Articles Posted in Marijuana Lawyer

An older, law-abiding dentist and a computer engineer are not people who would be on the top of your suspect list of folks whom the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration would be homing in on for a forfeiture action resulting from association with a criminal enterprise.

Yet, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that is exactly what’s happening to a couple in Irvine – over the purchase of $37 worth of medical marijuana.

It sounds too outrageous to be true, but in recent years it seems the depth of federal authorities’ lack of common sense is nearly bottomless.

According to OC Weekly, the couple rented a unit of a $1.5 million building they own on Ball Road to different medical marijuana dispensaries at two different times.

Even before renting the first time, the building owners took into account that:

1. Medical marijuana was legal under state law;
2. The dispensaries had business permits from the city;
3. A memo in 2009 issued by Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, speaking on behalf of the newly-inaugurated Barack Obama, directed Justice Department prosecutors to refrain from targeting medical marijuana patients.

It was not a decision they made hastily or without consideration. But they figured – correctly – they weren’t doing anything wrong.

Still, an anonymous review from an off-color website drew the attention of the local police department. The review, riddled with misspellings, grammatical errors and typos, lauded the dispensary for “hooking him up,” boasting that he was “so lifted.”

Nothing was uncovered as a result of that investigation, but the landlord did evict that tenant from the building. Then in June of 2011, the landlord began renting to another dispensary. Again, the owner had city permits and the activity being conducted was legal under state law.

Yet again, the local police department took note of an online review, boasting of a certain strain of marijuana available at the club. Using this information, the local police agency sent an undercover officer to the dispensary. He posed as a patient and had a legitimate doctor’s recommendation for marijuana. Using this, he purchased $37 worth of medical marijuana.

This was the only time such an incident was ever documented. It is based on this $37 sale that the DEA is now alleging that the owners of the building were host to an illegal operation. It is on this basis that the government is trying to seize the couple’s hard-earned retirement investment property – despite the fact that the landlord moved to evict that dispensary as soon as it learned of the undercover sale.

The landlord further submitted certified letters both to the city and federal authorities, informing them of the eviction and pleading with the government not to take his property, underscoring that he’d had no knowledge of potential illegal activity.

Yet the government has refused to drop its forfeiture case.
Continue reading

Although in years past, the weekend marijuana conventions in Glendale drew thousands of advocates, patients, parents and industry insiders, this year, a judge refused to allow the show to go on.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers were disappointed to hear about the judge’s approval of a restraining order to block the Medical Cannabis Cub this year. This was to be a trade show, organized by High Times magazine, that was expected to boost the local economy with some 3,000 visitors daily.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court judge’s decision reportedly hinged on the fact that the proper permits for sound and film production hadn’t been pulled by the hosts just days before the event was to be held.

It was supposed to be a way to showcase local dispensary operations as well as businesses that sold hydroponic equipment, smoking paraphernalia and clothing. Additionally, high-profile rappers Redman and The Game were slated to perform on one of those days. There were also plans to host panel discussions on the state of marijuana laws in both California and throughout the country, as well as on new research about the medicinal benefits of the drug and information on how to better grow it.

The restraining order was requested by Glendale city officials, who said that it would have violated several code ordinances, including the fact that the location wasn’t zoned for concerts. Additionally, there was concern that the site chosen for the event wouldn’t have been able to adequately host all the people who were expected to attend. The impact to traffic and public safety, officials said, was of paramount importance.

But of course, the fact that this event directly involved the promotion of medical marijuana likely served a large part in why officials took harsh and swift action. Indeed, similar reaction has not been the same for other large-crowd events when the same circumstances were at play. It appears to be very blatant selective enforcement.

This is troubling, but not surprising. Anyone hoping to host a medical marijuana-related even in California should first be consulting with attorneys to ensure that it will be in line with local and state regulations. This move likely cost the organizers tens of thousands of dollars. Investing in having the proper legal legwork done ahead of time may have spared them this expense.

City leaders said organizers were sneaky about the entire production, hoping to simply fly under the radar. If that was the goal, the tactic was clearly not a success.

The city ended up holding an emergency, closed-door session in order to request the block on the event.

It may not even have need to do this, considering that the city also put pressure on the venue owner, who subsequently stated he wouldn’t be hosting the event due to liability issues raised by the city.

The action is further no surprise given the fact that the city has a ban on medical marijuana dispensaries and also has imposed strict regulations on where patients may smoke.
Continue reading

Supporters of medical marijuana in Long Beach have reportedly collected enough signatures to place a measure on the ballot to overturn a city-sanctioned ban on dispensaries.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that this is similar to the move by advocates here in L.A., who were successful in getting the latest ban halted before it ever actually went into effect. Now, it appears we will actually have three regulatory proposals from which L.A. voters may choose.

That Long Beach is having similar success is encouraging. They were required to collect at least 10,000 signatures to put a proposal on the ballot. The informal count has soared to 44,000.

Officials with the local elections office have until the end of this month to verify those collected signatures, which given the sheer number, does not appear will be a problem. Once that happens, the Long Beach City Council would then need to schedule a special election at its next regular meeting. That special election would need to take place sometime in the next three months or so, per the local election code. That means we could very well see a decision on this by mid-summer.

It’s not yet clear whether city officials would seek to counter with their own proposal, as officials in L.A. have.

Those behind the signature collection say that they simply want to promote avenues of safe access for legitimate patients. They say they want to work with the city to find a middle ground of what that will look like, while still respecting some of the more critical boundaries.

As it stands,the city has banned all storefront dispensaries from operation and has also banned collectives of more than three people.

The new proposed measure would prohibit sales in any location that is within a certain distance of a school or public beach or park.

Additionally, the proposal would implement a 4 percent sales tax on whatever gross marijuana sales are, an amount that would go directly to city coffers. While a special election is expected to cost anywhere from $1.2 to $1.4 million, that amount will be quickly made up through revenues from the sales tax.

Back in 2011, Long Beach had an ordinance in place that regulated marijuana sales. That system involved a dispensary license lottery, through which winners were granted permits and charged certain fees. But then a state court of appeals found that such involvement amounted to approval of flagrant disobedience of federal law.

From that decision, officials in Long Beach decided to ban all dispensaries, in order to avoid drawing the ire of federal officials. But that decision has been challenged by dispensaries who have sued the city.

So now, city leaders are closely watching developments from the California Supreme Court, which is set to make a determination on whether cities like Long Beach are even legally allowed to enact bans, given that it contradicts the state’s Compassionate Use Act.
Continue reading

Late last month, The Los Angeles Times editorial board published an opinion saying that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration was right to oppose a law that would leave regulation of marijuana up to individual states. Rather, the board held, such regulation should be left to the federal government.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that this view is antiquated and implausible, and was called out as such by Amanda Reiman, who is the state’s policy director for the Drug Policy Alliance, a non-profit think tank dedicated to reforming drug policy.

Tthis was in specific response to HR 689, drafted by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and co-sponsored by a bi-partisan group of 12 other representatives. Essentially the measure would reclassify marijuana — so, instead of a Schedule I controlled substance with no medicinally-recognized purpose, it would be categorized in the same group with high-grade prescription drugs. Further, the measure would take away oversight of marijuana distribution from the DEA and place it in the hands of the state.

The Times’ editorial board had argued that this approach was “wrong-headed,” and that our country needs to have a uniform approach to the issue of marijuana regulation.

But the fact is, such a move isn’t likely to be approved anytime soon, given the push back we’ve seen so far from federal authorities in the form of crackdowns and opposition to such measure. What Blumenauer’s bill does is address what Reiman calls the “catch-22” that the drug has been in for the last four decades.

When the Controlled Substances Act was passed back in 1970, marijuana was classified as one of the most dangerous drugs anyone could ingest. It is still categorized that way, having no “accepted” medical purpose under federal law. Despite the fact that this stance has repeatedly been challenged not only by patients and advocates, but by medical researchers, the federal government has remained hard-nosed in its defiance.

When another challenge to the classification was made recently in a federal court in Washington D.C., the court found that there simply weren’t enough studies done on the drug to warrant a change. But the problem is that researchers are restricted in the kinds of tests they can do precisely because of that high-level classification. So most of the “accepted” research we have in the U.S. centers on animal testing, pre-clinical research and surveys.

The fact is, the federal government has shown no inclination to change its policy or stance. (This of course excludes President Obama’s promises to instruct his justice department not to pursue marijuana dispensaries or patients in states where it is legalized – a clearly hollow commitment.)

For that reason, many states that might have otherwise enacted medical marijuana legislation have stopped short, having seen how federal authorities have pounced on patients, dispensary operators and even local officials in California.

As Reiman noted, in a perfect world, we’d be able to implement an evidence-based form of federal marijuana regulation. But we have yet to see any indication that officials are even open to the discussion. In the meantime, we have lives hanging in the balance. We all deserve better.
Continue reading

A U.S. Navy soldier returned from tours in Iraq and Afghanistan to his home in Colorado, where he began to suffer flashbacks of combat, panic attacks, haunting nightmares, white knuckle anxiety and crippling depression. He also suddenly had a stutter and he had a hard time with short-term memory.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that all of this is a clear case of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and traumatic brain injury, making him what many doctors believe would be a perfect candidate for medicinal marijuana treatment.

But before he sought that out, he tried to self-medicate with alcohol. That did not go well. He continues to serve probation for three DUIs he received in short order.

Now enrolled in school and regular therapy sessions, he is reportedly doing well. His prescription for medical marijuana is helping to stabilize him mentally and physically – but not legally.

The fact that he uses marijuana at all is considered a violation of his probation. As such, he is facing jail time for it, according to The Greeley Tribune.

As the soldier himself put it, courts may be black-and-white, but his conditions make him the practical poster child for the gray area in between.

The soldier had served as a combat medic. Not only did he witness atrocious injuries and horrific, bloody scenes playing out almost daily, he was actually shot in the side of the head while in a helicopter. That was the source of his stutter and memory loss.

He remembers the “snap” sound, but nothing after that – something he says is probably a good thing.

After being treated at a hospital in San Diego, he was released with zero support. He said as he wandered around the city, an extreme sense of paranoia crept over him. As he tried to get back to normal, he couldn’t sleep. Flashbacks of gunfire set him into a full-blown panic.

In the years that followed, he racked up his DUIS, a harassment charge and a protection order. His probation sentences were twice extended because he didn’t start his DUI classes soon enough, though at the time he was seeking help for his PTSD at a local Veterans Affairs hospital.

However, a judge denied him the right to continue to use medical marijuana while he served out the rest of his probation. In turn, he obtained a prescription for a drug called Marinol, a costly, synthetic version of the drug that contains its active ingredient.

He’s now sober and a junior at the local community college.

His teachers and advisers say they have seen a marked improvement in him since he began using medical marijuana and Marinol. It’s clearly helping him, they say. And yet, it’s causing him grief.

Marinol costs nearly $20 per pill. Medical marijuana is far less expensive. Forcing him to pay for the alternative, he says, isn’t fair. And he’s right.

But he now faces up to a month in jail for failing numerous drug tests given for his probation. All of those violations were for medical marijuana.

His doctors, even those with the VA, have written to the judge, asking for leniency, explaining how much the drugs have helped him. So far, it’s been to no avail.

Veterans who are also medical marijuana patients shouldn’t have to suffer this way. If you have found yourself in a similar situation, call us today to learn more about how we can help.
Continue reading

Former leaders with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration are essentially encouraging the federal government to go above and beyond the will of the people and nullify the votes for marijuana legalization in both Washington state and Colorado.

Further, the United Nations is apparently getting involved, with a faction of the group calling legalization a violation of international treaties.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers are appalled that first of all, those in our own country would go so far as to say that our electorate’s voices don’t matter, and further that we would consider allowing non-Americans to dictate our laws.

Former DEA chiefs say Barack Obama’s justice department hasn’t moved quickly enough on the issue of whether to file a lawsuit that would strong-arm the states into abandoning the legalization measures before they are ever implemented. They feared nothing would done and the laws would be allowed to be implemented – as the voters intended.

One in particular worried that if that happened, it would essentially create a “domino effect” that would prompt other states to enact legalization efforts as well.

We would hope so. Given the clear economic and social benefits of such a move, it seems common sense, which was why voters in both Colorado and Washington voted in favor of it in the first place.

The former DEA voices are being channeled through the advocacy group Save Our Society from Drugs, based in Florida.

Meanwhile, the International Narcotics Control Board, a division of the U.N., has in its annual report urged U.S. officials to ensure complete compliance with international drug control treaties throughout the whole of the country.

It is worth noting that a number of countries have voiced support for the measures. If Washington and Colorado were able to implement a successful example of what legalization looks like, it could establish a strong precedent not just stateside, but globally.

As some have suggested, the problem is not with the votes in Colorado and Washington. The problem is with the federal law and international treaties as written. With the understanding that a resolution isn’t going to happen overnight, that is where the focus should be.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said his office is continuing to evaluate and review their options for response to the initiatives, and no clear decision has been made. That review began soon after the vote tallies were in last November.

The agency has basically two different options. It could sue both states in an effort to block them from issuing licenses to those who cultivate, process and sell the drugs, on the basis that it violates federal drug laws. Alternatively, Holder could decide to do nothing, allowing both states to enact the laws as voters intended.

Officials in Washington state say they are prepared to have a regulatory system in place to begin issuing cultivation licenses by August.

Of course, it’s worth noting that DEA officials are not an uninterested party. The expensive drug war policies that they are touting may have failed – but they supported their own livelihoods.
Continue reading

When it comes to marijuana, there is no doubt: California voters are behind it.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that a recent California Field Poll found that voters overwhelmingly support the existence of dispensaries, they want the federal government to butt out of the state’s business and they favor legalization of the drug for recreational use.

When it came to proposals to regulate the drug the way we do alcohol, voters said by a margin of 54 to 43 – they want that.

As the first state to legalize medical marijuana and the state with the largest medical marijuana industry, nearly 70 percent of Californian voters say they want the ongoing federal crackdown, spearheaded by the four U.S. prosecutors in the state, to cease.

The poll was conducted just three months after voters in Colorado and Washington both passed laws legalization marijuana for recreational purposes, revealing that California could very well be next on this issue by the time the next statewide election rolls around. However, the question of how the federal government intends to respond to those other two states still looms large.

In fact voters on both side of the aisle have a problem with the numerous raids that have been carried out on legal marijuana dispensaries, the stiff criminal penalties lobbed against owner/operators and the civil forfeiture actions lobbed against landlords.

Despite the federal government’s assertion that the marijuana industry in California has been “hijacked” by those trying to make money off of it, the poll revealed that 55 percent of Republicans, nearly 70 percent of Democrats and nearly 80 percent of independents oppose the raids.

As the director of the polling company noted, such action is in no way helping to gain support for the federal government’s action. If anything, it appears to be having the opposite effect.

And meanwhile, the state Supreme Court is still mulling whether California counties and cities actually have the right to ban dispensaries altogether. This while medicinal marijuana remains amply supported by voters in the state.

The poll found that nearly 70 percent of those who responded favored allowing at least some medical marijuana dispensaries in each town. The support was strongly supported in Los Angeles County, as well as in Northern California, particularly the San Francisco Bay area.

Many respondents had a difficult time reconciling the government’s big brother approach as to the destruction of neighborhoods from marijuana when, No. 1, that wasn’t actually supported by the data, and No. 2, alcohol, deemed far more destructive, is available on every corner.

Several medical marijuana dispensary owners responded to the poll saying that it encourages them and helps them to feel validated as they continue to fight back against all these outside forces. It also suggests that come election time, California politicians who are against marijuana for any purpose may see some major consequences come election time.

When 2016 rolls around, it may be more than just the politicians seeing the impact.

Those who drafted the failed Proposition 19 legalization measure in 2010 say that in three years, it will come down to writing the best law that they can.
Continue reading

Voters will have three opposing Los Angeles marijuana ordinances to choose from when the election rolls around in May.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that Ordinance No. 182443, proposed by councilman Paul Koretz, passed 8-4, and has gained the support of activists with Americans for Safe Access, the Greater Los Angeles Collectives Alliance and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union – all of which had previously backed another measure that was quite similar.

All three measures will remain on the ballot – it’s too late to remove any at this point – but those activist groups say they are willing to throw their support behind the city council measure, which they view as a fair compromise. Leaders of those groups say they are more likely to be successful if they can join forces with city leaders as well. Unfortunately, both of those measures are significantly more restrictive than the first.

Any one of the three ordinance measures are going to allow for at least some dispensaries to remain open, albeit with a fair amount of restrictions. In that sense, this is certainly a far better alternative than what we were facing down last year: An outright ban. The ban had been passed by city leaders in July and was set to be enforced by September. The city never actually got that far, though, because activists groups quickly rounded up more than enough signatures to approve a ballot measure that would have struck the ban from the books shortly after it went into effect.

Rather than go through the process of enacting the ban only to soon after be forced to rescind it, council scrapped it with an 11-2 vote in October. But they haven’t given up on enacting some type of restrictions. The city tried a similar effort back in 2007, with a moratorium on dispensaries. It was ineffective, and loopholes caused the number of dispensaries to balloon to well over 1,000, by some estimates.

But now council is giving it another shot. The new ordinance would allow only about 135 dispensaries to remain open – those that have been operational since September 2007. Additionally, qualifying dispensaries would have to meet numerous other requirements and standards, including zoning criteria that require them to be a certain distance from churches and schools. Additionally, the measure would increase local taxes on marijuana sales from $50 for every $1,000 in sales to $60 for every $1,000 in sales.

This takes pieces from the other two proposed measures.

The Regulation of Medical Marijuana for Safe Neighborhoods and Safe Access ordinance, for example, would increase taxes, but it wouldn’t limit the number of dispensaries allowed to operate within city limits.

The Medical Marijuana Collectives Initiative Ordinance would not raise taxes, but it would limit the number of marijuana dispensaries to about 100, and would provide limited immunity from enforcement of those facilities that have been open since September 2007, haven’t closed for more than three months except to relocate in response to zoning concerns, passes annual local police background checks and remain a certain distance from from schools, parks, churches and other designated areas.

Some council members are against all three measures, saying storefront marijuana sales should be prohibited outright. But this view doesn’t address the issue of safe patient access. Either way, it doesn’t matter because voters were going to decide on at least one of the other two regardless.
Continue reading

As battles over the rights of medical marijuana dispensaries in California rage on, with federal prosecutors seemingly unrelenting in their offense, we sometimes overlook the fact that this war might be won on the legislative front.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know we saw that quite clearly with the legalization measures in both Colorado and Washington state. Now we have Congress weighing in on the matter with proposals to force federal prosecutors to back off with these crackdowns in states that have legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes.

But in order to have a winning shot in the legislature, we first need to understand and identify the enemies. The Republic Report last year published research identifying and outlining top five special interest groups who are anti-marijuana reform. Each has its own agenda and reason for opposing these measures – and rarely are those reasons altruistic with regard to public welfare.

Although the report was published last year, it remains relevant today as we push forward in our fight for patient and provider rights.

First up: Police unions. The cold truth is that police agencies in California and throughout this country receive federal grant money to fight this failed “War on Drugs.” That money is used for other purposes that they argue at least indirectly will tamp down drug use and trafficking. A good example of this is money used to hire more officers. Indirectly, agencies theorize, this may reduce drug crimes. But regardless of whether it actually does, departments rely on that money to fund those officers. Take that money away, and agencies across the country are going to be in a serious financial pinch.

Back in March 2012, a California police union lobbyist was a key figure in organization opposition to Prop 19, a ballot measure that would have legalized marijuana for recreational purposes in this state. In addition to gaining support for anti-marijuana efforts, this individual also helped coordinate the collection of tens of millions of dollars in federal grants for police agencies to fight marijuana. Similar efforts in other states show police union lobbyists routinely fight for stronger penalties for marijuana-related crimes – despite extensive research showing that society as a whole doesn’t benefit from that.

Secondly: Alcohol and beer companies. When it comes to recreational use, there is a fear that more Americans may turn to marijuana over alcohol. Their motive is simple and obvious: money. Alcohol companies want a monopoly on the leisure industry. The California Beer & Beverage Distributors last year contributed a pretty penny to anti-marijuana efforts.

Thirdly: Private prisons. These firms make millions and millions of dollars by locking up people who are imprisoned for drug crimes – including petty marijuana offenses. Corrections Corporation of America, one of the largest private prison firms in the country, has spokespersons who have publicly admitted that anti-marijuana legislation is good for business. Further, these firms have spent millions of dollars to make sure pro-marijuana legislation is stalled.

Fourthly: Prison guard unions. Just like the prisons themselves, those who staff these facilities have a clear and vested interest in keeping people locked up for marijuana crimes.

Finally: Pharmaceutical corporations. Similar to the alcohol industry, the pharmaceutical industry knows that if people could replace a barrage of pricy, manufactured drugs with one that was grown naturally and inexpensively – and that the latter actually worked better – they would lose a great deal of profits. The concern is that marijuana could replace everything from Advil to Vicodin – and with minimal complications from addiction as well.
Continue reading

Computer prodigy Aaron Swartz was facing 13 federal felony fraud charges and a 35-year prison term for downloading academic articles when he committed suicide last month.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that this tragic case has highlighted a disturbing prosecutorial trend that has become the norm in both federal and state cases of every kind: Overcharging defendants.

This is also sometimes called tacking-on.

Essentially, prosecutors (especially at the federal level) have become notorious for piling every possible charge they can on a defendant in an effort to strong-arm a guilty plea. Such tactics are routinely applied to medical marijuana defendants too.

It’s an egregious stretch of the law to charge medical marijuana dispensary owners with trafficking in a controlled substance when it’s quite plain to see that their actions fall well within the realm of legal activity under state law.

We saw this scenario played out recently in the case of G3 Holistics dispensary owner Aaron Sandusky, who was recently sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for drug trafficking.

Then there’s the case of Matt Davies, a devoted father, husband and dispensary operator facing a minimum of 10 years in prison for operating the Medizen clinic in Sacramento. He and one of his business partners are currently trying to hammer out a plea deal, while a third has already taken one – a three-year sentence in exchange for testifying against his former colleagues.

Prosecutors know that it is both costly and time-consuming to actually go to trial. They know that many times, those more serious allegations won’t stand up in a court of law anyway. The fact is, most prosecutors aren’t even expecting those charges to go to trial (only 3 percent of all federal cases do). However, they still want those convictions under their belt. Piling on a heavy load of criminal charges is one way for them to get a leg-up in the plea bargaining process. Defendants facing a lifetime behind bars are far more likely to quietly plead guilty to lesser charges – regardless of the weight of the evidence – rather than take their chances at trial.

Years ago, this kind of action was met with a great deal of disdain by judges. They would immediately see through these attempts as a clear overreach of prosecutorial power, and as such, the cases would often be dismissed outright.

But somewhere along the line, that ethical principle has been lost. The “win-at-all-costs” attitude of these prosecutors has trumped a defendant’s right to only have to fight charges that are appropriate and equitable to the specific allegations.

We understand that there is a great deal of pressure on young, ambitious prosecutors to go out and win these cases – especially when they are gunning for higher office. But this comes at an enormous price to defendants, their families, our society and the core code of justice.

The fact that we are seeing fewer and fewer cases actually making it to trial is a huge red flag that this process has rapidly gained acceptance in our courtrooms.

Defendants in federal medical marijuana cases face additional challenges, as they are sometimes prevented from even producing evidence that their actions were in line with state laws.

These individuals need an experienced legal team that aggressively fights back in the face of such intimidation.
Continue reading