Cannabis Law Group's Medical Marijuana Legal Blog

Orange County Marijuana Lawyers: Dispensaries Frozen Out by Bankers

Fri, 11 May 2012 13:59:59 -0600

Orange County marijuana lawyers know there are many ways that marijuana collectives have come under fire in recent months.

Namely, of course, there has been the federal crackdown, and countless municipalities have been enacting bans or moratoriums so as not to draw the ire of the feds.

Now, there may be a new enemy of Orange County medical marijuana: banks.

If a recent report in the Seattle Times in Washington is any indication, this is expected to be a growing problem.

The example given in the story is of a cooperative that is well established in the industry, has three store front locations and a loyal base of customers. The problems is that in the last two years since it opened, it hasn't had regular access to a bank.

In fact, it has ping-ponged from one bank to the next - five in all. Another four outright rejected the company's business. In one instance, a bank simply closed the company's account without notice. What was worse, they didn't even tell the business owners about it - they simply froze the accounts and no one was aware of a problem until checks started bouncing.

For a lot of dispensaries, these types of conundrums may be universal. When collectives and dispensaries can't find a bank, they end up operating mostly in cash. And when that happens, not only does it make tax preparation and payroll a huge headache, the marijuana dispensaries become a target for robbery and theft.

Not only that, but it becomes a problem for patients, who are forced to pay for their medicine in cash. Often, ATMs are placed in the lobby of these sites.

To try to circumvent some of these problems, some dispensaries have tried the tack of changing their names to something that is a little more euphemistic - like a healing center - when they're trying to open a bank account.

Part of the problem is that in the same way that the federal government has warned cities and counties against any activity which would appear to sanction any action which would appear to violate federal law, banks have also been instructed that handling receipts from the sale of marijuana could violate laws on money-laundering.

The National Cannabis Industry Association says it's likely that about half of all dispensaries across the country don't have a bank account. He calls this a threat to the industry, and says some groups are pushing Congress to alter the IRS code and banking law so that the legitimacy of the industry - estimated at nearly $2 billion - will be recognized.

Our Orange County medical marijuana lawyers understand that this may be one way the movement could gain legal sanctuary, so we very much support these efforts.

When reporters pressed the banks for comment, only one responded, saying that the industry is considered a risk and an uncertainty, and that it was not considered in the best interest of the bank to enter into a business contract with medical marijuana businesses.

Federal law doesn't expressly prohibit banks from working with Orange County marijuana dispensaries and collectives, and the attorney general told Congress late last year that his office wouldn't make it a top priority to prosecute banks who did so.

But then again, we've heard that promise before.

Orange County Medical Marijuana and Migraines

Wed, 09 May 2012 13:05:40 -0600

Our Orange County marijuana lawyers know that the benefits of medical marijuana have been widely touted for cancer patients and those struggling with chronic pain.

Medical marijuana is by far a better alternative than the dangerous cocktail of highly-addictive prescription opiates and other drugs that are often prescribed for these ailments.

But one illness we don't often talk about is migraines, and how medical marijuana can ease the symptoms of these often debilitating headaches. A recent opinion piece, written by Dr. Joseph Michelson and published by The Orange County Register, talked a great deal about how medical marijuana is helping patients get back to living normal lives.

Michelson addresses the issue from a very personal standpoint: His wife suffers migraines. He says that to call such episodes "headaches" is a monumental understatement. A lot of migraine patients, he said, have described the feeling as akin to being "shot in the head with a hot bullet." It's also often accompanied by vomiting, nausea, and sometimes even seizures. Additionally, the conditions brings on an intense sensitivity to light, forcing the patient to stay secluded in a dark room for hours on end until the episode passes.

Being a medical doctor, Michelson gets down to the nitty gritty of it, which is basically that the root cause of migraines is a spasm of brain blood vessels. While there are other prescribed medications that can help, medical marijuana works to not only relieve the headache, but also calm the patient, who is often in the throes of agony.

As our Orange County marijuana lawyers know, marijuana is available in pill form, called Marinol. However, many patients report that it doesn't work as well as when marijuana is consumed in an edible form, like a cookie, soft drink or brownie. Michelson advises against smoking it, as smoking can be a migraine trigger.

Michelson shakes his head at the fact that the greater medical community has not embraced medical marijuana as a useful and legitimate drug. He goes on to say that it's been used for hundreds of years to ease the pain and symptoms associated with everything from childbirth to arthritis.

He balks at the notion that federal approval of marijuana for medicinal purposes will facilitate the illegal drug trade. He notes that when California's state laws are followed, as they most often are, a marijuana grower is licensed the same way patients are. He said that because there is a healthy supply of medical marijuana from Orange County dispensaries, and dispensaries throughout California, there would be no need to go to an underground dealer.

He says that the federal government first gave the drug a bad wrap back in the 1930s, by classifying it alongside such drugs as codeine and morphine. But the truth of the matter is, marijuana is not addictive. What's more, a large number of the pain medicine that is considered legitimate - i.e., Vicodine, Soma, etc. - is very addictive, and often leads to prescription drug abuse.

Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyers: An Eye Toward Connecticut

Wed, 09 May 2012 11:54:27 -0600

Los Angeles marijuana lawyers have been watching with interest the developments originating in Connecticut, which became the 17th state (not including D.C.) which has legalized medical marijuana.

Even though using medical marijuana in Los Angeles has been legal since 1996, our state has been plagued by problems, particularly in recent months as the federal government has staged a huge crackdown affecting dispensaries and patients throughout the state.

Medical marijuana dispensaries in other states, including Washington and Colorado, have also suffered as a result of the discrepancy between state and federal law, which bears that even marijuana for medical purposes is illegal.

However, a recent Associated Press story appears to indicate that Connecticut may have put some measures in place with its new legalization law that may potentially help it avoid the same federal wrath.

What Connecticut has reportedly done is go further than any other state in regulating the drug. With the new law, marijuana can be sold in multiple forms at local dispensaries. Each of those dispensaries have to have a licensed pharmacist on staff. It would be sold and marketed only to patients who are given a prescription to use it. And then it takes it a step further by specifically outlining the medical conditions for which use of the drug is approved and also sets up a registration program for not only patients, but also their caregivers. Cultivation would be strictly conducted only by growers who have a state-issued permit.

The difference in regulation between our state and Connecticut was the way in which medical marijuana legalization became law. Here, voters approved the measure through a ballot initiative in 1996. That meant that when the measure became law, there weren't comprehensive restrictions and state-imposed regulations. That meant that it was left up to local governments to decide how to regulate.

On the flip side, Connecticut's law was passed by the legislature, with an extensive plan for regulation.

That's meant that other states, like Colorado, have taken steps to increase restrictions, and hopefully avoid federal scrutiny.

Still, as California knows from experience, this doesn't exactly make them fool-proof safe from aggressive U.S. attorneys. A letter from U.S. Attorney David Fein indicated that while the federal government didn't plan to go after sick patients who use medical marijuana, they would go after those who manufacture and sell the drug.

Gee, how benevolent of them.

Still, there may be some wisdom to be gained from the examples set by other states. While California was a trailblazer of the movement - the first state in the country to legalize medical marijuana - it certainly hasn't perfected the laws.

Imposing those types of restrictions won't necessarily mean an elimination of problems for medical marijuana dispensaries and patients. Maybe, though, it's something lawmakers could consider, as a means to more uniformity and perhaps, fewer headaches.

Anaheim Pot Dispensary Near School Comes Under Fire

Mon, 07 May 2012 12:27:56 -0600

Our marijuana lawyers have been watching closely the developments involving an Anaheim pot dispensary that is at risk of being forced to close its doors, due to its proximity to a school.

School administrators speaking to reporters from the Orange County Register have cited concerns that the medical marijuana dispensary's location violates state law, adding that they feel it's a bad influence on the students who attend the at-risk school.

Our Anaheim marijuana lawyers understand that the dispensary, which is on Katella Avenue inside a strip mall, is near an ACCESS program, which is for students between the ages of 13 and 18 who are considered at-risk, in some cases having grappled with alcohol and drug abuse issues. The entrance to the pot dispensary is within 100 feet of the school doors.

As of October 2010, California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.768 prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries from opening within 600 feet of a school.

That seems fairly straightforward. But what could make this somewhat tricky is that ACCESS is in not a traditional school and it is in an unconventional location. School officials insist that the same laws should apply. The dispensary, which displays the traditional symbol of a green cross, alongside a green cartoon house with a smoking chimney, has been operational for about six weeks.

Officials with the school have been working with their legal team to help shut it down. The principal has been quoted as saying that students who have displayed particular problems with drug abuse in the past could be particularly distracted by having the dispensary so close. He added that there are plenty of other places in Anaheim where it could operate.

State officials appear to agree with the school, underscoring that dispensaries have to maintain a 600-foot distance from schools. However, the enforcement of these operations is generally left up to the local policing authority.

Police officials in Anaheim said they know about the controversy and are exploring the legal options, but they haven't taken any steps at this point to shutter its doors. That may have something to do with the fact that the City of Anaheim is embroiled in a legal suit right now over its city-wide moratorium which bans all marijuana dispensaries within city limits. It's a high profile case, and officials seem to be waiting on the outcome of that case before taking any further action against Anaheim medical marijuana dispensaries.

A man who answered the door at the business said owners were exploring their options with an Anaheim marijuana lawyer, but wouldn't discuss the site's future plans.

A patient of the storefront dispensary defended its operation near the school, saying that high school students - even those considered at-risk - are mature enough to understand the difference between illicit and medicinal use.

Garden Grove Marijuana Lawyers Dismayed by Police Announcement

Fri, 04 May 2012 12:05:36 -0600

Garden Grove marijuana lawyers were disappointed to hear of a request filed by city officials, asking for help from federal authorities to shut down marijuana dispensaries.

In fact, police officers are appealing to the same authorities who raided Costa Mesa marijuana dispensaries earlier this year, asking them to do the same here.

Considering that the vast majority of marijuana dispensaries and collectives work hard to operate above board and according to the strict laws set forth by the states and municipalities, it's disheartening that local officials would set their sites on attacking legitimate businesses that do so much to help ailing patients.

Here's what we know of the situation, as reported by The Orange County Register:

The police chief addressed Garden Grove's City Council, informing them that his officers had been in contact with federal authorities and that an agreement was made for those authorities to come to the city, likely to conduct raids.

The chief said there had been complaints from both council members and residents about what they considered to be the large number of dispensaries peppered throughout the city. A Neighborhood Association vice president asked if it would be the city's "new reality" to have a dispensary on every street corner. She and others stated that there were 73 Garden Grove marijuana dispensaries, while a councilman even went so far as to say that the pot clinics were becoming "a nightmare." The mayor added that "no one" wants them in the city.

First of all, the actual number of marijuana dispensaries in Garden Grove is closer to 60. Secondly - a nightmare? Really? Thirdly, if no one wanted them there, they wouldn't exist. The fact of the matter is that the provide a legitimate, valuable and LEGAL service to everyone from cancer patients to migraine sufferers.

Of course, it doesn't help that a number of other dispensaries across the state have been targeted, forcing patients to seek other locations in areas that have not cracked down. So what is the answer for those municipalities? Here's what the answer is not: To banish all marijuana dispensaries and collectives. You know what happens when you do that? It goes underground. It means that illegitimate drug dealers will profit from the sale of this much-needed - and natural - medicine. And when illegitimate drug dealers are allowed to proliferate, property crimes and violent crimes have a tendency to spike.

Garden Grove's police chief said the department has two, part-time employees who monitor the marijuana dispensaries in town.

Previously, the city had registered Garden Grove marijuana dispensaries. But they stopped doing that earlier this year, after the federal crackdown began to get in full swing. There was a concern that by registering these businesses, the city would be seen as condoning actions that were contrary to federal law. State law allows the use of medicinal marijuana. The federal government does not.

Santa Ana Marijuana Dispensaries Under Siege

Wed, 02 May 2012 13:27:45 -0600

Santa Ana marijuana dispensaries have come under seige, as our Santa Ana marijuana lawyers understand city officials recently issued citations against five locations.

One of those included The Dispensary Store, which included a marijuana vending machine, created by Aliso Viejo, that aimed to make marijuana sales as simple and safe as an ATM withdrawal.

City officials say that dispensary was handed a citation for $100 and advised it should close its doors. The reason, officials said, had to do with a number of factors, including lack of a business license, failure to obtain a certificate of occupancy and due to the fact that they say dispensaries aren't allowed to operate in the city.

Our Santa Ana marijuana dispensaries might concede the first two points - if not for the fact that the third is a clear violation of state law. And how exactly are dispensaries supposed to obtain permits and licensing when the city has made it all but impossible to get?

So far, the dispensary machine is still operational and the dispensary hasn't issued any public statement (probably a wise move at this point).

The building's owner, a chiropractor, purchased it more than 10 years ago. He said he was handed a $200 citation for another dispensary in the building, though he is appealing that ticket. He said while he can't make referrals to the dispensaries (he's a chiropractor, not a medical doctor), he vehemently opposes the city's ban on dispensaries, particularly when patients of illnesses from eye degeneration to Alzheimer's can so greatly benefit. He's says he's saddened for the city, the tenants and the patients.

Indeed.

Such bans have come under fire, and are currently being battled out in the courtroom.

The city council in Santa Ana banned storefront marijuana dispensaries back in 2007, saying they were the root cause of unsavory activities and disturbed those nearby with powerful odors. Code enforcement is usually responsible for the citations, but police do get involved, and those who are considered "persistent violators" are sometimes prosecuted criminally or taken to civil court.

Since the ban was enacted, there have been some 273 fines and nearly 15 warning notices sent out to business owners. The Register reports that nearly 70 Santa Ana medical marijuana dispensaries have been closed, while nearly 40 are under investigation. There have also been nearly two dozen "sweeps," or law enforcement busts in that time frame as well.

Since 2010, when the city started tracking fines collected from these operations, it's estimated the city has collected more than $35,000 in fines and is waiting on collection for another $21,000. Some of those fines have been sent off to collection agencies (damaging the credit of those businesses and their owners), and some have been attached to water bills.

The mayor pro-tem was quoted as saying the goal is to stop these businesses before they ever start. They've made their motives clear. However, it's still in violation of state law - which is why Santa Ana medical marijuana dispensaries should seek the services of an experienced California marijuana lawyer.

Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyers: Federal Crackdown & Obama's Response

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:50:47 -0600

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers - along with many others supporters in the Los Angeles medical marijuana community - have been puzzled by the federal crackdown on legitimate dispensaries, following promises made by President Barack Obama when he was a candidate.

Many of us view this as a major hypocrisy by this administration, and one that has negatively impacted not only the cities and towns that have been forced to pay to battle costly litigation (or else face federal ire), but also the above-board business owners and not least of all, the patients.

Yet, we have not heard much from the president on the reasoning - until now.

In a recent Rolling Stones interview, Obama for the first time since the crackdown is answering questions about it. That's not to say we're satisfied with the answers, but at least it provides some level of insight.

Back in October, prosecutors formally announced they would launch a major legal campaign against the state's legally-sanctioned medical marijuana. This came contrary to Obama's campaign promise not to execute federal enforcement efforts to circumvent medical marijuana laws in states where it was already legal, California included.

Now, finally answering to critics, Obama said that he never promised to ignore federal law, which states that the sale and use of marijuana is illegal. Period. And even if he did make that promise, he says, he couldn't have because it is Congress, not the executive branch, that is responsible for the laws. He said he could not nullify Congressional law.

He then went on to discuss how Congress recently addressed the racial disparity among those convicted for crimes involving crack cocaine versus those convicted of crimes involving white powder cocaine. He also touched on how there should be greater emphasis on treatment, rather than incarceration, for those convicted of drug crimes.

This response is glaringly underwhelming and it completely sidesteps the issue of medical marijuana in terms of public health.

He pointed the finger at large-scale operators and producers of marijuana, who may in fact be servicing legitimate marijuana patients, but who may also be supplying those who are using the drug for recreational purposes. But under this logic, why not prosecute all doctors who prescribe pain medications? Clearly, those are abused in far greater numbers - and to the greater detriment of society - than medical marijuana.

Obama said he could not legally ask the federal Justice Department to ignore federal law entirely. What he can do, he said, is advice the agency to use "prosecutorial discretion and to prioritize resources so that we're only expending them on the operations that are really having a negative impact on communities.

The problem is, they apparently aren't listening because the medical marijuana industry continues to be a prime target for federal prosecutors.

And in fact, when prosecutors have gone after those in the industry, they're not citing some greater societal impact. They're simply saying it's against federal law - which falls under the president's purview.

Orange County Marijuana Lawyers: Official's Dispensary Underscores Industry Legitimacy

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:01:47 -0600

Orange County marijuana lawyers were interested to read recent reports indicating that the former Orange city manager and current Stockton fire chief is now a supplier and landlord for an Anaheim marijuana dispensary.

While this is being portrayed by some media outlets as some sort of a scandal, our Orange County marijuana lawyers would hope this would lend some legitimacy to an industry that provides a valid - and legal - service within the health care community. There should be zero shame in this.

The Orange County Register reports that David Rudat is the chief finance officer of a company that sells hydroponic growing equipment to those in the medical marijuana industry. Additionally, he and his wife own a warehouse where medical marijuana is sold and stored. Other tenants in that building have indicated to reporters that Rudat additionally owns another warehouse nearby, where he grows and processes the medical marijuana.

Rudat, when questioned about the business by reporters, gave very little information except to say that he is up to code and operating in accordance with state law. There are about 30 dispensaries in all in Anaheim.

The one-time politician has now found himself on the other side of the argument. City officials in Anaheim have been trying to shut down Rudat's operation - and others - since 2007, through a dispensary ban that it passed in 2007. It has sent a cease and desist order, but the city is now wrapped up in costly litigation over the ban with patients who use medical marijuana. The city's actions conflict with state law, which conflicts with federal law.

Attorneys for the city maintain that the Federal Controlled Substance Act supersedes the state's law, which allows that medical marijuana - and its sale and growth - are legal.

But meanwhile, Rudat said he had heard nothing from city officials with regard to asking him to close. He intended to consult with an Anaheim marijuana attorney about the matter.

Rudat said he already had the lease on the marijuana operation when he accepted the temporary position as Stockton's acting fire chief. He said at the time that he was already working in the private sector - with no intention of going back into public service - when he was approached about the Stockton fire chief job.

He underscored that he does not use marijuana in any form.

Of course, it's his prerogative to reveal that information, but the thing is: Why would it be seen as a bad thing if he did? Would someone fall under such intensive scrutiny if he or she were prescribed Prozac? How is this any different?

In a statement released to the media, the city manager for Stockton said he was aware of Rudat's venture, and has no issue with it one way or the other, and that the fire chief is entitled to operate an outside business if he so chooses. There is no conflict of interest, as far as the city manager is concerned.

And that is how it should be!

San Bernadino Marijuana Lawyers: Bribery and Dispensaries

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:25:01 -0600

San Bernadino marijuana lawyers understand the pressure that many politicians are under with regard to California medical marijuana.

They are being pulled in opposing directions with federal enforcers cracking down and making threats, confusing and non-uniform rulings being handed down by courts and San Bernadino marijuana dispensaries arguing for protection of their rights under state law.

However, that is never an excuse to take advantage of your powerful position. That was recently discovered by the former mayor of Upland, who has pleaded guilty to bribery. He faces up to a decade in federal prison after admitting to accepting a $5,000 payment from an Upland marijuana dispensary in exchange for help in obtaining a permit to operate.

There is also a lesson here for marijuana dispensaries as well: We understand that times are tough right now, for a lot of the same reasons listed above. You may be considered an easy target. However, if you feel you are being bullied by a public official, it's critical to obtain the services of a skilled San Bernadino marijuana lawyer, so that you're not caught up in a similar scheme, for which you could potentially be prosecuted as well. (Marijuana dispensaries have enough legal problems to contend with as it is!)

According to The Los Angeles Times, former Upland Mayor John Pomierski, 58, was accused of demanding some $70,000, both from a night club and a medical marijuana cooperative, in exchange for help in obtaining the legal permits necessary to operate. These actions reportedly began back in 2007.

The ex-mayor is free on $75,000 bond while he awaits sentencing, which is scheduled for early August.

Court documents indicate that another man, a member of Upland's building appeals board, was an intermediary between the mayor and the businesses. He would relay the demands of extortion to the businesses, and then collect the money to give to the mayor. That individual has also pleaded guilty.

As owner of a local construction company, Pomierski received some $90,000 in income from another construction company owned by the appeals board member. That was over the course of 10 years or so.

The owner of G3 Holistics in Upland had revealed to a Times reporter last year that someone claiming to represent the mayor had demanded $20,000 in order to stop the city's efforts to shut down the cooperative. The owner said he forked over $10,000, but didn't pay the rest.

The owner later lamented about where he could have turned, given the nature of his business. "The police? The FBI? I'm in the medical marijuana business. I'm an easy target."

Indeed, although he should have reached out for help from a San Bernadino marijuana lawyer. He did later end up cooperating with police.

A third defendant has also pleaded guilty in the case, while a fourth has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.

The investigation was kick-started by the San Bernadino Joint Corruption Task Force.

Orange County Marijuana Lawyers Cheer Push for AB2312

Sat, 21 Apr 2012 10:20:52 -0600

Amid the constant barrage of assaults on California's medical marijuana industry, it's great to actually hear some good news for a change.

Our Orange County marijuana lawyers were encouraged to learn about the state Assembly's Public Safety Committee's approval of a proposal that would clear the way for more medical marijuana shops in the state.

Lawmakers did this over vehement objections from law enforcement agencies and cities, which have been party to the recent crackdown that has forced many of these legitimate shops to close their doors - leaving chronically and terminally ill patients in the lurch.

Here's what the proposal would do: Take regulation of California marijuana collectives out of the hands of local government and place it under the purview of a newly-formed Board of Medical Marijuana Enforcement. This board would be responsible for setting up fees and laying forth the guidelines for medical marijuana sales and growing in the state.

And in a counter move to the pot shop bans enacted by numerous counties and municipalities, this law would require that at least one marijuana shop be allowed for every 50,000 residents in a given area. So for example, Orange County has a population of roughly 3 million. That would mean the allowance of 60 medical marijuana dispensaries in the county.

The measure is called Assembly Bill 2312, and it's been introduced by the committee's chairman, tom Ammiano of San Francisco. He underscored the voter's choice 15 years ago, approving legalized marijuana for medical purposes, and said the subsequent attacks on the industry have been to the detriment not only of patients and shop owners, but of taxpayers overall.

He said the absolute worst thing lawmakers can do is sit by and do nothing while this failed war on medical marijuana rages on with no consequences. The bottom line is that regulation allows the growth and sales to be brought above board in order to provide effective, safe and legal access.

The other thing this measure would do is start to outline very clear, uniform rules for how the industry must operate. Right now, with different courts throwing around opinions that are all over the place - to say nothing of the federal government's intense intrusions - it's difficult for growers, sellers and patients to know what the law is from one day to the next.

AB2312 was approved 4-2 (with Republican members voting against it). That means it's now headed to one more committee before it is launched onto the Assembly floor for debate.

Cities and law enforcement agencies are against the measure because they say it takes away their authority to determine how to govern their own areas. But in fact, many aspects of public health are already governed at the state level - so that argument carries little weight.

Riverside Marijuana Lawyers: Cities Can't Ban Pot Collectives

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:14:48 -0600

Riverside marijuana lawyers applaud the recent ruling by a superior court judge allowing a Murrieta marijuana dispensary to re-open its doors - just not in the same place where it used to be.

As we understand it, the Cooperative Medical Group on Madison Avenue had been forced to close, after another judge decided its proximity was too close to Sky High Party Zone. For those who don't know, that's a children's indoor playground.

Now, a judge has decided that it can in fact operate in the city - just not near a spot known to be frequented by children. This one was within 600 feet of the playground.

Just to underscore: This Murrieta marijuana dispensary had been operating within the parameters of California law. At issue, once again, is the fact that the federal government has outlawed marijuana, and is seeking to flex its muscle on the issue - and city governments are bowing to that pressure.

What this case does is show that with the help of an aggressive Riverside marijuana lawyer, a California marijuana collective can be successful in suing the city to allow its continued operation.

The decision in the Murrieta case is one of many that has been made in a months-long lawsuit that was brought by the owners of the collective against the city. Not all of them have been favorable, but this marks a significant victory.

Damian Nassiri, prominent Riverside marijuana lawyer, says that cities can no longer ban marijuana collectives under the City of Lake Forest v. Evergreen Holistic case.

"Any fines or nuisance abatement lawsuit brought by these cities should no longer be tolerated by the collectives," Nassiri said. "It's time to fight back, because this appellate case helps collectives and is currently the law in California. It must be followed by the lower courts and judges should rule against cities that try and shut collectives down with unlawful bans."

A state supreme court decision is pending that will ultimately decide the issue of cities v. dispensaries. What's important to remember in all of this was that the voters declared their clear intent with the passage of the law in 1996 that allowed marijuana possession, sale and use for medicinal purposes. This right continues to be trampled on.

The details of the Murietta case look something like a crazy ping-pong battle.

The dispensary opened in the summer of last year, despite a city ordinance that banned its operation. It was shuttered just two weeks later after city officials secured a temporary injunction against it. But then an appeals court removed that injunction in the fall, and the collective re-opened - only to be shut down two weeks after that. Now, the court has ruled the dispensary can re-open, it just has to be in a different place.

Unfortunately, the issue is not likely to stop there - in Murietta or anywhere else in California. Murietta is also involved in a lawsuit with the Greenhouse Cannabis Club under similar circumstances. In that case, officers with the Murrieta Police Department are even accused of going so far as to put a tracking device on a volunteer patient as part of its enforcement of the ban.

Attorneys for the city say this legal wrangling isn't likely to end before the state's supreme court takes on the issue.

Until then, collectives need to know that there is legal help available, and that they shouldn't be bullied into thinking they have no options or recourse.

California Marijuana Lawyers Show Solidarity With Defiant Pot Shops

Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:41:17 -0600

Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyers have expressed solidarity with those California marijuana dispensaries to the north of us that were ordered to close by the federal government by April 6 - or face severe prison sentences, fines and forfeiture of their property.

The state as a whole loses when these licensed and taxpaying facilities, which have contributed so greatly to the health and well-being of our populous, are forced to close due to a political tug-of-war.

This time, it was HopeNet, the first marijuana dispensary in San Francisco. On their last day, the owners prepared accordingly - by grilling hotdogs. About 220 in all.

The dispensary remained open until the very last moment it could, offering free hotdogs to patients who were there to get their last dose of cannabis in concentrate, flower and edible form.

It was one of three dispensaries that were shuttered that day. It was in company with Shambhala Healing Center and Valencia Caregivers. Landlords for each of the three centers were handed down warnings from the U.S. Attorney in Northern California. It gave the landowners 45 days to close down the dispensaries or face swift and severe consequences. The reasoning given by the federal government was that the shops were operating too close to parks or schools. Never mind that they have been there for years without incident.

The fact that these dispensaries have been strictly following both state and local laws and zoning rules governing medicinal marijuana has been deemed irrelevant by the feds. Medical marijuana, they say, is barred under federal law, and the fact that the dispensaries are nearby an area where children frequent is seen as an aggravating factor to the offense.

Since November, six other dispensaries in San Francisco have been forced to close due to the same letter, the same faulty reasoning. It's the same story all cross the state - in Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento. Hundreds of legally-operating medical marijuana dispensaries have been forced to close.

And who really suffers? Of course, the pot shop owners have lost their livelihoods and the struggling cities are poorer for it. But mostly it's the patients, who have a right to medical marijuana under California law and have for more than 15 years.

Certain extensions were given to some landlords so that they could work out a legal deal with the dispensaries who had secured long-term leases. But those will only last a month or so, and then they must cease to operate or face federal sanctions. Some of the dispensaries have been served eviction notices - and at least one has indicated that it plans to fight that eviction, and may have strong legal grounds to win that case. That's because evictions are decided in state - not federal - courts, which recognize the legality of medical marijuana under state law.

So it's unclear what that may mean for the federal order.

Our Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyers will continue to keep a close eye on that case and the outcome.

Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyers Applaud New Pot Shop Permits

Sun, 15 Apr 2012 08:00:39 -0600

Our Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyers know that in these uncertain times, it would be understandable if L.A. marijuana dispensaries wanted to close up shop and give up.

Those already in the field are hanging on by their fingernails, having been forced out by federal crackdown or squeezed dry by local municipalities eager to establish bans so they won't draw the ire of the feds.

So our Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyers were encouraged to see that at least one city isn't bowing to the pressure, and another dispensary is making headlines for opening its doors, rather than closing.

As recently reported by The Desert Sun, the city council in Palm Springs has voted 3-2 to revisit the medical marijuana ordinance it passed in 2009. That measure allowed only two legal dispensaries. Then the following year, they added an additional permit. Now, zoning changes that will allow a fourth to open are expected to be completed by the end of May.

This is such encouraging news, considering the climate currently surrounding the California medical marijuana community. This is also particularly good news because this is the only city in the Coachella Valley that allows the sale of medicinal marijuana. Not only is it not attacking those that are already there - it's allowing their numbers to expand.

In addition to allowing a fourth permit, the city also took the permit from a now-defunct marijuana dispensary and gave it to C.A.P.S. Apothecary. This is an unlicensed dispensary, and the city had sought to actually shut it down back in 2009. However, once the permit goes into effect, the city plans to drop the lawsuit.

Not only is this a victory for patients' rights, it makes smart business sense. With so many other municipalities chasing dispensaries away - often citing random code violations - it means those that remain in operation will be in high demand. And it's been proven that when you can regulate the industry effectively, it's going to mean less money in the pockets of real criminals and an overall more peaceful society.

With regard to the permitting of C.A.P.S., we, like Councilwoman Ginny Foat, understand why they did it. Foat was quoted as saying that she was very impressed with the service provided by the dispensary and how it had markedly improved the quality of life for a close friend who had been dying of cancer. She didn't deny the operation had been illegal.

"But they needed to be there for their patients," she said. "I don't agree with what they did, but I understand why they did it."

In addition to C.A.P.S., it's believed there are five other unlicensed medical marijuana dispensaries throughout Palm Springs. Other council members wondered allowed why C.A.P.S. was getting a break, and whether it might appear the city was sanctioning illegal activity.

That cluster of illegal shops has been labeled "Little Amsterdam," with operators saying there is an enormous demand for medical marijuana throughout the desert area.

However, city-permitted operations are frustrated that unlicensed operations haven't been shut down, while those that are licensed have been under attack by the federal government. One owner lamented that the playing field should be level.

Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyers: Link Between Federal Raids and National Health Care

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:26:45 -0600

Our Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyers were interested to read a TIME Magazine piece recently linking the federal raids on California medical marijuana dispensaries and the president's Affordable Care Act.

It seems like a stretch, but apparently, the two are more related than one might think.

One deals with the raids of legally-operating California medical marijuana dispensaries throughout the state. The other has to do with a promise of universal health care throughout the country.

So what could possibly be the connection?

According to reporter Maia Szalavitz, it has to do with a case called Gonzales v. Raich, which was decided in the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. this was a ruling that was decided 6-3, and has been cited repeatedly by both proponents of the raids on medical marijuana distributors, and commentators debating the merits of President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act.

Here's what happened in that case:

Angel Raich was a medical marijuana patient. She, as well as another marijuana patient and their grower sued the federal government. They contended that the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act, or CSA, shouldn't be used to justify arrest and imprisonment of those legally using and distributing the drug under California law. They argued that because the state had legalized marijuana for medical use, to enforce the CSA against caregivers and patients was unconstitutional.

The argument went a step further in saying that under the Commerce Clause, the scope of the federal government's power in this matter is limited to regulation of those activities that impact interstate commerce. In her case, Raich was using medical marijuana for her own medical ailments, which her distributor was providing it to her - not selling it outside the state. Therefore, the attorneys said, it had no impact on interstate commerce.

This is a great argument - but unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Some of the Justices did concede that there was a solid, scientific basis to take another look at the federal ban on the use of marijuana for medical purposes, they ruled quite narrowly on the question of commerce. Essentially, they decided that enforcing the ban on medical marijuana in California was an appropriate use of federal government power.

The three dissenting Justices - William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas - all said essentially that states have a right to implement their own policies, and that personal use of medical marijuana was an acceptable policy. Thomas added that from the very beginning of our country, there is no evidence that would seem to suggest that commerce should include simply possessing a certain good for personal activity when it didn't involve exchange or trade for value.

This is where the link to the Affordable Care Act comes in. It will be difficult for the court to say that it's alright for the federal government to stop the use of medical marijuana in the state because the drug can be easily sold outside of the state, but then not require people to purchase health insurance, which has an impact on insurance markets and health care prices across the country.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why President Obama has been reticent to stop the federal raids on California medical marijuana dispensaries, despite campaign promises to the contrary.

Orange County Marijuana Lawyers Laud Patients' Right Suit

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:16:04 -0600

Our Orange County marijuana lawyers have been closely following the news out of Dana Point, which has been one of the many fronts on the war against patients' rights in California.

Orange County medical marijuana patients probably know that the Beach Cities Collective has been at the center of the legal tug-of-war. Most recently, an appeals court overturned a decision that would have compelled the marijuana distributor to fork over nearly $2.5 million. Previously, a county court had awarded the city about $7 million against three dispensaries.

We reported on this case in our recent Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyers Blog, and noted that the city forced the dispensary to close its doors last year, after making a host of allegations, claiming the dispensary wasn't operating according to state laws and had broken certain code violations.

Now, however, in an interesting twist, the attorney for the collective is personally suing the city of Dana Point.

He is representing himself and says that with its ban on marijuana dispensaries, Dana Point is is infringing on his rights as a patient. He is seeking repeal of the city's band, and a formal declaration of whether medically-prescribed marijuana is a form of health care that falls under the umbrella of the state's Health Care Decisions Law of 2000, which falls under Prob. Code 4600-4805. He also wants a declaration of whether outright bans of medical marijuana dispensaries and collectives are constitutional or not.

He was quoted by the Orange County Register as saying that we all have a basic right to control our own health care choices, and that under state law, physician-prescribed marijuana is, in fact, medicine. He has a prescription to legally use medical marijuana.

An attorney for Dana Point hasn't commented on the litigation, but this new lawsuit could have implications with regard to a number of cities in Orange County that have banned or raided medical marijuana distributors - including Santa Ana, Costa Mesa and Lake Forest.

Central to the argument of this attorney's case is that when Orange County marijuana patients have to travel all the way to Los Angeles County just to have their prescriptions filled, that's an infringement on their legal rights as patients.

A municipality shouldn't have the authority to preside over the patient-doctor relationship by making it tougher for patients to obtain their prescribed medicine simply because the authorities don't like that medicine.

Our Orange County marijuana lawyers know that this case is somewhat unique from other medial marijuana cases across the state in that it specifically uses patients' rights law. The attorney has said he may add additional defendants in the future, although no hearings are currently scheduled in the case.