Articles Posted in Marijuana Lawyer

The city of Riverside will now continue in its quest to shut down medical marijuana dispensaries within its district, following an appellate court decision that upheld the city’s authority to do so.

Los Angeles marijuana lawyers are concerned about the precedence this sets with regard to other cases. However, conflicting rulings abound, and in fact, this ruling is not the end of the appellate case.

Disappointingly, this ruling serves to overturn a ruling in August by a Superior Court Judge. He had ruled that local government’s cannot effect a ban on medical marijuana storefronts, so long as those facilities are operating under the state laws that authorize their existence.

Despite the fact that the Superior Court’s decision had only addressed the issue of on particular dispensary, it made an impact on the city’s effort to ban dispensaries as a whole.

But this does not meant the case is over. In fact, the appellate court’s ruling actually only addresses a portion of the case, which was the city’s preliminary injunction, imposed on the storefront dispensary in question when the appeal was first filed. This injunction would have shuttered the storefront operation while the appeal is pending. Now that the injunction has been restored, this storefront – and others – will be shut down while the appeal is ongoing.

The Division 2 appellate court is the same that made the ruling in November of last year, upholding the rights of local governments to ban medical marijuana dispensaries if they deemed proper to do so. It was the first court in the state to address this issue, but it certainly wasn’t the last.

Not only have several other courts weighed in on similar questions and reached very different conclusions, this particular ruling is already being challenged.

The Superior Court judge who made the decision to overturn the ban in Riverside also overturned another ban on two other dispensaries in May. However, that order too was struck down by an appellate court.

The state Supreme Court is now taking on several of those cases for review.

What truly complicates all of this is the fact that while medical marijuana is perfectly legal in California, federal law views it as illegal under all circumstances.

This latest ruling should not have any bearing on the decision reached by the state Supreme Court.

An attorney for Riverside was later quoted as saying that he did not anticipate any other trial courts siding with dispensaries on the issue of local government bans or injunctions. The attorney went on to say that while cease-and-desist letters will be sent out immediately to both store owners and property owners who rent to them, the process may still take some time.

If dispensaries refuse to close – which they very well might – the city has said it will take them to court to force them to do so. He further urged all dispensaries to close until such time that the U.S. Supreme Court settles the conflicting rulings once and for all.

We don’t believe that approach is necessary or prudent, and we believe in fighting for the rights of patients and store owners alike.
Continue reading

President Barack Obama, in a recent interview with Barbara Walters of ABC News, said that he would not make targeting users of legalized marijuana in Washington and Colorado a priority in his administration.

However, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that it’s what he didn’t say that could prove to be more of a concern. That is, he did not indicate that his administration intended not to go after those who cultivate and distribute the drug. As such, his comments provide little clarity on the matter.

As many in California are aware, the federal government has been tenacious in its crackdown of medical marijuana dispensaries and growers here, despite the fact that it is perfectly legal in this state. The government has employed every tactic imaginable, from pressuring landlords with liens and forfeiture actions to SWAT team raids with assault rifles, under the premise that the drug is illegal under federal law.

As you may recall, prior to his first election, Obama had said his administration would not target medical marijuana facilities in states where it was legal – a promise to which he has clearly not adhered. So far, hundreds of marijuana dispensaries across the state have been shuttered due to actions by his administration.

So his latest statements don’t hold a great deal of weight. Users of medical marijuana aren’t typically targeted for criminal sanctions by authorities here in California either, but that doesn’t mean federal law enforcement officials have had any less of an impact on users’ access.

Further, it’s worth noting that U.S. Attorney John Walsh said that the Department of Justice is carefully reviewing the newly-passed laws in both Washington and Colorado. In a written statement, he added that the DOJ’s commitment to enforcing the Controlled Substances Act has not changed. This is the federal statute that classifies marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic, meaning it is considered a highly addictive drug that has no recognized medicinal uses. Other drugs in this category include heroin, psychedelic mushrooms and ecstasy.

Walsh underscored his position by saying that no matter what laws are enacted by the states, growing, distributing or even possessing marijuana in any amount is strictly barred under federal law.

In California, there are more than 1,000 medical marijuana dispensaries still in operation.. These facilities employ thousands of people and allow the state to rake in more than $100 million annually. Not to mention, they allow hundreds of thousands of individuals safe, affordable access to a drug that treats a wide variety of serious ailments.

And public opinion is supportive of the patients and dispensaries. A Gallup poll conducted following the November election found that nearly 65 percent of Americans want the federal government not to enforce anti-marijuana laws in states where it is legal.

Despite the obvious benefits, federal officials have been relentless. Just from January through November, authorities have seized nearly 4 million marijuana plants in California.

Obama’s latest statements on priorities have marijuana advocates urging for a federal policy that will protect users and distributors of medicinal marijuana. It’s a goal that we as Los Angeles marijuana lawyers remain committed.
Continue reading

With two conflicting marijuana dispensary ballot initiatives preparing to square off in the Los Angeles election in May, the majority of voters in the city have indicated that they support the industry as a whole.

That’s according to a study conducted by the Loyola Marymont University, which surveyed voters as they exited the polls during last month’s election. The data showed that 56 percent of those questioned would support the cultivation, prescription and distribution of medical marijuana in California. Twenty-six percent said they would not, and another 18 percent said they weren’t sure.

Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that this majority support will be critical in determining the fate of the city’s estimated 1,000 medical marijuana dispensaries. Although the city had previously enacted a ban, that measure was quickly shot down by advocates who gathered more than enough signatures necessary to challenge it in March. In response, the city withdrew the ban. In its absence, industry advocates are taking two very different approaches to fill the void.

One of those, the more restrictive measure, is championed by the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 770, which represents about half of the 100 or so dispensaries that would be protected under the proposal. They needed roughly 42,000 signatures to qualify the measure, and have turned in 72,000 – with a week to spare.

Essentially, this action would grant limited immunity from prosecution to those dispensaries that were in operation prior to September 2007, which was when the city first attempted to enact a moratorium on dispensaries. That would only be about a tenth of the dispensaries currently open.

Additionally, it would require remaining shops to undergo and pass annual law enforcement background checks. They would not be allowed to operate in lots that are zoned residential and they would have to have continuously remained open without closure for longer than three months – unless there had been a relocation or federal prosecution.

Dispensaries under this measure would have little less than a year to relocate to places that put them out of certain ranges of schools, parks, churches and other areas. Those collectives with five or fewer people could cultivate and share the drug.

There had been some discussion of a similar measure being proposed by a council member, and that may still happen in January. However, the council member proposal is even more restrictive than the one put forth by advocates of the original dispensaries.

The second ballot initiative has not yet submitted enough qualified signatures to get on the ballot, but it has until Dec. 28. That measure is far more permissive. It would allow the city to raise taxes on dispensaries and mandate that they operate in places a certain distance from schools.

It’s also possible that council could again take the issue out of voters’ hands by adopting one of the proposed measures prior to the election. It would have 20 days from the submission to do so.

Alternatively, they could call a special election or add their own proposal to the general election ballot.
Continue reading

A parent’s use of medical marijuana does not put a child at risk and is not considered child abuse, according to recent ruling by the California Court of Appeals.

Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand the court overturned a lower court’s ruling against the Irvine father, who had been mandated to endure court-ordered parental supervision by the L.A. County Department of Children and Family Services – solely for his use of prescribed marijuana.

Being supervised by the agency requires that a parent must undergo parenting classes, random drug testing and drug counseling.

This case is important in that it makes the milestone distinction for courts regarding the difference between marijuana use and abuse. It’s a key ruling that sets a precedence for future cases involving parents who are also patients.

According to news reports, the father was first put under the agency’s supervision late last year, after he was required to testify at a hearing. The hearing was spawned by an anonymous tip that had come into the agency, alleging that both the father and mother were marijuana users.

The father answered truthfully that he used marijuana several times a week for his arthritis and knee pain. However, he added that he did not use in front of his son. Instead, he consumed the drug, which he locked in a tool box, in the garage. During this time, the baby’s mother or grandmother would care for him.

The primary issue, as presented by the protection agency, was that the father sometimes picked up his child from daycare in a vehicle that he drove several hours after consuming the drug. The lower court sided with DCFS, saying that such action put the child at risk.

This was despite the fact that when a social worker arrived for a welfare check, the infant was found to be in good health, properly reaching developmental milestones, was clean and had no marks or bruises.

Still, the lower court’s ruling required the father to submit to random drug tests – which he of course failed after testing positive for marijuana. (He was clean for everything else.)

The father could have risked losing custody of his child had the lower court’s ruling been allowed to stand. Thankfully, the appellate court overruled this decision, saying that even if the court found the father regularly under the influence of the drug while caring for his child, that did not in itself constitute proof that the baby was suffering from harm or neglect.

In fact, the court found that the agency had provided no evidence whatsoever that the child was at risk. In particular, there were no witnesses testifying to support the allegation that the father picking up his child hours after consuming the drug was putting the child in harm’s way.

The appellate court also said that both DCFS and the lower court made a crucial error in failing to differentiate between substance use and substance abuse.

The fact that the appellate court was willing to do so indicates marijuana use is increasingly being viewed in the same light as use of less controversial prescription medications or even alcohol.
Continue reading

Even if the legal battles we are fighting over the right to lawfully use and dispense marijuana are new, the plant itself – and its relevance in America – is not.

In fact, a recent story by the Associated Press chronicles the history of the plant in this country dating back to colonial times (recognizing that marijuana had, of course, been renowned for much longer).

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers believe that as we head into a new year, it’s important to get a perspective on how far we’ve come, in order to get a better grasp on where we’re headed.

Interestingly, both Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp, which is a variety of cannabis similar to marijuana. Both early presidents had trouble finding the best way in which to process the plant for the purposes of rope and clothing. In fact, Jefferson even invested a device that made processing hemp much easier.

Hemp was grown by the colonists shortly after they arrived in America in the early 1600s. Primarily, it was used to create ropes that would be used on ships. At first, the products were exported to England. Later, during the Revolutionary War, it became critical for the budding country’s own shipping industry, as well as for clothing for soldiers. In fact, some colonies offered hemp farmers subsidies to grow as much as they could.

Starting in the mid-19th century, a wave of intellectuals became interested in consuming cannabis for its intoxicating properties after reading such Oriental and Middle Eastern literature singing its praises.

Then following the Civil War, doctors began to heavily prescribe powerful opiates to surviving soldiers suffering from chronic pain. However, this led to an epidemic of addiction, which prompted the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, which was the start of opiate regulations – including for cannabis.

Around that time, the Associated Press wire service was just taking off, and there were reports from Mexico detailing violence among those who smoked the drug.

But it was beginning to remain popular among jazz musicians – perhaps most famously, Louis Armstrong, who was arrested in California back in 1930 for marijuana possession. He was given six months in jail, but the sentence was suspended. Later, he would pen a letter to President Dwight Eisenhower, urging him to legalize the drug.

That didn’t happen.

Following the repeal of alcohol prohibition in 1933, the chief of the federal Bureau of Narcotics shifted his focus to marijuana. His exaggerations and outright lies regarding crimes supposedly committed by those under the influence of marijuana led to the now cult classic propaganda film, “Reefer Madness,” which showed how quickly young people could become insane as a result of smoking cannabis.

The film was made back in 1936, a year before Congress voted to outlaw marijuana. The movie later became a a hit among marijuana users and advocates in the 1970s.

Following WWII, marijuana came to represent to many a symbol of counterculture, and Congress continued to step up penalties for all types of drug crimes starting in the 1950s. This was around the time when the theory of marijuana as a “gateway drug” emerged.

It wasn’t until the 1970s that the first wave of advocates began to push for decriminalization. This included the findings by a commission of scholars appointed by President Richard Nixon to research the drug. To his surprise, the commission recommended decriminalization and regulation. He did not follow that advice.

Then we had the 1980s, with the “Just Say No” movement. This advocacy proved the religious right was a force to be reckoned with in their push for stiffer drug laws, which were supported by First Lady Nancy Reagan.

Still, doctors continued to test marijuana’s viability as medicine (never mind that it had been used for such as far back as in ancient China). This research, combined with the AIDS epidemic, led to the legalization of medical marijuana in California in 1996.

Which brings us to the battles we continue to fight today. Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers believe in the effectiveness of this plant as medicine, and are committed to defending the rights of those who benefit from its use under state law.
Continue reading

Washington has now officially become the first state to legalize marijuana for recreational use. Colorado will soon follow.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know, however, that there is a great deal of trepidation in these states about how the laws will be carried out without drawing the ire of the federal government, which has cracked down hard on California’s medical marijuana programs.

However, several new polls show that the majority of Americans want the federal government to stay out of it. That’s even among voters who believe that marijuana should be illegal.

One of those, conducted by CBS News, revealed that nearly 60 percent of voters polled by the station said they believe the issue of whether to legalize marijuana should be answered by the states. This was based on calls to 1,100 people two weeks after the election.

One could argue that this is merely the result of skewed polling, but of the Republicans who answered, 65 percent agreed with this stance. Of those, 49 percent said they generally oppose the legalization of marijuana.

When broken down by party, the issue had the most support among independents and Democrats, with percentages ranging from 51 percent to 55 percent. Republicans, on the other hand, answered with 27 percent in favor.

Among young people, states’ rights on marijuana had the support of 53 percent. Among the middle-aged, 46 percent expressed this view, while just 30 percent of those over 65 did.

Still, only 34 percent of those polled overall felt the federal government should have the final say on the matter.

Opposition to marijuana legalization for recreational purposes is waning throughout the country. In September, 45 percent of voters said they favored marijuana legalization. That support has since crept up by 2 percentage points in a matter of three months – part of a steady increase over the last several years.

Compare this to where we were eight years ago: The country was against the legalization of marijuana by a 2-to-1 ratio. Now, we’re seeing an even split, and evolving demographic trends would suggest that we will continue to see increased support for this measure moving forward.

That same CBS poll also revealed an ever-strengthening support for medical marijuana. Back in 1997, Americans were 62 percent in favor of allowing a doctor the ability to prescribe small amounts of marijuana for people who were suffering from some documented illness. By 2011, that support had shot up to 77 percent. This year, it stands at 83 percent.

Pollsters questioned in a different survey conducted by The Huffington Post indicated that nearly 60 percent would support exemptions from federal drug laws for both medical marijuana patients and dispensaries in states where the drug was legal. That poll questioned 1,000 people earlier this month.

As of right now, medical marijuana is legal in 18 states, including California, as well as in the District of Columbia.

We hope the U.S. Justice Department is beginning to get the message.
Continue reading

The Los Angeles planning commission is eager to get some regulation on the books with regard to medical marijuana, and have approved a move that would force most dispensaries in the city to close.

Our Los Angeles medical marijuana lawyers understand that the commission’s plan calls for the closure of all dispensaries that opened after 2007. That would be anywhere from 800 to 1,000. City estimates are that there were approximately 180 clinics open in 2007.

According to the planning commission’s proposal, those 180 clinics could stay open if they follow a laundry list of rules. Those would include such measures as keeping a 1,000-foot distance from schools and churches, prohibiting unaccompanied minors from coming in and barring patients from actually using the drug on the property. Collectives of three or fewer patients wouldn’t be affected would be exempt, as would their caregivers. The new rules were approved by the commission in a unanimous 5-0 vote.

This measure has not yet received approval from the city council, but there is a strong likelihood that it may, given the two outside proposals that are on the table from marijuana advocates trying to put it to a public vote in the upcoming May election. Those efforts are still in the signature-gathering process, and would provide for far more lenient regulations.

That’s probably not what council members want to see happen, as evidenced by their vote earlier this summer to shut all city medical marijuana dispensaries down completely. You may recall, that ban was set to take effect in September, but council formally rescinded the ordinance the following month, when advocates gathered more than enough signatures needed to place a referendum overturning the law on the ballot
Since then, city leaders have been grappling with what to do next. This is the first formal attempt the city has made to move forward on the issue.

Still, nothing is expected to happen immediately. First, the commission has agreed to turn over the proposal to the city attorney’s office, which intends to do some technical tweaking of the language before it is sent to council for a vote.

Despite the fact that the measure would close most of the marijuana dispensaries in the city, some advocates are praising the proposal. The state’s Americans for Safe Access called it a fair compromise, though he did ask that those operations that would be allowed to stay be given a bit of time to relocate their clinics in order to be in compliance with the new law, should it pass.

The group Angelenos for Safe Access said that it was a “quality ordinance” that would allow medical marijuana patients the ability to safely and readily access the drug. However, he did say that council should consider the possibility that it could be overturned in the spring by voters in favor of a more lenient law.

Plus, there is another potential threat to the new ordinance, should it pass. The California Supreme Court has yet to schedule any arguments on the issue, which means it is somewhat of an awkward time to bring forward any legislation. If it is passed, it may ultimately end up being the subject of numerous lawsuits, most likely brought by those dispensaries that are forced to close.

Previous attempts by the city to implement a law that would dictate when and where dispensaries could operate have been blocked by a handful of challenges in the form of direct litigation and conflicting court rulings elsewhere.
Continue reading

The scientific study of medical marijuana in California just got a boost with the announcement of a public university’s founding of a new academic institute dedicated solely to this end.

Los Angeles medical marijuana attorneys understand that Humboldt University, in northern California’s renowned Emerald Triangle, has launched a research institute that will coordinate research and sponsor scholarly lectures among 11 faculty members in a wide range of fields, including economics, psychology, sociology, geography and politics.

As of right now, two of the professors have already begun extensive research projects, including one focusing on the environmental effects of cannabis cultivation and another that centers on the campaign to legalize the recreational use of the drug.

The Eureka Times-Standard reports that the institute is already planning a series of public lectures that will cover the existing scholarly research on the marijuana front. Guest speakers will include the local district attorney, the Humboldt County sheriff, a state Fish and Game biologist and two county supervisors.

Politics professor Jason Plume recently hosted a lecture on regulatory reform of marijuana, including the recent legalization of marijuana in two neighboring states, as well as similar efforts elsewhere, including California.

A sociology professor, who is serving as co-chair of the institute, said faculty members had been brainstorming about the foundation of this institute for the last two years. Titled the Humboldt Institute for Interdisciplinary Marijuana Research, the idea coincides with a culture shift that followed Proposition 19. This was ultimately unsuccessful ballot initiative to legalize marijuana for recreational use in California.

The founders of the institute say there are a number of other colleges in the country that are dedicated to the study of illicit drugs. However, none focuses primarily on marijuana, which is interesting considering the amount of debate, controversy and policy surrounding the issue. The professors involved in this effort said that when Proposition 19 was being considered, as well as in subsequent legalization efforts, there was a big element missing from the debates and discussions: solid scientific research. In fact, there was a great deal of conjecture and even claims that played on unreasonable fears.

But solid, reliable research came only in smatterings.

This institute was a way to change that, they said.

The professor of economics noted that for him, it became apparent what was lacking when he began to get calls from journalists who wanted to discuss the economic impact that recreational legalization might have on the local area and beyond. He said it soon became obvious that this was no longer just a local issue. He is currently working on a project using county data to show the correlation between medical marijuana and local employment.

Biology professors are studying the effects of pesticides used in marijuana cultivation, and how these chemicals impact the local environment.

The institute will not be an advocacy group for one side or the other. Rather, it will be a place where people can obtain thorough and impartial answers about their marijuana questions.
Continue reading

Federal investigators are attempting to strong-arm officials in the northern California county of Mendocino, where a now-defunct program had allowed certain growers to cultivate as many as 99 plants at a time.

Los Angeles medical marijuana lawyers understand that the program had been quite successful in the county, netting an estimated $800,000 for the county during the two years it was operational. However, the program was effectively shut down by the federal government when prosecutors threatened legal action against the county if it continued.

Now, it appears federal prosecutors may be trying to assemble evidence in criminal cases in order to prosecute marijuana cultivators who were operating peacefully, legally and without issue under local ordinance. Those operations have ceased since the county government ended the permit program, of which cost $1,5000 plus a $500 monthly inspection fee plus another $50 for each authorized plant that was grown. Those funds went directly to the local sheriff’s office in order to monitor the program.

Back in January, federal prosecutors threatened to hold individual county officials who participated in the program personally criminally responsible if it were to continue. Needless to say, action to shut it down was swift.

The county complied. The cultivation efforts stopped. The federal government was successful in its desired, albeit misguided, outcome. It’s not clear exactly why the prosecutors want the county’s records, which included the names of farmers, as well as the patients they served, but one could make a strong argument that a criminal filing may be forthcoming.

A spokesman for the Americans for Safe Access advocacy group questioned why prosecutors are so interested specifically in Mendocino County, when such grow operations are ongoing throughout the state.

One explanation for why is simply that they can – and it’s easy. Their entire case may be handed to them in the form of state records obtained by individuals who had acted in good faith to operate according to terms laid forth by the local government in an agreement that was peaceful and mutually beneficial.

It’s like a bully who targets the smallest kid in the class. He knows that’s where he’ll find the least resistance.

But medical marijuana growers who are targeted by federal investigators should know that they can fight back – aggressively – with the help of an experienced attorney. It’s bad enough that they have had to shutter their operations and it’s even worse that they now may have to endure further scrutiny and the anxiety of federal charges hanging above their heads. However, they should not and do not have to fight this battle alone.

Even the local sheriff in Mendocino said he is frustrated with the lack of guidance from the local branch of the U.S. attorney’s office on how to reconcile the federal ban on marijuana with the state approval of it. Court rulings have been all over the place, and unfortunately, until the California Supreme Court makes a ruling – which they have not yet even agreed to hear arguments on the issue – the legal lines will continue to be hazy. Subsequently, we will continue to see more of these “fish-in-a-barrel” prosecutions.
Continue reading

It might seem from the outside that the medical marijuana industry in California would not be the most attractive investment these days – with the wildly conflicting court rulings, federal crackdowns and near daily battles with local government.

Still, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know it’s an area to which many entrepreneurs are still drawn. For a majority of these newcomers stepping into the ring, it has to do more with passion and purpose than profit. Still, the industry in California is valued at an estimated $1.3 billion.

With the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes in both Washington state and Colorado and an expansion of legalization rights for medicinal purposes to Massachusetts – the 17th state to do so – the momentum of the industry is rapidly progressing. This is despite efforts by the federal government to crackdown on state-approved dispensaries, with a special focus in California.

A local marketing firm recently offered courses ranging from $100 to $250, purporting to teach people how to be so-called “bud tenders” and owners of dispensaries – without going to jail.

There may be some measure of value in these courses – there is nothing wrong with cultivating as much knowledge as you can. But you must take what you hear with a grain of salt and understand that there is absolutely no substitute whatsoever for an experienced marijuana lawyer. If you are thinking of opening or investing in a dispensary, it is absolutely critical to seek the advice of an attorney first. This will help you build a foundation for your operation that will be based upon knowledgeable and individualized assistance.

Some marketing firms working with marijuana start-ups have urged owners “not to hide,” telling them they are fully protected by the state. New dispensary owners are advised to advertise openly and without fear of harassment, as it is their right under state law. But this advice isn’t entirely reliable. While it’s true that state law grants you operational rights, you still have to contend with local ordinances, and of course, federal law, which regards marijuana as illegal, regardless of state law. There are steps new dispensary owners can take to help insulate themselves and their investments, but consulting with a medical marijuana lawyer is key.

Among those drawn to the field recently is a former air conditioning technician from Florida, who moved to California seeking opportunity after the market in his home state crumbled. He was quoted by a Bloomberg News reporter as saying that the cultivation itself – serving as a farmer and nurturing growth – is what drives him. He also said he felt called to the industry in order to help those who are suffering.

Still, for-profit medical marijuana clinics are the principal target of federal investigators. At the tail end of October, a dozen people associated with nine L.A. and Orange County dispensaries were rounded up and arrested for violation of federal drug trafficking statutes.

Again, this is why reaching out to an attorney BEFORE you open your doors is so important.
Continue reading