Kind and Compassionate v. City of Long Beach

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 4, 2016B258806California4,806 words

Opinion

Opinion

Grimes, J.

FACTS AND LEGAL BACKGROUND

Before we turn to the facts alleged in the complaint, we briefly note several established principles applicable to medical marijuana dispensaries or collectives. First, federal law prohibits the possession, distribution and manufacture of marijuana, finding it to be “a drug with ‘no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States’ [citation], and there is no medical necessity exception to prosecution and conviction under the federal act [citation].” (City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729, 738-739 (Riverside).) Second, California law also imposes sanctions on marijuana possession, cultivation, and related activities. In California, however, voters and the Legislature have adopted limited exceptions to those sanctions where marijuana is possessed, cultivated, distributed and transported for medical purposes. (Riverside, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 739.) These statutes are the Compassionate Use Act (CUA; Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5), adopted by the voters in 1996, and the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP; § 11362.7 et

2 seq.), enacted in 2004. “Among other things, these statutes…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.