Articles Posted in Marijuana Lawyer

A somewhat novel approach is being made to target the local medical marijuana bans that have been made in various cities across the state – this one in San Bernadino.

While our Los Angeles medical marijuana lawyers question whether it will be successful, it’s of course noteworthy that those who advocate for patients rights are fired up and willing to continue the fight against these unjust restrictions.

In this case, a lawsuit filed in San Bernadino Superior Court claims that the local ban on dispensaries and outdoor growing that was passed in March of last year is in direct violation of the state’s Environmental Quality Act. The suit was filed by an attorney in Riverside, who is also the director of the Crusader for Patient’s Rights. According to a story on Southern California Public Radio, the attorney indicates that she’ll be basing part of her argument on recent scientific evidence indicating the carbon footprint of medical marijuana accounts for approximately 1 percent of all electricity use in the country. What this does, she claims, is highly increase the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted – which is bad for the environment. Not only that, she claims that marijuana that is grown indoors lacks the quality of that grown outside.

The state’s EQA, which was passed in 1970, mandates that there be a full analysis of the potential environmental impact of any development that is proposed. So what does that have to do with the local ban?

Prior to the ordinance banning outdoor grow operations, people implored the local government to reconsider, saying that they would be forced to consider some difficult alternatives, including the possibility of growing the plant indoors. There is a cost to the environment there, as well as the additional burden placed by vehicles traveling back and forth to Los Angeles to get their medicine there. Times that by the nearly 90,000 patients with a prescription for cannabis in San Bernadino County, and the environmental impact does seem steep.

The 58-year-old marijuana lawyer from Riverside is also a patient, having been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, according to the radio station.

She maintains, rightly, that Americans have a right to seek herbal remedies over pharmaceutical ones.

At a scheduled hearing on the matter, she requested supporters don green ribbons to show the judge “the faces of medical marijuana.”

Local government officials who backed the ban say they don’t believe that this suit will be successful, and say that neighborhoods are better off without the dispensaries. Of course, that all depends on who you ask. If you’re a patient suffering from chronic pain or some other ailment, you would likely not say life is better now that you must travel over an hour away to get your medicine.

While her argument about environmental impact may be technically accurate, the judiciary may view it as a stretch.
Continue reading

Federal authorities arrested six individuals at marijuana dispensaries in Riverside and San Bernadino, as part of the assault on the medical marijuana industry in recent months.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers, who also represent clients in Riverside, Orange and San Bernadino, were dismayed to hear that yet another sweep has been made an industry that California voters have already approved.

We also know that it’s risky for the government to press criminal charges against those in this industry, namely because it isn’t popular. But what’s more, if you have an experienced marijuana lawyer at your side, their chances of a successful prosecution dwindle.

In this case, the six people facing charges worked at three stores in the San Bernadino and Riverside area. They include the founder/owner of G3 Holistic Stores, which has locations in Moreno Valey, Colton and Upland. Those locations were ordered by the federal government to be closed last year. Additionally, several workers were arrested as well.

Agents have filed federal drug possession and conspiracy charges against the six individuals.

At their first appearance in the U.S. District Court, none entered a plea – innocent or otherwise. That’s fairly common, as it’s possible they may not have had a chance to speak with an attorney. Just as in every other criminal case, it’s important if you are arrested for a marijuana-related offense to give no statement until you’ve had an opportunity to consult with your lawyer. Even an offhand remark can be used against you. You have a right to remain silent – use it.

While federal authorities have unleashed a wide range of tactics in attacking marijuana dispensaries – including threatened forfeitures and limited banking and tax services – criminal prosecutions haven’t been heavily relied upon. In fact, this is only the second in the Los Angeles area since the crackdown began in October. As we mentioned, not only is it unpopular, the government also risks failure and it’s also highly expensive – a lot more so than the other, civil tactics they so often employ.

However, this criminal case stems from failure to heed prosecutors’ demands to close last year. While several G3 stores did close, at least one remained open.

Court documents indicate that the Internal Revenue Service launched an investigation of the center after finding nearly 20 bank accounts associated with the business and two of its subsidiaries. Prosecutors allege that deposits totaling an estimated $3.5 million during an eight-month time frame last year. Additionally, there was a nearly equal amount that was withdrawn. Prosecutors say this was done in an effort to maintain a false perception that the center was a non-profit organization.

However, the truth of the matter is that state law has become such a hodgepodge of varying municipal rules, individual case law and just general inconsistency that it’s difficult for dispensaries to know what they are allowed to do and what they aren’t.

The six individuals arrested face a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison and a possibility of a maximum life sentence.

In these cases, you absolutely can’t take your chances on an attorney who lacks experience.
Continue reading

At this point, it isn’t surprising that the federal government is employing every possible tactic to exert power and shut down Los Angeles marijuana dispensaries.

Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that the latest, and one of the most successful, has been the U.S. Justice Department’s pursuit – or threat of pursuit – of landlords who rent to these operations.

We all know that while legalized in California, medical marijuana is still seen as illegal in the eyes of the federal government under the Controlled Substances Act.

But then why take the back road to this by threatening landlords with forfeiture proceedings, as they did recently to 35 property owners in the Los Angeles area? Analysts believe it has a lot to do with not wanting to go after dispensaries and their owners in criminal court, partly because it’s so expensive and partly because there is a good chance they’ll lose.

Plus, it’s not very popular. Criminal charges tend to bring a lot of press, and people see it as an attack not only on the will of the people, who approved marijuana for medicinal purposes back in 1996, but also an affront to ill patients.

In fact, a recent Gallup poll indicated that more than 50 percent of U.S. citizens favor full legalization of marijuana, while another 70 percent want to ensure it is available for medicinal purposes.

A forfeiture proceeding is a relatively quite way for the government to pressure a landlord to shutter the shop, or else possibly have their property seized, according to a rarely-used law that allows the government to take control of assets obtained through drug trafficking.

It’s a tactic reminiscent of what’s been done with banking services. As we previously reported in our Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer Blog, banks have been pressured not to sustain accounts with marijuana businesses, lest they risk federal money laundering charges.

Still, marijuana dispensaries have found legal ways around this, and they will continue to find legal ways around the forfeiture proceedings – so long as they are equipped with an aggressive and experienced marijuana attorney who is well-versed in the law and committed to protecting their rights.

Given that these tactics are being utilized by prosecutors at each of the four U.S. attorneys’ offices in the state, it’s clear that this is uniform policy, rather than a single prosecutor who is making a power play.

The forfeiture letters mailed out recently to nearly three dozen dispensaries gave those landlords a two-week deadline to comply.

It’s troubling that the statute that prosecutors are basing this all on has been historically used to take property belonging to drug traffickers – not legally-operating business owners. The move is especially concerning because if it is widely successful here, there’s no question the federal government will begin applying it to enforcement in other states as well.

Another reason this method is likely to gain popularity is because when compared to a criminal prosecution, a civil forfeiture action is far less costly and burdensome on the Justice Department.

Having an experienced marijuana lawyer on your side is going to be critical to protecting not only your assets, but your rights.
Continue reading

It’s a misconception that Los Angeles marijuana dispensaries are breeding grounds for crime – and science now proves it.

The study, published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, indicated that economics, a younger population and commercial zoning actually had far more to do with higher crime rates than pot clinics.

Marijuana lawyers have heard all the arguments for why these places are dangerous from federal prosecutors, local law enforcement and others trying to justify the recent crackdowns on these lawful and valuable facilities.

Among those arguments are:

• Clinics sell a product that is highly attractive to criminals;
• Most dispensaries only operate on a cash-only basis, and the presences of large amounts of cash tends to be a draw to potential thieves;
• Most marijuana patients carry cash in order to complete their purchase;
• Many clients, due to their illness, are in a weakened state and may be less likely to fight off potential attackers.

But these theories don’t pass muster when we start to dig a little deeper. Just on the surface, consider that the reason most dispensaries operate with cash is because many operators can’t find banks willing to maintain their accounts. Why is that? Because of the federal crackdown. Banks have been instructed by the feds that handling receipts from the sale of marijuana could violate laws on money-laundering. But if you eliminate that threat, you rid yourself of about half of these potential problems.

Now when you look at Europe, there is this perception of so-called “hash clubs” as being a central location for criminal enterprises. The California Police Chiefs Association put out a statement recently saying that dispensaries would essentially sell to anyone and that there will be inevitable ties to gangs and multimillion dollar profit centers, rife with barrels of cash and the crime that comes along with that, from robbery to murder.

The truth of the matter is: We haven’t seen that.

And what’s more, this new study, which was conducted by the University of California in Los Angeles’ Luskin School of Public Affairs.

For the purposes of their study, the researchers looked solely in Sacramento, where dispensaries had been operating for more than six years before there were any municipal regulatory policies in place. The social scientists mapped the roughly 40 clinics in the city and classifying the neighborhood they were already in, whether there was a large proportion of single-parent households or families living below the poverty line, higher numbers of young men, vacant homes, easy access to the freeway and other aspects that are often associated with high crime rates.

They then cross-referenced crime data in the city for 2009. Was there a relationship between the dispensaries and the thefts, robberies and other crimes?

Unequivocally, no.

In fact, it was those socioeconomic and other factors mentioned above that were a far greater determinant of whether a neighborhood was plagued by crime.
Continue reading

Los Angeles marijuana dispensaries have scored an important legislative victory, which could result in getting the federal government off their backs.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers have been closely following the developments as they unfold with regard to Assembly Bill 2312. This is the bill that would initiate state government regulation of the marijuana industry.

Now, on the surface it may seem puzzling that marijuana advocates would welcome more regulation, given the incessant assault the industry has sustained since October, when the federal government began its crackdown of dispensaries throughout California.

The whole issue has led to a mish-mash of conflicting decisions handed down by various state courts, leaving both municipalities and dispensaries unsure of whether they are on the right side of the law.

A big part of the solution could be state regulation. Of course, California voters approved medicinal marijuana back in 1996 – making us the first. However what that also meant was that we didn’t have a precedent for what would work and what wouldn’t. It left the issue of how to regulate up to local governments. And that turned into a disaster well before the feds initiated a crackdown under federal law.

Other states have approved marijuana for medical use, and in doing so, established a state regulatory agency. What this did was create very clear-cut guidelines about what was expected of dispensaries. That kind of regulation cuts down on fraud and illegal sale, it also tends to keep the federal government at bay.

So that brings us to Assembly Bill 2312. The measure was approved by the assembly in a vote of 41 to 28. This is a bill that would regulate the entire industry – from drivers to growers to quality control in labs.

If passed, Assembly Bill 2312 would create the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Enforcement, which would be a division of the Department of Consumer Affairs. It would essentially be a nine-member board that would oversee California’s medical marijuana industry. It would approve or deny licenses for sale, growth and transport of medical marijuana, provided to patients who have been approved for use by a physician prescription.

Now, one drawback to the way the bill is currently worded is that it does not prohibit a local government from banning dispensaries in their district. As the law was previously worded, one dispensary had to be allowed for every 50,000 residents unless voters in a given district decided otherwise. However, in order to get the minimum votes from Democrats (no Republicans supported the bill), backers had to concede this requirement.

The bill would allow both cities and counties to impose a sales tax of up to 5 percent on sales of medical marijuana – which could be huge for municipalities that are struggling, especially considering the industry in California is estimated to be valued at some $1.5 billion.

Some, however, contend that Assembly Bill 2312 isn’t specific enough – not nearly as specific as Colorado, which requires all medical marijuana workers to hold a license, maintains a statewide patient database and mandates video surveillance of every transaction.
Continue reading

Of all the issues that surround the debate about medicinal marijuana in Los Angeles, perhaps the one that carries the most weight is the one that has to do with the rights of patients.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that at the core of that are all of the amazing things that cannabis can do to alleviate an ever-widening range of ailments. More and more, studies are showing that the benefits of this drug are far-reaching, and the greater number of medical conditions we can show that it treats, the greater the weight of public support and the legal arguments we make to keep it legitimate.

Previously on our Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyers Blog, we’ve reported on the benefits for everyone from cancer patients to migraine sufferers. Now, there is a new study out indicating that those with schizophrenia may benefit from a marijuana prescription as well.

According to Time Magazine, German researchers at the University of Cologne studied a group of schizophrenia patients who had been admitted to the hospital after suffering a psychotic episode. Of those, 48 percent were treated with a drug called amisulpride. This is a drug that is not approved for use in the U.S., but is pretty similar to some that are fairly standard here for treatment of psychotic episodes. The other 52 percent of subjects were treated with cannabidiol (also known as CBD), which is a compound found in marijuana which is believed to be at the root of its anxiety reducing, calming effect. This is different than THC, which is the main substance in marijuana. THC has actually been found to worsen the effects of schizophrenia. But in previous testing with both humans and animals, it seemed as if CBD might work well as an antipsychotic.

So in this study, the researchers made sure that neither the doctors or the patients knew which substance the patients were receiving. In the end, all of the patients showed marked improvement in their psychological well-being. There was no difference between those who were given the marijuana substance and those were given the other prescribed drug.

Now, one might ask why then wouldn’t we just use the approved antipsychotic drug, thereby avoiding any of the controversy that surrounds the marijuana-as-medicine debate? It comes down to side effects.

CBD did everything the amisulpride did – without the common and severe side effects that are known to accompany it and other antipsychotic drugs.

What kind of side effects are we talking about? For starters, antipsychotic medication has been known to cause severe and sometimes permanent movement disorders. They can also inhibit a person’s pleasure receptors. Additionally, they have been closely associated with obesity and diabetes.

The German study indicated that while the benefits were seen by patients using both substances, only those taking the amisulpride suffered from weight gain and movement problems. Those who took CBD did not.
Continue reading

When it comes to doctor-prescribed, medical marijuana in Los Angeles, an overwhelming majority of voters in California – 80 percent – support legalization and accessibility.

Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand they are less sure when it comes to legalization for recreational purposes, but at least for now, the focus is on defending the decision they already approved back in 2006.

A recent voter survey was conducted by the USC Dornsife and the Los Angeles Times was intended to measure the evolution of voter attitudes since Proposition 19 was struck down two years ago. That measure would have legalized use of marijuana for recreational purposes.

Those who were in favor of broad decriminalization were at 46 percent. While this isn’t obviously a majority, it’s certainly not a resounding “No” vote either.

In fact, the margins are still pretty similar to what they were two years ago.

It’s important to note, however, that given the 80 percent support for marijuana as medicine, it’s clear the federal government in its crackdowns on marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles and elsewhere is not acting in accordance with the will of the people.

Back in October, a Gallup poll showed that 50 percent – exactly half – of all Americans supported the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. That was the first time that many had supported such a measure since the agency began posing the question in 1969. During that year, just 12 percent said they supported it. Meanwhile, another pollster, Rasmussen Reports, showed that nearly 60 percent of registered voters wanted to regulate the sale of marijuana in the same way that tobacco and alcohol are regulated.

Those kind of voter responses have emboldened advocates in Washington and Colorado to get legalization measures on the next November ballot.

Political analysts have surmised that many California voters do believe in the Compassionate Use Act (the 1996 law that legalized pot for medicinal purposes). However, many are concerned that there may be widespread abuses.

That perception likely hasn’t been helped by the federal prosecutors, local law enforcement and politicians at both the county and city level that have been fighting dirty in trying to shut down legal dispensaries. Courts have come up with conflicting opinions. Some councils have tried (and are still trying) to enact bans. Others are going after those that have opened near schools or daycare centers.

That’s really just the beginning.

This poll, however, which was taken between May 17 and May 21 of some 1,000 registered California voters indicated that while about three percent used marijuana medicinally, nearly 40 percent said they had used marijuana for recreation at least at some point in their lives. Almost 10 percent said they had done so within the last year.

The question of legalization also seems somewhat drawn along party lines, with about 30 percent of Republicans in favor, compared to 50 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of Independents.
Continue reading