My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
22
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2014
>
071514
>
22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2015 4:32:05 PM
Creation date
7/9/2014 1:59:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
7/15/2014
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
22
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
185
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
-5— SB 1262 <br /> 1 benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, <br /> 2 anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, <br /> 3 migraine,or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief." <br /> 4 (b) The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 called on state <br /> 5 government to implement a plan for the safe and affordable <br /> 6 distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of <br /> 7 marijuana, while ensuring that nothing in this act shall be <br /> 8 construed to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical <br /> 9 purposes. <br /> 10 (c) In 2003, the Legislature enacted the Medical Marijuana <br /> 11 Program Act(MMPA),codified in Article 2.5 (commencing with <br /> 12 Section 11362.7) of Chapter 6 of Division 10 of the Health and <br /> 13 Safety Code. <br /> 14 (d) Greater certainty and minimum statewide standards are <br /> 15 urgently needed regarding the obligations of medical marijuana <br /> 16 facilities, and for the imposition and enforcement of regulations <br /> 17 to prevent unlawful cultivation and the diversion of marijuana to <br /> 18 nonmedical use. <br /> 19 (e) Despite the passage of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 <br /> 20 and the MMPA, because of the lack of an effective statewide <br /> 21 system for regulating and controlling medical marijuana, cities, <br /> 22 counties and local law enforcement officials have been confronted <br /> 23 with uncertainty about the legality of some medical marijuana <br /> 24 cultivation and distribution activities. The current—system—o€ <br /> 25 state of affairs makes law enforcement <br /> 26 difficult and endangers patient safety because of an inability to <br /> 27 monitor the supply of medical marijuana in the state and the lack <br /> 28 of quality control, testing, and labeling requirements. <br /> 29 (f) The California Constitution grants cities and counties the <br /> 30 authority to make and enforce, within their borders, "all local <br /> 31 police,sanitary,and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict <br /> 32 with the general laws:' This inherent local police power includes <br /> 33 broad authority to determine,for purposes of public health,safety, <br /> 34 and welfare, the appropriate uses of land within the local <br /> 35 jurisdiction's borders. The police power, therefore, allows each <br /> 36 city and county to determine whether or not a medical marijuana <br /> 37 dispensary or other facility that makes medical marijuana available <br /> 38 may operate within its borders.This authority has been upheld by <br /> 39 City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness, <br /> 40 Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729 and County of Los Angeles v. Hill <br /> 94 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.