Articles Posted in Marijuana Lawyer

Under California state law, what Aaron Sandusky did was perfectly legal. Federal law, however, is another matter, and he stands to spend 10 years to life in prison.

Our Los Angeles medical marijuana lawyers know the irony of election day could not have escaped the former dispensary operator – him sitting in a downtown Los Angeles jail while voters in Colorado and Washington state approved measures to legalize the recreational use of the drug.

Meanwhile, Sandusky is scheduled to be sentenced early next month in U.S. District Court for two federal felony convictions of drug trafficking. Despite its legality for medicinal purposes under state law for the past 16 years, marijuana is still archaically deemed a Schedule I substance according to federal law. It’s considered by the federal government to be among the most dangerous drugs available – even though doctors across the country have enthusiastically preached its benefits and prescribe it to patients for daily use to treat a wide range of ailments.

To put the punishment that Sandusky is facing into perspective, consider the following local cases:

• Two men in their 20s were convicted earlier this year for the vicious beating to death of an elderly man in front of a liquor store in San Bernadino. Their sentence? Fifteen years to life.
• In Chino recently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested two men on suspicion of terrorist activities, after uncovering a plot to travel to Afghanistan to kill U.S. soldiers. The statutory maximum sentence they face is 15 years to life.

Sandusky, meanwhile, is the victim of a bribing scandal by the former mayor of Upland, who in a recent plea deal admitted to extorting bribes from at least two area businesses. The former mayor’s sentence? Two years.

Perhaps Sandusky’s greatest crime was in trusting what then-candidate Barack Obama was saying throughout his 2008 election campaign: That if he was elected, federal resources wouldn’t be used to arrest medical marijuana dispensary operators in states where such activity was legal. As we all know now, that turned out to be patently false.

His operation was shut down by the Drug Enforcement Administration back in November of last year, and Sandusky insisted on re-opening, viewing it as a legal right under state law. The reason he’s facing the charges he is now is because authorities raided a facility where he and his team were growing medical marijuana for the purpose of supplying dispensaries in Colton, Moreno Valley and Upland.

But less than two months after that raid, he opened again. He was raided again. He shut down. He re-opened again.

The jury found him not guilty on four additional counts involving more dispensaries.

Some might argue that he was not just tempting federal authorities to target him – he was asking for it. However, we might argue that such a move was an act of bravery and an attempt to stand up for the core of one’s beliefs.

We admire this, and we wish him more than the best of luck at his sentencing next month. He’s going to need it – others convicted of his same crime have been penalized with as much as 92 years in prison.

With this kind of punishment at stake, those who are running dispensaries or looking to open one need to seek the assistance of legal council as soon as possible to discuss both your rights and the risks.
Continue reading

A major victory was handed to Oakland’s Harborside Health Center yesterday, with an Alameda County Superior judge ruling that the landlord can’t evict the operation based on the fact that it violates federal law.

Our Los Angeles marjiuana attorneys understand the landlord had sought to evict the prominent dispensary, believed to the the world’s biggest, as it had faced pressure from the federal government.

This ruling could have big implications for future cases, as it sets a good precedent for storefront dispensaries that are fighting for their right to exist.

In fairness, the landlord was acting under pressure from the federal government to either evict the center or else face forfeiture of the $2 million property. The justice department has said that the dispensary was violating federal drug laws.

Back in July, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California had kick-started proceedings to take the property under federal laws that bar the sale of marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic.

However, the superior court judge ruled that the the landlord can’t use that as a justification to kick Harborside out because the court’s jurisdiction covers only state law.

In her decision, Judge Evelio Grillo wrote that the court could find no reason why the landlord should have to do what a city cannot, which is rely on the idea that state law incorporates federal criminal law in order to compel a state court to enforce a federal criminal law indirectly.

Essentially, this is incorporating what the state courts have followed all along with regard to cities. Municipalities can not and should not be forced to enforce federal controlled substance laws in a way that will jeopardize patients and caregivers, who are protected under state law. Now, that same protection has been afforded to private citizens, ie, landlords.

Of course, it’s worth noting that this decision isn’t the end of the line. A decision is still pending from a federal judge who is weighing in on the federal government’s forfeiture action. That decision could come as early as Dec. 20.

But here’s why it’s still important:

• It will give the dispensary the ability to continue operating in its current building while awaiting for a decision from the federal court. It buys some time.
• The legal precedent it sets is valuable because if other landlords attempt to push out their dispensary tenants on the basis of threats from the federal government, they will have this ruling to contend with. In turn, this means we’re likely to see more dispensaries successfully fighting these evictions.
• This is a major setback for the federal government, which has been relentless in its efforts to crack down on medical marijuana, especially in California. One of the key weapons they’ve been employing are civil forfeiture threats. This alone has led to the closing of hundreds of dispensaries. Now, we may see that being used far less – or at least far less effectively.

A representative for Harborside was quoted as saying that this decision makes it clear for those operations that comply with state law deserve the protection of that law.
Continue reading

An Oregon mother credits medical marijuana, specifically cannabis oil, with helping her 7-year-old daughter beat an aggressive form of leukemia.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that advocates in California have come out in droves in support of the mother, who has received some criticism in her home state for her choice, due to the age of her daughter.

The fact is, marijuana and its derivatives have long been known to produce significant benefits in ailing of all ages. Commonly, it’s been known to have profoundly positive effects on those suffering seizures, autism and cancer. The reasons are varied.

With patients like this 7-year-old, who was undergoing intense – sometimes agonizing – chemotherapy treatments, her mother said the cannabis oil helped with her appetite, which allowed her to maintain her strength through the grueling ordeal. Her mother gave her a single, one-gram, lime-flavored capsule after each treatment. It additionally helped her ease such side effects as nausea, pain and anxiety, commonly associated with cancer treatments and near constant hospital visits.

The 7-year-old girl’s cancer had progressed so quickly, doctors feared she may require a bone marrow transplant.

But now, the child is in remission. Whether marijuana can be credited with getting her there has been the subject of debate. Her mother wholeheartedly believes it to be true, and continues to give her daughter the pill to help with the side effects of her continued medication, and the likelihood of continued chemotherapy for the next several years.

In Oregon, as in California, it is legal for a minor to be enrolled in the state’s medical marijuana patient program, as long as the parent or legal guardian consents and agrees to take responsibility as the caregiver. In that state, there are a total of five marijuana patients between the ages of 4 and 9, six between the ages of 10 and 14 and another 41 between the ages of 15 and 17. That’s according to the Oregon Public Health Division. Those figures are expected to grow as the use of marijuana as a legitimate medicine continues to gain acceptance.

California doesn’t require registration of its marijuana patients, so it becomes a bit more difficult to gauge. A voluntary state registry as of last year had just 9,600 listed patients. We suspect, however, that the number of child marijuana patients in California is much higher in comparison to Oregon for two reasons: One, medical marijuana has been legal for longer here, and two, our state simply has a larger population.

In response to those who decry the decision to dole out the drug to small children, those at the University of California’s Center for Medical Cannabis Research note that when compared to other, more powerful, drugs often used to the same end, marijuana is less addictive and less risky. For example, opioid drugs like morphine and Oxycontin are often prescribed to children suffering from severe pain as a result of life-threatening cancer. And yet, these substances carry a significantly greater risk of both dependency and potentially fatal overdose. Additionally, while opioids tend to induce nausea and vomiting, marijuana reduces these symptoms.

Ultimately, however, it’s a decision that should be made through careful consideration by the doctor, the parent and in some cases, the child.

The entire issue of medical marijuana has become so politicized, that it becomes easy to forget about whom these battles over city ordinances and federal crackdown are for. Stories like this help us to keep it in perspective.
Continue reading

With the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington state, those on Wall Street are already clamoring about the possibility of investing in the industry. After all, real estate went bust. Facebook was a flop. Apple is too expensive.

However, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers would urge not only investors but also dispensaries in California to have any investment or business deal reviewed by someone who is experienced with regard to marijuana laws.

It’s trickier here in California, of course, but the drug is not legal unless it is being distributed to patients with a verified doctor’s prescription. And even then, individual cities and counties have enacted ordinances that could affect not only the bottom line, but the very existence of the operation.

The entire industry nationwide is said to be worth $1.7 billion, and that was as of last year. It’s growing.

Just in Colorado in a single year, annual sales topped $180 million, employing some 4,200 workers.

But there’s more to the industry. You have insurers, agricultural-equipment companies, landlords and property managers. There’s also, for example, a quality-control lab in California that is seeking investors to help built a site to test medical marijuana for pesticides, mold, bacteria and any other contamination – the same way we would test any other drug distributed to the public.

Then you have companies that are working to create products, namely food, that allow people to consume marijuana without having to smoke it. Those items range from rice crispy treats to ice cream to soda pop.

A company out of Colorado is working to develop medicines that are cannabis-based that will help AIDS and cancer patients. In fact, marijuana-based drugs are probably going to be the next major commodity we’ll see hit the market.

Massachusetts just legalized medical marijuana, and a California-based company is working to establish a consulting business to assist those interested in setting up clinics and dispensaries to organize the operations and be compliant with state law.

So investors have a wealth of opportunity, yet it’s still a risk. Of course, isn’t every investment?

The good news is that a lot of investors appear to be banking on the hope that the federal government is going to shift policy with regard to both medical marijuana and legalized marijuana.

And that is the giant wild card. That’s the reason why dispensaries and other marijuana-centric operations need to carefully guard their interests before inking investment deals. Certainly, it doesn’t mean there aren’t great opportunities. But working closely with a Los Angeles marijuana lawyer can help secure your legal position and help to insulate you from obvious or expected legal sanctions involving local ordinances or state law.

And until the federal government changes its stance, walking the fine line between growing your business or investment and flying under the radar is one that requires careful planning – and solid legal advise.
Continue reading

A long-time medical marijuana activist, dispensary owner and controversial figure has been arrested again in Long Beach, a year after his conviction for selling the drug was tossed amid allegations of judicial misconduct.

As our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand it, the defendant was pulled over a few months ago near his home by deputies with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office. At that time, deputies reportedly found him to be in possession of a small amount of marijuana. However, they didn’t arrest him. They waited until he arrived for a court appearance in preparation for his new trial (after the previous conviction was tossed) to arrest him on a warrant.

There is almost certainly more to this, given the back story with this individual, though further details of that traffic stop haven’t been released. The activists’ supporters say the amount he was carrying on his person was legal.

Here’s the history on this:

Back in the summer of 2011, the defendant and his business partner were featured in a cover story in O.C. Weekly. He headed a medical marijuana activist group called the Human Solution, as well as a number of collectives in the area.

Two years earlier, they had been arrested for marijuana trafficking, and the cover story was about the upcoming trial. Apparently what happened was that he sold marijuana to qualified patients who arrived at the storefront facility and presented valid California driver’s licenses and recommendations from licensed physicians, indicating they were medical marijuana patients. This is legal under state law. However, it turned out that the patients were actually undercover police officers.

For this, both he and his business partner were facing seven years in prison – even though a number of operations in Long Beach were essentially doing the exact same thing. Neither man had ever previously been convicted of a crime.

So the two men faced trial in December of last year. During the course of that trial, the defense team faced an overwhelming level of bias from the judge, as reported by several local media outlets as the case went on.

Some of those included:

• The judge reportedly complimented the prosecutor in front of jurors, while being so rude to the defense team that the defender was actually at one point brought to tears just before the jurors were brought back into the courtroom;
• The judge ruled a photograph and videotape relevant to the prosecution’s case – without ever having examined the evidence in question;
• Court transcripts revealed the judge sustained most of the prosecution’s objections, while the majority of defense objections were overruled;
• After prosecutors scored a conviction, the judge sent the prosecutor a congratulatory letter.

All of this was considered by a Long Beach Superior court Judge in an appeal. That judge, calling the proceedings a “terrible, terrible trial,” ultimately tossed both convictions and granted the men a new trial.

Prosecutors are trying to fight that ruling in their own appeal. So far, they’ve been unsuccessful.

And this is the situation in which the defendant found himself when he was pulled over by police, and now, several months later, under arrest and being held on $250,000 bail.

California Vehicle Code 23222(b) purports that if you are found to be driving with less than one ounce of marijuana in your vehicle, you can be fined up to $100, plus court costs.

This case should have never gotten as far as it has.

If you are facing criminal charges as a result of your medical marijuana use or sale, call us today.
Continue reading

In the weeks and months leading up to the election, it seemed there was nothing upon which conservatives, liberals and those in between could agree.

If one side called it white, the other argued it was clearly black.

But election night revealed there was actually one area where voters on both sides of the aisle agreed: Marijuana.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that the whole politics of the issue has morphed, from the fringes to the mainstream. This was something that opponents of legalization for medical and recreational purposes didn’t seem to see coming.

In Colorado and Washington, voters were successful in passing legalization measures with ease, by a margin of 10 percent. The final tally in both states stood at 55 percent for, and 45 percent against.

In both cases, analysts are saying there were a couple of different factors at play.

First, both states already had statutes in place that legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, just like in California, which was the first state to do so.

But the other major tipping point was that the issue was pushed by a strong, combined efforts by unlikely allies: liberals and tea party conservatives. In many cases, we saw arguments made that hinged on the advancement of public health and safety.

Additionally, proponents of the cause in both states tended to be well-organized and well-funded, particularly as compared to the opposition, which it appears didn’t really take the effort seriously at times.

In Colorado, the governor held staunch opposition to the measure, but the people didn’t seem to be swayed. There, Amendment 64 received 50,000 more than President Obama, who won the state by a margin of 5 percentage points.

The National Institute on Money in State Politics recently revealed that marijuana legalization proponents and PACS outspent their opposition by 8 to 1 in the state of Colorado. One organization alone reportedly spent $2.1 million.

Plus, there was also the endorsement of former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo. This is a prominent Republican conservative, beloved by the tea party and respected by his peers.

Some have theorized that if this same measure had been on the ballot a year from now, without being overshadowed by the hype of the presidential election and with less of a young voter turn-out, we would be seeing very different results. Still, we can’t completely dismiss what 55 percent of the voters in both states clearly agreed upon.

Those who were behind the push decided that what would really tip the scales was educating voters that the use of marijuana is safe and less harmful than alcohol.

It was an interesting development for Californians to watch, particularly two years after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. helped to sink Proposition 19, which would have legalized recreational marijuana use here.

This year, Holder remained silent on the issue. Some wondered whether that was at the behest of President Obama, as he faced a tough re-election and likely didn’t want to alienate more voters.

But it remains to be seen how the attorney general will respond to both measures now.
Continue reading

We are now at the point in this country where 18 states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes. Two others are allowing it for recreational use.

And yet, Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that those who seek to dispense the drug have as tough time when it comes to taxes because, technically under federal law, they are considered drug traffickers. What that means is that under Section 280E of the federal tax code, these operations may be denied deductions.

However, a recent case out of California may have cracked that door slightly ajar.

The case is Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems, Inc., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and it was recently heard in U.S. Tax Court. The plaintiff in this case is a marijuana collective that provided caregiving and counseling to individuals who were suffering from debilitating diseases. Additionally, the facility provided members with medical marijuana, pursuant to the state’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996, under California Health & Safety Code sec. 11362.5. it charged its members a fee that would reimburse the facility for the cost of caregiving, as well as the medical marijuana.

The IRS determined that because of the medical marijuana aspect of the operation, NONE of the firm’s expenses were tax deductible under sec. 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, as those expenses were incurred in connection with the act of trafficking in a controlled substance.

What the U.S. Tax Court found was that while the IRS was correct in denying any tax deductions for the marijuana-related expenses, it could not deny deductions for its caregiving services, which was essentially a separate trade.

So although the plaintiff was found to have owed $355,000 in federal income taxes, and would have to pay a $71,000 penalty as a result, the judge ruled that a portion of that may be forgiven, as a portion of the operation’s expenses are considered tax deductible.

But of course, this is not the be-all-end-all when it comes to tax law for dispensaries, collectives and cooperatives. Simply because a state has legalized medical marijuana does not necessarily ensure that these operations won’t be hit with unfair tax disadvantages.

When it comes to personal income taxes, the state conforms to the federal Section 280E. However, corporate tax law is different, which means that a dispensary owned by a corporation might be able to deduct ordinary and necessary business expenses. State tax rules tend to favor corporations.

The bottom line is that there are generally a great deal of legal considerations for these operations to make, from the ever-present potential for federal enforcement to ever-changing local ordinances. Tax issues are yet another problem for those in the industry, but it’s one you should not overlook.

Hiring a skilled marijuana lawyer will allow you to accurately navigate the local, state and federal tax law, while protecting your financial interests and ensuring you are following the letter of the law.
Continue reading

The U.S. Department of Justice is at a crossroads right now.

They have been confronted with the fact that the American public has tired of their pointless campaign against marijuana users and those who provide it. Specifically, voters in Washington and Colorado decided to decriminalize it altogether.

Of course, as our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know, this is in direct opposition to federal law, which supersedes any state measure.

The federal government has previously shown that it is willing to force that power upon the states, as evidenced by the crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries and collectives across California throughout the last year.

In the cases of Washington and Colorado, the legalization of the drug for recreational purposes is at direct odds with the federal government’s classification of marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic. The consider it highly addictive and with no redeeming medical value. Clearly, the definition is outdated.

In fact, President Barack Obama may have won Colorado during the election, but it’s worth noting more voters approved the marijuana legalization measure than cast a ballot for him.

And a Gallup poll conducted last year found that more than half of all Americans believe that marijuana should be legalized for adult use. That’s up nearly five percent from where we were just a year earlier on the issue – and the highest we’ve ever been since the agency started tracking the public’s attitudes on marijuana back in 1969.

The justice department has not yet answered questions about how it will respond to these measures in Colorado and Washington, except to say they are reviewing their options. The governors of those states say they respect and will uphold the will of the voters, but they’re trying to tread carefully so as not to get themselves into a precarious legal situation with the federal government.

Outcome is up in the air. The federal government has a few options. One is to ignore it. That seems highly unlikely.

Another is to file a lawsuit that would seek to stop the state laws before they are formally enacted. Those lawsuits would argue that federal law trumps state law.

And finally, they could clamp down with federal drug enforcement, picking up where state and local agencies will be more lax. This is probable. But the issue long-term is that such an effort would take an enormous amount of time and resources.

What we hope for, of course, is that the federal government, namely the justice department, will use this as an opportunity to test out new ways of dealing with the challenge of regulating marijuana on a wider scale. In fact, numerous members of the U.S. House of Representatives wrote to the U.S. Attorney General, urging him to opt for this path moving forward.

Whether he takes them up on that encouragement remains to be seen. If past record is any indication, we aren’t holding our breath.

As Columnist Dan Turner of the Los Angeles Times recently put it: “When is the federal government going to get the message that the states are so desperately trying to send it?”
Continue reading

Safety officials say drivers will be high on more than the turkey Tryptophan this Thanksgiving.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that a recent study by the California Office of Traffic Safety found that roughly 14 percent of nighttime, weekend drivers surveyed were found to have tested positive for driving under the influence of drugs. About half of those, 7.4 percent, specifically tested positive for marijuana. That’s compared to the 7.1 percent who tested positive for alcohol.

What law enforcement are saying this clearly means is that drugged driving is a statewide problem in California, and that especially as the Thanksgiving Day travel is upon us, police need to be hyper-vigilant in rooting them out.

Certainly, we’re not saying impaired driving isn’t a problem or that we don’t want people to have a safe holiday. Of course, we do.

But what’s important to keep in mind – and what these researchers clearly did not – is that marijuana intoxication can not be measured in the same way that alcohol intoxication is. That is why the results of this study may actually be skewed.

Let’s look first at how researchers conducted it:

Researchers, working with federal funds, set up roadside locations in nine different cities throughout the state. They were there between the hours of 10 p.m. and 3 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights. during the course of their study, they stopped and received voluntary surveys from 1,300 drivers, who agreed to be anonymously chemically tested.

Researchers tested these individuals for alcohol, THC (the active ingredient in marijuana), heroin, cocaine, PCP, prescription medications and over-the-counter drugs that could impact their ability to drive safely.

They found that of the 7.1 percent who tested positive for alcohol, about a quarter also tested positive for one other drug. Same for those who tested positive for marijuana – they were found to test positive for at least one other drug as well.

But here is where the study trips up: Alcohol remains in a person’s system for a relatively short period of time. So if a person tests positive for a high concentration of alcohol (the legal threshold for drivers is 0.08 percent), you can be relatively certain that the individual has in fact recently consumed alcohol and is likely impaired.

Marijuana doesn’t work that way. First of all, marijuana is a medicine, and it is not illegal for those individuals to use it. There are roughly 1.1 million registered medical marijuana users, according to NORML. Secondly, THC, the active drug in marijuana, will remain in a person’s system for a longer period of time – like weeks. And for people who use the drug as a medicine, those levels may be heightened. But it doesn’t mean that just because they test positive for the substance that they are impaired. This is exactly why legislation trying to mark the threshold of legal marijuana intoxication at 0.5 nanograms failed. It wasn’t accurate.

So while the state’s Office of Traffic Safety is urging law enforcement agencies to focus heavily on investment in detection of drug-impaired drivers, it’s important that police agencies are aware of this difference.
Continue reading

In a seemingly innocuous decision, the City Council in Long Beach recently voted to revoke the license of a strip mall property owner.

Los Angeles medical marijuana lawyers know that this would have been one of the countless, mundane matters of city government that rarely raises an eyebrow – were it not for the disputed reason why the city took the action it did.

The city says that the owner of the property housed an illegal marijuana operation, which was housed at the same address of a permitted gay-friendly bar. However, the property owner argued he tried to evict the dispensary, which was illegal under the city’s ban. However, the dispensary owner in the course of that action was successful in obtaining from the court a stay on the eviction, meaning the property owner couldn’t legally kick him out until the court gave him the Ok.

Previously, the city had sent letters to the dispensary owner, warning that it was in violation of city code, as it had no fire or safety inspections conducted and it was operating without an individual business license. The dispensary reportedly ignored these warnings for a time and continued to operate.

The city, taking a page out of the playbook of federal authorities, decided in turn to go after the property owner, warning him that if he did not evict the dispensary, he would be fined and his business license in jeopardy. But that brings us back to the property owner’s original dilemma – which as that he couldn’t legally evict the dispensary.

This dilemma went on through last month. At the end of September, a judge lifted the stay on the eviction, and those proceedings moved forward, with the dispensary eventually vacating the property entirely on Oct. 24.

You would think that would resolve the matter. For the Long Beach City Council members, apparently, it did not. They pushed forward to revoke the business license of the property owner. In fact, it did so five days before the court in the eviction case lifted the stay.

Why would the city not hold off on its decision until the court had ruled on the eviction issue? Essentially, it seems they wanted to circumvent the legal process. In the end, the property owner, according to his attorney, is being punished for obeying the law.

A report submitted by the city on the matter says that while the property owner had taken all practical steps to have the dispensary removed, that did not alter the conclusion that the city deemed him to be in violation of code.

All of this, of course, had the effect of damaging a number of other businesses in that same strip mall location. These were businesses, like the gay-friendly bar, that had nothing to do whatsoever with the dispute, and were merely tenants. A full revocation of the property owner’s business license means he is restricted from obtaining another one for a full year. That leaves the other tenants completely high and dry.

This has become indicative of the repeated injustices perpetuated by the city of Long Beach, and other similar municipal bodies.

Fight back. Call us.
Continue reading