Articles Posted in Marijuana Lawyer

Nascar and beer seem a likely pair in the world of advertising.

But what about Nascar and buds?

Spectators at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, attending the Nascar Brickyard 400, may have noted the new, 30-second spots that at first glance may have appeared to be your average ad for brew. Instead, the ads were promoting legal marijuana as an alternative.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers recognize that as attitudes shift regarding the consumption of the plant – be it for medicinal or recreational purposes – we can count on the advertising industry to be on the cutting edge of those evolving mores.

Still, those who fund this burgeoning genre of marketing would do well to first consult with an attorney who is well-versed in marijuana law on a federal and multi-state level. While advertising is all about getting people to pay attention, sometimes the attention garnered is not so welcome.

For example, back in 2011, the federal government began targeting radio stations, newspapers and other media outlets that ran advertisements for medical marijuana dispensaries in California. Federal law bars people from placing ads for illegal drugs in any type of publication. Federal prosecutors have been working to extend that interpretation to online advertisements. (The U.S. Justice Department won a $500 million settlement from Google for selling ads linking to online pharmacies in Canada.) Because the law targets those who actually place the ads, the law could loosely be interpreted to include those who manage the publications.

The maximum penalty for a first-time offense is a four-year prison term. It’s eight years for someone with a prior felony offense.

However, an exception is made for ads that advocate the use of illegal drugs, but don’t technically offer them for distribution or sale. It’s likely that First Amendment arguments could be used to support the rights of companies and media outlets to run this material. Given the stiff penalties, though, it’s wise to first consult with a lawyer to make sure you’re on solid legal footing.

Another example of marijuana advertisements garnering negative attention was the ban on outdoor marijuana advertisements in Denver. The city council there voted unanimously to ban all outdoor medical marijuana ads, meaning those appearing on posters, billboards, bus benches, sign twirlers and windshield leaflets. Businesses were not barred by the city from advertising services online, on the radio, on television and in print – provided there was a clear indication that the products advertised were solely for use by patients who were appropriately registered under state law to receive medical marijuana.

That move came prior to state voters’ approval of the drug for recreational purposes as well.

The pro-marijuana ad that recently ran at the NASCAR race, funded by the Marijuana Policy Initiative, was set to run 72 times throughout the course of the weekend. However, it was ultimately pulled by Grazie Media, who had initially sold the airtime. The company said the ads did not coalesce with the “family-friendly atmosphere” of a family sporting event.

Never mind that advertisements for alcohol, which is associated with a host of deadly dangers including drunk driving, overdose and violence, were deemed welcome and in-line with that same “family-friendly atmosphere.”
Continue reading

City officials in Berkeley are joining the fight against federal prosecutors’ action to shut down California’s medical marijuana dispensaries.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that Berkeley joins the list of municipalities standing up to federal power in support of dispensaries they know are beneficial for the community at-large.

Efforts to shutter Harborside Health Center in Oakland has also been met with fierce and ongoing resistance from city leaders, who recently won a motion to stay, allowing the center to remain open while the city appeals a previous ruling positing that it has no standing in the civil forfeiture case.

In Berkeley’s case, the target is the Berkeley Patients Group, which has been in operation since 1999, just three years after California voters first approved the legalization of medicinal marijuana. Federal prosecutors in this case also are attempting to seize the dispensary property through civil forfeiture action. The dispensary is in full compliance with the city’s medical marijuana ordinance, zoning laws and regulations.

Prosecutors have been coming down hard on dozens of dispensaries like BPG, despite long histories of working in cooperation with local leaders. These facilities responsibly offer safe access to their medicine and take extreme precaution to ensure they are following the letter of local and state laws.

But of course, the distribution of marijuana for any purposes remains illegal under U.S. law, and this is what federal authorities are using to take action against dispensaries – even in cases where local law enforcement and city heads strongly back the dispensaries.

Berkeley’s claim was filed earlier this month in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the same court handling the Harborside/Oakland case. In its claim, the city asserts that the closure of BPG is going to harm the city with the loss of substantial revenue, as the dispensary over the years has paid taxes amounting to millions of dollars.

Additionally, the city asserts, the city has devoted a significant amount of time and resources to the health and well-being of all its residents through the implementation of a comprehensive regulation and control system. The efforts of federal prosecutors undermine that carefully-enacted system.

This in turn, the city says, is going to inevitably lead to a large number of non-permitted, unregulated dispensaries and a spike in illicit marijuana sales on the streets. This negatively impacts not only the safety of the patients, but also the quality of the neighborhoods and hurts the local business community.

As Berkeley’s Mayor Tom Bates flatly asserted, “It’s time for the federal government to wake up” and stop its pointless and harmful crusade against law-abiding marijuana dispensaries. The mayor went on to defend BPG, saying it had broken no local laws, has harmed no one. In fact, the mayor said, the facility has served to improve the lives of countless people who are struggling with chronic pain, cancer, AIDS and other serious conditions. It’s also helped to ease the suffering of those who are on their death beds.

It’s our sincere hope that other cities will take up this mantle and pressure federal prosecutors to back off and give up their deeply destructive efforts.
Continue reading

Attorneys representing the City of Oakland, which is fighting federal prosecutors to keep open the doors of renowned medical marijuana dispensary Harborside Health Center, scored a victory earlier this month, with a federal judge ruling the center may remain open while an earlier verdict is appealed.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that is likely to buy the center at least a year, if not 15 months or so. That’s not only good news for Harborside, it’s good news for the many hundreds of chronically or acutely ill patients who rely on the center to provide safe access to quality product.

Judge Marie-Elena James of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, granted a motion to stay for the city in Oakland v. Holder.

Harborside began operating back in 2006. It was upheld as a model dispensary, managing a well-run operation that was a benefit to the community in terms of not only taxes but also numerous charity contributions. Of course, it helps tremendously that the city has a functioning regulatory system for the distribution of medicinal cannabis. The system worked very well for all, until the feds decided to get involved for the simple fact that Harborside had gotten “too big.” (Mind you, there is nothing in state law or city code that limited the size of such an operation.)

When federal prosecutors moved to shut Harborside down, city officials protested. To do so would decimate the system the city had in place, effectively forcing medical marijuana patients to buy drugs off the street. This would result in not only a scourge of non-permitted shops, but also likely an uptick in crime.

What the prosecutors have been attempting to do is shutter Harborside through a civil forfeiture action. This is a statute that allows authorities to seize property purchased by or used for the purposes of illegal drug profits. The suit targets Harborside’s landlord. Still, the City of Oakland had attempted to step in, saying it had a vested public safety interest in keeping the facility open.

Federal prosecutors issued a motion to dismiss the city’s case, on the basis that the city had no legal standing. Judge James granted that motion back in February. However, the city is appealing that decision.

In the meantime, the judge has now said the dispensary can remain open while that appeal is pending.

The trial for the federal civil forfeiture case won’t happen until after the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hears the city’s appeal. At minimum, that could take 15 months.

We would sincerely hope that during this time, federal prosecutors efforts are redirected. The fact is, these attacks perpetuated throughout California are, at best, misguided. Not only have these strong-arm tactics resulted in the loss of thousands of good jobs, it’s drained millions of dollars in tax revenue and resulted in the loss of freedom for those simply trying to provide a valuable service. Not only that, patients and communities are endangered and drug cartels and street gangs are made wealthier.

Oakland had a great system – one to be emulated, not destroyed.
Continue reading

In an effort to have marijuana reclassified from its current status as a Schedule I narcotic, Americans for Safe Access has formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review an earlier ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C., which sided with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

You may recall in the previous case, Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration, decided back in January, the appellate court backed the DEA’s current, strict classification of the drug. As a Schedule I narcotic, marijuana is considered:

• To have a high potential for abuse;
• To have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S.;
• To have a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision.

For very obvious reasons, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers recognize the classification as flawed. Not the least of those reasons is the fact that 18 states and the District of Columbia have approved it for medicinal use. So there are, in fact, accepted medical uses for the drug in the U.S. Two states have even approved it for recreational use.

Yet it remains illegal under federal law, which allows federal prosecutors to clamp down hard on dispensaries and patients. The current schedule is exceedingly antiquated, not to mention dangerous in terms of how it ultimately affects the lives of those who seek to grow, distribute, possess and use it.

The appeal to the Supreme Court was expected. The ASA had announced it had planned to do so after the previous ruling was issued. The petition doesn’t mean the case is going to be heard. The court receives thousands of such petitions every session. Only a tiny percentage of those are actually heard.

However, this case may have a better chance than most of getting the court’s attention. For one ting, it is on the paid certiorari docket. Most cases aren’t. And secondly, the plaintiff argues that the court’s intervention is necessary to resolve a critical conflict between the federal and appellate courts.

While the D.C. Circuit court had granted the plaintiff standing – the first time that had been done in almost two decades – it denied the appeal in a 2-1 ruling that set an extremely high standard for assessing medical efficacy of a drug.

The ASA took great pains to cite some 200 peer-reviewed studies in its appeal. However, the appellate court held that plaintiffs had to produce evidence of Phase II and Phase III clinical trials. These are the kinds of trials that are usually conducted when pharmaceutical companies are trying to bring a new drug to the market. But here’s the catch: Many of those studies couldn’t advance to the Phase II or Phase III platform because doing so would have meant gaining permission from the DEA to use the drug for research purpose. The DEA tends to deny all but a very small portion of marijuana research requests.

In its 161-page petition, the ASA writes that the appellate court’s denial that ample evidence exists to prove marijuana’s medicinal value is to simply ignore extensive, well-documented studies. The organization further argued that the court “unreasonable raised the bar” for what should be considered an adequate and well-controlled study.

In addition to continued studies on the drug, all of which overwhelmingly point to the drug’s medical benefits, national polls show that public approval of marijuana for medicinal purposes has consistently risen since 2002, and now hovers around 80 percent.
Continue reading

The National Institutes of Health has awarded a $3.3 million grant to a Pennsylvania university to study the impact of medical marijuana use in Los Angeles on young adults’ physical and psychological health, as well as their other drug use.

Our marijuana defense lawyers understand the study, “Medical Marijuana, Emerging Adults and Community: Connecting Health ad Policy,” is expected to stretch over the course of five years and will be spear-headed by a medical doctor/associate professor at Drexel University’s School of Public Health. Research began July 1.

The study is noteworthy for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that medical marijuana is tough to objectively study – let alone obtain federal grants to do so – because marijuana remains illegal under federal law. That means researchers are often unable to access the drug itself in clinical research without breaking the law.

The New York Times detailed this issue back in 2010, profiling a University of Massachusetts professor who for nine years had been struggling to get permission from authorities to grow a supply of the plant that he could study and subsequently provide to researchers for clinical trials. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has repeatedly turned him down.

Marijuana remains the only major drug for which federal authorities control the only legal supply and for which research supply requires special scientific review by the government. What this means is that the government has the power to shape our understanding and therefore public opinion on this issue. It’s worth noting this strategy may not be working, as the majority of Americans now support the legalization of the drug, at least for medicinal purposes.

Part of the reason the Drexel study may have been approved is that it won’t require any direct supply of the drug to researchers. Instead, the study authors will be focusing on how medical marijuana policies in Los Angeles have affected young adults’ health. A core focus, says the lead researcher, will be on determining the influence and significance of storefront medical marijuana dispensaries on health.

The research team says that medical marijuana dispensaries have not been studied to any great extent, as they are a relatively new and different kind of operation. One of the hypotheses held by researchers is that medical marijuana dispensaries may actually provide a basis for improved physical and psychological outcomes for medical marijuana users, as compared to those who are forced to seek access to the drug on the black market. The latter, of course, is what is increasingly happening as federal officials continue to target dispensaries and strong-arm them into shuttering their doors.

The study concept was reportedly born of preliminary findings by an earlier study, also funded by the NIH, that examined non-medical prescription drug use among high-risk younger adults in two cities, one of them being Los Angeles. Here, researchers found marked differences in the patterns of health and drug use among those who used medical marijuana, versus those who were using the drug without a physician’s recommendation.

The new study aims to specifically accomplish the following:

• Identify the basis for medical marijuana patient status and determine its impact on the trajectories of psychological and physical health among young adults;
• Figure out the impact of medical marijuana patient status on a young adult’s drug use, specifically involving the intensity of marijuana use, as well as the abuse of alcohol, illicit drugs and prescription drugs;
• Describe the natural history of marijuana use in Los Angeles among medical and non-medical marijuana users.

Continue reading

Pediatric use of medical marijuana is one of those issues that has both fierce opponents and determined advocates.

In the end, our Los Angeles medical marijuana lawyers believe that as with any health plan involving one’s children, it’s a highly personal choice that is best left in the hands of parents and physicians who have the best interest of the child at heart.

However, because of the stigma, we recognize that parents whose children are prescribed marijuana are going to be under greater scrutiny from all angles – everyone from school officials to social service workers to law enforcement. Not all will be targeted for some type of action, but it’s not out of the question. We recommend that parents who are overseeing their child’s medical marijuana use also consult with an experienced marijuana attorney, even if no action is pending against you, to ensure that your rights and those of your child will be protected.

NBC News recently chronicled the issue, which is becoming even bigger as we now have 18 states plus Washington D.C. where marijuana is legal for medicinal purposes. While adults continue to comprise the largest number of medical marijuana patients, many doctors, recognizing the immense benefits of the drug for a range of conditions from autism to epilepsy, have been more apt to prescribe it to children as well.

The example highlighted by NBC was the case of a young boy who, at 6-month-old was diagnosed with a type of epilepsy that was so debilitating, he suffered sometimes as many as 250 seizures daily. His mother was in constant fear that he would die. He often stopped breathing during the seizures. For 10 years, the boy and his family were in the grips of this nightmare, trying some 17 different combinations of heavy medications, all with their own difficult side effects. The boy wasn’t getting better.

By the time doctors wrote the boy a prescription for marijuana, he and his parents were desperate, but beginning to lose hope. But as the NBC reporter put it, marijuana “calmed the electrical storms in (the boy’s) brain.”

His parents consider themselves conservative. They had previously bought into the stigma surrounding marijuana. Their desperation was the only thing that left them open to giving it a try. The results, they say, were both stunning and immediate.

It’s been eight months since the boy was prescribed marijuana. He hasn’t ha a seizure since, his parents say.

The boy is now having marijuana specially grown for him that is bred to have lower levels of the psychoactive ingredient THC but higher levels of cannabidiol. Both impact seizures, nausea and pain, but the latter isn’t psychoactive. That means the boy isn’t getting high every time he gets his medicine, which he consumes in the form of a syrup that contains purified cannabis oil.

Despite seemingly miraculous cases like this – and it’s not isolated – there are those who are continuing to push back on giving the drug to children. Doctors believe safety for children needs to be tested in clinical trials before it can be readily prescribed to youth. Of course, the federal government, which requires special approval for clinical trials involving marijuana, has been notoriously stingy with its permission for such research.

While this boy’s parents say clinical trials are all well and good – if they can actually get underway – there are countless more children like their son who need help right now.
Continue reading

One of the many ways the federal authorities have worked to erode the rights of medical marijuana dispensaries and patients is to ensure that these facilities can’t access banks in the same capacity as other businesses.

Currently, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that federal prosecutors have threatened to impose or have actually imposed harsh punishments and penalties on banks that have historically done business with marijuana operations, regardless of whether those operations were legitimate, licensed and regulated.

This has effectively turned medical marijuana (and recreational marijuana, in states where that is now legal) into a cash crop, where patients must pay upfront in cash and dispensaries are unable to safely keep and track money in checking or savings accounts.

U.S. lawmakers are hoping that changes. U.S. House Bill 2652 was introduced earlier this month, sponsored by congressmen from Colorado and Washington state, along with 16 bipartisan co-sponsors, aims to reform federal banking laws to allow marijuana providers access.

The Marijuana Business Access to Banking Act of 2013 would permit marijuana facilities, both medical and recreational, that are regulated and authorized by the state to legally access financial institutions.

The measure would serve to update federal banking laws that currently pose conflicts with state laws – specifically those legitimizing marijuana dispensing operations. This, backers say, would serve to promote financial security for these owners, as well as safety within the community.

Officials often site robberies as part of the reason why they don’t want dispensaries in their neighborhoods. But the reality is that these operations are being forced to keep large quantities of cash on hand, which is inevitably going to be a draw for would-be robbers.

As it now stands, even some of the most basic banking services – merchant credit card processing, checking accounts and the ability to write checks to pay taxes or meet payroll – are largely unavailable to these entities.

This, in turn, sometimes puts them on the wrong side of the Internal Revenue Service. This gives federal prosecutors even more ammunition against these entities, even though there was never an intention to avoid paying taxes in the first place.

As one supportive representative was quoted as saying, its nearly unfathomable that any small business owner would be able to run a legitimate operation without access to the banking system. We have 18 states plus Washington D.C. allowing adult usage of marijuana in some capacity or another, and federal law should be updated to reflect that reality, he said.

Lawmakers say not only are lost tax revenue and public safety a concern, but banks should be allowed to make their own business decisions regarding their involvement with legal operations, without fear of federal regulatory penalties or even criminal charges.

The bill, if passed, would prohibit federal banking regulators from:

• Threatening or limiting depository institutions’ access to the Deposit Insurance Fund;
• Prohibiting, discouraging or penalizing depository institutions;
• Take any action against a loan made to a business that is covered;
• Strong-arm a depository institution into denying banking services to legitimate firms.

The legislation would cover any marijuana-related legitimate business, which would include manufacturers, growers, producers and any operation that legally handles, sells, transports, displays or distributes the drug or related products.
Continue reading

Back in May voters in Los Angeles gave the green light to a measure that would cap the number of medical marijuana dispensaries to about 134 – the number that existed at the time of its unsuccessful 2007 ban.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers have learned that the names of those authorized facilities. You can read them by clicking here, as provided by 89.3 KPCC Southern California Public Radio.

Whether each of these sites will remain open is unclear. We don’t know, for example, how many of those from 2007 are even still operational. The city has not made any concessions to allow additional dispensaries to apply, should any of the listed 134 go out of business or be no longer operational.

The new law, under the voter-approved Measure D, formally took effect June 20th. That means that hundreds of dispensaries were to have closed, though it’s not clear whether all are in compliance. We do know that the city attorney’s office has sent out hundreds of warning letters, and we expect that a number of those facilities that did close have either shifted to collectives operations or may have morphed into some type of delivery service. Any of those who are in the process of this or have yet to do so should consult with an experienced marijuana attorney to help assist in the transition and to ensure your current and future liability is limited.

Those dispensaries that remain should also seek legal consultation. Among the regulations imposed under the new measure:

• Dispensaries have to be located a minimum of 600 feet away from parks and schools and at least 1,000 feet away from one another;
• Dispensary hours are limited from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.;
• Dispensaries have a total of 180 days to comply with all specified regulations.

Unfortunately, federal prosecutors have all but said that the new law means nothing to them, and that they reserve the right to continue their barrage of prosecutions on even those eligible dispensaries. U.S. Attorney Andrew Birotte was quoted as saying that, “It doesn’t mean anything to us, quite frankly.” He went on to say that so long as there was evidence that dispensaries were violating federal law, his office could pursue prosecution.

Of course, this leaves all remaining facilities vulnerable, as federal law bars the use or sale of marijuana under any circumstance. State law does allow the medicinal use of marijuana, but those facilities that provide the drug must be not-for-profit.

Federal prosecutors say that the problem is most marijuana dispensaries operate as for-profit businesses, which would be in violation of both state and federal law. Recently, the U.S. Attorney’s Office sent warning letters to more than 100 L.A. dispensaries, warning them to shutter their business or face either civil forfeiture or criminal prosecution or both.

Birotte said the majority of those ended up closing on their own accord. Regarding those who had not, criminal cases are pending against three of them.
Continue reading

Seventeen years ago, California was on the forefront of a progressive movement in its legalization of medical marijuana. Our state has opened the doors for countless sick and dying patients to obtain immeasurable amounts of comfort and relief in the form of a natural substance with few side effects.

Today, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers are disappointed to report that many of our own patients are now lacking the kind of access we pioneered nearly two decades ago.

The issue of medical marijuana dispensaries was not one that was widely on the federal government’s radar – until President Barack Obama’s first term. It started with a few raids and Drug Enforcement Administration prosecutions here and there. It has since heightened to a barrage of assaults, ranging from civil forfeiture actions to criminal trafficking charges.

Almost exactly two years ago, Assistant Attorney General James Cole issued an announcement in California through the four U.S. Attorneys’ offices here that it was effectively open season on marijuana dispensaries.

All of this came as a great shock to many people who had voted for Obama, who in addition to admitting use himself as a youth, as a candidate had pledged not to make marijuana a federal priority in states where it was legal.

During that time, we’ve had hundreds of city and county governments – including the City of Los Angeles – take action to ban or severely limit storefront marijuana dispensaries, upon which many ill patients relied to consistently and safely supply their medicine. What we saw emerge was a veritable patchwork of access from region to region.

The decision in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, handed down in May by the California Supreme Court, backed local efforts to outright ban facilities through zoning regulations. That has meant that those municipalities that may have previously been reticent to take action on this front have now moved forward in either enacting bans or enforcing the ones they already had in place.

Among some of those measures:

• Los Angeles will be shrinking its dispensary numbers from about 1,000 down to about 125;
• San Bernadino has shut down 18 dispensaries and is working to shut down 15 more;
• Palm Springs is trying to shut down its 5 dispensaries;
• Stockton has taken its first steps to initiate a dispensary ban;
• Garden Grove has ordered all of its 62 dispensaries to cease operations immediately or face prosecution;
• Anaheim, which had 143 dispensaries back in 2007, has ordered the last 11 shuttered.

The list goes on.

And meanwhile, the federal assault continues. Prosecutors issued more than 100 new threat letters to dispensaries in Los Angeles late last month.

Many of the iconic dispensaries, the ones that set the bar for how to do it right, have since closed.

The people who are ultimately harmed are not so much the dispensary owners as the patients who have been left without a source of medicine. Many are forced to drive hundreds of miles to fill their prescription.

We believe the next front will be delivery services, as many patients lack the time, resources and skill to grow the drug on their own.
Continue reading

The City of Oakland has not yet given up the fight to keep the country’s largest medical marijuana dispensary, an operation widely-recognized to benefit not only patients but the community and taxpayers as well.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers have been closely watching the showdown, which involves the unprecedented move of city leaders standing up to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in an effort to prevent the dispensary from being forced to shutter its doors due to a civil forfeiture action.

Civil forfeiture actions have been initiated against marijuana facilities across the country as a bully tactic to force closure by threatening either the business or the building owner with government seizure. In doing so, the government employs a previously little-used loophole in the law that was created to seize large assets from criminal drug cartel and mob bosses.

Federal prosecutors have been gunning for Harborside’s closure for years now. In a move many in the marijuana industry found both surprising and incredibly encouraging, the City of Oakland jumped to Harborside’s defense in the matter, naming itself as an interested party in the case. The city says it has standing because it has the right to license and regulate dispensaries under state law.

However, U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag has argued that medical marijuana facilities are illegal drug operations. She is attempting to take Harborside properties in both San Jose and Oakland under a clause of the Controlled Substances Act.

The city responded by filing a lawsuit against both the U.S. Justice Department and Haag. The property is owned by a separate party, who has been renting it to Harborside.

Previously, a federal judge had ruled that Oakland has no legal standing in the case, as it is technically filed against the building owner.

However, the city is appealing that decision. It has requested that a magistrate judge in the forfeiture case put all actions on hold until such time that the appeals court can rule about the city’s standing.

The city says it has a right to be involved because the closure of Harborside via the forfeiture action would negatively affect the city in a way that is unique from other forfeiture actions.

A private attorney who is representing the city pro bono has argued that to close down Harborside would be to create a health and public safety hazard. The concern is that the thousands of patients that use the facility would be forced to obtain their medicine from the black market. As such, the city would end up with a scourge of unregulated drug deals from unlicensed vendors which would be a drain on the city, rather than a benefit.

If the city is unsuccessful at the appellate level, it will have no more legal remedies. The federal government argues the city is only using this as a tactic to delay action.

However, it would seem as if the city has presented a fair amount of evidence to show that it has a legitimate cause for appeal. If it is successful, it would open the door to other communities that wish to fight to maintain well-run, beneficial dispensaries.
Continue reading