CalNORML to Appeal Court Decision Upholding Tehama Anti-Medical Marijuana Ordinance

Also see: Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Tehama County Cultivation Ordinance

UPDATE February 20: CalNORML has filed its appeal.

UPDATE February 6: California NORML will appeal a court decision upholding Tehama's ordinance restricting patients' right to grow medical marijuana. The ordinance, which declares it a nuisance to cultivate any marijuana at all - indoors or outdoors - within 1,000 feet of a park, church, school, school bus stop, et al., effectively makes it impossible for many patients to obtain their medicine in accordance with Prop. 215.

Attorney J. David Nick will be appealing a ruling by Superior Court Judge Richard Schueller, who dismissed a lawsuit to declare the ordinance invalid on Jan. 28th. "After careful consideration of all potential issues NORML has decided to appeal the illogical ruling of the Tehama County Superior court," says Nick. "Never before has an appellate court approved a rewriting of statewide law under the masquerade that its a zoning provision. The state supreme court and state appellate courts have repeatedly held that municipalities have no authority to restrict what the breadth of state law expressly permits. The CUA gives individuals the ability to create their own medicine; certainly that right will disappear in swabs of the whole state if it can be eliminated through the 'zoning' trick. We are confident that the 3rd District Court of Appeal will have a more accurate view of the law."

See: Pot group appealing court ruling
Corning Observer
COURT RULES TEHAMA CULTIVATION RESTRICTIONS VALID
February 3, 2011 - Superior Court Judge Richard Schueller dismissed Cal NORML's legal challenge to Tehama county's ordinance restricting medical marijuana cultivation. The court held that the county's powers to regulate nuisances through zoning ordinances were not preempted by the CUA or SB 420. The court ruled that "creating the potential for zoning enforcement as to medical marijuana is not the same as criminalizing it." The court cited the Kruse v Claremont decision, which upheld the city's right to ban a medical marijuana dispensary.

Unlike Claremont, however, Tehama's ordinance limits the right of individual patients to grow. Unlike collectives, patients are explicitly protected under Prop 215. Judge Schueller also cited the Buchanan bill, H&SC 11362.768, which declares that nothing shall prohibit local govts from passing ordinances "further restricting the location or establishment of a medical marijuana cooperative, collective, dispensary, operator, establishment, of provider." Cal NORML attorney J. David Nick points out that the Buchanan bill does not apply to individual patients or caregivers, nor does it override the legislative intent of SB 420.

The Tehama ordinance restricts the amount of marijuana patients or collectives can grow to 12 mature plants on 20 acres or less; requires 100 foot setbacks from neighboring property, and forbids any cultivation within 1000 feet of schools, school bus stops, churches, parks, or youth facilities.

Cal NORML believes the ordinance violates Prop 215 because it effectively makes it impossible for patients to supply their medical needs. Since Tehama county has also banned dispensaries of any kind, this effectively leaves those patients who can't grow on their own property without any legal access to medication.

Text of Judge Schueller's ruling

See background on Tehama case

See the Tehama ordinance

Corning Observer: Tehama court tosses marijuana lawsuit


Ordinances are null and void in Tehama County.

Our State Constitution allows cities and counties to enact and enforce local ordinances so long as they are not in conflict with the state general laws. (Cal. Const. art xi 7) Any conflicting ordinance is preempted by state law and thus void. (O'Connell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1061,1065. The Board of directors first has to review its ordinances to determine if they are exempt from CEQA Calif. Environmental Quality which handles agricultural land and farm land . The planning and zone law prohibits any local entity from denying and individual or group of the enjoyment of residence landownership or any other land use in Calif due to lawful occupation, individual or group of individuals. Government Code 65008.Procedural inequity occurs when the planning process is not applied uniformly. I have filed a lawsuit in Tehama County because Ordinances for farm land and agricultural zone do not pertain to marijuana. Marijuana is a crop you only have to be 6 ft from premise boundary line, you can have a greenhouse, no limit to crops and there is a no nusinance law in ag land Read Chapter also Chapter 17.11.010-17.11.080 10.12.030 in agricultural district. These are ordinances already established making ordinances created for marijuana are null and void. Tehama County California Code of Ordinances under title 10.12.010 any lands not just agricultural zoned that are being and have been used for agricultural operation for a period of three years or longer is considered ag land. I have a ton more statutes and laws for defending against the amount of the property on and for nuisance. I need your help the Board of Supervisors in Tehama County are secretly trying to overturn the ordinances by making themselves exempt from the CEQR Read Board of Supervisors agenda #26 on July 30th 2013 they want to be exempt from any gov codes or laws which protect us now. I used this as my defense at hearing and they turned around a wrote CEQR to be exempt because they have thousands of lawsuits available now from their illegal ordinances. Please write or start a petition asking the CEQA not to make the request from tehama county to exclude marijuana from their planning and land use government codes and procedures This organization is also a part of Lafco and OPR Govenors Office of Planning and research the reason to stop tehama county on petition is because it would cause a considerable cumulative impact and effects detrimentally to a large number and groups of farmers. Johnsons vs. state of calif. 1968 Tehama county claims exception from gov codes and land and research restrictions and compliance because they say there is no detrimental effect and that it does not have a significant effect on environment which is bullshit but ESQR won't know this until letters pour in to them and they can deny the counties request to be exempt The address to write to is State Clearing House P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, Calif 95812-3044. No matter what county you are in let this CEQA know that it would set a precedent and every county that discrimanates marijuana will follow in pursuit to be exempted to their laws of the land so that the county would have complete control of everylandowner, tenant and their rights to piece quiet enjoyment of their land. My Name is Jeannette Turner and I was harrasses five times by illegal tresspassing and nuisance abatement which the Board of Supervisors ignored my defense which made their ordinances illegal. Kinda pissed them off so now they are going to the source of my defence which is the land and research Ceqa. We only have about twenty days left to respond to this prop0sal and say no to it. Also send a copy to the County Clerk of Board of Supervisors Office at P.O.Box 250 Red Bluff, Calif.96080 I have been calling Drs who prescribed prescriptions to also let their patients know of this and to get in motion we can do this as a group I can't stand alone This is the big one which we can all sue their asses for illegal search and seizure. taking of our land for what it was intended to be used for and each one sue individually so the courts will be so tied up they will have to compromise. My email is jeannetteturner@yahoo.com 530-366-1159. Get your envelope and stamps out and get these in the mail we need at least 50% of the people but it also takes only one letter to alert the CEQA Of the fraud the county is about to commit by lying and saying it will not MAKE ANY IMPACT ON ENVIRONMENT OR COMMUNITY. Tehama County you sneaky underserving pitiless group that makes up your own laws as you go and know their illegal but the innocent would never immagine decept from people who are soppose to represent us. I also called Dan Logues office our rep and his assistant wants letter sent to him as well he cannot belief how ruthless the Board of Supervisors are and he also realizes once everybody reads this you are all eligible to file suit and call the board personally and let them know you do not approve of their request to be exempt from CEQA. They wont listen so the more letters to appropriate sources and we can win this.

Butte Co. DA

What about Butte Co DA Mike Ramsey's ultra-authoritarian opposition to MMJ access? This one elected official has effectively curtailed access by shutting down all dispensaries in Butte Co.
Please help Butte Co. patients!

Tehama & Butte County's Restrictive Ordinances

Butte County's D.A.,S.O.Board of Supes have all got on board with Tehama Co.,& Mencino Co. restrictive Anti- Med Cannabis grow ordinance,& have taken it several steps beyond.Mendocino,at $190.to register vs.Butte's $832 to register,Mendocino's $25 per "Ziptie" vs. Butte's $44,only shows the masquerade Butte's approach is,& has nothing to do with assisting or protecting the rights GUARANTEED by Prop 215 or SB 420 of those who truly have legitimate need & follow the law as 6 mature & 12 immature plants per recommendation.Steve Lambert,Butte's Board of Supe Chairman goes so far as distorting the truth saying even 6 plants is considered an illegal "LARGE GROW".Reminiscent of the Bush administration's distortion 934 times of " UNDENIABLE W.M.D.'s"..Butte's proposed new ordinance makes it virtually impossible for any law abiding Medicinal Cannabis patient to medicate as the voters of the state of California intended as the Right of LAW of the state of California(215 & AB420)TAKE A STAND AGAINST "OFFICIAL"S LAWLESSNESS IN BUTTE COUNTY !"