Articles Posted in Marijuana Lawyer

A popular argument by anti-marijuana advocates is that legalization of the drug for medicinal purposes poses a significant danger to our youth, and particularly to teenagers.

The theory goes that legal accessibility for ailing adults will translate to easy illicit accessibility for teens. It’s been the basis upon which both federal and state law enforcement officials, politicians and others have tried to force medical marijuana dispensaries out of business.

Now, a new study, published by the American Journal of Public Health, flat-out debunks this theory, and our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers wanted to provide a highlight of these findings.

Researchers from the University of Florida College of Medicine in Gainesville analyzed information culled from the youth Risk Behavior Survey for Michigan, Montana, Delaware and Rhode Island over the course of eight years. Each state had passed laws approving medicinal marijuana use and distribution prior to that time frame.

What the researchers discovered was that medical marijuana laws had no measurable impact on adolescent marijuana use in the first several years after such laws were passed.

This research backs earlier studies that have reached similar conclusions, serving to directly contradict fiery public statements issued by Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske and others, spewing the false belief that medical marijuana is somehow responsible for higher marijuana consumption among teens in the U.S.

Last year, researchers from three higher education institutions – the University of Oregon, the University of Colorado and Montana State University – teamed up to analyze the correlation between medical marijuana laws in those states and self-reported marijuana use among high school students. Researchers in that case too looked at Youth Risk Behavior Surveys conducted between 1993 and 2009. Those were the years during which more than a dozen states enacted legislation approving the cultivation and use of marijuana for medical reasons.

They too found absolutely zero evidence that state medical marijuana laws had an impact on teen drug use. Researchers clearly stated that the results do not line up with the hypothesis that medical marijuana legalization somehow perpetuates an increase of marijuana use among young people. In fact, the researchers said the effect may actually be the opposite. With access legalized and closely monitored, the drug was less widely available on the streets. What’s more, use of other illicit drugs, including cocaine and alcohol (among those under the age of 21) was actually down in those states.

That same finding was also reported in another study last year conducted by scientists at McGill University in Montreal. The results, later published in the Annals of Epidemiology, reflected a decrease of illicit drug use among high school students in states with legalized medical cannabis.
Continue reading

A new report by Americans for Safe Access indicates that the federal war on medical marijuana has cost this country almost half a billion dollars.

Just during the Obama administration and solely in states that have legalized medicinal marijuana, the federal government has spent some $300 million on enforcement. By comparison, during George W. Bush’s eight-year tenure, his administration spent a total of $200 million.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know these efforts were ongoing while we as a nation endured a deep economic recession and a housing crisis fueled by practices of banks that the U.S. Attorney General called “too big to prosecute.”

While cuts loomed large in schools, police forces and firefighting agencies in 2011 and 2012, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration was spending 4 percent of its budget on medical marijuana cases.

Over the past 17 years since marijuana first became legal in California, the DEA has conducted some 530 raids on medical marijuana facilities – with more than 270 of those occurring just in the last 4.5 years.

More than one-third of Americans – about 110 million people – live in states where marijuana is legal for medicinal purposes. That number is expected to increase to nearly 40 percent this year. The allowance of medical marijuana is highly popular among the people, with support consistently reported at by 70 to 80 percent over the course of the last 20 years.

In its 56-page report, the ASA indicates that some 1 million Americans legally use marijuana for medicinal purposes under state programs where it is sanctioned. These are individuals who are chronically and sometimes terminally ill or injured. Benefits derived from the drug include reduced anxiety, increased appetite (particularly for cancer patients), mitigation of seizures and pain reduction – to name a few. It’s worth noting that when the U.S. government first passed a federal law against marijuana back in 1937, it did so at the strong objection of the American Medical Association, which at the time stated there was no evidence whatsoever that marijuana was a dangerous drug.

This remains the case to this day, with hundreds of local, state, national and international organizations actively voicing support for the therapeutic value of medicinal marijuana.

When we talk about the war on medical cannabis, we’re not just talking about battles waged in courtrooms and in the halls of our legislators. We’re talking about millions of lives negatively affected each year by efforts that are costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and for which there is virtually zero benefit.

The federal government efforts range from criminal prosecutions against terminally ill patients to threats of criminal prosecution against elected officials who enact local distribution policies in compliance with state laws.

Medical marijuana patients face discrimination, and in some cases are even denied access to critical medical procedures due to their doctor-prescribed marijuana use.

The price paid for this war – and the immense number of casualties – is far too high. The federal government must shift its focus and give patients the opportunity to battle their illnesses – not their government.
Continue reading

It doesn’t matter that you live in a state where medical marijuana is legal. It doesn’t matter that the president of the United States has vowed not to go after you. It doesn’t matter that you are abiding by the rules of the state.

If you cultivate, possess or distribute marijuana – regardless of the reason – the federal government has the right to harass, rob and imprison you.

That’s the message at least that federal prosecutors are trying to send in their senseless efforts to incarcerate hundreds of individuals found to be in violation of antiquated federal laws pertaining to marijuana.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that a recent analysis of federal court records by the California branch of NORML, as well as Americans for Safe Access, shows that nearly 340 defendants have been federally charged with marijuana crimes in states that have medical marijuana laws.

The vast majority of these – 259 – are from California.

Furthermore, there are nearly 160 defendants serving prison sentences that total nearly 500 years, with another 50 individuals waiting to be sentenced.

These cases are tough to win. Ninety percent have resulted in in criminal convictions. The other 10 percent have been dismissed. Only one defendant was acquitted. Part of the reason has to do with the fact that federal law bars defendants from using their state’s medical marijuana laws as a defense to their actions, though there are continued court efforts to break down that barrier.

Despite Obama’s “bigger fish to fry” pledge, saying his administration would not bother to pursue those who were following the marijuana laws of their state, more than 150 cases have been brought during his 4.5 years. That is nearly as many as were brought under the eight years of the previous Bush administration, which totaled 163. What’s more, despite Obama’s promise, not one of these individuals serving time has been granted a clemency petition or pardon.

Although U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has testified that his Department of Justice has only taken action against those medical marijuana dispensaries that were defying state law, the reality is that a number of defendants were complying totally with state regulations and local laws. These are dispensaries that have taken extensive actions to cooperate with state authorities, work with local governments, offer a valuable service to ailing patients and millions of tax dollars to cash-starved municipalities. Many of the actions of federal authorities have in fact been in direct protest to the stance of local authorities.

The Justice Department isn’t the only federal agency that has made this a priority either. We have IRS auditors who have used tax rules that are unfair to deny routine deductions afforded to every other business. We have the Department of Treasury forcing lenders and banks to deny financial services to those in the medical marijuana industry. We also have the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms ruling it illegal for medical marijuana patients to purchase guns. Additionally, the National Institute on Drug Abuse has barred the use of medical marijuana in research.

The list goes on. Anyone who says there isn’t a war on weed is wrong. As California NORML’s director was quoted as saying, these efforts truly exemplify government dysfunction at its absolute worst.
Continue reading

Dr. Daniela Drake of Los Angeles concedes she is an unlikely marijuana advocate.

In her recent editorial published in the The Daily Beast, Drake recalls how she had always judged the drug and its users rather harshly.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that part of what began to alter her mentality regarding the issue was in a sense being forced to hear the stories of those whom the drug had benefited.

As a graduate from one of the nation’s top medical schools, she had never personally liked marijuana and she tended to hold stereotypical beliefs regarding those who did.

However, several years into her career as a doctor, she found herself at a crossroads. She had opened an internal medicine practice, and she was struggling. She had two small children with severe learning disabilities at home, and her hours at work were long and demanding.

Seeing an opportunity in the field of medical marijuana, she joined an upscale marijuana provider in Los Angeles. The woman who owned the clinic was also a working mother and physician.

At first, she said, it was a job. But over time, as she began to learn more about her patients’ histories and delve into their their stories, she became intrigued about the benefits of medical marijuana.

For many of her patients, marijuana provided a non-addictive form of pain relief. Among those patients:

• A young adult with lupus;
• A grandmother with rheumatoid disease;
• A mother with fiibromuyalgia;
• A paralyzed, middle-aged man in a wheelchair.

There were also mothers who swore by the drug, touting the positive effects it had in turning their hyperactive, out-of-control child into an A-student. In some cases, alcoholics who had been homeless were able to manage their addiction while holding down a job and hanging onto their housing – with the help of marijuana.

In one case, she came across a semi-professional baseball player who suffered from chronic muscle pain. Anti-inflammatories troubled his stomach, and marijuana was more effective and easier on his system.

By the time the doctor was called to testify in this young man’s defense – for growing six marijuana plants – she was more than convinced of the drug’s benefit. She was an advocate. She was furious that this was a case on which the court was even wasting its time and that the young man was facing years behind bars.

In the end, he was still convicted of a felony, but didn’t have to serve any prison time – on the condition that he never use marijuana again.

She concedes that yes, there were those that abused the drug and who came into the clinic with stories that were sketchy and motives that were questionable. However, she came to the conclusion that this should not mean that patients who genuinely benefit from the drug should be punished for it – especially not with a lifelong felony record.

She describes her reticence to be known as a flaky “pot doctor,” but says the injustice of that young man’s fate gnaws at her still today, several years later. It’s wrong, she said, that people like him are being labeled felons and thrown in prison. The federal government, she maintains is wrong on this.

She said her shift on the marijuana issue came after a long time and “practically against my will.” But she urges the federal government to give the issue that same kind of careful analysis in considering its position.
Continue reading

A new article published this month in the journal Nature Review Neuroscience leads with some powerful words for anti-marijuana advocates from some of the world’s top scientists.

The scientists say that drug prohibition hampering scientific study is the worst case of scientific censorship since the Catholic church banned the works of Galileo and Copernicus.

Ouch.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers hope our lawmakers will take that to heart in weighing their options for future legislation.

The paper was penned by former U.K. government advisors (one of those a professor at the Imperial College of London) and Professor David Nichols of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. The piece, entitled “Effects of Schedule I drug laws on neuroscience research and treatment innovation”, decries the sweeping governmental regulations that stringently restrict the possession of Schedule I narcotics – including marijuana.

For starters, the researchers say the laws were not based on science, but rather on hype. The dangers and harms of many of these substances were severely overstated at the time the laws were passed.

The tragedy is not so much that a college kid can’t do ecstasy on the weekend without risking arrest. Rather, the researchers say, it’s the fact that scientists aren’t able to gain access to study the drugs in controlled environments to explore their potential for other medicinal uses. In many cases, access to the drugs for the purposes of study are impossible.

What that means is we have people who are ailing. We have substances that could potentially help them. But the researchers who might connect those dots are bound by overly broad laws that, in today’s world, are simply nonsensical.

And what is the motivation? It’s not scientists, the paper’s authors say. It’s politics. And that, say the legal scholars, is “scandalous.” The only issue that came close to this, they said, was the Bush administration’s ban on embryonic stem cell research. That legislation, however, affected only the U.S. Bans on marijuana and other Schedule 1 narcotics, such as MDMA and psychedelics, are repeated in nation after nation.

The researchers argued that adopting a “more rational approach” to the regulation of these drugs, scientists might then be empowered to make advances that could lead to exponential treatment innovations in areas such as traumatic brain injuries and psychosis.

One of the study’s authors, Professor Brian Nutt, had been the leader of Britain’s Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs up until four years ago, when he sharply criticized his colleagues’ refusal to consider the committee’s review of scientific advise on the possible uses of marijuana and other drugs.

Researchers are able to get around the bans in some ways – usually by conducting surveys or other methods that don’t involve active administration of the drug. For example, a study published recently in the American Journal of Medicine surveyed blood test results of some 4,700 purported marijuana users. What they found was that marijuana users tended to be less obese and have lower levels of insulin resistance. What that means is that there could be something in the drug that could help ward off diabetes, a problem that affects about 26 million people in the U.S.

However, singling out what that element of the drug is would be tough for scientists to do without actually having access to it.

This is a prime example of the kind of opportunities we may be missing out on.
Continue reading

A law that would have clarified marijuana regulations in California has been rejected in the state Assembly, by a razor-thin vote of 35-37.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that this means AB 473, drafted by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, will not move forward to the state senate this session.

If it had received the required 41 votes, the measures would have established a Division of Medical Marijuana Regulation and Enforcement under the umbrella of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

This would have meant California collectives, dispensaries and patients would, for the first time, have very clear directives from the state about how marijuana could be grown, sold and taxed. It would have mandated that dispensaries register with the state agency, to which they would answer for any alleged violations.

It was something that should have been done 17 years ago, when the state first passed the medical marijuana law green lighting the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. Problems since then have proliferated, largely as a result of patchwork regulation. Each municipality was left to implement their own guidelines and control measures.

What we ended up were cities that allowed dispensaries to proliferate virtually unregulated, and on the other extreme, municipalities that barred dispensaries from operation altogether. Some communities were overrun with dispensaries, while others had patients in desperate need who were left without access.

You also had law enforcement that was uncertain how to relate to these entities. Just a few years earlier, marijuana had been public enemy No. 1. Suddenly, they were thrust into a situation with little understanding of what the new rules were.

It certainly doesn’t help that marijuana remains a Schedule I narcotic under federal law, allowing prosecutors with the U.S. Justice Department to take action against those who were merely abiding by state law.

Los Angeles has twice attempted to ban dispensaries. Most recently, council rescinded its scheduled ban amid a fervent public outcry. Instead, they opted for a public vote on three different regulatory measures. The one that passed limits the number of dispensaries to about 135, roughly the number that were in existence at the time the city enacted its previous ban in 2007.

Ammiano said that without a measure such as the one AB 473, we will continue to see the operation of “bad actors” and violence.

Unfortunately, it seems that many lawmakers took this opportunity to debate the merits of medical marijuana, rather than accept that it is the law approved by the people, it has been for nearly two decades and that what we truly need is more guidance from our state leaders.

Despite this setback, Ammiano said he is not giving up the fight. He is going to continue to push to get this measure – or one similar to it – on the governor’s desk in the next year.
Continue reading

A firestorm was kicked up several weeks ago when it was revealed that the Internal Revenue Service was systematically targeting conservative groups, particularly those affiliated with the tea party.

However, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that the tea party isn’t alone. Specifically, the IRS has been homing in on medical marijuana facilities for the last several years. The agency has been heavily relying on a little-known statute that gives the agency some powers that legislators never expressly intended.

Essentially, the agency has become a sort of mini-justice department. It has become an arm of the real Department of Justice due to the fact that it is wielding the federal tax code as a weapon in the war that’s been waged against medical marijuana – a war with which California dispensaries are all too familiar.

This is all the more troubling in light of the fact that most Americans favor the legalization of marijuana, particularly for medicinal purposes. Already 18 states as well as the District of Columbia have legalized it for that reason, and 12 more are considering following suit. It is not the will of the people that these entities be closed in on in a way that makes it virtually impossible for them to operate without fear of severe criminal or civil sanctions.

But that’s exactly what the IRS is trying to effect, with the application of IRS Code Section 280E, which governs expenditures in connection with the illegal sale of drugs. This was a law that was passed back in 1982, following a case involving a violent and wealthy illegal drug dealer who attempted to claim that his purchases of weapons and his yacht were legitimate business expenses for which he should receive an exemption. That was a long time before medical marijuana was legalized in California back in 1996, and there was little indication at the time that such a move would happen anytime soon.

So there is little doubt that this law was not passed with medical marijuana facilities in mind. And yet, this is how it’s being applied, even when facilities are compliant with state laws. The operations of illicit drug dealers were never permitted under state law.

Section 280E forbids entities from claiming deductions that incurred during trafficking of controlled substances. So unlike a lot of other small businesses, marijuana dispensaries aren’t allowed to deduct things like payroll, advertising or the cost of rent. These stores generally aren’t highly profitable as it is. What’s happening is that the IRS is effectively taxing them out of business – which is no doubt the intention.

This is the same section under which numerous dispensaries have become the subject of intensive IRS audits.

The IRS defends itself by pointing to a memo sent to Congress back in 2010 that indicates that neither the Controlled Substances Act nor Section 280E provide for any type of exception for medical marijuana providers.

A large number of dispensaries that have been audited have received demands for millions of dollars in back taxes – expenses they can’t afford, meaning they are forced to close.

This was never the intention of the original law.

Those dispensaries facing an audit should seek immediate counsel from an experienced team of marijuana lawyers.
Continue reading

More than a decade ago, U.C.L.A. drug policy expert Mark Kleinman was interviewed by The New York Times to discuss in-depth his reasoning why marijuana legalization was a poor idea.

While the removal of penalties for small amounts of possession, cultivation and use made sense, he said, he wasn’t in favor of the establishment of a commercial market that would inevitably lead to even more consumption of the drug, which, like anything else, could have adverse affects if abused or used by adolescents.

Today, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers have learned that Kleinman has been hired as an adviser to Washington state as it seeks to implement the world’s first fully legal commercial cannabis market.

His shift in views, writes Times columnist Bill Keller, is reflective of where we are going as a nation with this issue. Washington, alongside Colorado, have become the first two states that have approved legalization for production, sale and consumption of the drug for those over the age of 21. This historic move makes nationwide legalization not a question of if, but how and when.

We have few models upon which to rely. In the Netherlands, for example, there is a limited amount of legalization.

Beyond that, examples are sparse. A number of local jurisdictions throughout the country have decriminalized private, personal use of the drug. There are 18 states total that have approved it for medicinal purposes. Another 12 states are considering medicinal approval.

So Washington and Colorado are essentially on their own in striking a balance – a particularly difficult feat, given that marijuana is still considered a Schedule I substance under federal law. Federal prosecutors with the U.S. Justice Department have yet to provide further guidance on how states should proceed.

No one sees that changing anytime in the immediate future. Kleinman, for example, says it won’t happen until “the second Hillary Clinton administration.”

As California experienced in its being the first to legalize medical marijuana, the pitfalls are plentiful, and they can’t always be avoided.

Kleinman says that perhaps the best model is the wine industry. It would be a market that is fragmented. It would have numerous producers, and none would become dominate. Doing this might mean restricting licenses and also allowing people to grow a few in their homes on their own.

Among the considerations that are being made right now in Washington:

• Certifying laboratories that will test for both contamination and potency;
• The development of consumer labels;
• Hiring teams of inspectors who will ensure that everyone is compliant with all the rules;
• Setting restrictions on advertising.

On top of all that, there is the issue of marijuana DUIs, and how the state will move to regulate that. Colorado recently enacted a marijuana DUI bill that quantifies marijuana intoxication as the presence of 5 nanograms of THC or higher in the blood system. Washington passed a similar measure last year, even before legalization. This system is wrought with issues, as there is no scientific basis for this threshold.

The bottom line is that whatever system is established, it’s bound to be imperfect because it’s the first. California knows that story well. But with this continued shift in opinions, it seems we are at least headed in the right direction.
Continue reading

California senators are trying to solidify the rights of both marijuana dispensaries and patients who are acting legally under state law.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that Senate Bill 439 recently passed in the state senate, moving now to the Assembly and, hopefully, on to the governor.

SB 439 was initially proposed by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) as a way to establish some clear guidelines for laws that have been riddled with ambiguity since 1996, when California voters first affirmed marijuana use for medicinal purposes.

The measure, introduced in February, would amend Section 11362.765 of the Health and Safety Code.

Under the existing law, which is the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, a patient and his or her primary caregiver may possess or grow the drug for personal medical purposes of the patient with the express permission of a medical doctor. In doing so, the patient and/or caregiver are exempt from being arrested for growing or possessing the drug.

Otherwise, the law holds that it’s a crime for someone to sell marijuana or to plant, grow, dry process, harvest, furnish, transport, administer, give away or offer to do any of this. What SB 439 does is exempt collectives and cooperatives from being held criminally liable when all they are doing is following the law. The bill would exempt those entities and persons from criminal punishment solely on the basis of the fact that they receive compensation for actual expenses incurred in carrying out these activities when they are in compliance with legal guidelines.

Those guidelines include compliance with the security and reporting standards, as drafted by the Attorney General. Steinberg, in speaking to his fellow senators about the issue, underscored that the end goal was to ensure that patients who need medical marijuana would have access to it. Additionally, Steinberg said, drug cartels and criminals could potentially benefit from the lack of regulation.

What this measure would not do is interfere with the authority of counties and cities to regulate the operation of local dispensaries. Such action was recently taken by the City of Los Angeles, which enacted a restrictive measure that will effectively reduce the number of dispensaries in the city from several hundred down to about 135.

The right of municipalities to enact such restrictive measures against dispensaries was recently underscored by a state supreme court ruling.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that one alternative that would allow L.A. dispensaries to remain operational would be to have them classify as collectives. With the passage of SB 439, these facilities would see added protections under state law.

The vote was passed in the Senate 22-12, divided mostly along party lines, with Republicans opposing.

State legislators have yet to address the problem of storefront distribution. This bill would allow sellers of marijuana to be organized the way any other statutory business entity would be permitted to do under state law.

Steinberg noted that the bill would not allow for the growth or distribution of the drug for profit. Rather, it would simply allow these facilities to operate without fear of unwarranted harassment or arrest from state or local authorities.
Continue reading

A medical marijuana patient recently won a state Supreme Court appeal in Michigan, where the high court ruled that patients should be given special exception under the strict law that forbids operation of a vehicle with any amount of THC in the driver’s system.

Our Los Angeles marijuana DUI defense lawyers recognize that while California does not yet have a specific marijuana DUI law, we may be on the brink of one. Measures have been considered multiple times by state lawmakers.

Recently in Colorado, legislators passed a law indicating that any person driving with more than 5 nanograms of THC in blood levels.

So the case in Michigan is significant in that it sets a precedent holding that medical marijuana patients can’t be held to that same standard because their physician-approved use of the drug may put them over the legal limit, even though they are not intoxicated.

Unlike alcohol, THC remains in a person’s system for longer periods of time. That means a regular medical user might have a high THC blood level, even though he or she isn’t intoxicated.

In the Michigan case of People v. Koon, the defendant was arrested in violation of MCL 257.625(8), operation of a motor vehicle with any amount of a schedule I controlled substance in the body.

The defendant had been stopped for speeding. He immediately informed the officer that he was a legal marijuana patient, and that he had consumed the drug roughly six hours prior. With a medical marijuana registry card, the defendant was legally allowed to possess and consume the drug under state law.

A subsequent blood test showed that the defendant indeed tested positive for THC, though we don’t know exactly for what amount.

The lower court ruled that the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act protected the defendant from prosecution. The only exception would be if the prosecutor was able to prove that the defendant was actually impaired by the consumption of THC. The mere presence of it, the court ruled, would not be enough to convict him of impaired driving.

That ruling was later upheld by a Circuit Court judge. It was lthen appealed and reversed by the Court of Appeals, which held that the state’s MMMA prohibited operation of a motor vehicle by a patient who was under the influence, and that a person with any amount of marijuana in his or her system could be considered under the influence.

Because the drug could remain in a person’s bloodstream for weeks or possibly up to a month, this would virtually render medical marijuana patients unable to drive.

However, the Michigan Supreme Court held that a qualifying registered patient can’t be arrested, prosecuted or punished simply for the medical use of marijuana in conjunction with the law. So as long as the patient did not possess more than 2.5 ounces of marijuana, they should not face punishment. “Possession,” the court ruled, also included internal possession in one’s blood stream. (It’s unclear exactly how the court would determine exactly how much marijuana one had consumed, as many varying factors might affect the exact amount of THC in one’s system. That question may be posed in a later case.)

Michigan’s marijuana law does not define “under the influence” as it pertains to THC. However, the high court ruled that the phrase obviously means something more than simply the drug being present in one’s system. It implies actual intoxication or impairment.

The exception would be if the individual was proven to actually be under the influence or impaired. Because the state doesn’t have a set amount of THC threshold that is considered legal, law enforcement officials would be forced to rely on subjective field sobriety tests and observations regarding vehicle operation.

Those cases will inevitably be tougher for prosecutors to win than alcohol DUI cases.
Continue reading