Proposition 215 (the Compassionate Use Act of 1996) is a California law legalizing the use of medical cannabis. Enacted on November 5, 1996 by means of the initiative process, Prop 215 passed with a majority vote of 55.6%.
Though medical cannabis was legalized and accepted by the majority of California voters, Prop 215 does not supersede federal law. Marijuana is still illegal under federal law which causes a conflict between the state and the U.S. Government.
A legal frame of reference.
Fearing that state law might be created that would usurp local control, on April 3, 2007, Council adopted emergency interim Ordinance No. 1100-U prohibiting medical cannabis dispensaries in the city of Brea.
On March 18, 2008, Council, adopted interim Ordinance No. 1113 extending the prohibition — with a one year time limit, expiring in April 2009.
Prior to the expiration of Ordinance 1100-U the city’s options were to either adopt a full prohibition of cannabis dispensaries or form standards to allow the use.
Obviously, Council opted to adopt full prohibition. On December 9, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution which recommended language to Council for an ordinance prohibiting medical cannabis dispensaries in the city of Brea. (Documentation)
Council, on January 20, 2009, had the first reading of an amendment to the Brea Municipal Code prohibiting medical cannabis dispensaries in the city of Brea. As on all prior occasions public hearings were conducted. Having no one wishing to speak to the matter, hearings were opened and closed without comment.
On February 3, 2009, Council had the second reading of the resolution and adopted Ordinance No. 1120, a full prohibition of medical cannabis dispensaries. (Documentation)
It only took 19 years for the next chapter in the Chronicles of Cannabis to be written.
On October 9, 2015 AB266, AB243 and SB643 became California law. Known as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA). It’s charter was to license and regulate commercial medical cannabis. MMRSA created the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation in the Department of Consumer Affairs – an agency to be similar in scope to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
Buried deep within MMRSA, a phrase marked for deletion indicating that any county or municipality not having an ordinance on the books by March 1st regarding cultivation of cannabis would have their authority to control locally ceded to the state. Inadvertently overlooked, this clerical error triggered panic across the state.
Clerical error amended!
AB21, introduced by Assembly member Jim Wood, on January 4th, is making the rounds in Sacramento and should land on Governor Brown’s desk by January 18. Governor Brown has guaranteed his signature. By the time Council meets the compelling need to respond will no longer exist. (Documentation)
Frankly, there have been too many instances of emergencies like this and this sort of unnecessary pressure hasn’t generally produced the best results.
Still, the sky is falling in Brea?
Reacting to the clerical error, on December 15, 2015, Council declared a state of urgency and enacted Interim Ordinance No. 1181 “Prohibiting all commercial medical marijuana uses in the city, including deliveries, prohibiting all medical cultivation including cultivation for medical use by a qualified patient or primary caregiver.” (Documentation)
Though the title of this ordinance clearly is all inclusive of areas subject to local control, it has been commonly referred to as a blanket prohibition of cultivation. The ordinance obviously extends to usage and distribution of cannabis issues as well.
On January 19 Council will duplicate it’s extension of the antecedent temporary ordinance prohibiting dispensaries, pushing out the prohibitions of Ordinance No. 1181 to January 2017. And, as before, the Planning Commission is (tentatively) being tasked “… to make a recommendation to the City Council related to land uses associated with the cultivation of marijuana (MJ). This recommendation will be in the form of a proposed amendment to the Zoning Code.”
If this goes to the Planning Commission to initiate the process of making the “interim” prohibitions permanent, it will likely be at their January 26th meeting. Agendas for these meetings have not been finalized or publically released.
Stirring the pot, pun intended.
Infuriated with the absence of public input in all prior policy-making, I’m hoping to encourage greater comment and opinion from Breans. At the Council meeting on January 19 and, if it is decided that nothing less than permanent law will be adequate to protect Brea’s authority, at the Planning Commission on January 26.
Okay really… an interim ordinance doesn’t say, “Please try to avoid doing these things.”
An interim ordinance is as fully prohibitive as a permanent ordinance. The only difference is one runs out after a year the other remains in effect, theoretically, in perpetuity.
A lot of dust hasn’t settled.
Here are a few of the reasons I’m inclined to believe an interim ordinance would be sufficient to give Brea the time for a better look at the evolving landscape.
- It will take as much as two years to get the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation, the enforcement agency, up and running.
- Much of the operating scheme of this agency is yet to be determined, i.e. licensing, fees, oversight and enforcement policies, etc.
- More than one initiative dealing with aspects of cultivation, processing, distribution and usage (yes, think recreational) is either already qualified or likely will be qualified for the November 2016 ballot.
As we will likely know so much more by next November, wouldn’t it be better to wait to finalize Brea code until we have more answers than questions?
It’s been said that we shouldn’t worry about committing to a position now because we can always amend the code later. Really? It’s okay to do a half-assed job now because we can rewrite it later?
Sorry, but I don’t come from a place that thinks, “We can’t afford to get it right the first time, but we can always afford to fix it later.”
The jury is still out.
For reasons that shouldn’t need explanation, I am in limbo on all of this. In the short term, understanding there is not really any urgent need to codify to preserve authority, what should Brea allow or prohibit and why? Should commercial cultivation and personal cultivation for medicinal use be linked together or treated separately?
Please, if you have feelings or opinions about this — of any persuasion — do yourself and your community a favor and carve out some time to be part of the process
Without your input how can the Council or Planning Commission be confident that the majority will, in fact, rule?