Articles Posted in Marijuana Lawyer

For years, federal authorities seeking to suppress the inter-state marijuana trade were focused on the sparsely-patrolled areas of the Sierra Nevada desert.

However, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that in the past handful of months, their attention has shifted to the vast farmlands of California. They now say that these areas have become a hotbed of illegal growers, protecting their crop and trade with high-caliber weapons and toxic pesticides.

Authorities recently held a news conference, in which they announced that throughout this summer in California, they have made more than 175 federal and local arrests. They’ve seized more than 100 firearms, nearly 5,000 in cash and some 400,000 marijuana plants over hundreds of thousands of acres.

Those overseeing these operations say that these were not operations that were geared toward providing medical relief to legitimate patients. These were operations with ties to Mexican drug cartels intent on founding large-scale operations.

However, it’s worth noting we can expect to see a proliferation of these operations the more federal authorities attempt to bite back against legal storefront dispensaries.

Still, the numbers from this summer’s operation don’t appear to be anything earth-shattering. Consider what authorities seized throughout the state in 2010: 5 million plants on public land. Last year, there fewer than half that were found and destroyed.

It’s no surprise that growers are honing in on California. But it’s not for the reasons these authorities think.

As they themselves mentioned, it may have little to do with the issue of legalized, medical marijuana (which has been around for the last 15 years in this state) and far more to do with California’s temperate climate. This generally lends itself to a more productive yield.

The authorities say the individuals using public land (and sometimes portions of legitimate, private farms) to carry out these operations are attracting a criminal element. They set traps and post armed guards in the fields to deter thieves and investigators alike.

Investigators gave those growing the drug on legitimate farms two weeks to clear the drug seen growing on their farms, or else risk federal seizure of their land.

We certainly won’t doubt that authorities are having issues with illegitimate growers.

But here’s what many of these authorities are overlooking: There’s another solution. By legalizing and PROPERLY regulating the growth and trade of marijuana, we could boost tax rolls and improve public safety. If federal authorities have access to operations that may be legally conducting cultivation, we reduce the risk of illegal dealers muscling their way into the market.

Certainly, there is a need to control this element, but it comes with proper regulation of dispensaries that are trying to do above-board work.

Consider also the following:

• AlterNet reports that the country spends more than $1 billion every year to jail inmates on marijuana-related charges;
• Forbes reports that across the country, marijuana prohibition costs the nation nearly $42 billion annually;
• The marijuana crop in California is currently valued at $14 billion a year according to TIME Magazine;

Continue reading

As California, and Los Angeles right now in particular, wrestles with the issue of legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, some states are advancing to the issue of full-scale legalization of the drug.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand this would mean legalization of the drug for recreational purposes.

Right now, 17 states, including California, as well as the District of Columbia, have legalized marijuana for patients who have certain ailments and have a doctor’s permission to use it.

But voters in three of our neighboring states will be deciding this November whether to pass a full-scale legalization within state borders.

There’s a complicated back-and-forth that goes with this, and both sides bring legitimate points to the table.

One one hand, you have the pro-pot advocates, who say that this could be a major windfall for states that are cash-strapped and looking to cut major services, such as police, fire and education. Plus, these states could expect to see a significant reduction in the costs to incarcerate marijuana law violators, many of who are often locked up for non-violent, possession-related offenses.

In Denver, some advertisers are pitching it as an opportunity to create new jobs and generate money for struggling school districts.

On the flip side, even such a measure passes, the story is unlikely to end there. First, just look at the struggles California has endured with multiple rounds of legal battles and the establishment of potentially pricy bureaucracies that would be required to oversee the cultivation and trade.

In Colorado, state analysts are projecting tax boosts of somewhere between $5 million and $22 million annually. One pro-pot group even posits that it could generate as much as $60 million a year within five years.

In Oregon, you have a measure dubbed the Cannabis Tax Act. This would mandate that 90 percent of the funds generated from the sale of recreational marijuana would go directly into the state’s general fund coffers. There haven’t been any definitive estimates on how much this would hold down, due to the many variables, but it’s also estimated the state would save as much as $2.5 million each year in prison costs.

In Washington, the pro-marijuana campaign is promising that more than half of all the tax revenue would go to substance abuse prevention and research, as well as health care and education. Analysts there have said that as much as $2 billion could be raked in over the next five years.

While there are certainly many aspects to consider and legal kinks that will need to be ironed out, we need to consider whether our current status quo is working. A strong argument could be made that it isn’t, given that the majority of profits for recreational use are currently funneled to violent, underground drug cartels.

We don’t know at this point exactly how much money can be generated because, honestly, we don’t know exactly how many people are buying weed on the black market. Analysts are able to make a fairly educated guess based on arrest logs, but those are only going to show a fraction of the actual use. Plus, it doesn’t account for those who don’t use it now, because it’s illegal, but who might if they could obtain it without fear of arrest.

As we battle with our own issues in California, we’ll be watching how this issue unfolds in these nearby states.
Continue reading

Former President Bill Clinton says he didn’t inhale, but residents of his home state are one step closer to having that right.

Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that the Arkansas Supreme Court recently upheld a proposed ballot measure that if passed would make the state the first in the South to make medical marijuana legal.

Plus, Connecticut has just begun the process of implementing legalized medical marijuana access for those with debilitating medical conditions who apply to the state’s Department of Consumer Protection.

All of this makes the current federal crackdown on California dispensaries, most recently in Los Angeles, appear even more ridiculous. When you have even historically conservative states recognizing the value of access to marijuana for medicinal purposes, the federal laws begin to feel even more outdated and pointless.

So far, we have 17 states in the U.S. plus the District of Columbia that have legalized medical marijuana. Plus, Massachusetts voters are slated to decide on a measure in November that would allow it, as are voters in North Dakota.

Of course, it’s worth noting that top officials in Arkansas do oppose the idea, but legalization advocates have gained a groundswell of support in their grassroots efforts. Previous efforts to get a law like this in the books in the South have previously failed, but we do know that two cities there have approved measures that make possession of small amounts of pot a low-priority issue for local police.

Now, the group advocating the statewide measure won the right to place the issue on the state ballot after turning in way more than the required 62,500 signatures. This was no simple feat, and it’s indicative of changing attitudes with regard to medical marijuana. Partly, it may also have to do with the $250,000 spent by the Washington Marijuana Policy Project initiative to promote it. But raising awareness isn’t buying votes, and in the end, it will still be the will of the people that decides the outcome.

A powerful backer of medical marijuana legalization and education is Joycelyn Elders. She is the medical doctor who was at one time tapped by Clinton to be the surgeon general. She caught a lot of heat several years ago when she proposed that marijuana legalization was an issue that should be studied. Now, she says, if you provide people with the hard facts of legalization, they will support it.

If the measure in Arkansas passes, it would allow patients with certain conditions to obtain the drug with a doctor’s recommendation. Similar to the guidelines used in California, such conditions would include HIV, AIDS, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and glaucoma. Non-profit dispensaries would be allowed to sell it, though patients and caregivers who live more than a few miles away from those facilities would be allowed to grow it as well.

A coalition of conservatives had sought to block the measure from making it onto the November ballot, arguing the measure doesn’t address potential consequences of minors who are given the drug with parental consent.

However, the state Supreme Court justices disagreed, arguing that the conservatives were challenging the issue from a partisan basis, not a legal one.
Continue reading

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers are not surprised that federal authorities have now shifted their attention to Los Angeles.

After all, prosecutors at the federal level have already targeted numerous other communities across the state. Given the attention this issue has received recently, with the uproar over City Council’s so-called “gentle ban” and the subsequent backlash from community advocates seeking to repeal it, it was probably only a matter of time.

Still, it is nonetheless disappointing from an administration that promised not to expend valuable resources targeting lawfully-operating dispensaries in states where the practice is legal under state law.

Then late last month, just before City Council members voted to repeal that ban in an effort to avoid a March ballot measure, federal authorities raided a number of Los Angeles shops and issued letters to dozens more.

U.S. attorney’s office mouthpieces say this was their first, large-scale action in Los Angeles. But, they said, you can almost count on the fact that it won’t be the last.

One official was quoted as saying you can’t “do all of L.A. at once… There are too many stores.”

What does this mean for Los Angeles marijuana dispensary owners, particularly in the wake of the repealed ordinance?

It means at the local level, you’re safe for now. But this won’t necessarily stop federal authorities from attempting to level these operations, one-by-one. Despite promises at the outset of this statewide campaign a year ago, federal prosecutors aren’t just going after dispensaries that are complying with local and state laws. In some cases, they seem to simply make up reasons. For example, they shut down the Harborside Health Center in Oakland, after citing they were “too big.” This was despite any stipulation in local or state guidelines governing the size of marijuana operations.

Now in Los Angeles, federal prosecutors have so far filed civil asset forfeiture lawsuits against the landlords of three local dispensaries. Additionally, they raided several other outfits and sent warning letters to another 68 dispensaries, primarily those operating in downtown and in Eagle Rock. These facilities were given two weeks to comply with federal law.

Marijuana dispensary owners who have not sought legal representation up until now need to seriously consider it at this point. While there is no absolute guarantee of escaping the roving eye of federal prosecutors, there are some steps that can be taken to improve your chances of avoiding undue scrutiny. We can help.

In the meantime, it’s not likely the government would consider the following, but it’s worth it to taxpayers to consider:

Recent research released with the approval stamp of 300 top-level economists estimates that the U.S. government could save nearly $14 billion on marijuana prohibition enforcement. Now, this is not solely in Los Angeles or even California, and it covers all marijuana uses, including recreational. But considering not only the value of medical marijuana for chronically and acutely ill patients, as well as our current economic situation and the potential tax revenue that could be generated, this blind war on weed makes less sense the longer it drags on.
Continue reading

Rather than wage a battle at the polls next March, Los Angeles City Council voted Tuesday to repeal its recent ban on marijuana dispensaries.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that the 11-2 vote was in response to the nearly 50,000 signatures that were collected in an effort to hold a referendum on the so-called “gentle ban.”

Back in July, city councils adopted the measure that would effectively shut down storefront operations, while allowing small groups, limited to three patients and/or their caregivers, to grow the drug for personal use. The problem with the initiative was that many patients lack the time, energy, funds and expertise to properly grow the plant. So ultimately, despite its label as a gentle ban, the measure would have cut the supply to thousands who rely on Los Angeles marijuana dispensaries for their medicine.

The backlash was swift, and marijuana activists quickly secured far more than the required signatures needed to hold a vote to repeal the measure.

Now, that won’t be necessary.

So what does this mean for Los Angeles dispensaries and patients? For now, it means they can operate openly without the fear of being targeted by local authorities. However, it doesn’t necessarily protect them from the federal authorities, who have recently renewed their statewide crackdown here in Los Angeles.

Any dispensary that is currently operating without legal representation should secure the services of an experienced marijuana attorney immediately, as there are sure to be legal challenges on the horizon. It’s very unlikely that this will mark the end of the medical marijuana saga in Los Angeles, and it’s critical that dispensary owners protect themselves by consulting with a lawyer skilled in this area of law.

Councilman Ed Reyes, who had voted in favor of the ban in July, conceded in an interview after Tuesday’s vote that this was a “very confusing time” for everybody on all sides of this issue. He said there are those dispensaries that open and operate for all the right reasons, and according to the spirit and letter of state law. However, there are also those that operate solely for the purpose of seeking a profit, and it is these operations that end up putting communities at risk for crime.

His statement is of course contrary to recent studies showing that marijuana dispensaries do not have any effect on the crime rate. However, we can take his stance to mean that efforts by local authorities to regulate dispensaries are far from over.

The city’s ban targeted not only those 750 dispensaries that were registered with the city, but another estimated 250 more that are not registered.

According to Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy group, more than 175 cities in some 20 California counties have banned retail marijuana operations.

Part of the reasoning Los Angeles city officials gave for repealing this ban was the need for better guidance and instruction from state legislators. The judicial system has had a sort of schizophrenic response with regard to the issue, with conflicting rulings cropping up throughout the state.

Councilman Mitchell Englander called for clarity.

We expect the state’s Supreme Court at some point to address whether local municipalities do indeed hold the right to ban clinics under state law. However, a hearing date has yet to be established.
Continue reading

As the Los Angeles City Council gears up to decide whether to repeal the ban on medical marijuana dispensaries in the city, members of a local patients’ union are offering up alternatives.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that the Union for Medical Cannabis Patients has plans to present city leaders with a draft of two potential ordinances, in the hopes that one will be selected as a means for regulation without harmful restrictions.

The goal, the union says, is to avoid having the measure overturned by the courts or popular vote – which may happen if the council refuses to take action to withdraw the ordinance it adopted in July, banning all storefront medical marijuana facilities.

The first option is one called the “Preemptive Proof Ordinance.” This would be applied as an amendment to Section 1, Article 5.1 of Chapter IV of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. With the hope of proposing a measure that will avoid being targeted by further litigation, this measure is based on the treatment of lawfully operating marijuana dispensaries, as defined in People v. Colvin by the U.S. Appellate Court for the 2nd District earlier this year. It aims to balance the interests of legitimate patients with those legitimately-operating dispensaries as well as the concerns of the local residents and city officials.

This ordinance would prohibit the following actions by marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles:

• To operate in Los Angeles when the dispensary is part of a State Compliant Association;
• To operate a dispensary while failing to verify that each member is a California resident with a valid doctor prescription, ensuring that only qualified patients are registered members or maintaining proper records;
• To make a profit that is used for anything other than: rent, mortgages, property taxes, insurance, sales or income taxes, equipment, maintenance, repair, security, accounting, cultivation, tracking, salaries, legitimate travel expenses, subsidized patient counseling, legal defense, local charities, research and education;
• To fail to refund excess cash to members;
• To fail to maintain proper tax records;
• To display marijuana in the window;
• To allow entry by a minor without an accompanied parent or legal guardian;
• To operate between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 p.m.
• To sell alcohol;
• To allow marijuana to be consumed in a manner visible from the exterior;
• To illuminate its operation after-hour with lighting not necessary for security;
• To allow a manager to operate the facility who has prior felony convictions (annual background checks would be conducted);
• To operate within a 1,000-foot radius of a “sensitive use location,” such as a school or church;
• To fail to maintain standard building codes;
• To fail to have adequate nighttime security;
• To fail to allow LAPD officials on premises at any time;
• To have more than 100 members, unless the services of a mental health professional are also employed.

The other ordinance, called the State Compliance Ordinance, is much the same, except it would require all medical marijuana dispensaries to register with the city, maintain state compliant, pay appropriate taxes and city fees.

It’s laudable that these advocates are taking measures to self-regulate. It’s not the first time we’ve seen this from within the industry. Of course, it would have been more beneficial had the city chosen to adopt such measures several years ago.

It remains unclear whether such efforts will be adopted now, as it’s likely city leaders will want to wait for more clarification from state courts and legislators.
Continue reading

Too often in these bitter debates regarding the rights of marijuana dispensaries versus federal trafficking laws versus city council muscle-flexing, we forget one very important person: The patient.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that ultimately, this is the person to whom it comes down.

And in one case, it was a 5-year-old named Jayden, who suffers from epilepsy – a rare form called Dravet Syndrome.

Jayden’s father, a single parent, took their story to The Los Angeles Times in the hopes of shedding light on how this political tug-of-war is affecting him and his afflicted son.

Before this child reached his fifth birthday, he was pumped full of dozens of powerful anti-seizure medicines in an effort to control his epileptic episodes, which started when he was just a baby.

Dravet syndrome, which is also sometimes referred to as myoclonic epilepsy of infancy, is a form of epilepsy that starts with incessant febrile seizures, or those that occur during a fever. But they don’t get better. In between 30 and 80 percent of the cases, the seizures are caused by a genetic defect in the brain cells. It’s a condition that can inhibit the development of language and motor skills, and may also hinder interpersonal relationships and increase bouts of hyperactivity.

The episodes can be difficult to control, and Jayden’s father had tried just about everything. He said if his son wasn’t sleeping, he was having a seizure.

Then one day he heard about a local teenager who had been kicked out of school for using medical marijuana to tamp down the seizures.

Little more than a year later, the little boy has been taking droppers of a solution made primarily of cannabidiol, which is the second most powerful element in marijuana. However, unlike THC, cannabidiol is not intoxicating, so the young boy isn’t getting high.

What’s more, his medicinal intake has reduced from nearly two dozen pills down to four. He is able to down solid food. He will give his father kisses upon request (which he did not before). And he dances around the room.

Jayden’s seizures, his father says, have reduced significantly.

We know that medicinal marijuana has allowed us to make strides for patients suffering from a wide variety of ailments, including multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, anxiety, cancer and Alzheimer’s.

Studies on the application of the drug for child sufferers of epilepsy are few, but anecdotally, it seems to have worked quite well. Initial research suggests that marijuana acts as a powerful anticonvulsant. A study back in the 1970s of eight epilepsy patients found that when given large doses of cannabidiol, half became totally free of seizures while three others improved dramatically.

And we aren’t the first to discover it: the ancient Chinese had well-established cannabis as a treatment for epilepsy.

So when we start talking about fair access to medicinal marijuana, we need to remember for whom it is we’re really fighting.
Continue reading

It’s being called the “Green Gorilla in the room.”

The issue of medical marijuana has become a contentious one this political season, and one that many candidates are hoping to shy away from.

However, it doesn’t appear medical marijuana dispensaries can expect much support from the two Los Angeles County District Attorney candidates, Jackie Lacey and Alan Jackson.

Our Los Angeles medical marijuana attorneys had been closely watching the debates as the pair sparred in recent weeks at a number of debates in preparation for the November election.

Both are vying to replace the current Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley.

Lacey is Cooley’s chief deputy, while Jackson is the assistant head deputy in the agency’s major crimes division. The two have traded barbs, with Lacey saying her opponent is naive, while Jackson alleging his opponent is a bureaucrat who is out-of-touch.

In discussing the issue of medical marijuana, both candidates made no bones about it: Even if the City of Los Angeles decided to drop the currently-suspended “soft ban” on marijuana dispensaries, both candidates said they would continue to prosecute clinics.

This is important to note because while we’ve heard a lot about federal prosecutors cracking down on providers of medical marijuana, we have not heard as much with regard to local prosecutors.

The question was raised by an L.A. Weekly reporter, who moderated the debate. The candidates were asked whether they would continue to prosecute the owners of medical marijuana dispensaries, even if city voters repeal pot shop bans.

Both answered in the affirmative.

Lacey chimed in that over-the-counter sales of marijuana for money are illegal. Jackson, meanwhile, contended that “Those folks are simple drug dealers.”

It’s unfortunate that the only candidate options we have are both negative on this issue.

It’s in sharp contrast to the recent headlines made by the Butte County District Attorney, who effectively halted an ordinance there that would have prohibited outdoor cultivation of marijuana. Officials there had said that such venues were dangerous and created fire hazards. The District Attorney responded that while he was sympathetic to the efforts of county leaders, the measure was, in fact, unconstitutional under state law.

If history is any indication, the D.A. candidates may want to consider their position. Consider the following:

• In 2008, Massachusetts voters passed a measure to decriminalize marijuana and Michigan adopted the legalization of medicinal marijuana. Both got more votes than Barack Obama.
• In 2010, California voters handed victory to pro-pot laws Kamela Harris, over L.A. County District Attorney Steve Cooley, who staunchly opposed them.
• Earlier this year, an eight-term Democratic congressman suffered a landslide defeat – by a younger, inexperienced and pro-marijuana candidate;
• In May 2012, Oregon Democrats were given the option of two qualified state attorney candidates. Their only real difference? The stand on medical marijuana. guess who won.

Mainstream voters are increasingly recognizing the nuances of this issue. Candidates would be wise to heed their voices.
Continue reading

As the Los Angeles City Council mulls its next move with regard to the suspended marijuana dispensary ban, the editorial staff at The Los Angeles Times are weighing in on the issue.

It’s obviously a hot-button topic at the moment, but our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers felt that some of the views expressed by the paper’s editorial board merit some consideration by the council, as it grapples with the issue of what to do next.

The relationship between medical marijuana dispensaries and city officials wasn’t always so contentious. In fact, in the beginning, city officials welcomed the storefront shops.

But a few years later, the tone shifted. In 2007, the city tried to limit the proliferating numbers of pot sellers by imposing a moratorium and enacting further restrictions. Not only did it not work, but several dispensaries went after the city in court, alleging that a moratorium was unfair because state law granted allowance for such collectives.

Since then, we’ve had conflicting rulings across the state with regard to the rights of patients, marijuana dispensaries and government officials. Throughout that time, we’ve also seen an unprecedented number of raids on legal marijuana dispensaries by overzealous federal authorities.

So all this brings us to the recent decision made this summer by council, enacting a so-called “soft ban” on dispensaries. This measure would effectively close all storefront operations, but would allow small groups of patients and caregivers to continue to cultivate the drug for medicinal purposes. It was driven by the overturning of the regulatory Long Beach ordinance upon appeal, which held that the city couldn’t regulate marijuana shops because to do so would be to sanction illegal activity.

Los Angeles city leaders mistakenly believed a soft ban would go over better with the courts, and the court of public opinion.

They were sorely mistaken regarding the latter.

In lightning-fast time, medical marijuana advocates and supporters gathered a huge number of signatures in order to request a voter referendum to repeal the ban. That has resulted to the current suspension of the measure, and city council’s current dilemma.

And what’s more, they may still be open to numerous legal challenges under Proposition 215.

As the editorial board notes, this whole story might have turned out differently had the council initially put more effort into clear, well-drafted ordinances and strong enforcement measures.

But it’s too late fr that now. It’s simply not sensible, considering the number of people who now rely on cannabis for legitimate, medical purposes. Having experienced the benefits of this natural remedy to a wide range of ailments, attempts to strip access to the drug at this point are going to fail pretty miserably. (The fact that advocates gathered as many signatures as they did in the time frame they did is further evidence of that.)

But even if voters did back the council’s ban, how does the city plan to enforce it? Previous efforts have been spotty, at best. Plus, the ban, as it’s written, makes the city vulnerable to legal challenges.

What the editorial board suggests is that council members return to debating the issue and come up with a solution that could regulate the dispensaries and simultaneously offer a plan of how they intend to enforce it.
Continue reading

We may want to hold off on the celebrations, following the announcement that enough signatures had been gathered to put the L.A. pot shop ban to a vote.

Los Angeles marijuana lawyers – along with everyone else – had been told that upon certification of that ballot measure (that is, the verification of enough signatures) we could expect the city’s efforts to shutter dispensaries was effectively on hold.

Apparently not so.

The city attorney’s office is now doing an about-face, saying that it will continue to flex its government muscle and move toward shutting down dispensaries.

Marijuana activists had hoped that the fact that the measure had qualified would be enough to force city leaders to rethink the “soft ban” they had enacted, which effectively stripped storefront dispensaries of the right to operate in the city limits – a clear violation of state law. As some activists had said, they were prepared to put the issue to a vote, but they hoped city officials would take the message to heart before it came to that.

That hasn’t happened.

City officials say that even though the ordinance has technically been suspended, they have found a loophole: the city’s municipal code does not accept “medical marijuana” as an approved use of land. Therefore, officials said they would continue their efforts to shut down pot shops in the city.

The ban prohibits the sale of marijuana in storefronts, but does allow small groups of three or smaller to grow and share the drug. That’s why it’s been called a “soft ban” as opposed to “hard ban,” but the fact is, it would effectively shut down the availability of the drug because it is an extremely demanding plant to grow properly. Chronically or terminally ill patients don’t likely have the skill, the resources or the time to do it.

The referendum, which if approved would repeal the ban, required about 27,500 signatures in order to qualify for the March ballot. The city clerk’s office has since reported that statistical analysis of the signatures submitted indicates activists turned in 110 percent of the amount needed to qualify.

That has meant the city council has three options:

1. Repeal the ordinance, and consider replacing it with a modified version;
2. Hold a special election, in order to have the matter decided sooner;
3. Put the measure on the March ballot, at which time voters will also be choosing their city attorney, city controller, mayor and eight council members.

One city councilman has said another option he and his colleagues may consider is to draft the city’s own ballot measure, which would compete with the one activists have created.

He said it was unlikely the council would simply fold to the requests of the activists, saying that would be akin to “throwing in the towel,” something he said he is not willing to do.

So what we are left with in the meantime is something marijuana dispensaries have become quite used to in California over the last year: uncertainty.

What we do know is this: California voters intended for marijuana to be safe and accessible to those who need it.

If you are a dispensary owner or activist in need of legal assistance, please contact our firm.
Continue reading