The tension between California’s regulation of cannabis and federal law remains a complex legal issue.
OG Article: here
View our Fair Use Policy: here
Although California voters passed Proposition 64 in 2016, allowing regulated cannabis use for both medicinal and adult recreational purposes, federal law still classifies cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
This designation keeps cannabis illegal at the federal level across all U.S. states, creating a persistent conflict where state-legal cannabis activities, such as cultivation and sale, remain federally illegal.
In *JCCrandall, LLC v. County of Santa Barbara*, the California Court of Appeal emphasized this conflict by denying a conditional use permit for cannabis cultivation.
The court cited the Supremacy Clause, underscoring that federal law preempts state law in cases of conflict, effectively deeming the land use for cannabis cultivation illegal despite California's state-level licensing and regulatory framework.
This ruling highlights the ongoing challenge California faces: it can establish state-level regulatory bodies like the Department of Cannabis Control to manage cannabis activities, but these do not alter cannabis's federal illegality.
In practical terms, California’s licensing framework operates with state legitimacy but remains technically vulnerable to federal enforcement actions.
This duality continues until the federal government either reclassifies cannabis or makes provisions to recognize state-level legalization, allowing for alignment between federal and state perspectives on cannabis.
Comments