__________________
______________________________
__________________
______________________________
BY BRIAN HEWS
The state this week intervened in a new court battle over home delivery of cannabis in communities that have banned or restricted pot shops.
Many cities in the area, including Cerritos, have banned pot shops.
The state filed a motion on behalf of the California Bureau of Cannabis to join a lawsuit against Santa Cruz county, which has banned deliveries by companies it has not licensed.
In Fresno, cities are fighting the state contending that state law allows them to decide whether organizations can sell cannabis in their communities.
In January of this year, the Bureau of Cannabis issued regulations that permits firms the state licenses to deliver marijuana anywhere in the state, including in cities that have banned pot shops.
Many counter-argue that under proposition 64, which was passed in 2016, to legalize marijuana for recreational use, “the state promised the people of California local control over cannabis operations.”
The same people say that the state is trying to sidestep the Fresno court case by going to Santa Cruz County where residents are more in favor of pot shops.
Proposition 64 gave cities and counties the power to ban pot shops in their cities, ¾ of California cities have done that.
Local elected officials have banned marijuana sales in their communities out of public safety concerns saying that pot shops attract robbers and encourage other criminal activities.
In his filing, Attorney General Xavier Becerra argued that the state has acted properly in deciding where marijuana can be sold and delivered.
He argued that if the state were not allowed to regulate cannabis, it would bring substantial harm to the state.
Charter counties and general law cities are granted specific power by the state when not in conflict with state laws.
Charter cities, like Cerritos, are granted plenary (unlimited) powers except as to those that have been preempted by the State.
Courts must look to the test for preemption set forth in a California Supreme court case called in re Hubbard.
The courts examine if there is an adverse effect of the local ordinance on “transient” citizens of the state that outweighs the possible benefit to the city, in this case banning pot shops.
The question is, “do cities banning pot shops have an affect on someone who is living here for thirty days? If the ban has an effect, then state law preempts local law.
The case could apply to a transient who visits cities for a few days and wants to have pot delivered to his/her residence.
The court has set a January 2 hearing to decide whether to allow the state to intervene.
Many voters are just tired of voting, such as the case with Prop 64, only to have individual cities come around the void out the Proposition which was passed by the voters. Hurrah for the HUBBARD OUTCRY, to enforce Prop 64, sales of Cannabis . Hope HUBBARD Movement, will succeed and open new gateways for sales of Cannabis, especially for the medically challenged residents and regular Pot Buyers, in all 400 cities, to receive benefits from Cannabis. It’s ridiculous when voters go to vote for proposition 64, city of Cerritos feels like it’s super succeeds our democratic voting privileges.
Since the passing of Prop 64 and the prohibition of Cannabis sales in Cerritos, Too many of Cerritos cannabis buyers are running to the closest Cannabis outlets: Long Beach and La Habra- Mirada to purchase cannabis sales. Nothing to be shameful, Cannabis Industry is all good union jobs, secure buildings, and a huge sales tax of almost 16%. Said Employees are all excellent dressed, much better than most students and shoppers who live in 90703. Cerritos budget could use a dosage from Cannabis Sales, so Cerritos wouldn’t have to have a proposed sales tax increase like proposed in the March 2020 ballot. It’s ridiculous that the city would even consider a sales tax increase over 10%, when it has done very little to promote diversity businesses in the city.
CCC has 2 seated democrats, well, basis for democrats is government for all. Cerritos is nothing better than worn out GOP, and it’s going at a slow snail pace. Cerritos starting early on, with ridiculous restrictions on Overnight Parking and RV Laws, which aided large families to move out of Cerritos. City has been lost to the dust decades ago. Housing element has never looked so bad and the urban landscape and Public Works is a shame to the industry standards.
CERRITOS HISTORY:
Forbid drive-thru eateries ,
No no to self service gas stations with food Islands,
Prohibiting artificial turf,
No no to Granny flats,
Parking Restriction, RV Restrictions,
Hours of operation for the store malls,
Trying to kick Vapor sales out of the sea .
Most or all of the aboves have been over turned and won, but cost money from Cerritos annual budget to draft. All residents hear, city is broke towards Public Works repairs etc.
Cerritos Voters must ask this question in March 2020 CCC election. Why does Cerritos have to have full time Esq on staff, plus lets get real, city has 9 borderline cities surrounding it, so is an island of nuisance laws, which the 9 surrounding cities are only laughing at, hence making money on Cerritos GOP? City has too many big daddy government and ruining the city for Heartland of American diversity. City has too much intervention and only creating lid on growth, which we are seeing in our residential neighborhoods pertaining to housing.
[…] Source: https://www.loscerritosnews.net/2019/11/30/state-files-lawsuit-to-allow-deliveries-in-cities-that-ha… […]
[…] Source: https://www.loscerritosnews.net/2019/11/30/state-files-lawsuit-to-allow-deliveries-in-cities-that-ha… […]