Articles Posted in Marijuana Lawyer

The San Diego City Council is gearing up for a vote on a medical marijuana ordinance proposed by Mayor Bob Filner – and vigorously opposed by the city’s attorney.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers are extending our services to San Diego medical marijuana dispensaries that are currently in limbo. Last month, Filner ordered all local actions zoning and police actions against dispensaries to cease while council votes on a measure that would permit them to legally operate within the city limit.

Although the mayor has proven a vocal and active champion of medical marijuana rights, his position is not supported by the city attorney’s office. City council, up until now, has largely avoided addressing the issue.

While the exact language of the proposed ordinance hasn’t yet been released, but we do know that Filner has promised it will allow for compassionate use, but similar to ordinances in other places, it will restrict proximity to places like schools and playgrounds and will address concerns to reduce access to the drug for recreational use.

City council is expected to discuss and potentially vote on the measure March 5.

The mayor has been heavily critical of actions by the city, state and federal authorities, saying dispensaries have been unjustly targeted and persecuted.

As it stands in San Diego, there are no city zoning regulations that allow for medical marijuana dispensaries. The council adopted a zoning ordinance back in the summer of 2011, but that was later discarded amid numerous complaints that it was far too restrictive.

In January, when Filner took office, there were approximately a dozen local cases pending with the city attorney’s office. By then, more than 100 medical marijuana dispensaries had already been shuttered as a result of code violation actions initiated by the city. Also since 2011, some 200 medical marijuana collectives were also shuttered as a result of actions by federal authorities in both San Diego and Imperial counties, according to the San Diego Union Tribune.

In addition to his ordinance proposal, Filner has encouraged medical marijuana activists to be vocal in their support of it and admonishment of the city’s previous polices.

The Democratic mayor’s position was in sharp contrast the one held by former Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders.

Although city-led actions are stayed for the moment, it hasn’t stopped federal authorities from pressing forward with their continued crackdown with criminal charges and forfeiture actions. The position of the outspoken mayor has no doubt attracted even closer scrutiny from the U.S. Attorney’s office. Unfortunately, this is the kind of action that marijuana dispensaries will continue to contend with until the issue is definitively settled in federal court – or at least until we get some better direction from the state’s high court.

San Diego’s new mayor is to be commended for taking a strong stance on this, and we hope his proposed ordinance will find support among council members. The meeting is expected to be held the first Tuesday in March at 10 a.m. in city hall, 202 C. Street (12th Floor) in San Diego. We would encourage San Diego residents supporting medical marijuana rights to either be there in person or e-mail your council representative to voice your support. Contact information for your local district representative is available at http://www.sandiego.gov/citycouncil/.
Continue reading

A federal magistrate judge has taken the side of prosecutors in dismissing a lawsuit brought by Oakland city attorneys, who had attempted to argue that a federal agent shutdown of the country’s biggest medical marijuana dispensary was illegal.

Our Los Angeles medical marijuana attorneys understand that the city had tried to sue on behalf and in defense of Harborside Health Center in a first-of-its-kind action that was a testimony to the symbiotic relationship the dispensary had with its community.

The magistrate judge, however, sided with prosecutors on the basis that the city lacked any standing or authority in the case. The fact that the prosecution’s action came far beyond the five-year statute of limitations in the case or that more than 100,000 medical marijuana patients in the vicinity were forced to get their medicine on the black market made no difference.

Steve DeAngelo, owner of Harborside, said the case was essentially turned on a technicality, adding that while respectful of the position the judge was in, minute procedural details shouldn’t take precedence over the well-being of an entire community.

Oakland’s defense of the dispensary, which was formally filed last October, is rare. Typically, you will not see city leaders or governments willing to go to bat for medical marijuana rights. Despite the stinging defeat, we are encouraged by the fact that it represents a shifting in cultural attitudes with regard to medical cannabis.

The city had argued that aside from the fact that the dispensary had been abiding by state and local laws, shuttering of the operation would cause major harm to the city – not only patients, but everyday operations. The firm pays in excess of $1 million in taxes annually.

So now, the door is open for federal prosecutors to proceed with a forfeiture action against Harborside.

City attorneys are extremely frustrated. They say that the court’s approach makes little sense. On one hand, the city can’t file a separate suit and must instead file a complaint within the existing federal forfeiture case. However if it did so, such a claim would be tossed, as the city doesn’t have a valid financial interest in the building itself.

As one attorney lamented, the city and its citizens essentially have no means to seek recompense for their grievances with regard to the harm inflicted by this forfeiture action.

“I seriously doubt that Congress intended that the forfeiture statute would disenfranchise a large city,” Oakland Attorney Cedric Chao was quoted as saying in The Raw Story, adding that the justice in this case seemed more akin to what one might expect in Siberia – not the U.S.

Previously, state judges had ruled that Harborside’s landlord was not allowed to evict the firm for activities that were protected under state law. But this was simply an affirmation that state courts have to enforce state law (which seems a simple enough concept, though it’s too often been lost in all of this).

Federal law is a whole different ball game.

Perhaps the strongest argument for Harborside will continue to be the statute of limitations. There is ample evidence that federal prosecutors were well aware of Harborside and its activities since at least 2006. However, we don’t know yet if that is going to be enough for the owner to fend off allegations filed under the Controlled Substances Act.
Continue reading

Two proposed laws have been formally introduced by U.S. House of Representatives members aiming to end the fruitless battles between state marijuana programs and federal drug laws.

Our Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyers want to encourage all of our clients, followers, colleagues and friends to contact your Congressional representative and urge support of both HR 689 and HR 710. Both of these programs could go a long way toward reducing the innocent casualties of this failed “War on Drugs” in states where voters have approved the legality of medical marijuana.

What we don’t need is federal prosecutors continuing to usurp the role of leadership best left to our elected officials or silencing the citizens’ voices when their intent has been made very clear.

HR 689, the States’ Medical Marijuana Patient Protections Act, was introduced by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore) and would essentially remove marijuana from the list of Schedule I drugs as outlined in the Controlled Substances Act. This same move was attempted through appeal in a federal court in Washington, D.C., but the court unfortunately upheld the government’s current stance. This classification continues to defy logic, as its definition hold that it has no currently accepted medical use in the U.S, it has a lack of safe use under medical supervision and has a high potential for abuse. Other drugs in this category include heroin, LSD and Ecstasy. According to this classification, marijuana is more addictive than prescription painkillers, cocaine or amphetamines. We all know this to be simply untrue – and yet, the classification persists. The law would also bar marijuana from Schedule II classification as well, stipulating that an independent panel should determine whether it should be classified as a Schedule III through Schedule V.

So not only would HR 689 do away with that classification, it would allow for medical research to be overseen by some agency other than the National Institute of Drug Abuse, which maintains an obvious bias on these matters. Part of the problem in the D.C. court case was that the justices said there wasn’t enough valid research to support a finding that marijuana was beneficial for medicinal purposes. But that is no surprise when the NIDA is severely limiting the kinds of studies that can be conducted with the drug.

HR 689 would also place limits on governmental authority with regard to the Controlled Substances Act, finding that no provision of the law should allow prosecutors to restrict the cultivation, prescription, sale or use of marijuana in states where it has been approved.

The second measure Congress is set to weigh in on is HR 710, also known as the Truth in Trials Act. This law would allow patients, dispensaries or anyone who is facing a federal, marijuana-related offense to introduce evidence that would prove that their conduct or actions were in compliance with state law.

It would also make provisions to ensure that any property seized from a marijuana defendant who is later found not guilty will be promptly returned to that defendant – no later than 10 days after the case has closed.

Although opponents of these measures have characterized them as radical, the fact is, they are simply common sense.
Continue reading

A new series being advertised on The Discovery Channel will reportedly provide a detailed look inside the drug enforcement unit in Humboldt County has it aims to take down marijuana cultivators in the area.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that the Hollywood look is cast with the promise of following efforts to take down operations funded and directed by violent drug cartel leaders, though a significant portion of the show will also reportedly focus on “average Joe” marijuana grow operations too.

Having not yet seen the three-part show, we can’t pass judgment as to the accuracy of the portrayals made therein, but we do know the issue of marijuana crackdowns in general have been hyped by both local and federal authorities, in an attempt to gain supporters for their ongoing costly, violent and too often ineffective “War on Drugs.”

One of the primary subjects of the documentary series is a deputy on the SWAT team. He has been quoted by media outlets as saying he and his team aren’t interested in stepping in to bust people or caregivers who have a legitimate license to grow marijuana for their own personal use or for a close loved one. The deputy said he could count on his hand the number of times he had encountered someone who was growing the drug legally.

He stressed that contrary to what some might believe, growing and selling marijuana for a profit is still illegal in California. It’s illegal even for those who have a license. It’s also just as illegal to even give it away to someone who doesn’t have a prescription as it is to sell it.

And he’s right about that, which is why dispensaries and farmers need to use extreme caution with regard to the process through which they are conducting their operation.

Of course, some of the growers featured on the show are acutely aware of the fact that what they are doing crosses the legal line. That’s why these operations are taking place deep in the Redwoods, with stashes guarded by individuals illegally armed with assault rifles and handguns. In many cases, these individuals are illegal immigrants.

But it’s important to note that these types of operations, while not currently the norm, are only going to proliferate as federal authorities impose strict sanctions and criminal penalties on those dispensaries that are working hard to try to conduct above-board business. These are folks who don’t want any trouble and get into it for the right reasons – to help people. Pushing them further underground will do more to give these illicit growers the upper hand than anything else.

As the series reportedly shows, these raids are time-consuming and dangerous. A promotional clip of the highlights reportedly shows law enforcement officers bursting into a suspected grow operation, guns drawn and kicking in doors. Law enforcement agencies characterize this as “fiercely attacking” the problem.

The truth of the matter is, though, that marijuana, even for recreational use, continues to gain support among the public. That means a series like this, while aiming to show the public how dangerous these operations are, might inevitably fuel the growing viewpoint that such law enforcement actions and expenditures are overzealous and unnecessary. Eradication of marijuana is unlikely to be successful, and what’s more, doing so is an extreme disservice to those who rely on the medicine for invaluable pain relief, among other reasons.

Careful regulation, we feel, has always been the better approach.
Continue reading

A bipartisan effort to legalize the industrial farming of hemp – backed by 28 co-sponsors – has been introduced into Congress.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that specifically, House Bill 525, also known as the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2013, would amend the Controlled Substances Act to essentially discount hemp as a form of marijuana. This would allow it to be cultivated, manufactured, processed and sold without violating federal drug laws.

It would effectively grant state legislators the authority to regulate and license the commercial production of hemp as both an agricultural and industrial good, as opposed to an illegal substance worthy of federal intervention and criminal prosecution.

As it stands, eight states (not including Colorado) have already passed legislation that classifies hemp as its own agricultural product, as opposed to being considered a Schedule I illegal substance. However, much like the issues that California dispensaries have run into, these states recognize that hemp is still considered illegal under federal law. House Bill 525 would essentially remove the barriers that at this point prevent states from cultivating hemp unless they are prepared to break federal laws.

A Kentucky Republican is the primary sponsor of the bill, with co-sponsors including numerous Democrats, including those on the House Agriculture Committee.

Hemp is actually a distinct form of the cannabis plant that contains mere traces (less than 1 percent) of THC, which is the psychoactive compound in marijuana. Among its very practical uses are:

• Rope fiber;
• Paper;
• Clothing;
• Wax;
• Resin;
• Fuel;
• Oil;
• Plastics;
• Food (including milk, tea, bread, cereals, butters and oils).

Supporters of HR 525 note that the U.S. is the only First World country that doesn’t allow industrial hemp production.

Previous efforts to pass similar legislation have failed, and those actions have never even made it to the Senate floor. There is reason to believe, given the evolving attitude of the public at-large, that this time could be different.

Marijuana legalization measures, similar to those passed in both Colorado and Washington last year, have either been introduced or are being prepared in:

• Pennsylvania;
• Rhode Island;
• Hawaii;
• New Hampshire;
• New Mexico;
• Massachusetts;
• Maine;
• Michigan;
• Vermont;

A similar measure in Indiana, Senate Bill 580, unfortunately failed upon its assignation to the Committee on Corrections and Criminal Law. However, it wasn’t that lawmakers had carefully considered the measure and determined it wasn’t the right time or right action for the state. Rather, the committee chair refused to allow a public hearing on the measure, effectively killing it.

Meanwhile, a medical marijuana bill has been introduced in North Carolina, with the specific goal of catering to HIV/AIDS patients, as well as those suffering from cancer and multiple sclerosis.
Continue reading

Local police officials conducted a huge raid on an alleged marijuana grow operation at a Los Angeles loft downtown, arresting at least two suspects and seizing hundreds of pounds of the plant.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that the details in this case are so far scant, but it’s important to point out that in general, marijuana providers need to be cautious about how and where they conduct their trade.

We do understand that the rules of engagement, so to speak, are vague and broad and it can be difficult even for those attempting to be involved in a legitimate cultivation or dispensing operation to know the boundaries. This is why it is so critical to consult with an experienced marijuana lawyer before you make the investment and get started.

Just for starters, this is going to involve aspects such as regulatory deadlines, zoning considerations, surety bond requirements, registration and licensing rules and proper documentation of inventory and sales. All of these aspects are critical for dispensary owners and cultivators to carefully consider.

Attempting to do any aspect of this business without careful consideration may earn you a small fortune in the short-term. In the long-term, however, you risk not only a substantial hit on your original investment, but also massive fines, attorneys’ fees, potential property forfeiture and even severe federal criminal charges.

It’s not that we want to discourage anyone from entering the industry, but it should be done with extreme care and consideration, as well as extensive consultation with a legal professional who is well-versed in this area of law.

In this case, it was likely the electricity expenditures that first alerted authorities to problems. The city’s Department of Building and Safety reported that the loft space was generating electricity costs that topped $17,000 each month. There are very few business models that would find that kind of expenditure sustainable long-term – not to mention the fact that this space was not zoned for either business or agricultural purposes.

As a result of the stress on a wiring system that wasn’t equipped for that kind of use, the electrical wires are reportedly melted together, and the entire building has had to be evacuated until further notice.

Investigators say the entire top level of a three-story structure was being used to grow marijuana.

When local police raided the facility, they reportedly found some 1,500 pounds, two shotguns and two assault rifles. They believe the center produced an estimated $7 million worth of the plant every two months.

There are both federal and state laws that ban against arbitrary growing or sale of marijuana. At the federal level, there is 21 U.S.C. 841, which covers trafficking marijuana. It involves the intentional manufacture, distribution, dispensing or possession of marijuana with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense.

A single first-time offense for violation of federal law (of up to 49 kg or 49 plants) is up to five years in prison and fines of up to $250,000. A second offense is double that. Amounts of more than that could carry up to two decades in prison for a first-time trafficking offense.

This is not something to take lightly.

Before you open up shop, call us.
Continue reading

A former Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department official who was fired for her husband’s connection to a legal marijuana dispensary is filing suit against her former boss.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that although the sheriff’s department alleges this was primarily an issue of an employee concealing a relevant fact, the truth of the matter is the sheriff personally – and quite vocally – disagrees with the legal profession of an employee’s spouse.

The lawsuit, filed Feb. 8 in U.S. District Court, contends this was the sole basis for the firing, and as such, it was unlawful.

Specifically, the complaint alleges violation of 42 U.S.c. 1983, a U.S. Constitutional Amendment protecting the right of an individual to marry whom they wish, as well as a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and a violation of the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, per California Government Code 12940(a) and California Government Regulations Title 2 – 7292.2, marriage status discrimination.

Essentially, the sheriff’s office said that if the employee in question (a development director for the agency’s youth charity foundation) was married to a marijuana dispensary owner, she couldn’t be employed by the sheriff’s office. Yet, there is no internal policy explicitly stating this. What’s more, the dispensing of marijuana is a legal occupation under state law.

This specific dispensary, in Marina Del Rey, was properly permitted and legally operated. No wrongdoing is alleged here by either the husband or wife.

In fact, this particular employee had no previous disciplinary action taken against her in all her time serving in her position and had even been described by an agency spokesman as a stellar employee.

Sheriff Lee Baca has been an outspoken critic of marijuana dispensaries, despite ample evidence showing that such operations provide an invaluable service to patients. Yet Baca has been quoted as saying that dispensaries had been “hijacked” by criminals in order to make money and procure illicit drugs.

Just prior to the revelation that the owner of this dispensary was married to a sheriff’s office employee, the dispensary was raided by federal authorities per several warrants. However, despite the seizure of several items from the primary location, no arrests were made. Further officials have given no indication that the wife of the dispensary owner is under any suspicion of wrongdoing whatsoever.

In fact, she had worked for the agency for more than a decade, racking up more than 60 hours each week in 2011 and earning an annual salary of nearly $104,000. Yet law enforcement officials have attempted to downplay her role in the charity, saying she was really just an “assistant to a sergeant.”

As we said in our Jan. 17, 2013 marijuana blog entry, it would appear the grounds for an employment discrimination lawsuit in this case would be ample.

Marijuana dispensary owners, patients, growers and their families should never be treated as second-class citizens.
Continue reading

One of the most vocal advocates in the push for medical marijuana rights in Los Angeles has been the United Food and Commercial Workers’ union, of which three dispensaries have dues-paying members and another nearly 50 in the city may soon join.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that the union, which like many had struggled under the weight of corporate giants seeking to limit their voice, has found a great new partner with those in the medical marijuana industry.

In fact, the UFCW was a pivotal force in working to get the vote out at the height of the November elections in Colorado, fighting for the successful legalization of recreational use. They have played an increasingly vocal advocacy role in the medical marijuana issues unfurling here in Southern California too.

This is in no small part due to the opportunity for potentially exponentially expanding their union numbers. You’re talking about 18 states and the District of Columbia where medical marijuana is now legal under state law. However, the continued federal crackdowns as well as local government efforts to limit these rights have prompted many dispensary owners, growers, processors and co-op members to seek a united front. Unionization has already and could continue to be a strong lobbying tool.

However, dispensaries would do well to remember that unions, even if they have a legal team on staff, should not be used in place of your own separate attorney – one who is hired specifically to solely look out for your interests, rights and benefits – not just to further the overall cause.

Unions such as the UFCW are working hard to stem the growing tide of part-time labor (which results in reduced benefits) as well as the significant drop in wages over the last 20 years.

These are no doubt admirable causes worthy of our support. But we should also point out that unions as a whole are shrinking. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in January that the percentage of unionized American workers is down to 11.3 percent – down from 11.8 percent in 2011. Both figures represent the lowest it’s ever been in nearly 100 years.

Meanwhile, research firms have estimated the medical marijuana market could reach the $9 billion threshold in the next three years.

In Washington, the state’s Office of Financial Management has determined that the legalization move is likely to result in $1 billion in sales each year in the state. This has prompted even further efforts to boost union enrollment, with union leaders hoping to expand to everyone from truckers to farmers to retail clerks. In California, that could wind up being upward of 100,000 workers.

The primary benefits of union membership for those in the marijuana industry are the greater say in pushing for higher wages and improved benefits, like health care.

Certainly, there has been political pressure placed by the unions to support the dispensaries’ fundamental right to exist, but again, it’s no substitute for an experienced marijuana lawyer who can advise you on the legal precautions you need to make with day-to-day operations.
Continue reading

As the battle over medical marijuana continues to be slugged out in court case after court case in California, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand a quiet groundswell of support has been brewing in Congress.

Now, it appears we may be close to seeing some real action.

Democrats in Oregon and Colorado are planning to introduce two separate bills that, if passed, would drastically alter the way the government defines marijuana and limit the scope of power federal prosecutors have in aggressively going after dispensary owners and landlords.

Of course, we recognize this is far from the first time bills relating to marijuana reform have been brought. However, this action comes at a pivotal time in our history and collective national conscience. We now have 18 states and the District of Columbia that allow marijuana use for medicinal purposes, and another two that have decriminalized recreational use, possession and sales.

It could still be a long-shot, as several government analysts are predicting, but the arguments made by both Representatives are quite convincing.

One of the measures set to be proposed was drafted by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Or. The Marijuana Tax Equity Act would set up tax guidelines for marijuana, similar to what we see now with alcohol and tobacco. In it, the “first sale” of the plant, that is, from the growers to either processors or directly to retails, would require payment of a 50 percent federal excise tax, or those we pay for certain goods, like gas. Producers of marijuana would also be taxed a flat rate of $1,000 a year, while retailers would have to pay a $500 annual fee.

Blumenauer asserts the goal is to help reduce the national deficit, as well as provide funding for drug treatment programs and law enforcement officials (who would subsequently be freed from having to spend significant resources tracking down petty drug crime offenders). He estimates that conservatively, his plan could rake in $100 billion in a decade.

Meanwhile, the second bill was drafted by Rep. Jared Polis, D-Co. The Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act would basically do just that at the federal level. States would not be forced to legalize marijuana, but those that do could work to establish an effective framework for regulation without having to worry about the federal government interjecting with criminal charges, liens or fines. It would also strip the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration of marijuana regulatory power, handing it over instead to a newly-renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms.

Polis was quoted in TIME Magazine as saying Americans recognize that the war on drugs has failed and substance abuse must be treated as a health issue, rather than a criminal matter. A national Gallup poll conducted last fall revealed that more than half of all Americans believe recreational marijuana use should not be a criminal offense.

In addition to these actions, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. expressed his intention to hold hearings on how to approach the inherent conflict between federal and state cannabis laws. Also, our own Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, D-Calif., has hinted at the introduction of a bill to give states sole regulatory authority on marijuana.

It’s not expected to end there. Blumenauer said he anticipates up to 10 marijuana-related bills to be introduced this year.
Continue reading

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers, along with many others invested in medical marijuana rights, have been closely following the developments of The City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, which has just been heard by the California Supreme Court.

The outcome of this case could prove pivotal because it addresses a dispensary’s inherent right to exist. Not only have these operations been aggressively targeted by federal prosecutors, they have been forced to shudder their storefronts amid local bans that made no concessions whatsoever to state law.

The main question here is whether local government leaders have the authority to ban medical marijuana dispensaries.

The reason this is especially important is because lower court decisions have been a crazy patchwork of conflicting opinions. Part of California’s troubles stem from the fact that this state pioneered the medical marijuana movement nearly 20 years ago with the passage of the Compassionate Use Act. However, we had no blue print to follow. We had to draft our own.

Other states in which dispensaries have been more easily able to fly under the federal radar had the benefit of observing us – what worked and what didn’t.

Those who are close to this issue are hoping for uniformity and clarity – and most importantly, an affirmation of the rights of dispensaries to lawfully operate and provide a valuable service to sick people without fear of harassment or persecution.

Many dispensary owners are not opposed to local regulation – they might actually welcome it, provided that regulation doesn’t include an outright ban. State law is quite vague, and it tends to give a lot of authority to local governments. So when local authorities set the boundaries and clearly define the terms, dispensary operators can be more at ease in knowing everything is above-board and legitimate.

The problem with banning these facilities outright is that, based on the action already taken, it would leave patients in huge swaths in the middle and southern part of the state without access to their medicine. These are individuals who are often coping with conditions who we are going to ask to drive hours and hours just to pick up a prescription? That’s neither reasonable nor compassionate – and it’s not in the spirit of the law that California voters passed.

But this disparity, if upheld, could not be entirely blamed on local government leaders. Federal prosecutors have made threats of criminal charges and applied pressure to elected local leaders who established some regulatory framework. Prosecutors reasoned this was akin to approving the violation of federal law, under which marijuana is still illegal.

Still, owners and patients are not giving up their fight. In this case, Inland Empire was ordered by Riverside city leaders to close shop three years ago. It refused. The city filed a complaint and a local judge granted the city’s request for an injunction, a decision that was upheld in 2011 by an appellate court.

Now, it’s up to the Supreme Court justices. Let’s hope they can cut through the rhetoric and reach a decision that makes good sense and clears much of the confusion.
Continue reading