CORRESPONDENCE - 55D - ADDITIONAL

Home Browse Search

I 25. These provisions relating to marijuana are in direct contravention of the federal 2 Controlled Substances Act ( °CSA "), 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., which "prohibits the manufacture 3 and distribution of various drugs, including marijuana." (United States v. Oakland Cannabis 4 Buyers' Cooperative (2001) 532 U.S. 483, 486.) "Whereas some other drugs can be dispensed 5 and prescribed for medical use, see 21 U.S.C. § 829, the same is not true for marijuana. Indeed, 6 for purposes of the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana has `no currently accepted medical 7 use' at all." (Id. at p. 491, quoting 21 U.S.C. § 812; see also Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 545 U.S. 8 1, 14 [ "In enacting the CSA, Congress classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug. 21 U.S.C. § 9 812(c).... Schedule I drugs are categorized as such because of their high potential for abuse, 10 lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically 1I supervised treatment. § 812(b)(I) "].) 12 26. Because the Initiative would contravene federal law, the Initiative would also 13 constitute an impermissible attempt by Plaintiff's electorate to legislate beyond the powers given 14 to it. The electorate's power to legislate via ballot initiative is constrained by the federal 15 constitution, Government Code section 37100 and by Riverside Municipal Code section 16 19.150.020. (See Supremacy Clause; Gov. Code, § 37100 [a "legislative body" cannot pass 17 ordinances that conflict with federal laws]; RMC § 19.150.020 [ "Any use which is prohibited by 18 state and/or federal law is also strictly prohibited "].) 19 27. Thus, the federal constitution, state law, and local law bar the electorate from 20 enacting laws that contravene federal law. As a result, the Initiative —which specifically amends 21 the Municipal Code to delete the requirement that City zoning regulations not contravene federal 22 law, and facilitates, aids and abets cultivation and distribution of a federally- classified Schedule I 23 drug -- exceeds the power of Plaintiff's electorate to enact legislation. 24 28. While courts generally defer challenges to ballot initiatives until after an election, this 25 rule does not apply when the challenge is based on a claim that "the measure is not one that 26 properly may be enacted by initiative." (Independent Energy Producers Assn, v. McPherson 27 (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1020, 1029; Mission Springs Water Dist. v. Verjil (2013) 218 Cal_AppAth 892, 28 919 [same].) "It is clear that a measure may be kept off the ballot if it represents an effort to CR /,TpR4EY5nYTu 3%Dhf NsA -7- Rrcers�or CA9i$22 (95]) 526556 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF