As California\u2019s cannabis market continues to develop slower than many anticipated, 24 cities and one county in the state have moved to sue the state\u2019s Bureau of Cannabis Control over new rules that allow cannabis delivery to be conducted anywhere in California, regardless of local rules.<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs are\u00a0attempting to halt a regulation<\/a>\u00a0that would allow any legally licensed California cannabis delivery service to serve customers anywhere in the state, regardless if they have received local permitting. This is because the local jurisdictions believe aspects of the state\u2019s cannabis regulations \u2014 Adult Use of Marijuana Act \u2014 give them the ability to control how cannabis businesses operate in the city.<\/p>\n The\u00a0League of California Cities is backing the effort<\/a>, led\u00a0by Sacramento law firm Churchwell White LLP.<\/p>\n \u201cCalifornians voted to allow recreational and commercial cannabis with the specific promise that each community would be able to regulate or even ban it within their community,\u201d said Covina City Councilmember Walter Allen III in a statement released by the league. \u201cThe BCC\u2019s actions in adopting this regulation burden local governments in jurisdictions that have regulated or banned commercial cannabis deliveries.\u201d<\/p>\n However, advocates for allowing cannabis delivery across the state say that the rule helps ensure people with disabilities have access to medical cannabis \u2014 no matter the local rules \u2014 and that banning delivery would only further encourage people to turn to the illicit market.<\/p>\n \u201cI met a woman in a wheelchair who eases her chronic pain with cannabis. She lives a 90-minute drive from a dispensary. Her tiny town won\u2019t allow any cannabis businesses,\u201d Justin Hall, the founder of delivery service\u00a0Bud.com<\/a>, told Cannabis Now. \u201cShe described herself living in a \u2018weed desert.\u2019 Anyone in a weed desert where delivery is banned would be served only by something outside the system: ensuring no visibility, no quality testing and no tax revenue.\u201d<\/p>\n Hall went onto say cities shouldn\u2019t be filing lawsuits the BCC to prevent regulation-studying, compliance-practicing cannabis companies from offering delivery of stress reduction and pain relief to anyone over the age of 21 in California.<\/p>\n Hezekiah Allen, who previously led the California Growers Association and still keeps a finger on the pulse of the already-dwindling number of small cultivators in California that have been able to transition to the legal market, said that the removal of the delivery rule could impact producers already fighting for shelf space in California\u2019s big markets.<\/p>\n \u201cThe lawsuit is going to hit the entire regulated market hard,\u201d Allen told Cannabis Now in an email. \u201cThe only people who will benefit from this lawsuit are unlicensed sellers of cannabis. The regulated market can\u2019t succeed if patients and consumers can\u2019t access regulated cannabis from licensed farms. This lawsuit seeks to restrict access to regulated cannabis and will be a big benefit to unregulated cannabis retailers.\u201d<\/p>\n In a move that suggests they are hoping for a bit more of a conservative bench, the plaintiffs filed the case in Fresno Superior Court, where they allege the rule \u2014 BCC Regulation 5416(d) \u2014 is invalid. According to them, the promises of cities and counties being able to regulate pot locally was one of the major aspects of Proposition 64.<\/p>\n The specific language the plaintiffs point to is in the \u201cBusiness and Professions Code,\u201d sections 26090 and 26200, which was the main guarantee for cities and counties when it came to regulating or banning the operation of recreational and commercial cannabis deliveries within their communities. They also pointed to Section 26200, which asserted \u201cnothing shall limit the authority of cities and counties to regulate or completely prohibit commercial cannabis activities within their jurisdiction.\u201d<\/p>\n Despite the case being filed in Fresno, the municipalities taking part in the lawsuit are a cross-section of California, from the Bay Area to Beverly Hills. Most surprisingly to some, Santa Cruz County is the lone county taking part,\u00a0despite marijuana\u2019s long history<\/a> of being intertwined with the area. \u201cThe BCC is fundamentally changing Proposition 64, eroding local control and harming our local cannabis businesses by allowing commercial cannabis deliveries in every jurisdiction in California. This betrays the promise made to the voters in Proposition 64,\u201d said Supervisor Ryan Coonerty, chair of the Board of Supervisors of Santa Cruz County. Coonerty has also previously served as mayor of Santa Cruz. <\/p>\n Further south in Beverly Hills, Mayor John Mirish was well positioned to make the argument this had nothing to do with being for or against pot in general.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are left with no choice but to challenge these regulations because they violate key provisions of local control promised to voters when they passed Proposition 64,\u201d said Mirisch in a statement. \u201cBy usurping local ordinances, these regulations interfere with local governments\u2019 ability to enact local regulations that may be necessary to protect the public safety and public health.\u201d<\/p>\n We asked the\u00a0National Cannabis Industry Association<\/a>\u00a0for\u00a0their take on the kind of impact the law could have on participants in the world\u2019s biggest legal cannabis market in California. They said it isn\u2019t an issue they\u2019re working on directly, given their efforts generally are focused on federal issues \u2014 but they said they are keeping an eye on the situation for sure.<\/p>\n \u201cNCIA supports policies that allow for regulated home delivery of cannabis,\u201d NCIA Executive Director Aaron Smith told Cannabis Now. \u201cThis is especially important for medical cannabis patients who sometimes have mobility issues that make it difficult to travel to a retail facility, especially if they are living in a city that has banned them. Further, if we can successfully regulate the home delivery of alcohol through apps like Drizly, there\u2019s no reason to prohibit the same type of delivery for cannabis to adults over 21.\u201d<\/p>\n Representatives of the Marijuana Policy Project<\/a>\u00a0said Prop. 64 granted local governments the authority to regulate or ban retail cannabis storefronts, but not cannabis deliveries.<\/p>\n \u201cThe proposed statewide delivery system would enable more California consumers to access cannabis legally from licensed businesses and reduce their reliance on the illegal market,\u201d said MPP spokesman Mason Tvert. \u201cIn some parts of the state, delivery would be the only viable way in which many consumers could legally purchase cannabis products.\u201d<\/p>\n TELL US,<\/strong>\u00a0have you ordered cannabis delivery before?<\/p>\n The post 24 California Cities File Lawsuit To Stop Cannabis Delivery in Their Area<\/a> appeared first on Cannabis Now<\/a>.<\/p>\n
As California\u2019s cannabis market continues to develop slower than many anticipated, 24 cities and one county in the state have moved to sue the state\u2019s Bureau of Cannabis Control over new rules that allow cannabis delivery to be conducted anywhere in California, regardless of local rules. The plaintiffs are\u00a0attempting toContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[148,1980,1972,50,3243,9656,3244,1728,90,292,139,5497,1419],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34405"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34405"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34405\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":34406,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34405\/revisions\/34406"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34405"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34405"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34405"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Local Control of Cannabis vs. Medical Marijuana Access Rights<\/h4>\n
The Cities Behind the Cannabis Delivery Lawsuit<\/h4>\n
\n
\nRead More: 24 California Cities File Lawsuit To Stop Cannabis Delivery in Their Area<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"