"Riverside: City sues registrar to block marijuana ballot measure"

Quoted in this piece.

The intersection of federal and state marijuana laws is “a hornets’ nest of conflicts” but many states – including California – have chosen to allow medical use of marijuana despite the federal prohibition, said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

Riverside’s argument, that the local marijuana measure exceeds voters’ authority, is common in fights over ballot issues, she said.

Levinson said she hasn’t read the proposed initiative or Riverside’s suit, but if the city is right, “It’s not contravening the democratic process. ... It says, ‘This is illegal, so why should it go through the democratic process?’” 

"Longtime marijuana legalization advocate still seeing green"

Quoted in this one in the Press Enterprise. 

Jessica A. Levinson, an associate clinical professor for election laws and government political reform at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, says the two court rulings are not death blows for Prop. 215.

“It may have been watered down or eroded, but it still leaves jurisdictions some leeway” about brick-and-mortar stores and cultivation, she said. “It just gives them more discretion not to have them, and allows localities to make up their own minds.”

And, Levinson said, those issues may be pushed aside when California eventually considers statewide recreational marijuana use. “If you look at the demographics, I think this issue is only a matter of time,” she said. “Whatever happens to Prop. 215, it is not going to be the last proposition on the state ballot dealing with marijuana.”

Swerdlow said that’s where he has turned his energy. In 2012, he founded the Brownie Mary Democratic Club of Riverside County as an advocacy group for medical marijuana and marijuana legalization.

“It’s been chartered by Riverside County Democratic Central Committee,” Swerdlow said. “We are an official part of the Democratic Party. We now have clubs chartered in Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco.” The group went to the state Democratic convention in Los Angeles in March.

Swerdlow made the club a force to be reckoned with. The party for the first time endorsed marijuana legalization as part of its platform, calling on marijuana to be regulated and taxed similar to alcohol and tobacco.

“This is not a debate about stoners,” Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom told the convention. “You can be pro-regulation without being an advocate for drug use.”

Swerdlow said he wrote the original platform proposal — “they massaged the wording a bit from what I originally put in there,” but said he was pleased with the outcome. “It kind of sends a word to all the Democratic politicians who are on the fence. That might be enough to push them off the fence, on our side.”

It sounds like another uphill battle for Swerdlow.

Days before the platform language was considered, Gov. Brown talked about marijuana legalization on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“How many people can get stoned and still have a great state or nation?” Brown asked.

While elected Democrats distance themselves about marijuana legalization, Swerdlow said he was convinced what he called the “grass roots” of the party supports it. “I used to look at the Democratic Party and think they were Republican light,” Swerdlow said. But he now sees the party as “really progressive, and the Democratic Party, I believe, will end marijuana prohibition.”

Californians most recently rejected marijuana legalization and regulation in 2010 by voting down Prop. 19. Poll numbers since then have shown growing support for legalization, when it’s combined with government oversight.

Loyola Law School’s Levinson said voters should expect to see legalization for recreational marijuana in the form of a ballot initiative, rather than by the Legislature. “This is the type of issue we typically see through the initiative process in California.”

Vote on pot shops could end lingering LA issue

Quoted in this piece in the AP. 

Here is an excerpt:

The new law will do little to serve as a model for other cities, said professor Jessica Levinson of Loyola Law School.

"I think we've been the perfect picture of dysfunction," she said. "Most of the guidance is actually what not to do."

"The pot shops are not going to take this lightly," Levinson said. "I think they will drag their feet exactly as long as it takes until police officers are at their door."

L.A. Election: 3 Medical Marijuana Measures, a Long Way to a Solution

On May 21 voters in Los Angeles will have the opportunity to vote for the city's next mayor. But that is not all. Those few Angelenos who venture to the polls or send in their ballots will also weigh in on three competing ballot measures all dealing with medical marijuana. Two qualified for the ballot via the initiative process, one was put on the ballot by the City Council.

As with all other types of ballot measures, those supporting the various measures will financially benefit from their passage. Indeed, the measures have divided the medical marijuana community, to the extent that there was such a community.

(To understand the specifics of these measures, Ballot Brief's Ben Gottlieb has done some great in-depth reporting here.)

It is possible that none of the measures will garner the 50 percent of the vote necessary to become law. In that event it seems likely that the next election will bring one or more new proposals concerning the sale of medical marijuana.

In any case, the May election will not be the end of the story. The city is facing dozens of lawsuits, suits which are likely to continue. All of this wrangling occurs against the backdrop of a stark contrast between state and federal laws.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

California Supreme Court Considers the Legality of Banning "Pot Shops"

You can watch my appearance on SoCal Connected discussing the California Supreme Court's upcoming decision regarding medical marijuana here. 

Under California law, it's legal to buy medical marijuana, but it's not so under federal law. That's why some localities have banned pot shops.

California's highest court heard arguments Tuesday over whether cities can do that. In essence, the court will decide, when it comes to medical marijuana, whether federal or state laws prevail here in California, and whether cities can regulate dispensaries through zoning laws.

Medical Marijuana, Regulation, and the California Supreme Court

This week I was honored to be on "SoCal Connected" to speak with Madeleine Brand about the California Supreme Court's consideration of whether localities can prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries (watch it here). Our state's highest court is wading into a confused thicket of laws concerning marijuana, and more specifically medical marijuana. Here is a quick synopsis of the legal landscape.

Under federal law, marijuana is a schedule 1 drug. This means it is an illegal narcotic and there is no accepted use for it. Recently a federal appeals court rejected a suit seeking to change that classification. It is now up to Congress and the Drug Enforcement Administration to act. The federal government could take a number of different routes. First, it could classify medical marijuana. Second, it could legalize medical marijuana. Third, it could reduce penalties for the use and/or possession of medical marijuana.

Next we move on to California State laws. In 1996 the voters passed Prop 215, commonly known as the Compassionate Use Act. That law, among other things, allows doctors to recommend that certain patients use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Patients with such a recommendation can possess and grow marijuana for medicinal purposes. The law was later amended to allow collective distribution of medical marijuana. Still, the contours of the law are far from clear. 

In the local level, cities and states have four primary options. First, they can prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries (maybe -- more on that in a moment). Second, they can impose moratoriums on such dispensaries. Third, they can impose regulations, like zoning laws, which restrict such dispensaries. Fourth, they can impose no local regulations. To date many localities have taken the first route and banned medical marijuana dispensaries. These include Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, and Culver City. As I have previously noted in Los Angeles voters will likely face three different ballot measures dealing with medical marijuana this May.

This week the California Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the issue of whether localities have the power to ban medical marijuana dispensaries in light of State laws, primarily the Compassionate Use Act, which address this topic. 

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Will localities in California be able to ban medical marijuana dispensaries?

I spoke with Madeleine Brand about this question on an episode of SoCal Connected.