Articles Posted in Marijuana Lawyer

It started out as a venture between three men to provide a valuable medicine to sick people in California. marijuanaplant.jpg

Now, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand two of them have pleaded guilty to federal drug trafficking charges, and are awaiting sentences this spring.

A third man – a husband and father of two young girls – is plea deal negotiations as his wife and legal team have launched a highly public appeal for mercy from the federal government.

It’s not even clear at this point why federal authorities started to investigate the Stockton dispensaries co-owned by the three, but new reports reveal it may have actually begun with a speeding ticket, received shortly after the announcement of a federal crackdown on medical marijuana providers in October 2011.

The third man was reportedly stopped for speeding while responding to an alarm at his marijuana supply store. It turned out to be a false alarm.

A week later, officers responded to a suspected break-in at that same facility, but it turned out workers were simply repairing a broken window. A few weeks later, federal authorities burst in with a warrant, found nearly 2,000 marijuana plants and arrested all the owners.

Despite the fact that marijuana remains a Schedule I narcotic under federal law, what these men were doing was perfectly legal under state laws.

Even with that knowledge, federal prosecutors are demanding the young husband and father plead guilty, spend seven years in prison or go to trial on charges for which he could receive a 10-year minimum mandatory (and up to life) – a move his attorneys have called “obscene.”

Federal prosecutors say the dispensaries raked in millions of dollars annually, with several hundred thousand dollars of that being strictly profit. They asserted that the defendant was not an ill patient nor was he a medical caregiver. Instead, he was referred to as a “major player in a very significant commercial operation” that sought to make big bucks of marijuana sales.

But the defendants say federal authorities have their math skewed. In fact, the non-profit salary was less than $50,000 each for more than a year’s worth of work. They weren’t doing it for the money. In fact, the third man’s full-time job was working at a family-owned restaurant.

His wife, in her open letter to President Barack Obama, wrote that he had been motivated to enter this arena by the fact that his grandfather had wasted away from cancer – something that could have been eased by use of the drug. He employed dozens of people, paid his federal, state and local taxes, had all the appropriate permits and above all, was providing an invaluable service to sick people in his community.

The man’s wife and his colleagues believed the president at his word when he previously said he didn’t intend to go after marijuana dispensaries that were abiding by local and state laws.

“My husband is not the ‘bigger fish to fry,'” she wrote in her letter, referring to Obama’s interview last year with Reporter Barbara Walters. “Please drop this case and put an end to our family’s nightmare.”
Continue reading

If you thought the fight for expanded marijuana rights ended after the 2012 elections – think again. passit.jpg

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that while California attorneys battle it out in courtrooms every day, advocates are focused – and making strides – in swaying the tide of public opinion to one that doesn’t view users as addicts or dispensary operators as criminals.

Specifically, these groups are interested in full-scale, legalization of recreational use and possession, like the measures recently approved in November by voters in both Colorado and Washington state. They are the only two states to hold such a distinction, allowing personal possession for anyone age 21 and older. Later this year, all adults will be permitted to buy the drug at a specialty store.

Whether a similar measure might have success in California remains to be seen. Despite being the first state in the country to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, proposals for legalizing recreational use have been shot down repeatedly (in 1972 and again in 2010). We’re still contending with the proper way to regulate medicinal marijuana in such a way that the laws are clear, concise and avoid the ire of federal authorities.

Still, the passage of the laws in our neighboring states reveals what is possible when you have strong support and backers with deep pockets. According to Reuters, the Drug Policy Alliance spent more than $1.5 million promoting the pro-marijuana legislation in Washington. Progressive Corp. insurance company chairman Peter Lewis chipped in another $2.5 million, and travel guide author Rick Steves forked over $350,000. And it worked.

In Colorado, the initiative was supported by the Marijuana Policy Project, which contributed about $1 million.

It remains to be seen, though, whether the federal government will come down swiftly on those states and specifically on providers, as they have in California. That could throw a big wrench in any future legalization plans elsewhere.

The other “if” factor in all of this is whether California could patch together a reasonable, cohesive plan that would allow for strong, central regulation – something that’s been lacking on the medical marijuana front here. Last month, California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsome was quoted by The New York Times as saying that the current marijuana laws, both at the federal and state levels, simply don’t make sense anymore.

What advocates are weighing is whether they should push for another pro-marijuana initiative during next year’s elections, or wait until 2016, when more young people are likely to turn out and vote.

Whenever they decide, the California Police Chiefs Association has said it will be ready to fight it down, with a spokesman for the agency saying there is yet to be a valid argument on how legalization for recreational use will improve our society as a whole.

While we don’t have time to list all the potential benefits, we could start with this: The California Board of Equalization estimated that in 2009 alone, medical marijuana facilities in the state contributed an estimated $105 million in state taxes. Our guess would be that schools, local governments and even police departments do a lot of good with $105 million.
Continue reading

Local authorities in Mendocino County should be commended for their efforts in contesting a federal subpoena demanding information about those who obtained marijuana cultivation permits under the now-defunct county permitting program.hookah.jpg

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers recognize this as a rare incident in which local authorities are standing up to the federal government in favor of medical marijuana providers.

The program, County Code 9.31, was passed in 2010 and issued permits to medical marijuana farmers for up to 99 plants. The measure was passed in response to a series of robberies that had occurred at newly-opened medical marijuana facilities throughout the area, which lacked local regulation. Some growers were causing environmental havoc by illegally logging, grading and diverting creeks in order to cultivate a large quantity of crops. Local lawmakers wanted patients to have access, but they needed tighter controls too. The local ordinance accomplished this.

Local growers were required to register with the sheriff’s office. They were required to install security fences, surveillance cameras, undergo four inspections annually and pay permitting fees that topped $6,500 each year.

Even then, the first person to register through the program had her farm raided by authorities with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

But the program didn’t end there. More than 90 people signed up and were legally permitted the following year, and local officials said the program paid for itself, bringing in roughly $600,000 over the course of two years. It allowed local law enforcement officials to focus their energies in areas where it was actually necessary.

But the program was eventually halted, amid threats from federal authorities to personally prosecute county leaders if it were continued. Still, that apparently wasn’t enough for the feds. In October, prosecutors with the U.S. Department of Justice demanded the county hand over records regarding the program and those who applied to participate.

A federal judge in San Francisco has been asked by Mendocino County authorities to quash the subpoena. Advocacy groups who are aiding the county in fighting the demand have argued that to hand over such information would be a violation of privacy rights, as it would reveal certain confidential medical information, as well as bank information of private citizens who sought to adhere to local regulatory efforts.

Additionally, similar measures were rejected in other courts.

Essentially, both growers and county officials were acting in good faith to try to comply with state laws regarding regulation. Were the judge to allow the subpoena to stand, the advocacy groups said, it would send a message that marijuana providers should operate underground – which is not in the best interest of patients, growers, local authorities, taxpayers, citizens or the federal government.

The subpoena gives no indication what federal prosecutors aim to learn from these documents. This makes it look an awful lot like a fishing expedition. One district supervisor has referred to this as the “kitchen sink approach.” In other words, prosecutors are demanding “everything but the kitchen sink,” hoping to find evidence of criminal activity that they may be able to then take to court.

A decision could be expected as early as February.
Continue reading

To say that our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers were disappointed at the recent appellate court ruling in our nation’s capitol would be an understatement. dutchweed1.jpg

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has affirmed the status quo of marijuana being not only illegal, but a highly dangerous and addictive drug with no accepted medicinal uses or benefits. That means that for the time being according to federal law, it will remain a Schedule I narcotic – meaning the federal government considers it as perilous as heroin and even worse than cocaine or methamphetamine.

Americans for Safe Access, which brought the appeal before the court, said it was obvious that federal drug officials had a deep-seeded bias with regard to marijuana that prompted them to blatantly ignore any benefits and further to exaggerate the perceived dangers. The group argued that it was time for both officials and the court to re-examine the evidence – which overwhelmingly falls in favor of the medicine.

It alleviates pain for those who suffer debilitating conditions. It’s been known to reduce seizures and behavioral outbursts in ailing children. It stimulates the appetite of people battling cancer.

However, the appellate panel of three justices instead were swayed by federal government health witnesses, who testified that they would need to see more evidence before they would consider reclassifying the drug. They said that establishment of a drug for acceptable medical use would require that its effectiveness be tested in numerous studies involving large numbers of patients in environments that were well-designed, well-conducted, well-controlled and well-documented. The Drug Enforcement Administration asserted such research was not available (which is flat-out false), but this was the basis upon which the court chose to found its opinion.

The ruling was split 2-1.

Interestingly, the justices conceded that they did not dispute the fact that marijuana could indeed have some medical benefits. However, they hadn’t seen enough of those large-scale to convince them to overrule the DEA. (Nevermind the fact that a Schedule I classification means there is NO acceptable medical use.)

The judges appear to discount the fact that the ASA presented evidence of more than 200 peer-reviewed studies that meet the standards the justices mentioned.

Plus, more than 1 million people in this country are prescribed the drug by medical doctors for the purpose of alleviating a wide range of ailments. In all, 20 states and the District of Columbia have approved the drug for medical purposes.

But that’s apparently not enough evidence? Why would people – doctors, lawyers, public officials, teachers, police officers and other professionals – be willing to fight so vigorously and passionately if this drug had no real substantive medicinal value?

ASA has said it will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and said it also intends to request hearings in Congress.

You may recall that last month, President Barack Obama as well as some Democratic senators, indicated they would be prepared to reconsider federal laws that impose criminal sanctions on individuals possessing a small amount of the drug. Both Washington and Colorado have allowed that up to an ounce of the drug for personal use may be kept at a person’s home.
Continue reading

With the recent conviction of a former Southern California marijuana dispensary owner resulting in a 10-year prison sentence, other dispensary facilities and marijuana cultivators are wise to review all their current operations to identify potential vulnerabilities. securitycamera.jpg

Our Los Angeles marijuana defense lawyers understand a key issue pertaining to the Fourth Amendment and warrantless surveillance in these types of cases could be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s of particular concern for those who grow the drug on private property in California.

The case originates out of rural Wisconsin, where local fishermen reported suspicions of a marijuana grow operation on a swath of private property. The property was heavily wooded, fenced and clearly marked with “No Trespassing” signs.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration was tapped to participate in the investigation, and agents entered the property – without a warrant – and installed covert surveillance cameras on the property. They suspected between 30 and 40 marijuana plants were being cultivated on the 22-acre property.

(It should be noted that medical marijuana is not legal in the state of Wisconsin.)

Based on nearly 80 hours of footage obtained from those cameras, which appeared to show men on the property handling suspected marijuana, DEA agents went to a federal judge to obtain a warrant, which they received.

A search of the property revealed an estimated 1,000 marijuana plants being grown on the property.

Five people were arrested on federal drug trafficking charges that could amount to sentences of up to life in prison and fines of up to $10 million.

Attorneys for the defendants filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained in that video, which would have all but derailed the case – on the grounds that it violated the Fourth Amendment clause protecting against unlawful searches and seizures. However, a federal U.S. district court judge rejected that motion, ruling that the DEA’s actions were legal.

This prompted the five individuals facing trial to plead guilty to possession with intent to distribute. However, part of that deal was that they maintained their right to appeal – and that’s exactly what their lawyers say they intend to do – all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The immediate next step though is the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

It’s an interesting case. The policy regarding surveillance of marijuana grow operations in open or public fields has been governed by the decision in U.S. v. Oliver, which held that areas beyond the perimeter of private property were fair game and not subject to the same Fourth Amendment protections.

However, last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that warrantless GPS tracking as well as warrantless thermal imaging is illegal under the Fourth Amendment.

The court has yet to rule on the practice of warrantless aerial drones, warrantless cell phone tracking and other measures frequently used by police to spy on citizens without prior permission from a judge.

It would appear, at least on the surface, that warrantless surveillance footage on private property would fall into the same type of law enforcement overreach.
Continue reading

Federal drug enforcement agents earlier this month burst through the doors of three Los Angeles medical marijuana dispensaries. dutchweed.jpg

Our Los Angeles medical marijuana lawyers understand federal officials haven’t been forthcoming to the public about what they were looking for or whether any arrests were made. We do know that the storefronts that were raided have been identified as LA Wonderland, Iron Works and DTPG.

The raids continue throughout the state, despite presidential promises that such operations would not be a top priority for federal prosecutors.

In San Diego, where the mayor has ordered local police authorities to end their constant barrage on medical marijuana operations, federal authorities aren’t expected to fall in line. The U.S. Attorney’s local office has said that while it would be open to a meeting with the newly-elected official, selling marijuana for any purposes is illegal under federal law. The office underscored its intention to continue to enforce the U.S. Controlled Substances Act.

This is the act that holds marijuana is a Schedule I narcotic, meaning it’s classified as a highly-addictive narcotic with no medicinal value. This of course is despite countless independent and global studies that provide solid, medical evidence to the contrary. It’s ultimately a matter of how long the federal government wishes to bury its head in the sand and deny the truth.

The previous mayor of the city supported both the local and federal crackdown. In fact, dispensaries there have all but disappeared in the wake of federal efforts to dismantle them one-by-one. Where there were once hundreds, there are only a small few.

The mayor in San Diego received generous praise from marijuana advocates both locally and throughout the state, amid continuing assaults on patients’ and states’ rights.

Earlier this month, Southern California dispensary owner Aaron Sandusky was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison, following his conviction on drug trafficking charges. Although the judge gave him the minimum sentence under the guidelines, the law did not allow him to consider that the defendant was abiding by state statutes.

The most recent federal raid in Los Angeles comes as city leaders are working to draft a third proposal for regulation of the city’s dispensaries. The first two were reportedly not strict enough for council’s liking, though they will still be considered by voters in May. One option would allow most existing dispensaries to remain open, while raising taxes and increasing city oversight. The second and third measures would limit the number of dispensaries to those that were open prior to the city’s failed moratorium that was passed in 2007.

No matter what happens, until the U.S. Supreme Court makes a ruling on whether states have the right to allow medical marijuana cultivation and distribution within their borders, such operations will remain at risk. Owners should take the utmost care and caution to consult regularly with an experienced marijuana attorney to ensure compliance with local and state laws and, to the extent possible, avoid the attention of federal authorities.
Continue reading

In a major victory for marijuana rights in California, the state supreme court has declined to hear an appeal from prosecutors on the overturned conviction of a marijuana collective operator in People v. Jackson. hemp.jpg

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know this means the Fourth District Court of Appeals’ ruling, which established a clear defense for collective and dispensary owners prosecuted in state court, will stand.

The high court refused to hear the case, despite requests for reversal and a depublishing from the League of California Cities as well as district attorneys in Los Angeles, Sonoma and Sacramento Counties and the L.A. City attorney. This sends a strong and definitive message to state prosecutors inclined to pursue criminal charges against law-abiding medical marijuana collective operators: You probably don’t have a case.

Of course, it won’t free operators from potential prosecution in federal courts, but the fact that the state supreme court allowed the earlier ruling to stand marks a giant step in the right direction. That the court made this decision in the face of such aggressive opposition makes it all the more noteworthy.

You may recall, Jovan Jackson operated a storefront marijuana collective in San Diego with no issues whatsoever until 2008. At that time, law enforcement authorities raided his property and arrested him for possession and sale of marijuana. However, a jury acquitted him in 2009.

Rather than leave it at that, the district attorney prosecuted him again on the exact same charges stemming from another raid in late 2009. At his second trial, he was denied a defense allowable under the Medical Marijuana Program Act, as prosecutors contended his operation couldn’t be considered a legitimate collective because very few of the 1,600 patients who utilized his services actually helped grow the marijuana.

This was despite the fact that Jackson’s defense team showed evidence that each member of the collective was required to produce proof that he or she had a valid doctor’s prescription for the drug before they could buy it. He also proved that neither he nor the other participants were making a profit from the drug.

Still, he wasn’t helped by the judge’s astonishing display of bias in referring to marijuana as “dope” and calling the state’s medical marijuana laws as “a scam.” That same judge handed Jackson a sentence of six months in jail. That was in late 2011.

Jackson appealed, and in late October of last year, the appellate court reversed his conviction on the basis that he had been illegally denied a defense, saying in fact, his burden was “not that great.” In fact, all he was required to prove was that he was operating under the state guidelines that only qualified patients received the drug, that those patients collectively associate to grow the drug and that the operation was not a profit-making enterprise.

The appellate court further rejected the Attorney General’s contention that patients have to somehow collaborate or be involved in the cultivation of the medicine they buy. Specifically, the court said that patients don’t have to be actively or physically involved in growing the marijuana they use. Providing financial support, the justices ruled, is involvement enough.

That ruling alone was damaging not only for the prosecutor in San Diego, but for district attorneys’ offices throughout the state. The California Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case is one more nail in the coffin for this movement.
Continue reading

Long Beach city officials and those elsewhere are waiting anxiously for decisions by the California Supreme Court in two cases that could answer the question of whether it is legal for a city to ban marijuana dispensaries outright. gavel6.jpg

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers are watching closely as well.

The first case, City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient’s Health and Wellness Center, is slated to go before the court Feb. 5. Last year, an appellate court upheld the city’s legal authority to ban dispensaries. The dispensary owner is appealing.

The other case, City of Upland v. G3 Holistic Inc., involves the argument by dispensary attorneys that the city can’t legally bar dispensaries from operation because the state’s Compassionate Use Act, under Proposition 215, allows doctors to legally prescribe marijuana to patients.

Some cities have maintained that the Compassionate Use Act doesn’t matter because their authority with regard to local zoning laws grants them the power to close any type of operation that doesn’t follow certain strict guidelines.

At one time, there were an estimated 170 city and county-enacted bans in place across the state. One of those was in Long Beach. Another was in the county of Los Angeles and a second in the city. The latter was forced to be scrapped amid swift and severe opposition that included the approval of a ballot measure that would have outlawed the ordinance. That has left Los Angeles voters potentially deciding between one of three options with varying regulations in this spring’s election.

Attorneys for G3 say they are watching the Riverside case closely because whatever the court finds with regard to the first case, it’s likely to apply the same reasoning to the second. The appellate court’s support of the ban in the Upland case was based solely on zoning law authority, and did not consider the issue of whether the state’s ban violates the Compassionate Care Act.

Complicating matters is that different courts have decided in different ways. The Los Angeles County 2010 ban, for example, was struck down last summer after appellate court justices said that state law specifically allowed cooperatives and collectives to cultivate and distribute marijuana. Although state law allows local authorities to regulate the location or operational details of these facilities, the justices reasoned the law does not allow local officials to completely prohibit or make it impossible for all marijuana dispensaries to operate in a given area on the sole basis of what they do.

In 2011, a federal appeals court examining the Long Beach ban found that the city couldn’t regulate marijuana dispensaries at all, despite other cities’ attempts to do so, because it expressly violated federal law.

An attorney for the city of Long Beach has been quoted as saying that the state supreme court decisions regarding Riverside and Upland will be applicable to them as well, unless the court expressly states that it only applies to the specific case before them.

Many are anticipating though that the court will take this opportunity to provide cities with more guidance on the scope of the regulations they are allowed to enact, as that question has been the subject of conflicting debate throughout the state in recent years.
Continue reading

With two dueling Los Angeles marijuana regulation proposals already set to compete for votes in May, city council has thrown in another curve: a third proposal. xincheckbox.jpg

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that council members voted 11-1 to instruct city lawyers to draft language for a ballot measure that would essentially combine the strictest elements of the two already up for consideration.

The good news is that any one of the measures would allow marijuana dispensaries to remain open. However, the outlined regulations of each proposal vary drastically.

The first two proposals were sponsored by marijuana activists with competing interests.

One of those measures focuses on promoting only those dispensaries that were operational prior to the 2007 moratorium the city tried to enact. All others would have to go.

The second measure would allow any marijuana dispensary that abides by certain rules and meets certain criteria to remain open. For those facilities that did remain open, sales taxes would spike by 20 percent in order to cover the cost of enforcement.

City council could have chosen to simply adopt either one of those. But it seems members were not eager to do so, and instead, intend to ask voters to consider another option. Council’s proposal, though not yet formally introduced, would allow only those dispensaries open prior to the moratorium to remain open and it would also hike taxes on marijuana sales.

Council’s reported problem with the earlier measure limiting permits to the pre-2007 operations was that it did not include enough of a buffer zone between schools and churches and parks. So an expansion of these regulations, from 600 feet to 1,000 feet, is likely as well.

Although it would be too late for either group to withdraw its initiative, the activists behind both of the previous plans could choose to publicly support the city’s plan instead. City leaders have said they are hoping to set up meetings to discuss such a partnership in the coming days.

However, one of the leaders of the labor union that introduced the first measure said the city would have to compromise on a few points in order for that to happen. For starters, his group doesn’t like the expanded buffer zones. Such a requirement would force many of the older facilities to close, and it would be incredibly hard for them to secure a new lease or purchase, given federal pressure on landlords through the use of civil forfeiture actions.

Additionally, he said the council would have to include a provision indicating that even if a court at some point struck down a portion of the law, it wouldn’t result in scrapping the entire thing.

Finally, while his colleagues don’t agree with the idea of a huge tax increase for dispensaries, he said they would likely be willing to concede this issue if council could compromise on the rest.

No matter what happens, there is the potential for legal challenges once the measure is implemented.

The council’s attempt last year to clamp down on dispensaries by banning all storefront facilities was met with fierce opposition, forcing local leaders to withdraw the implementation of the ordinance.
Continue reading

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has refused to budge on its Schedule I classification with regard to medical marijuana. xrayhead.jpg

However, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that two recent studies by universities on opposite sides of the globe have uncovered the same result: marijuana significantly reduces pain, or at least a person’s ability to withstand it.

Such findings strike at the heart of the federal government’s argument that marijuana is a highly addictive narcotic with no medical benefit. It’s a question of how long federal authorities will choose to stick their heads in the sand or cover their ears when confronted with solid, scientific evidence.

The first of those studies was conducted by researchers at London’s Oxford University’s Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain. There, the doctors conducted a small-scale study of 12 healthy men in a controlled setting. Specifically, they set out to determine the benefits of an oral THC tablet, one of the many forms of cannabis that patients are prescribed.

The researchers began by giving each participant a small tablet of THC or a placebo. Then to induce pain, the researchers on some participant’s legs rubbed a chili cream known to cause burning and pain. On the legs of other participants, they rubbed a placebo cream. After this, the men underwent an MRI, and asked to rate the intensity of their pain.

Almost unanimously, those who had been given the THC reported the burning sensation, but indicated that it bothered them less than those who had been given the placebo pill.

Further, the MRI brain scans served to verify what the participants were reporting – which it did.

Another study, conducted by the University of California’s Davis Medical Center, sought to look at how vaporized marijuana affects neuropathic pain. The answer: significantly.

Published in the Dec. 2012 edition of the Journal of Pain, the double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study determined that those given vaporized cannabis reported significant reductions of pain versus those who were given the placebo. These were 39 individuals who had been diagnosed with central and peripheral neuropathic pain were given varying amounts of vaporized marijuana, from low to medium doses.

The researchers found that not only was the vapor an effective pain reliever in both doses, but the psychoactive effects were “minimal and well-tolerated,” indicating a person could easily go about his or her day after taking the medicine without being sidelined. The researchers found that patients, on average, experienced a 30 percent reduction in their pain levels.

This is only the latest in a long line of formidable research that underscores the legitimacy of the drug. Even though marijuana is recognized medicine in 18 states and the District of Columbia, the federal government refuses to ease its Schedule I classification.

Of course, the DEA has not provided a response to this – or any of the other previous studies, except to state its continued support of the current classification.
Continue reading

Contact Information