Articles Posted in Marijuana Lawyer

While voters in Colorado, Washington and Massachusetts were enhancing the rights of marijuana users, voters in California successfully passed measures that went to further restrict them.

Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that in San Diego County, a vote to permit and regulate dispensaries was rejected in four different communities. And in Palo Alto, a measure that would have approved the allowance of three medical dispensaries was shot down. In Siskiyou County, voters in Dunsmuir voted against a measure to repeal over-broad regulations placed on cannabis growers last year. And finally in Humboldt County, the town of Arcata approved a measure requiring indoor voters to pay a huge utility tax.

So why the disconnect between what’s happening in other states, and what we’re seeing here?

Undoubtedly, a major part of it is a lack of central regulation at the state level. Being the first of the 50 states in the country to legalize medical marijuana, we were ahead of our time on the issue in 1996. But we didn’t have the benefit that other states had, which to learn from our mistakes. So now, our system is not only ineffective, it’s archaic.

As a result, we’ve seen not only a backlash from federal authorities in the last year, but from communities and residents who have grown weary of the back-and-forth.

Still, it’s not the end of the road for collectives and dispensaries. These measures might make it tougher to operate, and despite the fact that the election is over, the court battles are nowhere near finished. Plus, none of these are expected to directly affect Los Angeles-area patients or collectives.

Let’s start with the San Diego County vote. This involved specifically the cities of Del Mar, Lemon Grove, Solana Beach and Imperial Beach. As it stands, existing local ordinances have banned medical marijuana clinics in all four cities. The ballot measure would have allowed dispensaries to be opened in each city and to be taxed by the city governments. Instead, voters decided against it, and at least for now, people in those areas will have limited access because dispensaries there can’t legally open or operate.

In Palo Alto, it’s the same story. In 1997, a year after state voters approved legalization of medical marijuana, Palo Alto city government leaders enacted a ban. This measure would have reversed that ban and imposed a 4 percent tax on the drug. Sixty-two percent of voters, however, rejected it.

It was a tighter margin in Dunsmuir, where since last year, cannabis cultivation has been limited to the grower’s personal property, indoors and away from view of the public and any youth organizations. However, the reversal of that measure was voted down by 53 percent of voters.

And finally in Arcata, nearly 70 percent of voters approved a measure requiring indoor growers to pay a stunning 45 percent tax on their electricity. It’s likely to reduce the overall amount of the drug made available there.

Los Angeles, meanwhile, had no measures on the November ballot relating to the regulation of marijuana. However, it’s possible we could see more movement on the issue in March, when there is yet another election.
Continue reading

Although two states this year said “I do” to legalized recreational marijuana use, California was not one of them.

As such, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that it’s critical for operators of dispensaries and collectives to ensure that only patients with a legitimate, doctor-prescribed medical necessity receive the product and that distribution is carried out strictly according to the guidelines set forth in both state and local regulations.

Of course, it won’t insulate you from federal action, as evidenced by the letters sent by the U.S. Attorney’s Office to more than 70 dispensaries in Los Angeles last month, threatening to make arrests or seize property if they didn’t shut down. All told, authorities have shut down approximately 600 medical marijuana facilities throughout the state since the crackdown began last year.

Federal authorities say that the dispensaries they target violate not only the U.S. Controlled Substances Act, but also state law, which requires that operators be non-profit, primary caregivers to their patents and only distribute marijuana for strict medicinal purposes.

But we know this is not always the criteria used. For example, the Harborside dispensary in Oakland was reportedly targeted because, authorities reasoned, it was “too big.”

Los Angeles City Councilman Jose Huizar has been quoted as saying that the state’s marijuana laws are some of the weakest in the country, probably by virtue of the fact that we were the first to approve medical marijuana, so there was no tried and true model to follow. But unless and until the drug is legalized for recreational purposes, dispensaries would do well to ensure their customers are legitimate patients.

This will allow operators to avoid further undue attention from authorities, at least while other cases are battled out in court.

As of right now, the best way to do that is to ensure your clients have a legitimate, state-issued medical marijuana identification card and are listed as a qualified patient and/or caregiver according to the Medical Marijuana Program’s statewide registry.

Senate Bill 420, which was passed in 2003, gives the authority to oversee the Medical Marijuana Program to the county governments. As of right now in the state, there have been nearly 65,000 identification cards issued. Of those, approximately 58,000 are patients, while another 6,000 are caregivers. Generally, these must be renewed annually.

What can be tricky for many dispensaries are ensuring that prescriptions are recommended or approved by physicians who are actually allowed to do so under state law. This applies to medical doctors, osteopaths and surgeons. It does not apply to chiropractors, herbal therapists and the like.

General state guidelines, handed down by the state attorney general’s office, are that the state won’t recognize storefront “dispensaries,” but that cooperatives and collectives can legally dispense medical marijuana in a storefront location, assuming it complies with a number of conditions.

As you probably recognize, opening or maintaining a medical marijuana dispensary or collective is a risky venture, but it can be extremely rewarding as well. The legal landscape of medical marijuana is ever-changing in California, so if have questions or concerns about whether you are following the letter of the law, call us today for more information.
Continue reading

The former mayor of Santa Fe Springs, accused of running an organized shakedown of medical marijuana dispensaries in the city, has been sentenced to two years in prison for bribery, according to The Los Angeles Times.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers believe this was an important case in that it illustrates that owners and operators of dispensaries are law abiding citizens providing a valuable and legal service and will not tolerate pressure from powerful outside forces to break the law.

In this case, the dispensary owner turned to the FBI for help and became a valuable informant after the councilman-turned-mayor shook him down.

After all has been said and done about the perceived illicit nature of marijuana dispensaries, in this case, it turned out to be the city government that was overwrought by corruption. Court documents reveal ample evidence that bribes were reportedly a regular way of doing business in the Santa Fe City Hall. There were allegedly fixed council elections, cash passed to council members in shoe boxes and drug runs made to illegally purchase drugs for use in City Hall.

Most troubling, perhaps, was a statement made by the Assistant U.S. Attorney, saying that corruption at the highest levels of smaller governments in Los Angeles County appears to be “rampant.”

Altogether, the mayor alone, who is worth an estimated $600,000, was convicted of taking $17,000 in bribes. Two others have been convicted so far as well, and are awaiting sentencing.

At the time the three worked to arrange and accept these bribes, the city was mulling the possibility of limiting or banning marijuana dispensaries in city limits.

One man began to ask about potentially opening up a marijuana dispensary there, and he subsequently met with the mayor, who demanded he pay $1,500, which was disguised as a loan agreement. He then went to the authorities.

A few months later, the mayor told the dispensary owner he would been to be paid a “minimum” of the payment he makes on his mortgage, which at the time was $1,600 a month. What he didn’t realize was those conversations, by that point, were being recorded.

That same dispensary owner was asked by FBI officials to inquire about opening a marijuana shop in neighboring Cudahy, where he was again asked to pay a bribe.

Those officials were ultimately indicted and convicted as well, and even more investigations are ongoing.

With regard to the mayor, he later pleaded for mercy, saying he had caved to financial pressures. The judge, in reviewing his net worth and annual salary, said he did not buy that argument.

will have to serve two years in prison, followed by three years of probation and pay $10,000 in restitution to the FBI.

If you are a dispensary owner who has ever been approached by any city official for a bribe, you may be apprehensive, given the current legal climate, to approach authorities. Your first move should be to contact an experienced marijuana attorney to explore your options.
Continue reading

In both Colorado and Washington, victory is being claimed by proponents of dual measures to legalize marijuana for recreational use.

Los Angeles marijuana lawyers wish we could say this was the end of the line for the issue, but it’s almost certain that both laws will be challenged in federal court, as marijuana use, possession, sale and distribution remain illegal under superseding federal laws.

However, the hope is that federal justices will fairly confront the issue and once and for all toss the disproved, antiquated and ridiculous notion that marijuana is a dangerous drug worthy of a category of Schedule I narcotic.

Of course, it’s likely to be more complicated than that, but it should make for an interesting battle.

In Colorado, Proposition 64 is an amendment to the state’s constitution that makes it legal for anyone over the age of 21 to possess marijuana and for businesses to sell it at certain retail locations. The governor there has said he anticipates the process of state regulation will be wrought with complications, but state officials fully intend to follow through with carrying out the will of the people. Specifically, he cautioned, “Don’t break out the Cheetos or gold fish too quickly.”

Still, proponents are hoping that the measure will rake in millions of dollars in revenue for the state government, which could in turn be funneled toward schools and emergency safety services. What’s more, freeing local and state law enforcement agencies from responsibilities to prosecute petty drug crimes should help abate the failed war on drugs.

Similarly in Washington State, Initiative 502 makes it legal for those in the state over the age of 21 to legally possess small amounts (up to 1 ounce dried or 1 pound infused product or 72 ounces of liquid-infused) of the drug for recreational purposes.

(On an election side note: Voters in Massachusetts approved legislation that allows for the medicinal use of marijuana by residents with a doctor’s prescription, as 17 other states, including California, have already done.)

Certainly, the tides are shifting, but the implementation of the measures in both Washington and Colorado are likely to be legally tricky.

On election day, the U.S. Justice Department said it was reviewing the initiatives, but refused to say how it planned to respond to the first attempt of any state (let alone two states) to legalize the use of marijuana for any purpose other than medical. Previously, Attorney General Eric Holder expressed his public opposition to both measures and, tellingly, once the election results were in, a spokeswoman for the agency underscored the fact that the Controlled Substances Act remains the law of the land.

It is in this act that the government defines marijuana as Schedule I, which is the harshest classification of drug – higher even than cocaine or oxycone, which are Schedule II drugs. What this means is that it is considered highly addictive, dangerous and holding no legitimate medical purpose. Clearly, this definition is fallible.

Our Los Angeles marijuana collective attorneys of course will be watching the unfolding of these events closely. If nothing else, Californians may take comfort in the fact that, at least for a short time, the focus of federal authorities may be somewhere else.
Continue reading

Federal authorities raided nine marijuana storefronts in the City of Los Angeles and Orange County, arresting 12 individuals on federal charges, including conspiracy to manufacturing and distribute marijuana, in violation of federal law.

Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that numerous media reports labeled these storefronts as “illegal operations.” But we need to reserve judgment until we understand whether the facilities were allegedly operating in violation of the federal government’s harsh definitions, or whether they were in fact violating state statute as well.

The 12 arrested are among 14 named in a federal grand jury indictment. The conspiracy charges carry a mandatory minimum of 10 years in federal prison. Worst case scenario, the maximum sentence is life in prison without the possibility of parole.

These are extremely serious criminal marijuana charges, and as such, defendants will require representation from an attorney with extensive knowledge in marijuana law and proven experience in marijuana criminal cases.

Title 21 of the U.S. Code, also known as the Controlled Substances Act, details Section 959 the definition and federal penalties for possession, manufacture and distribution o a controlled substance, of which marijuana is currently considered a Schedule I. The law makes it clear that efforts to grow, produce, procure, sell or distribute the drug are illegal under federal law. However, this is in direct opposition to state law, specifically, Proposition 215 which was enacted in 1996 and granted the use and distribution of marijuana for individuals who had a doctor’s prescription.

In this case, the 14-count indictment alleges that a narcotics-trafficking conspiracy was led by a man named John Melvin Walker. This was an individual who owned nine marijuana storefronts throughout Los Angeles and Orange County. Federal authorities allege that Walker and his co-defendants conspired to distribute at least a ton of marijuana illegally through storefronts.

These stores were known as: Alternative Herbal Health in Long Beach, Santa Ana Supreior Care in Santa Ana, Sante Fe Compassionate Health Care in Santa Fe Springs, the Whittier Collective in Whittier, the Safe Harbor Collective in Dana Point, the Costa Mesa Patients Association in Costa Mesa, the Belmont Shore Natural Care in Long Beach,the APCC or San Juan Capistrano Store in San Juan Capistrano and the Garden Grove Alternative Care in Garden Grove. Many of these sites were raided by federal authorities in 2010 and 2011 on the basis of federal search warrants. As a result, most were closed, although a few remained open, including the Belmont Shore store.

Federal investigators say the stores raked in tens of millions of dollars in income, and that the Belmont store alone made a nearly $2.5 million profit in 2009.

Authorities allege that Walker and his co-defendants purposely skirted their federal tax responsibilities and that bookkeepers were instructed to destroy all records of generated income by shredding paperwork each night.

In addition to the conspiracy charge, Walker is charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Authorities said they located on store premises an AK-47 and a shotgun. He had previously been convicted on marijuana and cocaine charges. Additionally, he was reportedly found to have nearly $400,000 in cash at his home when arrested. He could face an additional five years for a charge of possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking.

At this point, all we have to rely on are the allegations of federal authorities. No doubt we will learn more about this operation and its participants in the coming months.
Continue reading

Medical marijuana was legalized in New Jersey back in January of 2010.

But it hasn’t been sold there at all between then and now because of a host of red tape issues that snagged the process for months on end, even as patients began registering with the state’s Department of Health back in August.

Now, Los Angeles medical marijuana lawyers understand, that’s about to change. This month, the Greenleaf Compassion Center was granted formal permission to begin operating in a former drug paraphernalia shop, under the regulation that it only offer reduced potency strains of the drug.

Officials had previously said they had expected to the facility to be operational by September. Any further delays are likely to be a result of awaiting a certificate of occupancy following extensive renovation of the facility.

ID cards are expected to be mailed to nearly 200 patients in the area after the doctors certify the prescription with the health department. An additional 130 patients have pending registrations, and about 175 doctors have registered.

It’s been more than a year since five facilities had previously applied to be allowed to operate. However, the state has kept a tight handle on restrictions, and essentially made it very difficult to obtain permits. Officials said they wanted to ensure that state and local officials aren’t faced with the same kind of challenges that have put California’s dispensaries at risk for shut-down and federal intervention.

New Jersey is one of 17 states in the country, including California, to allow the distribution and sale of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Still, the federal government lists marijuana as a Schedule I drug and deems it illegal. However, despite promises from the federal government not to pursue criminal charges against dispensaries who abide by state laws, we in California haven’t seen that to be the case in reality.

It will be important to see whether New Jersey’s caution in dispensing permits translates to reduced action by the federal government.

A second facility in New Jersey, Compassionate Sciences Alternative Treatment Center, is expected to go before the zoning board to detail plans to turn a now-vacant furniture store into a dispensary.

As of March 1 in California, there were 46 cities that had ordinances, 76 that had moratoriums and 178 cities had bans. Additionally, 10 counties had ordinances, 9 counties had moratoriums, and 20 counties had bans. Of course, those figures are somewhat outdated when you consider that in Los Angeles alone since that time, there has been an ordinance, and then a moratorium and then a ban, and now that ban has been repealed.

The patchwork of conflicting policies, practices and court rulings have led dispensary operators and patients in an odd and confusing situation, often not knowing whether their actions are legal or not.

For the sake of patients and honest dispensary owners in New Jersey, we hope similar scenarios won’t be repeated. The future may hang on the decision made by appellate judges in D.C. The case challenges the federal government’s classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug.
Continue reading

An initiative that seeks to limit the number of marijuana storefronts in Los Angeles to about 130 has gained approval from the city clerk to begin collecting signatures for a ballot measure that could be voted on next spring.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know it is one of several efforts taking place at the grassroots level to try to quell city officials’ concerns about the proliferation of marijuana storefronts, while simultaneously continuing to provide safe access to ill patients.

The Los Angeles City Clerk announced just before Halloween that the measure would limit the number of dispensaries to those that have existed continuously since a fall 2007 moratorium was enacted in L.A. Hundreds of new shops have opened since then, though federal crackdowns through the use of raids and threats of criminal charges and property liens have forced many to shutter-up.

The group that is proposing this initiative, which includes the Greater Los Angeles Collective Alliance, are targeting the measure to be on the May 21st ballot. In order to do that, they would have to secure some 41,140 signatures before Dec. 7.

That’s a tall order, but it’s certainly not impossible, given the speed with which Los Angeles voters signed a measure to repeal the “soft ban” that was enacted just a couple months ago.

In summary, the initiative would allow for regulation of associations of six or more qualified patients and/or primary caregivers who grow, possess, distribute, delivery or give away marijuana to an unlimited number of patients for strictly medical purposes. The measure would exempt associations of five or fewer patients and/or primary caregivers who do the same. It would also allow limited immunity from legal action for all of those marijuana operations that had been open since September of 2007, provided they have not ceased operation for more than three months except to relocate or in response to federal action; are not violating city zoning laws; pass local police background checks; and keep a certain distance from parks, schools, churches or other designated areas.

The measure would also set operating standards that the city could enforce and penalize if violated. It would also grant the city the right to permit the operations that are granted immunity by the ordinance.

Make no mistake – this measure would result in a severe slashing of the number of dispensaries and collectives that currently operate.There are an estimated 1,000 or so marijuana storefronts in Los Angeles as of today.

A second initiative that is being considered, but not yet approved for signature gathering, would be far less restrictive. That measure essentially aims to close those shops that are located too close to parks or schools. That would mean the majority of shops that are open could remain so as long as they filed the proper paperwork with the city and agreed to follow other rules, such as being closed at or before 10 p.m. Additionally, all employees would have to undergo background checks.

Our marijuana lawyers will be closely following the developments surrounding both plans.
Continue reading

A Los Angeles dispensary owner is seeking an injunction against the Justice Department and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, claiming both entities are overstepping their governmental powers by threatening to shut down his operation.

Los Angeles marijuana lawyers will be watching the case to see whether the owner is successful, as it could have major implications with regard to the federal crackdowns that have been launched throughout the state in the last year.

It’s unclear how likely the challenge is to succeed, as others in the past have failed in this regard, but we certainly applaud the effort.

According to Courthouse News Service, federal agents with both the Department of Justice and the DEA raided the No Grey Sky dispensary downtown last month. The dispensary is in fact licensed by the state of California to legally dispense medical marijuana to patients with a doctor’s prescription. It’s request for an injunction states that the government is acting in excess of its authority granted under the Controlled Substances Act.

This is the federal act, passed in 1970, that outlines U.S. drug policy with regard to manufacturing, importing, possessing, using and distributing certain substances. Marijuana, under this act, is considered a Schedule I substance, which is that it is highly addictive and retains no legal value.

Because the language is quite plain in the federal law, it doesn’t appear likely this plaintiff will succeed in his request for an injunction – unless the case currently being heard in a D.C. federal appeals court overturns that schedule classification. In that case, cannabis advocates are arguing that the DEA has acted arbitrarily and capriciously in classifying the drug as a Schedule I, ignoring clear and expansive scientific evidence that the drug doesn’t meet that criteria.

If a favorable ruling is gained there, then it becomes plausible to effectively attack the federal government’s aggressive actions against dispensaries throughout the state.

As a candidate, President Barack Obama said more than once that dispensaries operating under the guidelines of state law would be left alone. Even after he became president, he said it wouldn’t be a priority. His Justice Department hasn’t adhered to those promises.

In Los Angeles, the city proposed in 2010 that all marijuana facilities should be licensed by the city, essentially reversing its de facto ban, which had been in place since 2007.

It was based on these facts that the dispensary owner decided to open a marijuana storefront, on the firm belief that in doing so, he was providing a valuable service to the ailing members of his community. However, he has now been punished for that. His offices have been raided. His bank accounts have dwindled. He faces criminal charges. And his property may be subject to forfeiture, based on the threats of federal authorities.

The request for injunction maintains that to shut down the dispensary permanently would mean elderly and disabled individuals would be forced to purchase the drug illegally, which would end up siphoning off valuable law enforcement resources, which would otherwise be used to address more serious crimes.
Continue reading

City leaders in northern California are moving forward with plans to ban outdoor medical marijuana cultivation operations, saying that it has attracted crime and become a nuisance.

Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know this is contrary to what numerous recent studies have uncovered, including:

• The RAND Corporation last year released a study on the alleged links between Los Angeles marijuana dispensaries and crime rates. There was none.
• Then there was the 2009 Los Angeles Police Department Survey, commissioned by Chief Charlie Beck. The report indicated that 71 robbery reports had been filed by the city’s 350 banks the year prior. Medical marijuana dispensaries, which far outnumbered banks at the time with about 800, had only 47 reported robberies.
• UCLA last year conducted a study called, “Exploring the Ecological Link Between Crime and Marijuana Dispensaries.” That study was extensive and determined that while a number of other factors contributed to higher crime rates, the saturation of marijuana dispensaries in a given area was not one of them.
• A Regent University study conducted last year analyzed crime rates in Denver, where medicinal marijuana is legal. What researchers found was that while most crimes had increased from 2008 to 2009 in Denver, areas that were within 1,000-foot radius of a marijuana dispensary actually saw a DECREASE of crimes.

Despite all this, council members in Sacramento are citing crime rates as the reason for quashing outdoor marijuana cultivation efforts there. The measure passed 8-1, with council directing city staffers to draft an ordinance that they could then approve.

In Sacramento, dispensaries are already barred from operating within 1,000 feet of other dispensaries and from being within 300 feet of residences and 600 feet from parks and schools.

During the recent discussion on barring outdoor grow efforts, some council expressed a desire to increase the required distance from parks and schools to 1,000 feet.

There is currently a moratorium on medical marijuana dispensary permits from the city, after a series of federal crackdowns in the area. Those dispensaries that were already open prior to federal intervention have been grandfathered in and allowed to remain open, meaning there are a total of 17 in the city.

The city hasn’t moved to shut down those facilities, but it does want to limit the ability of dispensaries and collectives to grow the plant in their back yards. The police department has said there has been a spate of burglaries and “other” crimes related to these operations. One that was mentioned was a homeowner who fired gunshots in the direction of intruders on his backyard property and another incidence in which a resident was robbed of his marijuana. However, our marijuana lawyers think a closer look of the statistics might bear out that rates of crime surrounding cultivation operations are no higher than anywhere else.

A representative for the local Americans for Safe Access chapter implored the council to wait to make a decision until the federal government’s stance against the industry is finalized by upcoming legal battles. The city, however, plans to move forward with restrictions anyway.
Continue reading

The British couple was quiet, unassuming – and harboring a big secret.

According to The New York Daily News, the pair was spearheading a large marijuana cultivation operation in Britain. This might not make international news, were it not for the more surprising fact of what they were reportedly doing with the profits: Using it to provide critical aid residents of a poor village in Kenya.

Despite this fact, Los Angeles marijuana lawyers have learned that a British court recently sentenced the couple to three years in prison.

Were a similar case to crop up in the U.S., certainly the charitable use of the profits would be presented as a mitigating circumstance.

Marijuana cultivation in Britain is punished in much the same way it is here in the U.S. Marijuana is allowed for a limited number of medical purposes, and under U.K. law it’s considered a Class B drug. According to the BBC, a simple charge of possession can result in a maximum five-year prison sentence (something that is good to know for U.S. residents traveling there). Additionally, conviction for supplying the drug can result in a prison term of up to 14 years. In some cases, however, first-time offenders may be given a reprimand and penalty fine.

A recent, six-year study in Britain is currently giving weight to the advocacy for marijuana legalization in a number of states in the U.S., including Washington, Oregon and Colorado. The 173-page study from the United Kingdoms Drug Policy Commission indicates that simple use of marijuana does not cause problems, and in fact, most users do not experience any significant problems. Further, many have actually derived significant benefit from it, something that is often ignored by policy makers both here and overseas.

In this case, the 62-year-old man and 63-year-old woman reportedly cultivated and produced thousands of pounds of marijuana at their farmhouse. They hadn’t actually been hurting anyone, and in fact, police only ended up stumbling on the operation accidentally. Officers were responding to a burglary call and while chasing the suspect near their farm, recognized a distinctive smell. The investigation resulted in the pair’s arrest after officers found 20,000 British pounds currency in a carrier bag, as well as nearly 160 marijuana plants.

The couple had previously explained their increased electric bill as having to do with a pottery business they were attempting to kickstart. The kiln, they said, was an energy suck.

But the couple hadn’t been hoarding their profits. According to The Guardian, they had used the $600,000 they had earned through sale of the drug to pay for life-saving surgery for one villager who had gangrene in his leg, as well as computers for an eye hospital and education for school children.

Still, the pair ended up pleading guilty to four charges of producing cannabis and another charge of possessing criminal money. (Again, the exact names of the charges vary to what we would see in the U.S., but the basic principles are the same.)

The couple’s attorney later said that just flying back and forth to Kenya was expensive, but they were putting the majority of the money they earned from cultivation into enriching the lives of the villagers.

Still, a British judge chastised them, saying the fact that they were doing charitable things with their money was likely only to “appease your consciences.”
Continue reading