A right to say no

When it comes to writing laws, it pays to get it right. That certainly isn’t California’s experience with medical marijuana, which voters approved 17 years ago.

Regulating pot sales has proved a nightmare, with a state Supreme Court decision showing just how messy the problem has become.

In a unanimous ruling, the court said local government could bar dispensaries if such operations posed “local risks and burdens.’’ Some 200 cities and counties don’t want the business, thinking the trade is out of scale and lawless. The upshot is that a comparative handful of large cities such as San Jose, Oakland and San Francisco allow the clinics, which can best be described as welcoming to nearly anyone who cites a medical need.

This landscape is a mess. There are an estimated 700 pot dispensaries in Los Angeles, where voters in two weeks face three competing regulatory measures on the topic. San Francisco has 26 dispensaries, with zoning laws that limit locations. But who knows where the marijuana comes from, how it’s grown or its potency?

One possible answer lies in AB473, a bill by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat. It calls for a new state agency that would monitor the production and quality of medical cannabis. It’s cleared a first-hurdle Assembly committee.

The bill and court case point up the oddities of California’s situation. The first state to endorse medical marijuana has been eclipsed by Colorado and Washington, which have gone further by legalizing small amounts of the drug. California allows a quite loose definition of “medical use’’ — which amounts to legalization for anyone with a claim to a malady and a $50 examination fee.

The court got it right: As long as medical marijuana remains in the Wild West of state non-regulation — and in direct conflict with federal law — cities and counties should have a right to just say no.