Articles Posted in Marijuana Lawyer

A marijuana DUI bill that is likely to pass in Colorado will almost certainly result in the conviction of sober drivers.

Our Los Angeles marijuana attorneys are highly disappointed with the state legislature there. Even though the law will not directly affect California marijuana users, unless they travel to that state, it sets a troubling precedent that we worry may be copied in other states.

Indeed, California Senate Bill 289, introduced back in February by Santa Ana Democrat Lou Correa, would result in the criminalization of “any detectable amount” of a drug classified as Schedule I, II, III or IV under the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act – unless he or she has a valid prescription.

This might seem fair enough. But here’s the problem: While medical marijuana in raw form may be recommended by a licensed health care practitioner in the state of California, it’s not a drug certified by the FDA so it’s not prescribed through a pharmacy, as most narcotics are. Additionally, marijuana right now is a Schedule I drug. So if this measure passes, marijuana patients could be stopped and arrested while their on their way to work or while running errands.

Because the drug remains in a person’s system for days and possibly even weeks after consumption, the “any traceable amount” threshold is especially unfair. The presence of the drug is in no way an indication of intoxication, as the person could have consumed the drug days or weeks earlier, even though the drug was found in his or her system.

Colorado’s likely new law takes a somewhat different approach. Rather than saying “any detectable amount” is a crime, legislators are saying that if the driver is found to have at least 5 nanograms of THC in their bloodstream – or more – then he or she is considered impaired.

This is not only poor policy, it’s bad science. Again, marijuana stays in your system for longer periods of time, compared to alcohol. So while it may be appropriate to test a person’s blood alcohol level as an accurate indication of whether he or she is impaired, it doesn’t work that way with marijuana. Medical marijuana patients are likely to have high concentrations of THC in the blood – but that doesn’t equal intoxication.

This is the sixth time that the Colorado legislature has proposed this measure. However, it appears this time, it will be successful. It has passed both the state House and Senate, and is headed for the desk of the governor, who has already voiced his support.

The one saving grace of the Colorado measure is that a reading of 5 nanograms of marijuana blood concentration isn’t an automatic conviction and defendants will have the opportunity to present evidence indicating they were not in fact impaired or driving in a way that was dangerous or might suggest intoxication. However, the law puts the burden of proof for that on the defendant, rather than the prosecution.

Inevitably, we are going to see the arrest and conviction of innocent people in both states if and when these measures are passed.

To contact your state senator to voice opposition for Senate Bill 289, visit http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.
Continue reading

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers aren’t confident that President Barack Obama is going to do a full about-face on the issue of legalization anytime soon.

Even when he has conceded that medical marijuana users and suppliers in states where the drug is legally available were not a top criminal priority for his administration, federal prosecutors still aggressively pursued those very same individuals.

Yet, there are indications that the administration could be shifting slightly with regard to the issue of marijuana.

With the recent roll-out of the administration’s new drug policy strategy, unveiled at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore – a city ravaged by the effects of the failed War on Drugs – Obama noted a significantly softer tone, especially in regards to the issue of marijuana.

We don’t want to jump the gun too soon and say that the administration is preparing to shift focus entirely from incarceration to rehabilitation, but there does seem to be some pivoting.

With regard to the increasing efforts to legalize marijuana – most notably in Washington and Colorado, where such measures were successful – the White House had previously declined to offer support. The administration underscored that it has stood firmly against “any form of drug legalization,” which it purported would further burden the criminal justice system.

But then in a recent interview with reporters regarding the new national drug policy, National Drug Control Policy Director Gil Kerlikowske said the administration would continue to “deprioritize” the criminalization of marijuana issue.

Now, the administration has said many things that were later contradicted with action. However, the reason this may be significant is because the federal crackdown on marijuana dispensaries in California is ongoing. If it’s true that this will recede on the government’s list of important matters to address, we may see fewer and fewer actions against medical marijuana providers here in this state.

Although the White House had tended to downplay the effect of aggressive prosecution of marijuana crimes, saying that most arrested for marijuana offenses don’t go to prison, the reality is that the federal drug policy very often consequences to families. A drug conviction can result in the loss of federal financial aid, loss of child custody, loss of a job – not to mention the loss of freedom, depending on how your state approaches the issue.

has tended to have a disproportionate effect on our nation’s minority populations.

For example, the aggressive “stop and frisk” policy that was ongoing for years in New York City frequently targeted young black men. Even though police had no probable cause to suspect these individuals for a crime, they were stopped, searched and often arrested for minor drug crimes.

That policy has since ceased and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently pledged that people arrested for possession of small amounts of marijuana will no longer be held overnight for those offenses. Rather, it will be charged as a simple violation, as opposed to a misdemeanor.

Kerlikowske used this action as an example of how the federal administration may be able to find a middle ground on the issue.

It’s worth noting that the Affordable Care Act mandates insurers cover substance abuse treatment for those with a history of drug abuse.

But perhaps even more significant is that the White House – for the first time ever – has voiced a dedication to the reform of work laws that might penalize drug offenders by limiting their access to employment, education and housing. Whether we will see that kind of dramatic reform before Obama leaves office remains to be seen.
Continue reading

A bill that would reduce criminal penalties in criminal drug possession cases in California – thereby helping to reduce overcrowding in both the state jails and prisons – has passed its first hurdle in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that Senate Bill 649 is now poised for a full vote on the Senate floor.

Previous similar legislation – specifically, SB 1506 – has sputtered out in the Senate. But this time, it may be different, for the simple fact that the California governor and other public officials were recently given less than a month to address the inmate overcrowding issue in California, they will face legal action – including contempt of court.

The state has 33 prisons, and many of those are filled with individuals who have been arrested or convicted of minor drug offenses – the majority of those involving marijuana.

A report released earlier this month by the Department of Corrections reveals that the state is currently housing nearly 120,000 inmates, which is about 150 percent of what those facilities were designed to hold.

A three-judge federal panel has ordered that the percentage has to be slashed to 137 percent by the end of the year. That’s about 9.500 inmates that need to be freed by December.

Gov. Jerry Brown had requested those terms be softened, but the panel said not only has Brown done nothing to comply with the orders of the panel, his administration has openly defied it.

SB 649 could be one way for state leaders to show a good-faith effort. The measure will specifically help to roll back Brown’s 2011 Public Safety Realignment that resulted in an uptick of state prisoners in the first place.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and co-sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Drug Policy Alliance, the William C. Velasquez Institute, the California Public Defenders Association and the Californians for Safety and Justice and Friends Committee on Legislation.

SB 649 would not apply to those charged with manufacturing, selling or possessing drugs for sale. What it would do is reduce penalties for possession of any controlled substance without a prescription from a potential felony to a misdemeanor, punishable by only up to a on year in jail. It would also make the maximum fine $70 – as opposed to the $1,000 it would have been if the charge were a felony. Additionally, the court would be required to take into consideration a defendant’s ability to pay.

There are 13 other states, as well as the District of Columbia and even the federal courts that treat drug possession as a misdemeanor. Drug crimes are no higher there than anywhere else.

This kind of drug sentencing reform is supported by two-thirds of Californians, according to a poll conducted by Tulchin Research last year.

Having recently cleared the committee by a vote of 4-2, the measure is expected to go fora full Senate floor vote next month.
Continue reading

Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom has been vocal in recent months about the fact that the federal drug laws in this country no longer make good sense.

Recently, while in Sacramento at the California Democratic Party convention, Newsom took it a step further. Not only did he refer to the War on Drugs as an “abject failure,” he said the time has come for marijuana to be decriminalized, taxed and regulated.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know Newsom’s words reflect the strongly-held beliefs of many in this state and throughout the country.

In looking at just 2011, some 2 million people in the U.S. were arrested for violations of marijuana laws. Of those, nearly 90 percent were for simple possession. At the recent convention, Newsom went on to point out that African American children are 10 times more likely to be arrested for crimes involving drugs than white children. This is despite research revealing that white children are more likely than black children to abuse drugs.

Newsom’s statements are important, considering that the former San Francisco mayor has been tapped as one of the top Democratic gubernatorial candidates in the 2014 race, should Gov. Jerry Brown opt not to run for re-election.

The other leading contender for that spot, Attorney General Kamala Harris, also spoke at that same convention, though she did not mention the subject of marijuana legalization in her speech.

Newsom made it a key point. He went on to say that the percentage of African American males locked up in our nation’s jails and prisons makes up a higher amount than the number who are enrolled in higher education institutions in the state of California.

The War on Drugs is into its 42nd year. It’s not working, Newsom underscored. He said the time has come to admit that if we continue on this path, nothing is going to change – and the people of California and of the U.S. deserve better outcomes.

He said many politicians and high-profile figures – even those on the Republican side of the aisle – believe in this truth. However, he said few are willing to come forward publicly and say it. He called this a kind of “coming out of the closet,” and he urged more politicians to do the same.

The shift on the issue of marijuana has been fairly recent for Newsom. For years, he had been a vocal opponent of full-scale legalization. Previously, he had supported access to marijuana solely for medicinal purposes.

In 2010, he was quoted by one publication as saying that he had concerns about how full-scale legalization would be implemented, and worried that it “sent the wrong message.”

Today, he says part of what changed his mind was the sheer number of people who use the drug – individuals who are upstanding, exceptional community leaders.

Marijuana advocates note that Newsom’s public change of heart is important in the context of the issue’s legitimacy. No longer is it viewed as a risky third-rail of politics.
Continue reading

When the National Drug Control Policy office of the White House (more commonly known as the nation’s Drug Czar) released its 2013 National Drug Control Strategy report, we were pleased to see that the federal government appeared to be shifting – ever so slightly – from its previous drug strategies.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that the agency put a special emphasis on the fact that three-fourths of all Americans believe the country’s “War on Drugs” to be one that has failed abysmally. As such, the agency referred has referred to its new strategy as the “21st Century Approach,” supposedly marking a distinctive pivot from attacking drug use and even abuse as a criminal action to one that should be approached more from a health-related standpoint.

But for all of that rhetoric, the actual policies contained in that drug strategy report don’t reflect it.

The director of National Affairs for the non-profit Drug Policy Alliance was recently quoted as saying that while the administration says in one breath that drug use and abuse in this country are matters of public health, in the very next breath, it’s outlining strategies for dealing with drug abusers in drug court. Granted, these courts do have more of a heavy emphasis on substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation. However, it’s still an arm of the criminal justice system.

The Drug Czar’s office can talk all it wants about drug abuse being a public health issue, but unless and until we make a firm commitment to stop arresting people for using drugs, it’s not actually being treated as a public health issue.

We wouldn’t prosecute cancer patients in this way (unless of course they were using medical marijuana to treat their illness – then, it seems, they are fair game). Why is it acceptable for the government to maintain this blatant imbalance?

The conflict in the way the government talks about people who use drugs and the way it actually handles them doesn’t stop with drug courts.

The obvious one for us is the total disregard for state medical marijuana laws. Our president says lawful users aren’t a priority for federal authorities. But then those same authorities turn around and begin taking aggressive action against marijuana dispensaries providing an invaluable service to sick and dying patients.

Then there is the high priority given to low-level drug arrests, which continue to swallow up a huge amount of time and money, especially for local law enforcement agencies.

Additionally, we’re wasting huge amounts of money at all levels of enforcement in interdiction efforts to curb supply. But it doesn’t actually get us anywhere. Whatever void is left by the arrest of one drug supplier is soon filled by another. The approach isn’t working – but it’s not changing.

The one change that was applauded by the DPA director was the pledge to ensure greater access to a low-cost antidote that serves to reverse the effects of an overdose on opiates.

But it’s not enough. Some 750,000 Americans are locked up every year for low-level marijuana offenses, often involving patients using the drug for medicinal purposes in states where it’s not legal to do so.

Would we find it acceptable that patients in Ohio couldn’t receive the same kind of chemotherapy treatments as the patients Colorado? Why should we accept that the benefits of medical marijuana should not be accessible to patients everywhere?

The very least the federal government could do would be to stop interfering in those states whose voters have approved medical marijuana laws.
Continue reading

A bill that would create a new agency to oversee medical cannabis regulation under the umbrella of the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has cleared its first hurdle.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that Assembly Bill 473 was passed by the Public Safety Committee with a vote of 5-to-2. Now, the bill has been forwarded to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, where it is awaiting a hearing.

The medical marijuana industry has remained largely unregulated in California since the passage of Proposition 215 back in 1996. Local governments have been left to their own devices to determine the best course of regulatory action. That has resulted in a spotty patchwork of marijuana laws that lack uniformity.

So essentially, what is fully acceptable in the eyes of the law in one city may be a prosecutable offense in another.

AB 473, introduced by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) aims to change that. Ammiano has been quoted as saying the situation has been chaotic for everyone. Counties and cities don’t know what their responsibilities are. Police don’t know what enforcement actions they should take. And the actions of the federal government are confusing – with the president and Department of Justice saying something one day, and acting completely differently another.

As it stands right now, there are more than 50 local ordinances that somehow regulate medical marijuana clinics. That means some patients are served, and others aren’t. Some are forced to travel exceedingly long distances in order to maintain their supply. A few end up turning to black market providers out of necessity.

Cities and counties need and want guidance, Ammiano says. Patients deserve some certainty about how their medical needs are going to be met.

AB 473 would establish the creation of the Division of Medical Cannabis Regulation and Enforcement. The primary focus would be develop consistent policies throughout the state with regard to growth, supply and sale.

The agency would also partner with state-level law enforcement officials to ensure that dispensaries are meeting legal requirements.

The ultimate goal is to make sure marijuana is safe, accessible and beneficial to patients as well as local and state governments and communities.

A similar bill had been introduced last year by Ammiano that would have established a new independent regulatory agency. However, Assembly Bill 2312 had a fair amount of critics who were worried that the action would have created confusing jurisdictional issues for local, state and federal officials. In the end, the measure made it through the House with support from dispensaries, patients and other advocates, but sputtered out in the Senate.

Ammiano said this measure already has more support than the last bill because it doesn’t require the creation of an entirely new agency and the defined processes are more streamlined.

Just in the past several years, hundreds of California dispensaries have been forced to close their doors amid a federal crackdown on the medical marijuana industry.
Continue reading

It’s hard to argue that your marijuana joint is for personal or medicinal use when it’s 4 feet long and weighs more than 2 pounds.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers have learned that a 25-year-old student was arrested at UC Santa Cruz in just such circumstances. He was reportedly one of the many revelers at the annual 4/20 rally held on campus.

Hundreds of students gather there on April 20 each year and smoke marijuana. Similar rallies are held at schools in Colorado, Washington and in other states where the drug is legal for medicinal purposes.

April 20 has been celebrated by marijuana smokers since the early 1990s. Back in the 1970s in Northern California, a local police department used “420” as code for “marijuana smoking in progress.” When a few high school students learned of this code, they began using it themselves.

It didn’t become popular though until a Grateful Dead concert until 1990, when a flyer was distributed saying that a group of fans would be meeting at “4:20 p.m. on 4/20 for 420-ing.” The reference was then published by a reporter for High Times. It caught on from there.

Inevitably, the 4/20 gatherings that continue on campuses across the country attract a strong police presence. These students and participants are easy targets, as far as law enforcement is concerned.

In the state of California, possession of 28.5 grams of marijuana or less without a prescription is deemed a for personal and is a non-criminal infraction. That means it carries no jail time, but it is accompanied by a $100 fine.

There are, however, two exceptions to this rule:

• If the individual is over the age of 18 and the incident occurred on school grounds, it carries a possible 10-day incarceration and a $500 fine.
• If the individual is under the age of 18, the incident is punishable by up to 10 days of incarceration, but the fine is just $250.
• Personal possession of more than 28.5 grams is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $500 fine.

The incident in Santa Cruz would probably qualify as personal possession of more than 28.5 grams, though we would not be surprised if authorities charged the defendant with a felony for possession with intent to distribute. It doesn’t matter if the individual had intended to actually sell his gigantic joint. “Distribute” can mean to furnish or give away. This crime would be punishable by between 16 months and three years in prison.

If that distribution, sale or delivery involved anyone under the age of 17, the punishment is automatically boosted to a minimum 3 years, with a maximum of 7 years.

Usually, police crackdowns in these cases lead to minor possession charges or simple confiscation of marijuana paraphernalia and small amounts of personal use.

Officers in this case were booed by the crowd as they hauled off the suspect in handcuffs as he argued that he was being harassed.
Continue reading

The rivalry among medical marijuana advocates backing one of three proposals to regulate the drug within the city of Los Angeles has been sharpening in recent weeks.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that each measure has collected its own group of supporters, though one of those, Initiative Ordinance E, has largely been abandoned by its primary stronghold of dispensary union employees in favor of a similar measure, Proposition D, which is backed by city council.

The other proposal, Measure F, is supported by a number of medical marijuana dispensaries and patients’ groups.

The competition is biting, with the Los Angeles Times reporting that both sides are allege that the other is only pledging support for one measure over another in order to fatten their pockets.

One thing is clear: Any one of these measures is preferable to the action that was passed and almost implemented last year. Last summer, council voted to ban storefront medical marijuana dispensaries.

We recently offered an in-depth look at what each of these measures would mean in a recent Marijuana Lawyer Blog post.

Here’s the abridged version:

• Initiative Ordinance E would allow only older shops – those in existing since 2007, when the city first placed a moratorium on new operations – and it would not raise taxes for shop owners.
• Proposition D, the measure backed by council and also the Los Angeles County Democratic Club and now the labor union, would also limit the number of dispensaries to those in existence as of 2007, but it would also increase taxes for dispensaries.
• Meanwhile, Measure F would not place any limit on the number of marijuana dispensaries, but they would be required to submit to regular city audits, test their product for certain toxins and keep a certain distance away from parks, schools and other dispensaries.

The primary reason why the union has shifted its support had do with the fact that the winning measure will have to get more than 50 percent of the vote in order to pass. If none of those three receives approval from the majority of voters, they will all fail – and we’ll be back to square one.

Opponents of Proposition D say that it would create a monopoly for older shops, of which there are about 200 or so. This kind of cornering of the market would essentially create an opportunity for “pot superstores,” which opponents say would increase crime rates and encourage massive operations. Supporters say market forces – not government – should be the primary decider of the number of dispensaries.

Opponents of Measure F, meanwhile, say that the current model hasn’t worked, as there are a heavy concentration of shops in certain areas of the city.

Either way, voters will have a tough choice. The city has played tug-of-war for years on this issue, and it’s part of an ongoing saga of contradictory court opinions on whether cities even have the right to regulate access to marijuana in California.
Continue reading

One of the primary reasons federal prosecutors and law enforcement officials have continued to press forward with this failed “War on Drugs,” particularly with regard to marijuana, is the notion that it perpetuates crime.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know this is part of what spurred the aggressive federal crackdown on dispensaries statewide. In fact, federal prosecutors said that was a primary motivator.

But now, many medical marijuana advocates, particularly those in Northern California, are propagating a new theory, which is that medical marijuana dispensaries may actually serve to reduce crime in some neighborhoods.

One example cropped up in the Lower Haight district of San Francisco. It was an area plagued with crime, a plethora of illegal drugs, graffiti and loitering. Then the Vapor Room moved in. The area’s Board of Supervisors are now reporting that a number of those issues have actually gotten better since the Vapor Room became a mainstay.

There are numerous reasons for this. For one thing, the dispensary had security. The owners also worked closely with other area businesses to form a close network of watchful businesses. Plus, patients were law-abiding, and would report any suspicious activity either to the security at the dispensary or directly to police.

The criminals seemed to catch on quite quickly, and have been substantially deterred since the Vapor Room moved in.

Similar stories across the state abound.

Sadly, many of these stories – including that of the Vapor Room – doesn’t have a happy ending. Like hundreds of other dispensaries, the Vapor Room was shuttered by federal authorities as part of the massive crackdown. After putting up a good fight, the dispensary shut down for good last summer.

Despite evidence to the contrary, U.S. attorneys continue to spread misinformation as to the level of crime surrounding medical marijuana dispensaries. For example, U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag last year detailed an armed robbery near a preschool and another case in which a cultivator killed one of his workers.

But scientific research suggests this is more the exception than the norm.

At UCLA, researchers in 2011, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, determined that the presence of a marijuana dispensary had no effect one way or the other on crime statistics.

Even the Los Angeles Police Department, which conducted its own research, hasn’t found anything to suggest that more dispensaries means more crime. Chief Charlie Beck commissioned an internal report in 2009. Among 800 marijuana dispensaries throughout the city, only 47 were victims of robberies. That may sound a bit high, but consider that the city has 350 banks – 71 of which were robbed that year.

Perhaps we should do away with banks as well?

When new medical marijuana dispensaries crop up, it’s not uncommon for neighbors to have preconceived notions about how crime will increase. A lot of it can be traced back to the kind of misrepresentations that continue to be perpetuated by federal authorities with a clear agenda and stake in this fight.

The truth is, medical marijuana facilities make excellent neighbors. Not only do they provide extra security, they also bring more foot traffic – which is good for all area businesses.

It’s time for our national authorities to stop spreading unfounded fear of violence and start having an honest conversation about the benefits of medical marijuana facilities.
Continue reading

A man who reportedly ran nine medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles and Orange counties has pleaded guilty to federal charges that will have him serving up to life in prison.

Our Los Angeles medical marijuana lawyers understand that the 56-year-old defendant has pleaded guilty to tax evasion and drug trafficking – specifically, conspiracy to distribute more than a ton of marijuana.

This case has been one of many in which California dispensary owners have been targeted by federal authorities and prosecuted on criminal charges. We first wrote about this case in our Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer Blog back in November.

This individual was among more than a dozen indicted by a federal grand jury last fall.

The investigation had involved not only the Drug Enforcement Administration’s federal agents, but also detectives employed by the Orange County Sheriff’s Office.

He is accused of profiting some $25 million during the course of his operations, with federal officials noting that this man kept $500,000 in cash inside his home. As part of the plea deal, he is forfeiting that, as well as millions of dollars in assets.

The dispensaries he is accused of operating and illegally profiting from are:

• APCC in San Juan Capistrano;
• The Whittier Collective in Whittier;
• Costa Mesa Patients’ Association in Costa Mesa;
• Santa Fe Compassionate Health Care in Santa Fe Springs;
• Belmont Shore Natural Care in Long Beach;
• Santa Ana Superior Care in Santa Ana;
• Garden Grove Alternative Care in Garden Grove;
• Safe Harbor Collective in Dana Point;
• Alternative Health in Long Beach.

As part of the deal, the defendant reportedly admitted that he had instructed his employees to shred documentation that would have revealed income earned from marijuana sales at these locations.

In California, marijuana is not supposed to be a profit-based business. It is a health care service, and operations are supposed to be organized in a way that is patient-focused, rather than profit-focused.

This defendant admitted to investigators that in one year, he earned about $11.5 million, and yet he reported an income of just $200,000 to the Internal Revenue Service. For that year alone, the defendant owes the IRS some $950,000. From 2006 to 2011, he owes some $2.5 million in back taxes, plus nearly $2 million in restitution.

With two prior felony drug trafficking convictions from state court, federal authorities were already going to be examining his operations more closely. These priors also mean that his sentence is enhanced, particularly because he was found in possession of ammunition and four firearms – including a weapon similar to an AK-47 assault rifle.

All of this means that he could be serving the rest of his life in prison. He faces a minimum of 10 years behind bars. Sentencing will take place in late July.

The rest of the defendants involved in this case are expected to face trial in the fall – that is if they don’t negotiate plea deals prior to their next day in court.
Continue reading