In a previous post, “Dispensing (With) Law: Strict Constructionism & Medical Marijuana,” I predicted that the California Supreme Court would take the case of City of Lake Forest v. Evergreen Holistic for review, which would make the case not citable.

I mentioned that for medical marijuana defense attorneys, there was both good and bad in Evergreen.

Well, my copy of Friday’s edition of the Daily Appellate Report just arrived.

Evergreen was taken up for review. It is no longer citable.

That’s the first time I’ve ever predicted that the California Supreme Court would take a case for review. I don’t know if I should feel good that I was right, or not. I guess we’ll have to wait to see what the end-result is to decide.

Sign up for my newsletter and receive a free ePamphlet on "How to Hire a Criminal Defense Lawyer."

7 comments

    1. Well, I think if they follow their own precedents, they’ll reverse in part. They’ll find that a flat-out citywide ban on dispensaries is not possible because of pre-emption issues. But I think they’ll strike down the portion that says that dispensaries can only exist at a grow site. I don’t think anyone believed that until this ruling came along, and I think it’s wrong. If the legislature had intended it to be that way, I think they would have been clear about saying that. But that’s not what they said.

      To me, this is just a continuation of the fact that law enforcement and most judges in this state disagree with the idea that we have decriminalized medical marijuana. I have clients who clearly come within the ambit of the medical marijuana laws, but get arrested for growing anyway, or for “selling” to the collective. Law enforcement is of the view that marijuana — medical or otherwise — just should not be allowed.

      And, increasingly, law enforcement believes they, and no one else, should be making the laws.

    1. Well, I think if they follow their own precedents, they’ll reverse in part. They’ll find that a flat-out citywide ban on dispensaries is not possible because of pre-emption issues. But I think they’ll strike down the portion that says that dispensaries can only exist at a grow site. I don’t think anyone believed that until this ruling came along, and I think it’s wrong. If the legislature had intended it to be that way, I think they would have been clear about saying that. But that’s not what they said.

      To me, this is just a continuation of the fact that law enforcement and most judges in this state disagree with the idea that we have decriminalized medical marijuana. I have clients who clearly come within the ambit of the medical marijuana laws, but get arrested for growing anyway, or for “selling” to the collective. Law enforcement is of the view that marijuana — medical or otherwise — just should not be allowed.

      And, increasingly, law enforcement believes they, and no one else, should be making the laws.

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Free ePamphlet

Sign up for my newsletter and receive a free ePamphlet on "How to Hire a Criminal Defense Lawyer."

Recent Posts

Topics

Archives