Articles Posted in Marijuana Lawyer

Los Angeles is far from the only city that has grappled with the question of a municipality’s authority to enact a ban on medical marijuana dispensaries within a given district.

In fact, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that the issue is one that has been weighed by state attorneys general and state supreme courts on numerous occasions in recent months.

California’s own supreme court heard arguments on this very issue last month, and a decision is pending in Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center.

In that case, a dispensary is challenging the ban in Riverside. As a spokesman for Americans with Safe Access had pointed out, allowing such a measure to stand would mean the entire middle and southern portions would have bans – which promotes neither uniformity nor safe access.

The fact that we have multiple high courts weighing this issue means there may inevitably be conflicting determinations, which opens the door to the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will address the issue.

In Massachusetts, State Attorney General Martha Coakley issued a decision in mid-March, holding that cities and towns may NOT enact total bans on medical marijuana dispensaries, as it would be in conflict with state law. Such an action, Coakley determined would in essence frustrate the purpose of the medical marijuana law that was approved by voters in that state just last November.

The presumption is that if one municipality can do it, presumably all can, which would render that November vote essentially useless.

But even if cities don’t have the power to bar dispensaries entirely, Coakley wrote, city officials may adopt zoning bylaws that would result in mores stringent regulation of the facilities.

Moratoriums, Coakley said, may only be passed if temporary and serving a specific purpose.

Meanwhile, in Michigan, the state supreme court agreed earlier this month to weigh a medical marijuana ban that was enacted by officials in a small city called Wyoming, a suburb of Grand Rapids.

There, city officials enacted a 2010 ordinance that makes cultivation of marijuana plants, even for medicinal purposes, a violation of city zoning laws. However, that measure was challenged by a patient with diabetes. The case first went to district court, where the town won, but that decision was overturned on appeal.

So now, the state’s supreme court has agreed to take on the issue.

States that have newly enacted medical marijuana legislation are hoping to get around this issue by capping the number of dispensaries allowed from the very beginning. In some cases, they make the process of opening a dispensary time-consuming and tedious.

Still, many others would rather simply leave the issue to individual municipalities to duke out.

Cities argue that such action is within their rights because marijuana is still considered a Schedule I narcotic under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Challenges by medical marijuana dispensaries, patients and advocates help to provide greater clarity on what is legal and what isn’t.

Los Angeles city officials enacted a ban last October, but that measure was later repealed in the face of significant opposition. Now, the question of regulation in L.A. will be decided in a ballot measure next month.
Continue reading

As we draw nearer to the May 21st election that will decide the future of medical marijuana dispensaries here in the city, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers want to make sure everyone who is casting a ballot has the opportunity to make an informed choice.

There are three competing choices before voters: Proposition D, Proposition E and Proposition F. In some ways, these measures are quite similar. In others, they are very different.

We discussed Proposition D in our previous blog entry. Here, we will be taking a closer and impartial look at Propositions E and F.

Starting with Proposition E, this measure is similar to Proposition D in that it would effectively ban medical marijuana dispensaries inn the city – except those that were in operation as of September of 2007. These dispensaries must also be able to provide proof of prior registration with the city.

Also similar to Proposition D, Proposition E would be required to establish a 1,000-foot radius from schools and a 600-foot radius from child care facilities and parks.

The primary differences between D and E is that E would exempt from regulation a group of patients or caregivers that grow the drug on-site for patients or themselves or as part of a collective.

Additionally, unlike D, Proposition E proposes no increase in taxes. Additionally, Proposition E would not mandate any set distance between collectives or dispensaries, as Proposition D does.

Initially, Ordinance E was introduced by marijuana advocates with the Committee to Protect Patients and Neighborhoods. However, the push for this measure has been suspended by those advocates, who instead are now backing the Los Angeles City Council-supported Proposition D.

Lastly, that brings us to Proposition F.

This measure would ban medical marijuana collectives, save for those that are granted immunity by registering with the city and meeting certain other requirements. Unlike the other two proposals, Proposition F would not cap the number of medical marijuana dispensaries or limit them to only those that were operational as of September 2007.

Proposition F would make non-commercial medical marijuana growth or use exempt from regulation. Health care facilities that grow or transport medical marijuana would also be exempt.

Under this action, there would be periods of registration that would be based upon when the facility opened, but there would be no set limit to how many might exist. Facilities would also have to undergo yearly background checks, operate as a non-profit, limits compensation to members and maintains a 1,000-foot radius from schools and a 500-foot radius from parks and child care facilities.

This measure would also raise taxes similarly to Proposition D, from $50 per $1,000 of gross receipts to $60.

Official sample ballots will be available a full week before the end of the month, and early voters will be able to cast their ballots soon after that.

Whichever measure receives the majority vote will win. In the event that more than one of these measures receives the majority (if many voters pick more than one), the rules state that the initiative that receives the most votes will be the one that becomes law.
Continue reading

The May 21 election in Los Angeles will offer voters choices for who they want as their city attorney, mayor, Community College Board members, controller, City Council members and school board members.

Additionally, as our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know, three of the four ballot measures will include choices on how voters want to handle marijuana dispensaries throughout the city.

Sample ballots will be available on April 22, and early voters will be able to mail their ballots soon after that.

You may recall that these measures cropped up soon after the Los Angeles City Council enacted a ban on all medical marijuana dispensaries therein. In swift order, marijuana advocacy groups gathered more than enough signatures to repeal the measure in this May ballot. Rather than waiting for that to happen, city council repealed the ban, and is now backing one of the three now on the table.

We’d like to offer here some impartial analysis of each measure in the two-part blog series, in an effort to offer you the opportunity to make an informed choice as you head to the polls.

The situation, as laid forth by the League of Women Voters of California, is one in which there has been a continued expansion of medical marijuana dispensaries throughout the city and that the goal of regulation on dispensary numbers, operation and location is to protect residents, patients and businesses from potential negative effects.

The first of these competing measures is known as “Proposition D.”

This proposal would enact a ban on medical marijuana businesses – save for those that were in operation as of September 2007. They also had to have been registered with the city as well as meet other operational standards and requirements. Those would generally include annual background checks, separation from residential zones and keeps a 1,000-foot distance from schools and a 600-foot distance from child care facilities, parks and other dispensaries.

Proposition D would exempt regulation of operations with three or fewer patients or caregivers who grow medical marijuana for their patients or themselves. It would also exempt licensed health care facilities and/or vehicles that are used to delivery marijuana to qualifying patients.

It would also increase city taxes on dispensaries from $50 up to $60 for every $1,000 in gross receipts.

Voting “Yes” for Proposition D would mean that you wish to allow the continued operation of no more than about roughly 130 to 140 medical marijuana dispensaries, alongside these other regulations.

This is the only one of the three ballot measures that is a proposition. The other two are the result of the initiative petition process.

The city’s administrative officer has reported that the exact fiscal impact of this action can’t be quantified. We do know that in 2012, the city received upwards of $2.5 million from marijuana dispensaries. This measure would cause the city to lose a significant amount of that. Some of those funds might be recovered in the form of tax increases for those dispensaries that remain, but it isn’t likely to recover all of it.

To read more about the other two ballot measures, Proposition E and Proposition F, be sure to look for our next blog entry.
Continue reading

The Obama administration has released its proposed drug budget for fiscal year 2014.

While our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers were quick to note that the White House has made some slight concessions with regard to increasing funds available for treatment and decreasing enforcement spending, we question whether medical marijuana dispensaries and patients in California will see much of a difference.

Of course, that assumes the new budge will pass muster with Congress, which remains to be seen.

The budget proposal claims that the primary goal should be the prevention of illicit drug use and addiction, as well as prosecution of illegal trafficking and treatment for those who have become powerless to their addictions.

Yet the federal government has gone hard after the medical marijuana sector in California over the last several years, despite the fact that the drug is legal here for medicinal purposes and has been since 1996. Yet, federal prosecutors have spent an inordinate amount of taxpayer dollars to fund investigations, conduct elaborate raids, arrest, try and incarcerate dispensary owners, harass patients and enact forfeiture actions against dispensary landlords.

Nowhere in this budget – or in previous budgets for that matter – is there a section entitled, “California marijuana dispensary actions.” So we really don’t know whether enforcement is going to taper off or not.

What we can say is that the budget allows for 58 percent of the budget to spent on enforcement actions while 42 percent will be spent on prevention and treatment. The scales still aren’t tipped in the way we would like them to be, especially considering the inequality of drug offense penalties as compared to other far more serious felony crimes, such as assault, rape and murder.

However, that percentage is a slight shift from what we saw the previous year. The fiscal year 2013 budget called for 62 percent of the budget to be spent on enforcement and just 38 percent spent on treatment.

The hope is that, at the very least, we would see an equal amount of funds spent on both sides. After all, if you can reduce addiction rates through prevention and treatment, you reduce the demand for the supply. It ends up costing less in the end, and as a nation we save ourselves at least some of the human casualties of this ongoing, failed war on drugs.

As it stands now, the administration is pledging some $195 million in federal drug enforcement action.

Clearly, there is much more work to be done. A spokesman for the Marijuana Majority advocacy group notes that the president has conceded that we are not going to be able to arrest our way out of America’s drug problems. If that’s true – and we believe it is – why is the bulk of our drug funding still going toward arresting people with drug problems?
Continue reading

FedEx is attempting to quell concerns about federal agents rifling through the contents of customer packages, as word has gotten out that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is now targeting shipping chains for illegal drug shipments.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand it’s part of an effort to crack down on the prescription drug transactions of pills.

It’s worth noting that while there is no specific mention of marijuana shipments, news reports indicate that there has been a 400 percent increase in shipments of marijuana through the U.S. Postal Service since just 2007. An estimated 75 percent of marijuana seized by the Post Office originated from California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

In 2009, there were nearly 1,300 people arrested in the U.S. for attempting to transport drugs via mail.

Recently, Florida’s Orlando Sentinel newspaper reported that both FedEx and UPS had revealed in corporate filings that their operations had been targeted by DEA investigations into packages of prescription pills that were shipped from online pharmacies.

These kinds of transactions are illegal in cases where there is no legitimate doctor-patient relationship. The DEA, dubbing these physicians “cyber doctors” may have legitimate medical degrees, but are relying on Internet questionnaires, as opposed to face-to-face meetings with patients. Federal agents say this is a clear violation of the law.

In a recent statement to the media, the DEA reported that UPS had agreed to forfeit roughly $40 million that it had collected in shipping fees from online pharmacies. Further, it has conceded to enter into a compliance program, the goal of which is to make it impossible for online pharmacies to use its services.

In exchange, the DEA has said it won’t prosecute UPS, even though the DEA says that between 2003 and 2010, UPS knowingly shipped hundreds of thousands of packages containing illegal drugs. It is alleged that UPS was informed by employees of what was going on, and yet failed to take any significant action to address it.

While UPS bowed to DEA pressure in this regard, FedEx has called the crackdown “disturbing” and “absurd.” The company says that to implement the kind of measures that the DEA is suggesting would result in an infringement on consumer privacy.

As one FedEx official was quoted as saying, this is a transportation company – not a law enforcement agency, nor are they doctors or pharmacists. Who are they to ascertain which shipments of medications are legal and which are not?

The company says that while it will assist and cooperate with law enforcement, it has not intentions of “doing their job for them.”

Prosecuting shippers, the company spokesman said, detracts from the DEA’s mission of halting online pharmacies and illegal dispensaries.

DEA inspectors offer a $50,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of individuals illegally shipping substances through the mail.

While our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers certainly understand how some patients may find such services convenient, we would generally advise against it for dispensaries at this time, given the current climate with the DEA. Door-to-door delivery services may be a better alternative. Consult with an experienced attorney to learn more about your options.
Continue reading

In this fifth and final installment on our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers‘ series examining the evolving marijuana legislation throughout the country, we’re detailing the law from Washington to Rhode Island.

The important thing to keep in mind in all of this is that given how quickly our marijuana laws are changing – both in California and across the country – it’s important to have a lawyer on your side who understands not only the law, but the issues, and approaches your case with strong experience and a proven history of success.

Continuing on:

Montana. Four different marijuana-related bills have been rejected by the House’s Human Services Committee. These measures would have restored at least parts of the state’s medical marijuana law, approved by voters back in 2004, only to be struck down the state legislature in 2011.

Nebraska. At this time, no laws have been introduced so far this year to allow medical marijuana. However, it is one of 14 states that have successfully decriminalized personal possession of small amounts. It’s considered a civil infraction punishable by a fine and no jail time, except for second and subsequent offenses, which are considered misdemeanors.

Nevada. Senate Bill 374, which would allow for medical marijuana dispensaries and doctor-approved use, has been introduced and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Another measure, Assembly Bill 402, would legalize marijuana for recreational purposes for adults over the age of 21. It is currently in committee, and may have a fair shot at success if it receives the backing of both the tourism and casino industries.

New Hampshire. House Bill 573, introduced earlier this year and passed last month by the House by a 286-64 margin, would make New Hampshire the last of its New England neighbors to allow medical marijuana. Another bill, HB 621, would decriminalize marijuana possession. A similar version failed last year, but it lacked the support of the previous governor. The current governor has expressed support of such a measure. Sadly, a measure that would have legalized marijuana in the state was voted down 239 to 112 last month.

New Jersey. AB 1465 and SB 1977 would both significantly reduce penalties for marijuana possession, decriminalizing possession of up to 50 grams, which currently carries a sentence of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Another measure has been introduced that would serve to protect the rights of medical marijuana patients who are currently denied certain forms of health care, such as organ transplants, due to their use. And finally, AB 2415 would legalize the cultivation of industrial hemp.

New Mexico. While several lawmakers had introduced decriminalization measures, lawmakers adjourned from the current session without taking action on any of them.

New York. in his 2013 state of the state address, the governor reaffirmed his commitment to decriminalize public possession of up to 15 grams of marijuana, just before SB 3315 proposed to remove the “public view” exception from the 1977 law that decriminalizes marijuana – so long as it’s not in plain site. What was happening was officers were demanding people empty their pockets – thus making them criminals. Additionally, there are two measures on the table – AB 6457 and SB 4406, which would allow for medical marijuana. Both measures are slated to be voted upon in June.

North Carolina. HB 84, which would have resulted in the legalization of medical marijuana, was killed after opposing lawmakers said they received emails and calls that amounted to threats and harassment. The topic is not likely to be brought up again this session.

North Dakota. No marijuana-related bills have been introduced this session.

Ohio. No marijuana-related bills have been introduced this session.

Oklahoma. SB 710, which would have allowed marijuana use and sale for medicinal purposes, was killed by a committee vote of 6-2. A similar measure, SB 902, is pending. Another Senate bill would reduce penalties for small-scale possession. Additionally, a House bill would amend the state’s toughest-in-the-country possession penalties, for which a second conviction is considered a felony. The measure passed 14-0 in the House Public Safety Committee, yet has not been called to a vote on the house floor.

Oregon. Already allowing medical marijuana, HB 3371 would legalize up to six plants and/or 24 ounces of non-commercial marijuana for medicinal purposes. the measure would also legalize industrial hemp. Another measure, SB 281, would add PTSD to the list of acceptable conditions for which to prescribe medical marijuana.

Pennsylvania. A Democratic senator has announced the intention to introduce a measure that would make the state the third to legalize the drug for recreational purposes. That bill has yet to be introduced.

Rhode Island. Legalization measures have stalled, but pro-marijuana supporters are vowing to have a ballot initiative in place by November of next year.

South Carolina. A law is pending that would eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing for certain drug offenses, including marijuana trafficking and cultivation. HB 3060 aims to give judges more discretion. It has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.

South Dakota. A bill that would have allowed those charged with misdemeanor marijuana possession to present a defense of medical necessity has died, as did a bill that would have lowered the maximum sentence for possession of two ounces or less.

Tennessee. At least one legislator has vowed to introduce a medical marijuana bill, but that has yet to happen.

Texas. HB 184 would make possession of up to 1 ounce of the drug a Class C misdemeanor with no jail time. Currently, a defendant in this category would face up to six months in jail and a $2,000 fine. However, the bill was effectively killed by being left pending in committee since last month. Another proposal, HB 594, would allow marijuana defendants to raise a defense of medical necessity in their criminal case.

Utah. No marijuana-related legislation was introduced this year.

Vermont. House Bill 499 would legalize adult possession of up to two ounces of marijuana, and allow adults to privately grow up to three plants and possess marijuana paraphernalia. Criminal penalties would continue to be imposed for possession of anything over two ounces. The bill remains in committee.

Virginia. No marijuana-related legislation was introduced this year.

Washington. In November, Washington became one of the first two states in the country to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes. The law went into effect in December, although the state legislature is still hammering out all the final details regarding rules and regulations.

West Virginia. HB 2961 would allow for medical marijuana in the state. It has been referred to the House Health and Human Resources Committee, but has not yet been voted upon.

Wisconsin. No marijuana-related legislation was introduced this year.

Wyoming. No marijuana-related legislation was introduced this year.
Continue reading

This entry is the fourth installment in our series on marijuana legislation throughout the country as we close out the first quarter of the year.

Our Los Angeles medical marijuana lawyers know that while our primary focus is on the rapid legal changes that are happening here in California, it’s important to stay educated about what is happening in the rest of the country.

We’ll pick up where we left off:

Louisiana. State lawmakers here recently filed a bill that would reduce minimum mandatory penalties for certain marijuana offenses, particularly possession. HB 103 is not necessarily noteworthy for the fact that many other states have done this, but for the fact that Louisiana is a notoriously conservative state with some of the harshest marijuana laws on the books. This bill would not only reduce prison time for those convicted of marijuana possession of over an ounce, it would remove possession as an offense that would qualify as a “strike” against the defendant under the state’s three strikes law. As it stands now, a person convicted for a second marijuana possession offense could serve up to five years, while a third-time convict could be given as much as 20 years.

Maine. A bipartisan effort is propelling forward LD 1229, also known as the state’s, “Act to Tax and Regulate Marijuana.” It was filed last month, and it would legalize limited home cultivation and possession for over-21 adults. It would also have the state’s Department of Administrative and Financial Services serving to license and regulate dispensaries and testing facilities. the bill ha been referred to committee. If it passes, voters will get a crack at it in November 2014. The state already allows marijuana for medicinal purposes. One pending measure would authorize additional dispensaries, and another would expand the list of qualifying conditions to include post-traumatic stress disorder, suffered by many returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans.

Maryland. Last month, the state Senate passed SB 297, which would decriminalize small amounts of marijuana possession. The measure now goes before the house. Another measure, HB 1453 would serve to legalize and also regulate the use of marijuana for recreational purposes for adults. Also in this state, three different bills have been filed just in this last session that seek to approve marijuana for medicinal purposes. One was withdrawn, one stalled – but the other has passed the House and is expected to pass also in the Senate. Interestingly, the representative who introduced HB 1101 is also an emergency room physician. The governor has said he would support the bill, so long as he could suspend the law if the federal government began targeting state workers for activities related to its implementation. Maryland is likely to be a medical marijuana state by the summer of 2015.

Massachusetts. A law approving marijuana for medicinal purposes passed last November and went into effect Jan. 1, 2013. However, no one is actually legally distributing the drug yet because the state’s public health department is still working to formulate rules for the program, which will allow up to 35 dispensaries to be opened in the next year. Another measure, HB 1632, would legalize recreational adult use of marijuana, which would be regulated similarly to alcohol. The measure is currently in committee, though some expect a ballot measure slated for 2016 will have more success.

Michigan. The state’s medical marijuana program just took effect April 1, 2013. Meanwhile, Michigan law criminalizes both possession and use of the drug, both misdemeanors. Pro-marijuana activists are working to pen a ballot initiative that would be voted on either next year or in 2016.

Minnesota. There have been a number of bills introduced so far this year that would give Minnesota residents medical marijuana rights. These measures have a great deal of support from the public, but there is strong backlash from both law enforcement groups and the governor’s office. It’s likely that such measures will have more success next year, once voters have a chance to potentially vote in a new governor. There are also three measures on the table that would license and regulate the production of industrial hemp in the state. All are in various committees.

Mississippi. Following last year’s dismissal of SB 2396 medical marijuana act, no other similar measures have been introduced so far this year.

Missouri. HB 512 has been introduced and it would serve to lessen the penalties for small amounts of marijuana possession. It’s not exactly a decriminalization because the offense would still be considered a criminal misdemeanor, but it wouldn’t carry any jail time. It also includes language that would allow for the encouragement of suspended sentences, whereby offenders could walk away with a clean record if they successfully complete probation. Another measure, HB 688, would remove criminal penalties for use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
Continue reading

In this third installment of our state-by-state marijuana legislation breakdown series, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers hope you will be encouraged by the fact that even more conservative states in the South and Midwest are at least discussing this as a serious issue.

No longer do the vast majority of Americans view medical marijuana patients as “stoners,” and it’s important to note this evolution and how far we have come just in a matter of a few years.

We may have made a large leap with recreational legalization in Washington State and Colorado, but the legislative battles are far from over.

Illinois. Support for a measure that would approve medical marijuana grew rapidly with House Bill 1, which would have allowed a four-year pilot program to permit those suffering from conditions like HIV/AIDS, cancer and multiple sclerosis to obtain marijuana prescribed by a doctor. It was approved in the House committee, and is slated for a larger vote later this spring. By some estimates, it’s only one or two votes shy of passing. Considering the shifting tide of public opinion, that shouldn’t be a difficult hurdle to overcome. Another measure, House Bill 2332, would give local governments the power to decriminalize small amounts of personal-use marijuana within their own jurisdictions. That measure passed 9-5 in committee, and is awaiting action from the state House.

Indiana. Senate Bill 580 was killed in committee earlier this year, and it’s a shame because it would have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana possession. The Republican Chair of the state’s Committee on Corrections and Criminal Law quashed it after saying he refused to give the bill a public hearing. It would have lowered the punishment for marijuana possession from a Class A misdemeanor to a civil infraction, with no jail time and a fine of up to $500. Meanwhile, a second bill introduced in the state House would actually increase the penalties for low-level marijuana possession from a misdemeanor to a felony. Last month, the House voted 80-13 in favor of it. Right now, the measure is being weighed in the Senate’s Criminal Law Committee.

Iowa. A pair of bills in both the state House and Senate would, if passed, result in the creation of a statewide medical marijuana program that would allow access for patients with a prescription. However, few expect either measure to gain much traction. Another bill that would have decriminalized small amounts of the drug was recently killed after a series of hearings last month. The governor has announced he will quickly veto any measure that would legalize cannabis in any capacity. Through the Iowa Office of Drug Control Policy, the governor actually pushed the introduction of a measure that would strip the state’s pharmacy board of EVER allowing the use of medical marijuana.

Kansas. Senate Bill 9 was introduced in January and would allow for prescription-authorized medical marijuana. Patients with certain ailments could privately possess and/or grow the drug in their home in small quantities. The measure calls for the state’s health department to oversee the program, which would be limited to a certain number of dispensaries per jurisdiction.

Kentucky. This is a state where medical marijuana legislation was shot down year after year. Fortunately, it appears to have only strengthened supporters’ resolve, as SB 11 has been introduced this session and once again proposes to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes. It’s been assigned to the Joint Committee on Judiciary, but is still awaiting a date for a hearing. The last round never got to the hearing stage. Another measure, SB 50, would allow farmers to grow industrial hemp actually passed both the House and Senate and is now awaiting the governor’s approval. It’s not clear how the governor will oppose the bill, which would allow farmers to grow the plant – but only if the federal government ever lifts its own ban.
Continue reading

In this second installment in our series exploring the ever-changing landscape of marijuana legislation in America, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers want to emphasize that this fluidity is why it is so critical for growers, dispensaries, landlords and even doctors to seek reputable, experienced legal representation.

You need to trust that the lawyer handling your case is thoroughly familiar not only with the laws as they are, but also with what arguments have worked in other jurisdictions and which have failed.

With that in mind, let’s continue with our state-by-state breakdown:

Delaware. This is a tiny state, but it packs a mean punch in terms of marijuana penalties. It has the 12th highest marijuana arrest rate in the country, and a first-offense for possession of a joint is six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,050. Meanwhile, the state did manage to pass The Delaware Medical Marijuana Act in the spring of 2011, but it’s been off to a rocky start, as the governor has suspended licensing and regulation requirements for dispensaries. Caregivers and patients are forbidden from growing their own, so at this point, the law means very little.

District of Columbia. It’s been 14 years since a whopping 70 percent of D.C. voters approved a measure to allow medical marijuana use, and the district will finally be seeing its first dispensary opening this month. A number of new proposals would impose limitations on zoning. No effort has been made to legalize the drug here, and punishment for personal possession is a maximum 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Florida. Senate Bill 1250, also known as the Cathy Jordan Medical Cannabis Act, would allow doctor-prescribed use of the drug and the state’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation would be responsible for licensing and regulating both dispensaries and growers. The bill has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

Georgia. This state allows for up to a year of imprisonment for misdemeanor possession of less than an ounce of marijuana. Any more than that is considered a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The state has no medical marijuana allowance, nor is it expected to anytime soon, despite the dedicated efforts of a few grassroots initiatives.

Hawaii. One of the first states to consider recreational legalization following the passage of such measures in Colorado and Washington State, the legislature in Hawaii was also quick to set those measures aside. House Bill 699 would have legalized personal possession of marijuana of up to 1 ounce, as well as the private cultivation of a small number of plants, so long as the users and growers were over the age of 21. The bill has been deferred until next year. House Bill 150, meanwhile, is quite similar, except it includes a tax on recreational marijuana sales. This one has not yet been set for a hearing. Then there is Senate Bill 738, which would make it legal to grow, process, possess, transfer or use marijuana, so long as you are 21 years-old. That measures has been dormant in several committees for a number of months now. And finally, SB 472 would reduce minor marijuana possession offenses to being a non-criminal offense that would require only a fine of $100. This measure passed unanimously in the Senate and is now being considered by the House.

Idaho. In this state, possession of fewer than 3 ounces is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 12 months behind bars. While state lawmakers have gone back and forth about whether a medical marijuana program might make sense, they then went the opposite way with Resolution 112. This was an official proclamation that the state legislature opposes the legalization of marijuana for any purpose. It’s basically pointless because it’s already illegal under both state and federal law, but that could change if a pro-medical marijuana movement gained enough support.

Check back later for more on this continuing series.
Continue reading

If you thought the latest state-level development on the marijuana legislation front was the fact that Washington State and Colorado had approved marijuana for recreational purposes, it’s time to play catch up.

Rounding out the first quarter of 2013, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers can tell you that seven other states have proposed similar initiatives. Others are contending for the spot of 20th state to allow medicinal marijuana. Additionally, several more have introduced laws that would either reduce penalties or altogether decriminalize small amounts of marijuana possessed for personal use.

Fewer have taken measures to increase penalties for marijuana possession. They are the minority, but that’s an important part of the story too.

Let’s take a look at these developments, state-by-state:

Alabama. House Bill 2, which would have allowed people with illnesses such as AIDS and cancer to obtain marijuana as part of their treatment with a doctor’s prescription. It was voted down 12-2 on Feb. 6. However, another measure, House Bill 315, was introduced a few weeks later, which would protect a patient from arrest if caught using medical marijuana prescribed by a doctor.

Alaska. No legislation has so far been produced this year regarding medical marijuana.

Arizona. Proposition 203 legalizing medical marijuana was passed in 2010. However, many legislators refuse to recognize its legitimacy. A new resolution was introduced recently that would put the issue to another vote late next year, meaning it’s at risk of being repealed.

Arkansas. Nearly became the first medical marijuana state in the South last year with Issue 5, which was struck down by just a few thousand votes. Another effort to put a similar bill before voters has been sent back by the attorney general for rewording of the language.

California. Rep. Tom Ammiano has introduced AB 473 that would impose a statewide regulatory system to oversee the medical marijuana program in much the same way we oversee the manufacture, distribution and sale of alcohol products. Also, Senate Bill 289, which would make it illegal for a person to drive a vehicle if his or her blood contained any detectable amount of drug classified in Schedules I, II, III or IV of the state’s controlled substances act – this would include marijuana. It’s set for a hearing to the Senate Committee on Public Safety on April 23. Additionally, AB 1137 would remove industrialized hemp from the controlled substances classification so it could be used in a wide array of production materials.

Colorado. The state’s medical marijuana implementation task force met for a final time at the end of February and presented a proposal of rules that would indicate how legalized marijuana for recreational purposes should be regulated, cultivated, distributed, sold and taxed. That report now goes to lawmakers, who will ultimately be responsible for finalizing the industry regulations. Also, HB 1114 would presume cannabis-induced impairment if the THC in a driver’s blood measured 5ng/ml. Under this measure, drivers who crossed this threshold could still present a viable defense in court as to why they did not pose a safety risk.

Connecticut. In 2012, this state became the 17th in the country to allow medical marijuana, when House Bill 5289 was signed into law by the governor. Under this law, dispensaries would have to obtain their supply from licensed producers, who would have to pay a minimum application fee of $25,000 to the state. Further proposed regulations are being considered at a public hearing scheduled for later this month.
Continue reading