Articles Posted in Marijuana Lawyer

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers wish the brass in our city would take a page out of the playbook of San Diego Mayor Bob Filner.

The recently-elected official has just issued memos to the city’s code compliance officers, as well as the San Diego Police Department, ordering a halt on all targeted code enforcement actions and other investigations on marijuana dispensaries – immediately.

While the city council hasn’t expressed any significant interest in addressing the matter before, the Democratic mayor has said he wants to start soon on implementing a new set of zoning rules that will allow marijuana dispensaries to operate freely with permits and city-sponsored regulations.

He has been quoted as saying that the drug should be made readily available for individuals who need it for legitimate pain purposes. In conjunction with the memorandums he issued, he has indicated that he plans to offer up an ordinance that would allow dispensaries to operate, so long as they maintain a certain distance from schools or playgrounds or anywhere that such an operation would pose a potential harm to the surrounding neighborhood.

He characterized this move as one of compassion and humanity toward those who suffer from chronic pain and other ailments.

As it currently stands, the city’s zoning regulations don’t allow for medical marijuana dispensaries to operate at all. An ordinance was formally adopted by the city in the summer of 2011, but it was ultimately dropped under intense pressure from medical marijuana advocacy groups, who claimed it was far too restrictive.

The city attorney’s office said there were dozens of actions pending against dispensaries there, but those will all now cease. Those are among those facilities still standing – more than 100 have been forced to close by the city, which had filed legal action against them for non-compliance of code regulations. It now appears those previously-shuttered facilities may have an opportunity to re-open under the new rules.

The new mayor even went so far as to say that the city attorney’s previous actions amounted to “persecution.” He encouraged marijuana activists to stage protests, if necessary, against her actions.

The city attorney has sent correspondence to the mayor indicating she will comply with whatever regulation he and the city council adopt, and further that any pending actions will be halted in the meantime. She chastised him, however, for calling on citizens to protest, saying that his goal could have been achieved in less than a minute with a simple phone call to her.

San Diego’s previous mayor was not only a conservative, but also a former police chief who supported the city attorney’s actions to bar medical marijuana facilities from operating at all within city limits.

But even with the new mayor’s support, existing dispensaries are facing ongoing pressure from the local U.S. Attorney’s Office, which continues to initiate federal forfeiture actions and even criminal charges.

Still, the move is significant, as it signals a change of course for the second-largest city in the state.

The about-face goes to further illustrate the conflicted nature of medical marijuana rights in the state, even as the neighboring states of Washington and Colorado have approved measures to legalize the drug even for recreational purposes.
Continue reading

It’s been almost a year since the city of Oakland in northern California approved a measure that would allow four new medical marijuana dispensaries to open.

However, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that only one of those facilities is actually up and running. The other three have endured one delay after another – in large part due to the fact that they have been unable to find a landlord willing to rent them a place to operate.

Landlords who were renting to marijuana dispensaries in California prior to the federal announcement that they would begin pursing property forfeiture actions against such owners may have their hands tied because they are often bound by legal lease agreements. However, when it comes to drawing up a new lease with a marijuana dispensary, many landlords simply aren’t willing to take the risk.

Many of them see what has happened with the case of the landlord of Harborside Health Center, at one time the largest medical marijuana dispensary in the country. Federal authorities are seeking to seize the property, and the case is still pending.

We could see this be a major issue here in Los Angeles in the coming months, particularly if the city adopts one of two proposed ordinances that would further restrict zoning for storefront facilities. If the majority of dispensaries are forced to relocate, they may have an especially difficult time finding a new home.

Even those that are successful in finding lease space may be forced to pay for it. For example, the one new dispensary in Oakland that launched a successful opening last year had to fork over a $4 million bond – despite the fact that the property was only worth $2 million.

What we may see in the future is more dispensary owners purchasing their space outright. This way, the issue of a landlord will be moot.

But this could create problems in terms of accessibility. If zoning regulations restrict operations to certain areas, there may only be so much space available for purchase. Owners may be forced into the outskirts of communities to find affordable space that fits within the guidelines. This in turn might mean security could suffer as well.

Oakland is one of the few communities in the state that has granted permission for more medical marijuana facilities to open, even in the face of an ongoing federal crackdown. The four new dispensaries would have effectively doubled the number in the city.

However, still fresh in the minds of many landlords was a federal raid in April on properties belonging to Richard Lee, a prominent and respected dispensary owner, marijuana advocate and founder of Oaksterdam University, which offers courses in horticulture, cooking with cannabis, entrepreneurship and business management. Then just a few months later came the government’s forfeiture action against Harborside’s landlord.

Already in Oakland, regulations on medical marijuana dispensaries are stiff. They have to be a minimum of 600 feet away from any place that children congregate, which includes schools, parks and libraries, and they have to be a certain distance from other dispensaries as well. Additionally, they are barred from operating in areas zoned residential.

With hazy legal guidelines regarding what the federal government will permit and what they won’t, both landlords and dispensary owners should have their contracts and leases reviewed carefully by an experienced medical marijuana lawyer.
Continue reading

A grassroots, online petition urging the Obama administration to leave the decision of marijuana legalization up to the states has prompted a formal response from the White House.

However, as with previous statements made by the president on this issue, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know it’s often less about the carefully-worded politicking and more about what isn’t said.

The response came from the White House drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske. This was the same individual who previously stated that legalization with regard to marijuana was “not in my vocabulary, nor is it in the president’s vocabulary.” He has shifted this stance slightly to say that the country is currently in the midst of a serious national conversation about the government’s approach. Still, he stopped short of saying that the federal government had any plans whatsoever to curb its crackdown on medical marijuana facilities in California. Further, he didn’t say that the government intended to concede any power to states like Colorado and Washington, where voters have opted to legalize recreational use, possession and sale.

So it’s certainly not an about-face on the issue, but we are cautiously optimistic that the government may at some point in the future adopt legal policy that is more in line with the will of the people. Numerous polls have indicated that between 51 to 68 percent of Americans support the idea that states – not the federal government – should have the right to develop marijuana policy, regulation and enforcement.

The petition that prompted the response was written two months ago by nationally-syndicated newspaper columnist David Sirota, also a best-selling author living in Colorado. It requested a change in federal drug laws that would prevent the federal government from pursuing civil or criminal action against those in the marijuana industry in states where it is legal. The petition did not suggest stripping the federal government of its authority to pursue action in states that had not adopted pro-marijuana laws, but rather bipartisan reform with regard to enforcement in states that had.

It garnered more than 46,000 signatures.

But even as marijuana advocates are pointing to the response as a successful use of political pressure, the fact is, we aren’t likely to see any abrupt changes anytime soon.

In fact, Kerlikowske never directly answered the petition’s request. Instead, he revealed only that the U.S. Justice Department is carefully reviewing the legalization laws passed in Washington and Colorado. He then made reference to a Barbara Walters’ interview the president gave in which he stated he doesn’t support marijuana legalization. But again, it’s what he didn’t say: In that interview, he never directly says whether he supports legislation that would cede authority on this matter to the states.

Ultimately, this recent response is actually more of a non-response. The administration is continuing to refuse to deal with the issue directly. As federal prosecutors continue their barrage of assaults on California dispensaries, it’s as if the White House is doing all they can to ignore the greater issue here, which is that people are tired of this war on pot. It’s costly, has ruined lives and is ultimately ineffective.
Continue reading

Under state law, he was legally operating three medical marijuana facilities in the Inland Empire, providing an invaluable service to hundreds of patients.

But under federal law, he was a felony drug dealer, and for that, he will serve 10 years in federal prison, per the sentencing by U.S. District Court Judge Percy Anderson.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers think it’s worth noting that this was the lightest possible sentence he could have received following his October conviction on federal charges of conspiring to manufacture and possess marijuana with intent to distribute it, conspiring to operate a drug-involved premises and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute it.

During the sentencing hearing, Judge Anderson was quoted as saying that the court’s hands were tied.

The 42-year-old from Rancho Cucamonga who operated G3 Holistics Inc., is so far one of four people in the U.S. targeted by federal prosecutors for criminal charges related to their involvement in state-sanctioned medical marijuana clinics. This case is a travesty of justice, as the government has blatantly ignored the fact that the actions of this individual were legal under state law.

Now compare this with the recent sentencing of one of three public officials in connection with a bribery ring in which they extorted tens of thousands of dollars from a would-be marijuana dispensary owner, who was acting as an FBI informant. The sentence in that case? Probation. No prison.

In the G3 case, defense lawyers sought probation here too. The defendant opened his medical marijuana facilities after his real estate business collapsed in the wake of the housing market bust. Prosecutors held up this fact as evidence that his motives were sketchy from the start, and said he was warned by investigators that he should shut down.

It’s true that his Upland branch had been shut down in 2010 due to a city-requested injunction, but that measure was reversed the following year by an appellate court ruling in the dispensary’s favor.

His dispensaries were in Colton, Upland and Moreno Valley. Prosecutors say he relied on a “veneer of legitimacy” to conceal the illegal sale of marijuana.

Federal agents first began investigating the defendant in late 2011, shortly after the announcement of a federal crackdown on dispensaries that were purportedly disregarding state regulations.

Investigators reportedly determined that at G3, customers were not involved in cultivation and that the plants were being obtained from an illegal grow operation inside a Canadian warehouse. Further, a concurrent IRS investigation reportedly concluded that suspicious deposits and withdrawals were made with the intended purpose of making the dispensaries appear to be not-for-profit when in fact, it was a business.

However, defense lawyers had argued that the owner truthfully believed he was operating within the confines of the law. Further, federal authorities had not been clear on how they would apply drug laws in states like California, where marijuana is legal for medicinal purposes. Based on statements made by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama, the defendant did not believe federal agents would pursue criminal action against dispensary owners.

In fact, we were all led to believe this. How wrong we were to trust the word of our elected officials.
Continue reading

Los Angeles City council members are poised to consider two dueling medical marijuana proposals intended to take the place of a failed ban enacted by leaders last fall.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers have learned that the city clerk has announced that council has several options for each initiative.

The first proposal, which would limit the number of marijuana storefronts to the roughly 100 or so that existed before the city’s largely-ignored moratorium in 2007, could be either adopted by ordinance, considered in a special election or placed on the ballot for the city’s regular election in May.

The second proposal, which would increase business taxes on medical marijuana from $50 to $60 for every $1,000 sold, in addition to other regulations, must be submitted to the ballot in the city’s next election. This measure would also enact stricter zoning regulations for marijuana dispensaries. It would keep them a specified distance from parks, schools, churches and substance abuse treatment centers. Backers of this measure say that the latter aspect of the regulation would naturally weed out roughly 70 to 85 percent of existing dispensaries, trimming them to about 150 or so.

Both petitions easily surpassed the required 41,138 signatures to qualify for the ballot, and supporters of each say they want to strike a balance between appropriate regulation and an outright ban.

At this point, unless the council decides to adopt the stricter ordinance – which it very well could – it seems as if the choice may ultimately be up to the voters.

There is also another possibility: The city attorney’s office previously proposed a limited immunity ordinance. This would allow only a handful of medical marijuana storefronts to freely operate. Councilman Paul Koretz formally offered up the plan last June, but was set aside in favor of an outright “soft” ban that allowed only small groups of three or fewer patients and/or caregivers to grow the medicine. However, council was forced to reverse the ban just a few months later, before enforcement ever started, when medical marijuana advocates were successful in gathering enough signatures to place a measure on the public ballot that would repeal it. So now, the old idea is again being kicked around.

The last several months have been a complex and at times heated back-and-forth regarding what move the city should make next. It’s not clear at this point which route they will take.

Complicating matters of course is the fact that marijuana is still technically illegal in any circumstance under federal law. Local and state courts have issued a plethora of conflicting rulings over the last several years. In light of this, it’s difficult to say whether council will again try a more hands-on approach at regulation, or whether they will sit back and let the public choose.

Koretz has recently been quoted as saying that the ballot drives have “forced our hand.”

The clerk has said at the very least, council’s decision on whether to boost taxes on existing marijuana clinics will be made before the end of this month.
Continue reading

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers are shaking our heads at the fact that a former Los Angeles County official from Cudahy received five years of probation for bribery, while the same week, a former marijuana dispensary operator was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison – even though he was abiding by state law.

Although we want to focus more in this blog entry on the bribery case, the juxtaposition and inherent unfairness of these two cases is unavoidable, given the timing and subject matter.

On one hand, you have a public official who extorted thousands of dollars from a dispensary owner in exchange for his vote. On the other hand, you have the owner of three medical marijuana dispensaries that each provided an invaluable service to ailing people.

How is this justice?

In the Cudahy case, a former interim city manager, had numerous roles working with the city over the course of a dozen years. He is the first of three officials to be sentenced in connection with his role in taking some $17,000 in bribes from a man who sought to open a medical marijuana dispensary in the city.

He reportedly conspired with the former mayor and a councilman in order to obtain the money. The case shed light on apparently widespread corruption within the local city government in this Los Angeles suburb.

Federal prosecutors in the case had sought two years in prison – far less than the 30 years he could have received, due to the fact that he cooperated extensively with federal investigators. However, the judge declined to impose even that.

An attorney for the defendant told the judge that it was actually the former mayor who cooked up the dispensary bribery scheme.

As a matter of practice, the defendant and other city workers were reportedly instructed to act as couriers for bribes from local businesses to higher ranking city officials. Then he and the others would receive a cut.

It was reportedly business as usual when a local businessman expressed an interest in opening a marijuana dispensary in town, which would have been the first. Officials allege that the defendant, along with two other city officials, demanded and accepted cash payouts from the dispensary owner in exchange for their formal support of the operation.

As it turned out, however, the would-be dispensary owner sought help from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and was working as an informant for the investigators, who worked behind the scenes for months to establish a criminal case against those city officials involved.

In addition to his probation, the defendant in this case must pay $5,000 to the FBI and has been ordered to complete 1,500 hours of community service. Additionally, he’s barred from working at any local or state government office without prior approval from the court.

Despite a tearful apology from him, it’s a slap on the wrist.

The other two individuals involved have also pleaded guilty, and are expected to be sentenced later this month and next month, respectively.
Continue reading

A federal judge has heard both sides of the argument on whether the Oakland-based Harborside Health Center – the largest medical marijuana dispensary in the U.S. – should be allowed to continue operating while it fights the federal government’s forfeiture action.

Los Angeles medical marijuana lawyers know this case could have national implications in terms landlord and dispensary rights.

As we previously reported on our Cannabis Law Firm blog, a superior court judge has already ruled in favor of the dispensary, saying the landlord couldn’t be forced to evict the marijuana dispensary tenant simply because the operation violates federal law.

The only reason the landlord had sought in the first place to evict the dispensary, touted as a model operation in the medical marijuana community, was due to pressure from the federal government in the form of threats to seize the landlord’s property in a forfeiture. Federal prosecutors have not said that Harborside was violating any state laws, but rather, say the operation was “too big.”

In the federal case, the Chief Magistrate reportedly heard three motions on Dec. 20. Two of those were from Harborside’s landlords requesting federal authorities halt drug sales at the shop, and a third from Oakland city attorneys, asking the court to stay those motions and allow the club to continue operating while it fights the federal forfeiture action. (Oakland city attorneys had filed a lawsuit back in October on behalf of Harborside – which should shed some light on the kind of operation this is.)

Shutting down the operation would impact tens of thousands of people who depend on that facility to obtain their doctor-prescribed medicine. Plus, the city gets an estimated $1.5 million in tax revenue from the operation every year. It’s a symbiotic relationship that benefits everyone involved.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office, however, has termed it a marijuana “superstore” that crosses the line of intent of the 1996 state law that approved the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

The federal magistrate did not indicate when she would issue a ruling. As of early January, she still had not. However, she did indicate that it would be “soon,” and she told those in the courtroom that she fully understood the weight of the case, and intended to carefully consider it.

The executive director of Harborside told media members that the U.S. Attorney’s Office, rather than fighting the dispensary, should be studying it. The fact is, the center has been a model for legitimate and responsible distribution of the drug, he said.

In the last two years, the dispensary has had to contend with a number of challenges. First, banks were pressured to close its accounts and credit card processing services. Then, it was audited by the IRS, which demanded detailed records that were essentially impossible to maintain without a bank account. In the end, even though the IRS found their records to be fully accurate, they still slapped the organization with a $2.5 million tax bill, denying all deductions. Then, the operation was raided last July.

But the dispensary has continued fighting.

Our medical marijuana lawyers intend to continue doing the same.
Continue reading

As we kick off what we expect to be another tumultuous year for the medical marijuana community in California, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers believe it’s worth exploring the efforts of state and federal officials to eradicate underground operations as well.

Or perhaps more specifically, marijuana cultivation in publicly-owned parks and forests. The Los Angeles Times recently took to exploring the issue, embedding a reporter with one of the federal crews fanning out over the state in series of simultaneous raids, hoping to find the masterminds of these organizations, some of which have ties to Mexican drug cartels.

Decked in SWAT gear and armed with assault rifles and attack dogs, officials work to take down these organization as stealth, heat-detecting aircraft fly overhead. It’s more akin to a war zone than a national park.

The Times reporter says the proliferation of these operations, which has ballooned in the last 10 years, can be primarily attributed to the expansion of medical marijuana industry. This characterization is not only unfair, it’s patently untrue.

The fact is, medical marijuana patients are not seeking to buy the drug from shadowy cartel members. These are cancer patients, kids with epilepsy, and people struggling with chronic pain. The more logical explanation is that the more that federal and local government officials restrict safe access and make it tougher for people to obtain their medicine legally in a way that can be regulated above-board, the more such shady, violent underground organizations are going to thrive.

Officials say that while cartels are often blamed for these operations, it’s most usually groups of independent Mexican nationals who use undocumented fieldworkers from their hometowns to help them cultivate and harvest. (Interestingly, the officials quoted say that while they know this, they often prefer the “fighting cartels” storyline, at least to the public, because it tends to allow them to lock down more federal funding for their eradication efforts.)

These growers may not be cartels, but they are nonetheless armed and dangerous. Plus, the shadowy nature of what they do inevitably draws a criminal element – gang members included. There have been numerous reports of cartel kidnappings, threats and shakedowns of farmers.

But again, if the drug were entirely legal for recreational purposes and could be sold at storefronts (and if medical marijuana dispensaries weren’t being shut down left and right), these operations wouldn’t have nearly the kind of market they do right now.

Last year, federal agents seized about 3 million marijuana plants growing in the wild. The year before that, it was about twice that. We can’t be sure if that means there are actually fewer plants being grown, or whether the farmers are simply getting better at hiding it.

During the most recent bust with the Times reporter along for the ride, officials spent roughly $40,000 to cover the cost of two aircraft, more than 40 federal agents and numerous scientists and environmental clean-up crews. They recovered 450 plants, though many more had already been harvested

Two were arrested. But they were low-level workers, offered $100-a-day to grow for a month. They swore to investigators they never knew for whom they were working.
Continue reading

The Los Angeles city clerk’s office has confirmed that there are now two medical marijuana initiatives that have qualified to be considered by voters in May. However, council members could at any point prior to that election decide to adopt one or the other, making the May vote moot.

Our Los Angeles medical marijuana lawyers know that while both measures were proposed by local advocates of medicinal cannabis, they are very different in scope. Our concern is that, given the conservative nature of this current city council, we may see the more conservative proposal enacted before voters have a chance to consider either one.

Both initiatives are in response to the tug-of-war the city has engaged in on this issue for the last several years – most recently involving the repeal of a city-wide ban on dispensaries. However, advocacy groups gathered a mountain of signatures for a measure that would repeal that ban, prompting the council to pull it before it was ever formally put in place.

In the meantime, that has left all medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles unregulated, and also vulnerable to federal action, with prosecutors seizing on the headlines and hype in an effort to make political points and set examples.

So it’s this atmosphere that has given rise to two very different proposals.

The most recent to qualify for the ballot, the “Medical Marijuana Collectives Initiative Ordinance,” harkens back to the moratorium the city enacted back in 2007. It would reduce the number of allowable dispensaries to roughly 100 or so that were in operation prior to that moratorium.

Despite the 2007 action, hundreds more marijuana dispensaries cropped up – and despite a few irresponsible sites, most have proved an invaluable asset to their communities and t patients.

The MMCIO ordinance is backed by the Committee to Protect Patients and Neighborhoods, which is supported in part by the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 770, which is working to unionize California’s medical marijuana workers.

The measure also outlines a laundry list of regulatory actions and requirements for each dispensary that would remain open.

While this initiative certainly has support, it would still mean the shuttering of hundreds of law-abiding dispensaries.

That’s why most other dispensary owners are backing an earlier-proposed initiative, which was proposed by the Angelenos for Safe Access. This measure, which supplied some 73,500 signatures of support to the city clerk, would not restrict allowable dispensaries to those opened prior to 2007. It would allow the operation of all storefront medical marijuana collectives that are at least 1,000 feet from certain institutions, such as schools, day cares, parks, libraries and churches. It would also impose a tax of $60 payable to the city for every $1,000 worth of marijuana sold.

Still, council could decide not to go with either one of them. In fact, it’s reportedly been working on drafting its own plan – which is always frightening. Meanwhile, the federal crackdown continues. Some 70 local medical marijuana operations have been issued cease and desist orders from the local U.S. Attorney’s Office.

We want you to know that, while 2013 may be a turbulent year for medical marijuana operators, patients and caregivers, we at the Cannabis Law Firm are committed to fighting for your access and protecting your rights.
Continue reading

At a medical marijuana dispensary in southern California, the operators are known to hand out Bibles with their buds.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that Canna Care, based out of Sacramento, was recently profiled by The Christian Post, an online news magazine. The owners of the operation say they support the decriminalization of marijuana, and they often evangelize to their customers, though being a Christian is not a requirement for receiving their product.

Every evening at 6 p.m., they lead a prayer group with their clients, and estimate they have given out approximately 3,000 Bibles since they opened their doors a few years ago.

While Canna Care is especially vocal about its members’ faith and advocacy, it is by far the first Christian organization to express strong support for the medical marijuana and recreational legalization movement.

For example, Pat Robertson, who founded the Christian Coalition and hosts “The 700 Club” made waves earlier this year when he was quoted by The New York Times as saying that he supports the decriminalization of marijuana, adding he believes it should be regulated and sold similar to the way alcohol is.

He also indicated that the “War on Drugs” isn’t working, and its clearly time for another approach.

There are also a number of Christian marijuana advocacy groups, such as, “God Gave Us Cannabis,” “holyhemp.org” and “Christians for Cannabis.” In the last of these, in addition to expressing support for organizations like NORML and Common Sense for Drug Policy, the group quotes Bible verses, such as Zechariah 8:16 through 8:17, which urges Christians to speak the truth to each other and seek true and sound judgments in courts of law. The organization’s leaders say they want to provide a solid base of factual information so that there will be no lack of knowledge, and that the Christian community will begin on a wider scale promoting drug policies that are based on both science and compassion, as opposed to policies steeped in apathy, fear or ignorance.

Of course, there are those Christians who are staunchly AGAINST the use of marijuana for any purpose – medicinal or not. Some point to verses that instruct one to abide by the laws of the nation in which you live. Because marijuana is illegal under federal law, they hold, Christians should steer clear. Others talk about references in the New Testament, which say that the body is a temple, and as such, one should be careful about the substances they put into their body.

On the other hand, others point to verses such as Genesis 1:29, which says that God provided every plant and tree, which people should use for “food.”

At the end of the day, there is no reference to marijuana in the Bible, nor in the Koran or in the Torah. In fact, while none ever expressly prohibit the use of marijuana for any reason, they don’t approve of it either.

So it is left to religious leaders and the faithful to determine whether certain passages may be applicable. For now, they seem fairly split.

Of course, a number of recent surveys indicate the attitudes of those across the country have evolved rather rapidly as well, with the majority of the country supporting the availability of the drug for those who are sick, and most wanting the government to leave in peace those who use for recreation.

Given the sway that Evangelical Christians have with the conservative Right, a shift to acceptance of the drug may prove critically important.
Continue reading