to make medical decisions for the minor. This is to verify information on the Application/Renewal Form. An emancipated minor or the minor's parent of a qualified patient may apply as a primary caregiver. If a minor declares status as a self-sufficient minor or is an emancipated minor, his or her county program may require additional documentation. Contact your county’s program for more information on additional required documentation.
How much marijuana can I have in my possession?
Per Health and Safety Code Section 11362.77, a qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess no more than 8oz. of dried marijuana per qualified patient. In addition, a qualified patient or primary caregiver may also maintain no more than 6 mature or 12 immature marijuana plants.
Where can I get the seeds or plants to start growing marijuana for my medical use? How can I get related products?
The MMP is not authorized to provide information on acquiring marijuana or other related products.

California Supreme Court role on medical cannabis

Over the past several years, California cities and counties have faced the issue of whether to permit or ban medical marijuana dispensaries that opened throughout the state. Many cities imposed bans or prohibited dispensary operation, while some cities required permits, business licenses and regulations. Local bans on dispensaries were fiercely contested by those supporting the proliferation of storefront retail-style dispensaries. In response many cities, exercising their local land-use authority and police powers, brought nuisance abatement actions to enforce their bans. The decision of the California Supreme Court earlier this year in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center1 (referred to as Inland Empire Patients) affirmed that cities have the authority and the right to ban medical marijuana dispensaries within their boundaries.

Background
In 1996, California voters approved the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), which decriminalized marijuana use for medical purposes. The passage of the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMP) in 2003 clarified the specifics of implementing the CUA — which include issuing identification cards for qualified patients and allowing patients and their primary caregivers to collectively or cooperatively cultivate medical marijuana.2 Neither law regulates or restricts local zoning requirements for medical marijuana dispensaries. However, the California Supreme Court had never ruled on whether the state laws pre-empted a local ordinance banning medical marijuana dispensaries, leading some to believe that uncertainty remained — even though case law strongly suggested that permanent prohibition was permitted, and federal law continued to categorize marijuana as a controlled substance.3
Supreme Court Decision in Inland Empire Patients
The City of Riverside’s zoning code: * Prohibits the operation of a medical marijuana dispensary; * Designates a dispensary as a public nuisance; and * Prohibits any use that constitutes a violation of state or federal law.
The city brought an action seeking to close the Inland Empire Patients dispensary, but the defendants asserted that the CUA and the MMP pre-empted the city from enacting and enforcing its complete ban on dispensaries.4
The trial court found no state law pre-emption and granted the city’s request for a preliminary injunction to close the dispensary. The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the injunction, and the defendants sought review by the California Supreme Court.
In a significant legal victory for California cities, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled on May 6, 2013, that local governments have the power to ban medical marijuana dispensaries. The court concluded that the CUA and MMP do not “expressly or impliedly pre-empt the authority of California cities and counties, under their traditional land-use and police powers, to allow, restrict, limit, or entirely exclude facilities that distribute medical marijuana, and to enforce such policies by nuisance actions.”5
The court clearly asserted that state medical marijuana laws do not restrict Riverside’s ban or any similar city ban, stating that the scope of the laws is limited and circumscribed: “Nothing in the CUA or the MMP expressly or impliedly limits the inherent authority of a local jurisdiction, by its own ordinances, to regulate the use of its land, including the authority to provide that facilities for the distribution of medical marijuana will not be permitted to operate within its borders.”6

A Win For Cities
At the time of the Inland Empire Patients ruling, approximately 200 California cities had banned medical marijuana dispensaries.7 The ruling upheld those bans and provides the framework for other cities to adopt similar bans should they so choose.
Remaining Medical Marijuana Issues
Even though the Supreme Court’s decision in Inland Empire Patients settles the question of whether cities may implement bans on medical marijuana dispensaries, several related issues loom on the horizon, including mobile delivery, future changes in state law, local regulation and the federal government’s role.
Mobile Delivery. The closure of storefront dispensaries may lead to an increase in mobile medical marijuana operations. Operators of mobile delivery services argue that such operations do not fall under city zoning ordinances because mobile operations do not involve the use of land. Mobile dispensaries, however, remain a target or magnet for crime, including shootings and robberies. Many cities have followed Riverside’s lead in also banning mobile dispensary operations. It is our view that a city’s constitutional police powers that authorize dispensary bans also provide the authority for cities to ban mobile operations as a peace, health and safety measure — especially in light of the Inland Empire Patients ruling.
Future Changes in State Law. The Supreme Court also noted in Inland Empire Patients that “nothing prevents future efforts by the Legislature, or by the People, to adopt a different approach.”7 Several legislative efforts in 2013 sought to expressly allow medical marijuana dispensary operation, although no such measures ultimately passed. More legislative proposals are expected next year. Furthermore, new state and local legalization initiatives are anticipated. One proposed 2014 statewide initiative aims to legalize forms of “cannabis hemp products,” specifically those categorized as industrial, medicinal, nutritional and euphoric products. Funding, however, may remain a challenge as it did in 2012 when five proposed initiatives caused fragmentation within the legalization movement that made it difficult to acquire funding.
At the local level, voter initiatives are also expected, given the success of the Measure D initiative that voters adopted in the City of Los Angeles. That local measure imposes a city sales tax on medical marijuana purchases and restricts the number of permitted medical marijuana dispensaries to the original 135 approved in the city before 2007. Voters in the City of Santa Ana will decide in June 2014 whether to remove the city’s ban on dispensaries and instead implement a dispensary registration process, business tax requirements and zoning restrictions. Local initiatives in other cities may follow, allowing some level of permitted dispensary operation.
Local Regulation. Some cities may want to permit and regulate medical marijuana dispensaries within their boundaries. The ability to do so, however, remains an open legal question. The Supreme Court did not expressly address in Inland Empire Patients the extent to which such permitting schemes would be pre-empted by federal law, which prohibits marijuana possession and distribution, or California Government Code Section 37100, which states that cities “may pass ordinances not in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the state or the United States.”
The Role of the Federal Government. In October 2011, the four U.S. attorneys in California introduced stringent enforcement programs against medical marijuana dispensaries. The effort included sending letters to property owners who rent to dispensaries, advising of potential prosecution and asset forfeiture proceedings. The program was successful where it was implemented. Nearly two years later, in August 2013, the U.S. Justice Department issued a memorandum announcing that it would not prioritize marijuana enforcement against businesses that were following state law and adhering to certain criteria. The memorandum makes clear that marijuana remains an illegal drug under federal law and identifies certain enforcement areas that federal prosecutors should prioritize.9 It is too early to assess the implications of the memorandum for medical marijuana dispensaries, and as this article goes to press it is unclear whether it will alter the efforts of the U.S. attorneys in California.10
Conclusion
The Inland Empire Patients case brought by the City of Riverside represents a substantial victory for California cities in 2013. The decision ultimately preserves local land-use control and authority in an important area of law and reaffirms cities’ broad constitutional police powers. However, medical marijuana will continue to be a closely watched issue in California in 2014 as legislative measures, state and local initiatives, mobile operation issues and federal enforcement efforts continue to unfold.

2014/03
SAN FRANCISCO — A California lawmaker has introduced legislation to regulate the state's freewheeling medical marijuana industry — the farmers who grow the drug, the hundreds of storefront shops that sell it and especially the doctors who write recommendations allowing people to use it.
The state in 1996 was the first to authorize marijuana use for health purposes, but to this day no one knows how many dispensaries and patients California has or what conditions pot is being used to treat because the loosely worded law did not give government agencies a role in tracking the information.

The bill introduced by state Sen. Lou Correa marks a milestone not only because it would provide state oversight of the multi-billion dollar industry for the first time but because it is likely to get serious consideration in Sacramento after years of inaction.
SB1262 is the brainchild of the California Police Chiefs Association and the League of California Cities, two politically influential groups that have stood in the way of previous efforts to legitimize pot growers and dispensaries by subjecting them to state control and taxation.
"This legislation seems counterintuitive, but we polled our membership and over 90 percent of the chiefs felt that, regardless of how you felt about the marijuana issue itself, there needed to be a responsible public safety approach to this," said Covina Police Chief Kim Raney, president of the chiefs association.
Medical marijuana advocates, who have lobbied unsuccessfully for a statewide regulatory scheme they hoped would make the industry less susceptible to federal raids and arrests, is taking a wait-and-see approach.
The bill co-sponsored by the league and the police chiefs' association would require the California Department of Public Health to license dispensaries and cultivation sites but only if they first had secured operating permits from local jurisdictions.
The department also would develop "quality assurance" procedures for testing marijuana for bacteria, mold and nonorganic pesticides, which growers would be prohibited from using.
The legislation also imposes substantial new requirements on doctors. If passed, it would allow medical marijuana recommendations to be given only by either a patient's primary care doctor or a licensed specialist to whom the doctor has referred the patient.
California Medical Association spokeswoman Molly Weedn said the organization has not had a chance to review Correa's bill but would probably take a position on it in the coming months.