Articles Posted in Marijuana Lawyer

It’s true that California law forbids those under the age of 21 from possessing marijuana, even small amounts.

However, police and even the courts appear to be routinely overlooking one fact: If you have a valid medical marijuana prescription, you are exempt, even if you are under the age of 21. It’s important to understand this because it’s more than a $100 citation – it will result in a one-year driver’s license suspension — and a conviction could have long-term consequences.

Even if you don’t have a valid prescription, it’s usually advisable to fight the ticket, as an experienced Los Angeles marijuana attorney can usually negotiate entry into a drug diversion program, rather than having the charge on your record and revocation of your driving privileges.

For patients who have a valid prescription, our attorneys have been successful at getting the case dismissed entirely, most recently on Sept. 10, 2012.

Our client had been cited for possession of marijuana of less than one ounce. Under California Health & Safety Code 11357(b), every person who possesses more than 28.5 grams of marijuana is guilty of an infraction punishable by a $100 fine – and a one year license suspension.

What many people don’t understand is that simply paying this fine, which admittedly is a nominal amount, is akin to pleading guilty, which means the license suspension will be automatic.

In this case, our client was cited for possession of marijuana, even though he had a valid prescription for the drug and even presented it to the officer immediately upon request.

However, the officer did not honor this prescription and cited our client anyway.

The patient suffered from severe migraine headaches, which is one of the specifically-listed conditions that the law permits for eligibility for access to medicinal marijuana. Under the state’s Medical Marijuana Program, overseen by the state Department of Public Health, other qualifying conditions include:

• AIDS;
• anorexia;
• arthritis;
• cachexia;
• cancer;
• chronic pain;
• glaucoma;
• persistent muscle spasms (such as those associated with multiple sclerosis);
• seizures;
• severe nausea.

It also includes any other chronic or persistent medical symptom or condition that substantially limits a person’s ability to conduct major life activities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or could cause serious harm to a person’s health or safety.

Our client in this case had tried other pain medications, and found the litany of severe side effects to be unbearable.

Although similar cases are often resolved in a plea bargain agreement, CANNABIS LAW GROUP Attorney Damian Nassiri pressed forward in taking this case to trial. While prosecutors contended the charge was valid, Nassiri brought in the client’s doctor to testify as to the patient’s medical condition.

The charges were dismissed.

Our client still has his driver’s license, and is free to maintain his medical routine without interference.

No one who seeks treatment of a medical condition should be treated like a criminal or fear prosecution. The fact that the certain members of law enforcement are not honoring this very basic provision is troubling. We are ready to fight back.

Call us to find out more about how the Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW GROUP can help you.
Continue reading

Remember not long ago when the City of Los Angeles was sending out letters to 1,700 medical marijuana dispensaries, ordering them to shut down in compliance with the recently-enacted ban?

The city knew that about 600 of those letters may have been duplicates or addresses of now-defunct shops.

But as Los Angeles marijuana lawyers have since learned, the actual number of shops is much, much lower.

In fact, the majority of the estimated 1,046 that the city had said were operating throughout the city at the time do not exist.

According to a study by the University of California in Los Angeles’ Luskin School of Public Affairs, only 472 of those locations were operational as of Sept. 4. The other 574 had either closed down or were never up and running.

Why does this matter?

Because the city made a huge deal about how marijuana dispensaries were out of control. There was one on nearly every street corner, they said. They were out of control, officials claimed – more marijuana dispensaries than there were Starbucks.

Now we learn that not only were those claims exaggerated – they were grossly exaggerated.

As voters are set to determine in March whether to repeal the dispensary ban, they need to be basing their decisions on actual truths – not hyped political rhetoric.

Researchers with the university set out to sift through the facts.

What they found, first of all, was that the city’s original numbers appeared knowingly inflated from the start. While they were claiming nearly 1,100 were in operation, the city’s finance list only reflected 875 unique locations. Of those, less than 765 were actually registered with the city.

The analysts took these lists from the city and personally visited each listed site within a matter of three weeks.

What they found was that the majority were not in business. Some had previously been dispensaries, but were no more. A large number had never even been dispensaries in the first place. Instead, researchers discovered that a number of the listed businesses had been other businesses for decades or were actually post office boxes.

Researchers spoke with the business owner at one of the listed addresses and told them that he had registered with the city, and he had planned to open a dispensary, but was only going to do so if he obtained a permit through the city’s permit lottery. However, as we now know, that never happened because the process was deemed illegal so it was never carried out.

In another case, there was one location listed five times, under five different names, on the city’s finance list.

While the city had claimed that a 2010 effort to ban most dispensaries caused the number to explode to more than 1,000, that actually never happened.

The reality is, researchers said, the number of medical marijuana shops is about equal to the number of bars in the city, and accounts for about 20 percent of the off-premise outlets that sell alcohol.

What all of this ultimately shows us is that the city’s argument that regulation efforts only seem to contribute to a growth in dispensaries is weak.

And at the end of the day, it’s also clear that the city hyped up the numbers to gain support for the ban – which may ultimately be deemed unconstitutional per state law anyway. But still.

The National Institute of Drug Abuse, who funded this study, had also earlier found no link between the density of medical marijuana dispensaries and the rate of crime.
Continue reading

In Murrieta, about 1.5 hours south of Los Angeles, city officials are grappling with whether to extend its year-long moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries in the city, as the law is about to expire next month.

Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that the city has actually never allowed dispensaries to operate there, per a ban it enacted years ago.

Now, why would a municipality need a moratorium when it already has a ban?

This case perfectly illustrates the legal confusion surrounding the issue of legalized medical marijuana in California. The issue here is whether the city is legally allowed to enact a ban. Recent case law suggests it can not.

In general, these cases are being decided on a dispensary-by-dispensary case.

For example, Riverside County has been going around in circles on the issue. You had a County Superior Court judge in May who ruled that if storefronts are operating in compliance of the state’s medical marijuana laws (as defined by Proposition 215 and the Medical Marijuana Program), then the dispensaries couldn’t be closed by simply declaring a public nuisance.

And then a judge denied the county’s request to shut down 16 storefronts within county jurisdiction, saying it was unconstitutional.

But then, an appellate court judge ruled that the county could shut down two of those dispensaries.

In San Bernadino County, a judge upheld the city of Colton’s dispensary ban, and even found one operator in contempt of court for remaining open despite orders to close.

Then in Los Angeles County, you had the blanket ban on dispensaries enacted back in December, but which was successfully removed on appeal in the Second District Court of Appeals, which determined the ban was preempted by state law in contrast with the intention of the legislature.

Then in the City of Los Angeles, you had the city council’s so-called “soft ban,” which essentially would have shut down store front operations, though it would have continued to permit patients and caregivers in groups of three to continue to grow the crops. That ban was put on hold before it was ever enacted, following the collection of enough signatures for a March ballot referendum effort to repeal it.

The list of similar cases goes on and on.

So it’s no surprise that Murrieta isn’t resting on the merits of its ban alone. The moratorium, officials have stated, is a way for them to ensure no dispensaries open in city limits. Of course, it hasn’t worked entirely, and there were two dispensary operators who initially challenged it in court. However, both of those locations have now shut down.

What it will ultimately come down to for cities like Murrieta is how the California Supreme Court decides. City officials have said they are waiting to see how the courts rule. If it turns out they will have to allow dispensaries, as we believe they will, at that point they will begin to draft regulations on how that will be carried out in their city.
Continue reading

It’s been a common refrain from municipalities and local governments throughout the state:

“We can’t offer regulation because, according to Pack v. Long Beach, to do so would be against the law, as it would condone drug trafficking, which is illegal under federal law,” they would say.

However, Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know this is no longer a valid argument, as the California Supreme Court has dismissed the appellate court’s decision, making it null and void.

This is likely to have a major impact regarding the legality of medical marijuana dispensaries as we move forward in this state.

Here’s why:

When California voters first approved the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes back in 1996, they became the first in the nation to do so. This meant there was no blueprint, no guideline for how such a transition should be made. That meant that any regulation of how marijuana was to be sold and used was left to local governments.

This is key because, considering that marijuana of any kind is still illegal in the eyes of the federal government, it was critical that the state at least appear to have a handle on sales.

Some municipalities did quite well. There are a number in the so-called “Emerald Triangle” that were lauded for the way they were able to keep a tight leash on the industry, and yet still provide quality product to patients and even boost tax revenues.

Others, like Los Angeles, were all over the place – first setting up regulations, then setting up a moratorium, then not enforcing it and then passing a ban and then rescinding the ban at the behest of voters who again want to take matters into their own hands.

And yet there were others that issued outright bans, saying that any other form of regulation, per Pack v. Long Beach, was against the law.

But now that the state supreme court has dismissed Pack v. Long Beach, the decision has been de-published. What this means is that attorneys aren’t able to cite it as valid law, and cities can’t rely on it in their reasoning for enacting bans on lawful dispensaries and neither can they say that local regulation of these facilities has legally been determined to be a violation of federal law.

What this means is that in those municipalities where bans are currently established, based on Pack v. Long Beach, may now be legally challenged, with a good chance of success.

Some other recent and important decisions include:

• The Second District Court of Appeal in California’s ruling on the County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medicinal Cannabis Collective, which ruled that such bans are unconstitutional and that medical marijuana dispensaries do have the legal right to operate under state law;
• The California Supreme Court’s affirmation of People v. Colvin, which essentially held that qualified patients can legally operate a storefront dispensary.

Continue reading

The state’s lack of uniform regulation on the medical marijuana industry, combined with a federal crackdown on dispensaries throughout California has certainly had an impact, though not the one authorities likely intended.

Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that more and more, dispensary operators are moving their sales underground, though some identify themselves as “mobile dispensaries.”

It’s not a move we can necessarily condone, as it may or may not be illegal even under the parameters of state law. But it is understandable, given the confusion over what the law actually is and the desperation that this lack of definition has created among patients and providers alike.

The Los Angeles Times recently profiled one such man who has worked the full spectrum of the industry: From an underground pot dealer in high school and college, to a full-time mortgage broker who had nothing to do with the industry to a registered, above-board dispensary, to now facing federal criminal charges and facilitating sales underground.

He says he tried to do it the right way. He was identified in the story only as “Ricky.” He said he tried to do it the right way. Although he never understood why marijuana was illegal while alcohol was not, he supported statewide regulation. But that never really happened. He now believes he set himself up for legal troubles by properly registering and following all local ordinances. He says its safer not to leave a paper trail.

That’s why, despite even now facing criminal charges, he has shifted his operations underground, growing a supply in his apartment and importing it from international dealers. Still, he does maintain standards, selling only to those who carry a legitimate prescription for the drug. He hopes this will work in his favor if he’s ever arrested again.

He believes in the drug and its medicinal value. That’s why he won’t stop.

But here’s the problem with “Ricky’s” theories: While understandable, they’re ill-informed. It is true that even as the Los Angeles City Council has backed off of its ban on dispensaries for now, federal prosecutors are continuing to crackdown. This means that dispensaries that remain open are, unfortunately, at some risk. But drawing up your own set of rules isn’t likely to stand up in a court of law if you are arrested for trafficking marijuana.

And here’s the reality:

Under federal law, marijuana is considered a Schedule I narcotic. As such, you’re facing anywhere from a few years to life in prison, depending on the amount you possess and the value of it.

So it’s honestly not worth taking the risk unless you can do so under the close advisement of an experienced Los Angeles marijuana attorney.

Many people who were conducting marijuana sales prior to the medicinal legalization were proud and relieved to be able to do it legally. It’s a shame that the issue has become so entrenched politically when it’s not about that – it’s about patient’s rights.

It is possible to run a successful dispensary and to avoid criminal penalties, but it’s important that you team up with someone who is familiar with the ever-evolving legal landscape.

Otherwise, it’s simply not worth the risk.
Continue reading

Sept. 6, 2012 was supposed to be the date that medical marijuana rights were effectively suppressed in the City of Los Angeles.

Instead, Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyers are hailing the “stay of execution,” as L.A. Weekly put it.

A letter had been issued to some 1,800 marijuana collectives throughout the city, containing a stern warning of swift and severe consequences for those dispensaries that remained open past the deadline. These consequences would have included fines of up to $2,500 each day, as well as property forfeiture and misdemeanor criminal prosecution carrying up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

All of this, of course, is in violation to California’s Constitution, as amended with the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

However, all of this was halted when it was recently announced that medical marijuana advocates throughout the city had rallied a deluge of support and gathered far more than the required 29,000 signatures needed to put the issue to a public vote in March. (In less than two weeks, they had obtained more than 50,000.)

Overturning a city referendum is extremely rare. The fact that this was done – and so quickly – proves the support the people of Los Angeles have for the rights of those who use and distribute medicinal marijuana. What this means is that the ordinance is effectively ineffective, pending the March vote, or unless the city scraps the ban and comes up with another plan.

Still, marijuana lawyers know this fight is far from over, and the latter possibility could prove equally contentious.

As such, the Cannabis Law Group has filed suit on behalf of one of those dispensaries, Collins Collective, in an effort to get a formal ruling on their rights and, hopefully, have the city’s ban declared unconstitutional.

As it fends off litigation, the city has one of a few options:

1. It can rewrite its ban so as to be far less sweeping;
2. It can brace itself for a very public fight leading up to the March election;
3. It can put the marijuana referendum to a special election, in which far fewer voters would be expected to turn out;
4. It could launch a crackdown on dispensaries in anticipation of any of these.

City councilman Paul Koretz is proposing a measure that would have the council withdraw its outright ban and go forward in allowing the city’s original 182 dispensaries to remain open. These were facilities that registered with the city prior to the moratorium enacted by the city in 2007.

Alternatively, council members could request the help of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, which views the sale of marijuana in any context a violation of federal law. In fact, marijuana is considered under U.S. law to be a Schedule I narcotic – one that is highly addictive and holding no redeeming medical purpose. That characterization would be comical if the federal authorities weren’t so serious.

While we can claim a temporary victory, this is a battle that is likely far from over.
Continue reading

CANNABIS LAW GROUP Attorney Damian Nassiri is taking a unique approach in the fight to defend one of Los Angeles’ dispensaries from closure: Targeting the L.A.P.D.

Other lawsuits have been filed on behalf of other collectives and dispensaries following the city’s decision to ban storefront medical marijuana facilities from operating under Ordinance No. 182190. However, none, until now, have taken on the police department.

The case is Collins Collective v. City of Los Angeles, LAPD.

The reason is because police officers, in violation of state law, threatened “severe repercussions” if the collective continued in their efforts to establish a storefront presence. This occurred on Aug. 13. while the plaintiff was in the process of constructing a location for its members to associate. Police officers stated that if the collective opened, they would forcibly shut down the collective and arrest the members.

The collective continued its efforts, and members were again visited by L.A.P.D. officers, who again threatened forcible closure and criminal prosecution.

Now, this is a collective that back in May, submitted its proposed articles of incorporation to the Secretary of State. On that same day, the state legally recognized Collins Collective as a medical marijuana, non-profit, mutual benefit organization founded with the specific purpose of growing marijuana and facilitating transactions for medically-qualified members.

The right of Collins Collective to operate is expressly spelled out in California’s Health & Safety Code section 11362.775.

The city, with the recent passage of Ordinance No. 182190 effectively established a ban on marijuana cultivation – despite its classification by city officials as a “gentle ban.” But as anyone who has ever attempted to grow marijuana will tell you, it requires an ample, dedicated growing location, specialized equipment and expertise. Most patients and caregivers, in groups of three or less, do not have the time, the resources or the overall ability to cultivate their own medicine. The contention here is that for all applied purposes, this is essentially a total ban, and as such, defies the California Constitution and the state’s passage of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

Just as with the other collectives throughout the city, officials have issued a “Medical Marijuana Business Letter,” indicating that failure to close will result in a court-ordered closure, fines of up to $2,500 each day, criminal prosecution with the potential for up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine and administrative action to padlock the property.

With this action, the defendants – both the city and the police department – have acted arbitrarily and capriciously in regulating business and land use in a manner that defies California state rights and benefits, as well as due process of law.

Collins simply wants the chance to serve its members and legally provide relief to legally-qualified patients in a manner that is protected by state law. The city’s ordinance – and the police officer’s threatened enforcement of those actions – conflicts with the general laws by in essence removing the rights of those individuals in the city who seek to obtain medicine which they need and which they are prescribed.

As such, the CANNABIS LAW GROUP is seeking the following remedies on behalf of Collins Collective:

• A temporary restraining order, followed by a preliminary injunction and ultimately a permanent injunction, that would prevent the city and its employees from enforcing the city’s ban against the plaintiff and its qualified patient members.
• A permanent injunction barring the city and the police department from taking criminal or civil action against Collins Collective.
• An order declaring that the city’s actions are not only invalid, but unconstitutional, in violation of Article I, Section 7(a) and Article XI, Section 7 of the state constitution.
• Award of costs and attorney fees.

Continue reading

Riverside County has been put on notice: Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer Damian Nassiri has filed suit against the county, on behalf of medical marijuana dispensary GRC Solutions, in Riverside Superior Court.

The action seeks an immediate injunction to lift the ban that would prohibit GRC Solutions from operating. While a ruling last month by a Superior Court Judge deemed the county’s measure unconstitutional with regard to state law, that ruling only applied to about a dozen dispensaries in the county.

Riverside County has relied upon Ordinances 348, 754 and 857 in an effort to effectively shut down medicinal marijuana collectives, co-operatives and dispensaries. These actions were taken despite the fact that they run contrary to state law, which allows marijuana for medical purposes as protected by California Health & Safety Code section 11362, as well as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and the statutory provisions provided by state legislature.

GRC has lawfully operated within the county of Riverside since September 2011. At that time, it was legally recognized by the State of California as a non-profit, medical marijuana mutual benefit corporation. It cultivates its own medicine with the help of its members and then redistributes the excess money and medicine to its membership. It remains exclusively available solely to qualified patients, and does not provide marijuana to the public. Additionally, the dispensary rejects qualified patients in order to limit its access to a very select group of patients – and therefore preserve its credibility within the community. It further underscores the fact that their goal is not securing a profit.

At no time did GRC violate state law, nor has anyone complained about the facility being a nuisance. Now, GRC has been summarily denied due process of law with the enacting of the county’s ban and the Aug. 2 issuance of a “Field Notice Violation” from the county.

This notice was classified as an advisement regarding illegal marijuana dispensary activity in Riverside County. The advisement stated that county Ordinance No. 348 expressly prohibits storefront and mobile marijuana dispensaries and that the county’s ban on medical marijuana clinics prohibits these facilities from operating within the municipal limits. The county demanded that GRC turn over its property to the government.

Article 1, Section 19 of the California Constitution requires that the government may only take over a property when just compensation is provided and when that property is for public use. The county has also sent letters to the dispensary’s landlord in an effort to have the operation evicted. With these actions, the county has unlawfully attempted to deprive GRC of its real property (on Highway 74) and its vested property rights.

Additionally, while the county maintains that GRC needs a valid business license and/or certificate of occupancy in order to operate, the county simultaneously bars the dispensary from applying.

What is happening here is a violation of the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 7(a), which prohibits the denial of equal protection to GRC – particularly considering similar action is not being taken against other dispensaries within county limits.

We are committed to fighting for GRC’s right to lawfully operate, and we will keep our followers posted as to the developments of this case.
Continue reading

A ruling by a Riverside County Superior Court judge has reversed an earlier decision that granted an injunction against a Rancho Mirage dispensary, which had opened prior to the city’s ban. The ban has since been ruled unconstitutional.

Los Angeles marijuana attorneys know that rulings like this are creating a great deal of confusion, as the one thing they all have in common is that they are conflicting. The hope is ultimately that the California Supreme Court will sooner than later take on this issue and provide clear direction for the rest of the state.

This case involved the Rancho Mirage Safe Access Wellness Center. The judge had initially granted a win for the city, and then, at the last minute, reversed that ruling, allowing the center to remain open. In the subsequent ruling, the preliminary injunction that had been placed against the facility was denied, and the temporary restraining order issued on Aug. 6 was dissolved.

City officials have said they don’t know which ruling is the correct one, but the dispensary is going by the most recent decision.

The city council there enacted a dispensary ban back in 2011. In October, a lawsuit resulted in the overturning of that ban. The city is appealing that decision, but the case is still pending.

The city took on the Safe Access center, saying that the operators didn’t have a business license or a certificate of occupancy – something that is required of all businesses in there.

When the judge first approved the city’s restraining order against the facility, the operators applied for permits.

Interestingly, when they did this, they videotaped the exchange between the applicant and the city employee. That video depicts the employee telling the applicant that the certificate of occupancy request would go through a separate process, and that it would involve the city attorney’s office. The employee added that it was not likely to be approved.

Attorneys for the dispensary indicated that this essentially amounted to fraud.

The judge didn’t specifically address the video in his ruling.

Code enforcement officials with the city inspected the property on which the dispensary operates, denying the occupancy certificate on the grounds that it did not have enough parking for customers who may be disabled. Of course, this is simply a stall tactic.

Representatives for the dispensary said they are happy to accommodate disabled customers, but that the structure was erected prior to the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1992, which means the standards for that are more lax.

The judge’s order allows the dispensary three months to fix any deficiencies that were cited.

In the Coachella Valley, Palm Springs is the only one that has approved a limited number of dispensaries for operation. All of the others in the area, including Riverside County, has outlawed them. However, that county ban was declared unconstitutional by a superior court judge in early August.

In Los Angeles, a city-wide ban on dispensaries has been suspended, pending the March 2013 ballot initiative (or the council’s repeal of its measure), after advocates were successful in gaining more than 50,000 signatures to put the issue to a local vote.
Continue reading

Marijuana advocates have gathered enough signatures to establish a March ballot measure to repeal city council’s recent ban on marijuana dispensaries in L.A.

Los Angeles marijuana attorneys understand that this effectively puts the city’s ban on hold, pending next year’s election.

Of course, it is dependent on the verification of signatures, but this is extremely likely, given that advocates only needed to collect about 27,500 – and ended up collecting more than 50,000.

This is a major victory for medical marijuana dispensaries, advocates and patients in that it allows them a reprieve from arrest or civil sanctions (at least at the local level) before the issue is put to a public vote.

The ban, which was enacted last month, was part of an effort to effectively shut down some 1,000 medical marijuana dispensaries throughout the city. The city council’s decision did allow for groups of three or fewer prescription-carrying patients to grow their own pot, which was dubbed a “gentle ban.” The problem with this is that cultivation of marijuana is an extensive and time-consuming process. If you’re very ill, as many marijuana patients are, it’s not an endeavor in which you’re likely to be successful.

Some advocates stated that they understood the need for some regulation, but the implementation of an outright ban not only defies state law, it inhibits patients’ rights.

The city clerk’s office will have 15 days to verify the signatures. If they are verified, the city council has another 20 days to decide whether they want to repeal the ban, or go ahead with placing the measure on the March 5 ballot.

Still, the clerk’s office has issued a statement saying that the signatures have been granted “conditional acceptance,” meaning that the ban is suspended, unless more than half of the signatures are deemed invalid – a highly unlikely scenario.

Most hope that the council will simply repeal the ban, given that 13 percent of the city’s population signed a measure just to get it on the ballot.

The ban was to officially go into effect on September 6.

City attorneys had issued notices to pot dispensaries throughout the area, indicating they had to shut down or face harsh daily fines and possible criminal penalties. Now, they are free to operate, although at least one city councilman has gone on record as saying that shops that profit from retail marijuana sales are still violating state law.

While the ban has been backed by the police chief and others, the referendum has been supported by a number of patients and advocacy groups, including the Greater Los Angeles Collective Alliance, which consists of dispensary operators who registered with the city before the 2007 moratorium was enacted, as well as the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 770, which began unionizing dispensary workers earlier this year.

In addition to this, at least two lawsuits have now been filed, one of those by Damian Nassiri of The Cannabis Law Group, challenging the ban.
Continue reading