Cannabis Law Group's Medical Marijuana Legal Blog

Dr. Daniela Drake of Los Angeles concedes she is an unlikely marijuana advocate.

In her recent editorial published in the The Daily Beast, Drake recalls how she had always judged the drug and its users rather harshly.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that part of what began to alter her mentality regarding the issue was in a sense being forced to hear the stories of those whom the drug had benefited.

As a graduate from one of the nation's top medical schools, she had never personally liked marijuana and she tended to hold stereotypical beliefs regarding those who did.

However, several years into her career as a doctor, she found herself at a crossroads. She had opened an internal medicine practice, and she was struggling. She had two small children with severe learning disabilities at home, and her hours at work were long and demanding.

Seeing an opportunity in the field of medical marijuana, she joined an upscale marijuana provider in Los Angeles. The woman who owned the clinic was also a working mother and physician.

At first, she said, it was a job. But over time, as she began to learn more about her patients' histories and delve into their their stories, she became intrigued about the benefits of medical marijuana.

For many of her patients, marijuana provided a non-addictive form of pain relief. Among those patients:

• A young adult with lupus;


• A grandmother with rheumatoid disease;


• A mother with fiibromuyalgia;


• A paralyzed, middle-aged man in a wheelchair.

There were also mothers who swore by the drug, touting the positive effects it had in turning their hyperactive, out-of-control child into an A-student. In some cases, alcoholics who had been homeless were able to manage their addiction while holding down a job and hanging onto their housing - with the help of marijuana.

In one case, she came across a semi-professional baseball player who suffered from chronic muscle pain. Anti-inflammatories troubled his stomach, and marijuana was more effective and easier on his system.

By the time the doctor was called to testify in this young man's defense - for growing six marijuana plants - she was more than convinced of the drug's benefit. She was an advocate. She was furious that this was a case on which the court was even wasting its time and that the young man was facing years behind bars.

In the end, he was still convicted of a felony, but didn't have to serve any prison time - on the condition that he never use marijuana again.

She concedes that yes, there were those that abused the drug and who came into the clinic with stories that were sketchy and motives that were questionable. However, she came to the conclusion that this should not mean that patients who genuinely benefit from the drug should be punished for it - especially not with a lifelong felony record.

She describes her reticence to be known as a flaky "pot doctor," but says the injustice of that young man's fate gnaws at her still today, several years later. It's wrong, she said, that people like him are being labeled felons and thrown in prison. The federal government, she maintains is wrong on this.

She said her shift on the marijuana issue came after a long time and "practically against my will." But she urges the federal government to give the issue that same kind of careful analysis in considering its position.

Continue reading "California Doctor Describes Her Shift to Pro-Marijuana Reform" »

After more than a dozen years of waiting, Nevada medical marijuana patients will have a legal way to purchase the drug without being forced to grow it themselves.

In this, our Nevada marijuana lawyers understand that the state has become the 14th in the country to approve marijuana dispensaries. It was already among 19 in the nation (plus the District of Columbia) to allow medical marijuana use.

SB 374 was signed into law by Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval shortly after the measure passed by a 28-14 in the state's Assembly. The action came swiftly, as it passed less than a week earlier in the Senate by a vote of 17-4 and had to obtain passage in the Assembly before the year's session closed. It was approved by the Assembly just hours before the midnight deadline.

The law allows for the establishment of state oversight for medical marijuana dispensaries throughout. It caps the number of dispensaries per region by population. In Las Vegas, for example, there will be a maximum of 40 medical marijuana dispensaries allowed. In Reno, the state will sanction 20 medical marijuana dispensaries. And in Carson City, there will be a total of two allowed. One will be allowed for each of the rural counties in the state.

It's noteworthy that many of the lawmakers expressed personal opposition to medical marijuana, they felt it important to uphold the while of the people.

Since medical marijuana was first approved in Nevada in 2000 by a vote of 65 percent, patients have found themselves in a legal gray area.There was no provision in that law authorizing the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries. A great number of patients are so ill that they are unable to grow it for themselves. As such, they have had to rely on others to provide their medicine. That has left many confused about whether their marijuana purchases have been illegal or not.

They knew that they or their caregivers were allowed to grow up to seven plants or up to an ounce of marijuana. But Nevada's arid desert conditions were not conducive to the intensive process needed to grow the plant. Plus, obtaining cannabis seeds is illegal under state law.

There are a total of about 3,600 registered marijuana patients in the state, and lawmakers agreed their access to the drug was severely limited. Most of those who are registered are between the ages of 55 and 64.

SB 374, which was introduced in March by the state's Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, will serve to regulate dispensaries that provide services to those patients. Under this measure, the Department of Health and Human Services will be the agency to provide the oversight. Growers will be required to cultivate the drug in facilities that are secure, enclosed and locked.

The law also requires 24-7 video surveillance at both dispensaries and farms, establishes a cap on fees charged by the Health Division. Basic guidelines for dispensary owners are set forth, though the division is given the option of adopting any future regulation as necessary.

The law increases the amount of marijuana patients and caregivers can possess and grow and lays the groundwork for safeguards to help against fraud..

Lawmakers say this was a step they should have taken more than a decade ago, and pointed to successful dispensary regulation programs in Arizona, Colorado, Oregon and Washington state.

Continue reading "Nevada Medical Marijuana Dispensary Law Signed by Governor" »

A new article published this month in the journal Nature Review Neuroscience leads with some powerful words for anti-marijuana advocates from some of the world's top scientists.

The scientists say that drug prohibition hampering scientific study is the worst case of scientific censorship since the Catholic church banned the works of Galileo and Copernicus.

Ouch.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers hope our lawmakers will take that to heart in weighing their options for future legislation.

The paper was penned by former U.K. government advisors (one of those a professor at the Imperial College of London) and Professor David Nichols of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. The piece, entitled "Effects of Schedule I drug laws on neuroscience research and treatment innovation", decries the sweeping governmental regulations that stringently restrict the possession of Schedule I narcotics - including marijuana.

For starters, the researchers say the laws were not based on science, but rather on hype. The dangers and harms of many of these substances were severely overstated at the time the laws were passed.

The tragedy is not so much that a college kid can't do ecstasy on the weekend without risking arrest. Rather, the researchers say, it's the fact that scientists aren't able to gain access to study the drugs in controlled environments to explore their potential for other medicinal uses. In many cases, access to the drugs for the purposes of study are impossible.

What that means is we have people who are ailing. We have substances that could potentially help them. But the researchers who might connect those dots are bound by overly broad laws that, in today's world, are simply nonsensical.

And what is the motivation? It's not scientists, the paper's authors say. It's politics. And that, say the legal scholars, is "scandalous." The only issue that came close to this, they said, was the Bush administration's ban on embryonic stem cell research. That legislation, however, affected only the U.S. Bans on marijuana and other Schedule 1 narcotics, such as MDMA and psychedelics, are repeated in nation after nation.

The researchers argued that adopting a "more rational approach" to the regulation of these drugs, scientists might then be empowered to make advances that could lead to exponential treatment innovations in areas such as traumatic brain injuries and psychosis.

One of the study's authors, Professor Brian Nutt, had been the leader of Britain's Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs up until four years ago, when he sharply criticized his colleagues' refusal to consider the committee's review of scientific advise on the possible uses of marijuana and other drugs.

Researchers are able to get around the bans in some ways - usually by conducting surveys or other methods that don't involve active administration of the drug. For example, a study published recently in the American Journal of Medicine surveyed blood test results of some 4,700 purported marijuana users. What they found was that marijuana users tended to be less obese and have lower levels of insulin resistance. What that means is that there could be something in the drug that could help ward off diabetes, a problem that affects about 26 million people in the U.S.

However, singling out what that element of the drug is would be tough for scientists to do without actually having access to it.

This is a prime example of the kind of opportunities we may be missing out on.

Continue reading "Researchers: Anti-Marijuana Laws Hamper Scientific Advancement" »

If you thought Colorado's last word on the issue of recreational marijuana was the passage of Amendment 64 in November, you'd be mistaken.

Our Colorado marijuana lawyers understand that Gov. John Hickenlooper signed a number of historic measures late last month to coincide with the implementation of the world's first legal, regulated and taxed marijuana market for adults.

It's noteworthy that Hickenlooper has historically been an opponent of marijuana legalization, but has since come to call the action a move born of common sense. But that initial skepticism may color his views on the guidelines and restrictions necessary to be built into the framework of the legislation. In fact, his chief legal counsel was quoted as saying that although he opposed the legalization of marijuana, it was important to respect the will of the people.

Still, such action is being accompanied by some strict regulations.

Among the notable marijuana measures Hickenlooper approved recently:

• Visitors may purchase marijuana within the state, but they are not allowed to transport it across state lines. Specifically, visitors may purchase up to one quarter ounce of the drug in a single transaction. However, the law allows possession of the drug of up to one full ounce for adults over the age of 21. Purchasing limits were one way the state hopes to keep a handle on interstate trafficking of the drug, which will ultimately help to curb federal crackdowns on recreational sales.


• It will be several months before the first legal recreational marijuana sales will be seen. Even then, it's going to be limited at first to a few entities that are already licensed to produce or sell medicinal marijuana. After the grandfathering period passes, new licensees must be state residents for a minimum of two years. Investors also will be required to adhere to residency requirements. The idea is to prevent the state from becoming breeding grounds for criminal cartels.


• Video surveillance will be required from seed-to-sale to allow the state to closely track and monitor it. The state is currently working on gathering the funds necessary to implement such a system.


• Not every place in the state will sell it. In fact, the language of the law is purposely over-broad, allowing county and local governments the power to ban retail marijuana sales if they so choose. In-home cultivation will be allowed statewide, but the issue of sales will be up to individual municipalities. We expect that we will primarily see sales concentrated in larger cities.


• Marijuana clubs may be targeted by state authorities for violation of clean indoor air laws. So entrepreneurs testing new grounds with private clubs with membership fees for the purpose of communal marijuana smoking ventures should be wary.


• Youth under the age of 21 are expressly prohibited from the purchase, possession or consumption of the drug. Under new legislation, it is a crime to share marijuana with someone under the age of 21 in Colorado. Doing so will garner penalties along the same lines of what you might see for furnishing alcohol to a minor. Additionally, the law bars marketing that might appeal to children and packaging of the drug must be child-proof.


• Marijuana intoxication for drivers has been quantified under the new laws as 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood. The same measure was passed in Washington state last year with the passage of the recreational marijuana law, but Colorado only just now enacted it. Our Colorado marijuana lawyers have previously pointed to the logical flaws of this measure, but for now, it stands.

Continue reading "Colorado Passes Marijuana Legislative Reforms" »

A law that would have clarified marijuana regulations in California has been rejected in the state Assembly, by a razor-thin vote of 35-37.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that this means AB 473, drafted by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, will not move forward to the state senate this session.

If it had received the required 41 votes, the measures would have established a Division of Medical Marijuana Regulation and Enforcement under the umbrella of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

This would have meant California collectives, dispensaries and patients would, for the first time, have very clear directives from the state about how marijuana could be grown, sold and taxed. It would have mandated that dispensaries register with the state agency, to which they would answer for any alleged violations.

It was something that should have been done 17 years ago, when the state first passed the medical marijuana law green lighting the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. Problems since then have proliferated, largely as a result of patchwork regulation. Each municipality was left to implement their own guidelines and control measures.

What we ended up were cities that allowed dispensaries to proliferate virtually unregulated, and on the other extreme, municipalities that barred dispensaries from operation altogether. Some communities were overrun with dispensaries, while others had patients in desperate need who were left without access.

You also had law enforcement that was uncertain how to relate to these entities. Just a few years earlier, marijuana had been public enemy No. 1. Suddenly, they were thrust into a situation with little understanding of what the new rules were.

It certainly doesn't help that marijuana remains a Schedule I narcotic under federal law, allowing prosecutors with the U.S. Justice Department to take action against those who were merely abiding by state law.

Los Angeles has twice attempted to ban dispensaries. Most recently, council rescinded its scheduled ban amid a fervent public outcry. Instead, they opted for a public vote on three different regulatory measures. The one that passed limits the number of dispensaries to about 135, roughly the number that were in existence at the time the city enacted its previous ban in 2007.

Ammiano said that without a measure such as the one AB 473, we will continue to see the operation of "bad actors" and violence.

Unfortunately, it seems that many lawmakers took this opportunity to debate the merits of medical marijuana, rather than accept that it is the law approved by the people, it has been for nearly two decades and that what we truly need is more guidance from our state leaders.

Despite this setback, Ammiano said he is not giving up the fight. He is going to continue to push to get this measure - or one similar to it - on the governor's desk in the next year.

Continue reading "California Marijuana Legislation Rejected by Lawmakers" »

Amid a growing body of evidence regarding the positive effects of marijuana as medicine, more states are taking steps to decriminalize the drug even for those who do not have a prescription.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that Vermont became the latest state to pass a law removing criminal penalties for the possession of small amounts of marijuana by civilians.

Many states, including California, have enacted similar measures over the years as there has been a widespread realization that the so-called "War on Drugs" has failed and that resources spent prosecuting petty marijuana "crimes" are essentially wasted.

The new law in Vermont means that individuals caught with possession of up to one ounce (or up to 5 grams if it is hashish form) will now face civil fines, as opposed to criminal penalties.

The state governor was later quoted as saying that the measure was "common sense." Limited law law enforcement resources as they relate to drugs would be better spent focusing on reduction of addiction and abuse involving powerful opiates such as heroin or drugs like methamphetamine, rather than clamping down on individuals for marijuana possession.

For those under the age of 21 found to be in possession of the drug, the courts will treat it in much the same way as it would be for the possession of alcohol, with a court referral involving civil penalties and possible license suspension. Criminal penalties would only be applicable after a third or subsequent offense.

Vermont is the 17th state to enact such a measure. Similar action has already been taken in:

• California;


• Oregon;


• New York;


• Massachusetts;


• Maine;


• Rhode Island;


• Nebraska.

In Vermont, similar to what we see in California, there are still criminal penalties for possession of larger quantities of the drug or depending on where the possession was discovered.

For example, possession of less than 28.5 grams in California is typically an infraction, punishable by a $100 fine. However, if that same possession is discovered on school grounds, it's a misdemeanor punishable by up to 10 days in jail and a $250 fine. A person caught with more than 28.5 grams might face up to six months in jail and a $500 fine.

The real incarceration time is inflicted if you have possession of any amount with intention to distribute (up to 3 years). It's the same story if you illegally cultivate the drug or are caught selling it. If you are over the age of 18 and are caught selling the drug to someone under the age of 17, you could be facing up to 7 years in prison.

Alteration of the law in Vermont came just as researchers in Israel had released a study suggesting that THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, may be helpful in arresting certain kinds of brain damage in mice. The hope is that might somehow translate to help for humans who have suffered traumatic brain damage.

It's studies like this that are helping to shift public attitudes about marijuana. No longer is it considered by many to be a dangerous drug, although it remains as a Schedule I narcotic according to federal government guidelines.

Continue reading "Vermont Decriminalizes Recreational Marijuana Possession" »

At a time when arrests for many other types of arrests are down, those for simple misdemeanor possession of marijuana have skyrocketed over the last decade, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

In fact, the number of people arrested for marijuana in California doubled from about 28,000 annually back in 1990 to nearly 55,000 in 2010. It comprised about 8 percent of all drug arrests in the early 1990s, whereas it makes up about 30 percent of California drug arrests today.

Some of this may in no small part be due to the rise of the private prison.

Between 1999 and 2010, the total U.S. prison population spiked by nearly 18 percent. This increase is largely a reflection of the so-called "drug war," that includes tough sentencing guidelines like hard-line mandatory minimums and three-strikes laws.

During this same time frame, the number of private prisons has exploded. In the federal sector, it's grown by 785 percent. On the state level, it's grown by about 40 percent.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers do not believe the rise in marijuana arrests and the rise of private prisons to be coincidental. These companies claim that they are able to run prisons at a lower cost to taxpayers. This has not been backed up with definitive numbers, but the bigger issue as far as we're concerned is whether they can offer the same level of fairness. We believe the answer is no.

In a for-profit system, inmates are no longer citizens who are paying a debt to society, but commodities that must be cultivated for a profit.

One need only see the 20-year management contracts extended by Correction Corporation of America to those in 48 states (including California): the firm would purchase and manage the jails in that time frame, but the state had to promise to keep those jails at least 90 percent full.

What this means is there is a clear incentive for local law enforcement to boost incarceration rates. So the number of inmates grows, even though crime has not actually increased. Low-level marijuana offenders are often viewed as easy targets.

In CCA's 2010 Annual Report, the company indicated that its demand for services could be harmed if law enforcement relaxed its efforts or if judges exercised leniency in convictions, sentencing or parole practices or if there were efforts to decriminalize certain activities. The most obvious decriminalization effort of late involves marijuana.

A 25-page study produced by the non-profit Sentencing Project found that on average, the CCA has forked over about $150,000 annually for the last dozen years to lobby the governor, the legislature, the state Department of Corrections, the Legislative Analyst's Office, the Department of Finance, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, the Department of General Services and the Office of Planning and Research. California has received more lobbying funds than any other state from this entity, and about 70 percent of that money goes toward conservative, anti-marijuana candidates and allies.

The study concluded that even if these private prisons could offer lower cost services, as they say, the success usually comes at the detriment of other services - not to mention justice.

Continue reading "Marijuana Arrests Fueled in Part by Advent of Private Prisons" »

A firestorm was kicked up several weeks ago when it was revealed that the Internal Revenue Service was systematically targeting conservative groups, particularly those affiliated with the tea party.

However, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that the tea party isn't alone. Specifically, the IRS has been homing in on medical marijuana facilities for the last several years. The agency has been heavily relying on a little-known statute that gives the agency some powers that legislators never expressly intended.

Essentially, the agency has become a sort of mini-justice department. It has become an arm of the real Department of Justice due to the fact that it is wielding the federal tax code as a weapon in the war that's been waged against medical marijuana - a war with which California dispensaries are all too familiar.

This is all the more troubling in light of the fact that most Americans favor the legalization of marijuana, particularly for medicinal purposes. Already 18 states as well as the District of Columbia have legalized it for that reason, and 12 more are considering following suit. It is not the will of the people that these entities be closed in on in a way that makes it virtually impossible for them to operate without fear of severe criminal or civil sanctions.

But that's exactly what the IRS is trying to effect, with the application of IRS Code Section 280E, which governs expenditures in connection with the illegal sale of drugs. This was a law that was passed back in 1982, following a case involving a violent and wealthy illegal drug dealer who attempted to claim that his purchases of weapons and his yacht were legitimate business expenses for which he should receive an exemption. That was a long time before medical marijuana was legalized in California back in 1996, and there was little indication at the time that such a move would happen anytime soon.

So there is little doubt that this law was not passed with medical marijuana facilities in mind. And yet, this is how it's being applied, even when facilities are compliant with state laws. The operations of illicit drug dealers were never permitted under state law.

Section 280E forbids entities from claiming deductions that incurred during trafficking of controlled substances. So unlike a lot of other small businesses, marijuana dispensaries aren't allowed to deduct things like payroll, advertising or the cost of rent. These stores generally aren't highly profitable as it is. What's happening is that the IRS is effectively taxing them out of business - which is no doubt the intention.

This is the same section under which numerous dispensaries have become the subject of intensive IRS audits.

The IRS defends itself by pointing to a memo sent to Congress back in 2010 that indicates that neither the Controlled Substances Act nor Section 280E provide for any type of exception for medical marijuana providers.

A large number of dispensaries that have been audited have received demands for millions of dollars in back taxes - expenses they can't afford, meaning they are forced to close.

This was never the intention of the original law.

Those dispensaries facing an audit should seek immediate counsel from an experienced team of marijuana lawyers.

Continue reading "Marijuana Dispensaries Systematically Targeted by IRS " »

Legislators in Nevada have approved a measure that will make the state the 14th in the country to set up a system of state-regulated medical marijuana dispensaries.

Our Nevada marijuana lawyers understand that as it stands right now, 18 states as well as Washington D.C. have legalized medical marijuana, but not all of those have a state-run system of regulation for farmers, distributors and patients.

It's been more than a dozen years since voters in Nevada amended the state's constitution to legalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. But the problem has been that patients had no way of obtaining the drug legally in their home state, unless they chose to grow it at home.

What SB 374 does is pave the way for the legalization of dispensaries.

The state Assembly voted 28-14 to pass the measure, and now it goes to the state Senate for procedural approval. From there, it will go to the desk of Gov. Brian Sandoval. The governor is a Republican, and though historically the party has not supported pro-marijuana legislation, we have seen a dramatic shift in that regard in recent years. Sandoval has said he plans to consider it.

Sen. Tick Segerblom (D-Las Vegas) was the primary sponsor of the bill, and said that it's an important one to pass because sick patients need to be provided with access absent fear that they're breaking the law.

The bill lays out the foundation for how the state could make marijuana available to patients holding a medical marijuana card. It would impose certain fees and restrictions for those who grow and process the plant, and it would also establish guidelines for those who decide to open a dispensary.

This may be a good opportunity for those who operated dispensaries in California to move those operations to Nevada. With more established guidelines, dispensary operators could be more confident in the legal parameters and expectations, versus in California where the rules have been much more muddled.

Establishment of a dispensary in Nevada, whether by a first-time operator or someone who has previous experience, should not be undertaken without legal representation, provided by a law firm with extensive collective knowledge on these issues.

This is not the first time Nevada has tried to enact a structure. Numerous legislative efforts to legalize dispensaries have failed over the course of the last several years. But there is evidence that some staunch opponents may be beginning to bend.

For example, Rep. Pat Hickey, (R-Reno), the party's floor leader, said that while he opposed the measure based on fear of potential social consequences, he conceded that the money it would bring in would do wonders to help the cash-strapped state.

Still, some are worried about enacting a measure that wouldn't provide protections for those who might still be subject to action from federal prosecutors. This remains a concern, though we are confident that the more states enact definitive measures like these to keep dispensaries on a tight leash, the less federal involvement we're going to see.

Continue reading "Nevada Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Approved With SB 374" »

More than a decade ago, U.C.L.A. drug policy expert Mark Kleinman was interviewed by The New York Times to discuss in-depth his reasoning why marijuana legalization was a poor idea.

While the removal of penalties for small amounts of possession, cultivation and use made sense, he said, he wasn't in favor of the establishment of a commercial market that would inevitably lead to even more consumption of the drug, which, like anything else, could have adverse affects if abused or used by adolescents.

Today, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers have learned that Kleinman has been hired as an adviser to Washington state as it seeks to implement the world's first fully legal commercial cannabis market.

His shift in views, writes Times columnist Bill Keller, is reflective of where we are going as a nation with this issue. Washington, alongside Colorado, have become the first two states that have approved legalization for production, sale and consumption of the drug for those over the age of 21. This historic move makes nationwide legalization not a question of if, but how and when.

We have few models upon which to rely. In the Netherlands, for example, there is a limited amount of legalization.

Beyond that, examples are sparse. A number of local jurisdictions throughout the country have decriminalized private, personal use of the drug. There are 18 states total that have approved it for medicinal purposes. Another 12 states are considering medicinal approval.

So Washington and Colorado are essentially on their own in striking a balance - a particularly difficult feat, given that marijuana is still considered a Schedule I substance under federal law. Federal prosecutors with the U.S. Justice Department have yet to provide further guidance on how states should proceed.

No one sees that changing anytime in the immediate future. Kleinman, for example, says it won't happen until "the second Hillary Clinton administration."

As California experienced in its being the first to legalize medical marijuana, the pitfalls are plentiful, and they can't always be avoided.

Kleinman says that perhaps the best model is the wine industry. It would be a market that is fragmented. It would have numerous producers, and none would become dominate. Doing this might mean restricting licenses and also allowing people to grow a few in their homes on their own.

Among the considerations that are being made right now in Washington:

• Certifying laboratories that will test for both contamination and potency;


• The development of consumer labels;


• Hiring teams of inspectors who will ensure that everyone is compliant with all the rules;


• Setting restrictions on advertising.

On top of all that, there is the issue of marijuana DUIs, and how the state will move to regulate that. Colorado recently enacted a marijuana DUI bill that quantifies marijuana intoxication as the presence of 5 nanograms of THC or higher in the blood system. Washington passed a similar measure last year, even before legalization. This system is wrought with issues, as there is no scientific basis for this threshold.

The bottom line is that whatever system is established, it's bound to be imperfect because it's the first. California knows that story well. But with this continued shift in opinions, it seems we are at least headed in the right direction.

Continue reading "Legalized Marijuana Not an Issue of If, But How and When" »

California senators are trying to solidify the rights of both marijuana dispensaries and patients who are acting legally under state law.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that Senate Bill 439 recently passed in the state senate, moving now to the Assembly and, hopefully, on to the governor.

SB 439 was initially proposed by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) as a way to establish some clear guidelines for laws that have been riddled with ambiguity since 1996, when California voters first affirmed marijuana use for medicinal purposes.

The measure, introduced in February, would amend Section 11362.765 of the Health and Safety Code.

Under the existing law, which is the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, a patient and his or her primary caregiver may possess or grow the drug for personal medical purposes of the patient with the express permission of a medical doctor. In doing so, the patient and/or caregiver are exempt from being arrested for growing or possessing the drug.

Otherwise, the law holds that it's a crime for someone to sell marijuana or to plant, grow, dry process, harvest, furnish, transport, administer, give away or offer to do any of this. What SB 439 does is exempt collectives and cooperatives from being held criminally liable when all they are doing is following the law. The bill would exempt those entities and persons from criminal punishment solely on the basis of the fact that they receive compensation for actual expenses incurred in carrying out these activities when they are in compliance with legal guidelines.

Those guidelines include compliance with the security and reporting standards, as drafted by the Attorney General. Steinberg, in speaking to his fellow senators about the issue, underscored that the end goal was to ensure that patients who need medical marijuana would have access to it. Additionally, Steinberg said, drug cartels and criminals could potentially benefit from the lack of regulation.

What this measure would not do is interfere with the authority of counties and cities to regulate the operation of local dispensaries. Such action was recently taken by the City of Los Angeles, which enacted a restrictive measure that will effectively reduce the number of dispensaries in the city from several hundred down to about 135.

The right of municipalities to enact such restrictive measures against dispensaries was recently underscored by a state supreme court ruling.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know that one alternative that would allow L.A. dispensaries to remain operational would be to have them classify as collectives. With the passage of SB 439, these facilities would see added protections under state law.

The vote was passed in the Senate 22-12, divided mostly along party lines, with Republicans opposing.

State legislators have yet to address the problem of storefront distribution. This bill would allow sellers of marijuana to be organized the way any other statutory business entity would be permitted to do under state law.

Steinberg noted that the bill would not allow for the growth or distribution of the drug for profit. Rather, it would simply allow these facilities to operate without fear of unwarranted harassment or arrest from state or local authorities.

Continue reading "California Medical Marijuana Rights Strengthened Under SB 439" »

A medical marijuana patient recently won a state Supreme Court appeal in Michigan, where the high court ruled that patients should be given special exception under the strict law that forbids operation of a vehicle with any amount of THC in the driver's system.

Our Los Angeles marijuana DUI defense lawyers recognize that while California does not yet have a specific marijuana DUI law, we may be on the brink of one. Measures have been considered multiple times by state lawmakers.

Recently in Colorado, legislators passed a law indicating that any person driving with more than 5 nanograms of THC in blood levels.

So the case in Michigan is significant in that it sets a precedent holding that medical marijuana patients can't be held to that same standard because their physician-approved use of the drug may put them over the legal limit, even though they are not intoxicated.

Unlike alcohol, THC remains in a person's system for longer periods of time. That means a regular medical user might have a high THC blood level, even though he or she isn't intoxicated.

In the Michigan case of People v. Koon, the defendant was arrested in violation of MCL 257.625(8), operation of a motor vehicle with any amount of a schedule I controlled substance in the body.

The defendant had been stopped for speeding. He immediately informed the officer that he was a legal marijuana patient, and that he had consumed the drug roughly six hours prior. With a medical marijuana registry card, the defendant was legally allowed to possess and consume the drug under state law.

A subsequent blood test showed that the defendant indeed tested positive for THC, though we don't know exactly for what amount.

The lower court ruled that the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act protected the defendant from prosecution. The only exception would be if the prosecutor was able to prove that the defendant was actually impaired by the consumption of THC. The mere presence of it, the court ruled, would not be enough to convict him of impaired driving.

That ruling was later upheld by a Circuit Court judge. It was lthen appealed and reversed by the Court of Appeals, which held that the state's MMMA prohibited operation of a motor vehicle by a patient who was under the influence, and that a person with any amount of marijuana in his or her system could be considered under the influence.

Because the drug could remain in a person's bloodstream for weeks or possibly up to a month, this would virtually render medical marijuana patients unable to drive.

However, the Michigan Supreme Court held that a qualifying registered patient can't be arrested, prosecuted or punished simply for the medical use of marijuana in conjunction with the law. So as long as the patient did not possess more than 2.5 ounces of marijuana, they should not face punishment. "Possession," the court ruled, also included internal possession in one's blood stream. (It's unclear exactly how the court would determine exactly how much marijuana one had consumed, as many varying factors might affect the exact amount of THC in one's system. That question may be posed in a later case.)

Michigan's marijuana law does not define "under the influence" as it pertains to THC. However, the high court ruled that the phrase obviously means something more than simply the drug being present in one's system. It implies actual intoxication or impairment.

The exception would be if the individual was proven to actually be under the influence or impaired. Because the state doesn't have a set amount of THC threshold that is considered legal, law enforcement officials would be forced to rely on subjective field sobriety tests and observations regarding vehicle operation.

Those cases will inevitably be tougher for prosecutors to win than alcohol DUI cases.

Continue reading "Marijuana DUI Case Ruled in Favor of Patient in MI " »

A new report released by the New York Civil Liberties Union indicates that the city police department's now-infamous "stop-and-frisk" program, which led to a huge spike in marijuana-related arrests, was fraught with stark racial disparities.

Not only that, our Los Angeles marijuana criminal defense lawyers understand it was vastly ineffective in its ultimate goal of recovering illegal guns from city streets.

Analysis like this is important because even though L.A. and NYC isn't an apples-to-apples comparison in terms of marijuana laws, policing policies often borrow heavily from one another. A glimpse into the law enforcement policies of one large police agency can offer valuable insight into the operations of our own - and how we might best defend against marijuana-related arrests in Los Angeles.

The New York City Police Department's stop-and-frisk program, heavily criticized by civil rights advocates, is the policy by which officers who "reasonably suspect" a crime was committed, is being committed or is about to be committed, may stop a person to question him or her and, if the officer fears danger of physical injury, may frisk the suspect for weapons.

The policy appears to toss probable cause out the window. The agency conducted 4.4 million stop-and-frisk stops since 2004.

It is now the subject of a class action lawsuit in Floyd v. New York.

Although the department has significantly curbed the program, slashing stop rates by 22 percent just last year, there were still hundreds of thousands of people who were stopped in encounters that the NYCL called humiliating, unjustified and intimidating. Activists say that not only is there a 90 percent failure rate with the program - meaning it turns up virtually nothing - it serves to sow mistrust between the police and minority communities, violating fundamental rights in the process.

In 2012, the NYPD reportedly stopped and interrogated some 533,000 people. This was a 22 percent decrease from a year earlier, but a nearly 450 percent increase from when the program first started back in 2002. Nine out 10 of those people were neither arrested nor ticketed, meaning they were innocent. Nearly that many, about 87 percent, were either Latino or black. Only about 9 percent were white, even though they constitute 35 percent of the city's population.

In precincts with low black and Latino populations, the number of black and Latino stops were still in the 70 percent range. These individuals, though more likely to be frisked, were less likely to be found with weapons.

Some 26,000 people were arrested for alleged marijuana possession in the city just through this program last year. Although the city maintains the program's value in tracking down illegal guns, it nets far more marijuana-related arrests. More people were arrested for marijuana than any other offense.

Unlike those in the nearby states of Colorado and Washington, possession of marijuana without a prescription is still illegal in California. Per California Health & Safety Code 11357, possession of less than 28.5 grams of the drug is guilty of an infraction punishable by a $100 fine. Anyone caught with more than 28.5 grams will face up to six months in jail. Anyone arrested for possession of concentrated cannabis is subject to a possible year in jail and a $500 fine.

Racial bias can be difficult to prove. We are committed to ensuring that your rights following your Los Angeles marijuana arrest are fully protected.

Continue reading "Marijuana Arrests Were Racially Disparate in NYC, Report Says" »

Now that Measure D has been passed by the Los Angeles electorate, what will this mean for the hundreds of dispensaries that are currently operational in the city?

The answer, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know, is not cut and dried.

While the language of the law limits the number of dispensaries to those that were operational in the city prior to September of 2007 (which is about 135), the question has become how the city intends to enforce these measures to shut the other dispensaries down - especially because no one is exactly sure how many of these facilities even exist.

City officials say it's somewhere around 700, but others estimate it could potentially be double that number.

The Los Angeles Times characterized the task of bringing dispensaries into compliance with the law "monumental." It will start with the city first identifying each and every dispensary within the municipality, and then taking individual action against each of those that had not opened doors prior to that 2007 failed moratorium.

City lawyers have said that they will wait for the results of the election to become certified, at which point they will begin updating the dispensary database and sending out letters notifying each of the new law.

We expect to file numerous challenges to this measure, as more dispensaries announce their intent to fight back.

City leaders said they fully expect that many of those dispensaries that are now in violation of the local ordinance may continue operating for some time, with many trying to fly under the radar.

Flying under the radar is one strategy. But it isn't likely to last forever, and could end in serious fines and potentially criminal action, particularly if the federal government becomes involved again - as it has been prone to do. The better approach is to consult with an experienced marijuana dispensary attorney to determine what your most effective course of action might be. In some cases, it could be as simple as redefining your operation from a dispensary into a collective, as the latter weren't regulated under the new ordinance. In other instances, we may fight back on the grounds that the ordinance violates the state's Compassionate Use Act, which guaranteed medical marijuana patients a safe and accessible method of obtaining their medicine. Reducing the number of dispensaries so drastically is going to significantly diminish both of those aspects. You're asking people who are ill to travel great distances to wait in exceedingly long lines for something that the law intended to be a quick and simple process.

There are already efforts underway to sue the city on the basis that the 2007 cut-off date was arbitrary and unfair.

Requirements under the new law include a mandate that all facilities should remain at least 600 feet away from parks, child care centers or schools. They must also pay a 6 percent tax on their gross income.

Dispensary operators with questions should contact our firm as soon as possible.

Continue reading "Measure D Still Leaves Los Angeles Dispensary Policy Hazy" »

At the eleventh hour, the state legislature in Colorado passed the first-of-its-kind bill to regulate the recreational use of marijuana for adults.

Our Colorado marijuana lawyers know that this move wasn't entirely surprising, given that it was mandated with the passage of Amendment 64 during the election last fall. Alongside Washington state, Colorado was among the first to approve the drug for recreational use.

The two most recent bills passed - House Bill 1317 and House Bill 1318 - have both been sent to the governor for his signature to enact final passage.

The measures will create the first ever tax collected on commercial sales of marijuana for recreational use in the country.

While the bills don't include every fine detail, they do establish a significant framework for the governance of recreational marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing and retail sales. The state's Department of Revenue will have until the beginning of July to fully flesh out the details of those regulations, which will be critical for implementation.

Among the guidelines that are established in these bills:

• A 10 percent special sales tax on retail sales of recreational marijuana. This is on top of the standard local and state sales taxes.


• A 15 percent excise tax on wholesale sales of recreational marijuana.


• The marijuana enforcement division is given the authority to regulate both medical marijuana as well as recreational marijuana.


• Offers existing medical marijuana licensees or applicants to apply for a retail marijuana license with the option of totally converting to retail sales or simply adding retail sales to the existing operation.


• Outlines who may not obtain a retail marijuana sales license and limits the areas where an operation can be located.


• Requires that all retail sales operation owners must be Colorado residents for at least two years prior to submission of the application.


• Limits the amount of retail marijuana that can be sold to an out-of-state resident to one-fourth of an ounce in a single transaction.


• Forbids retail marijuana products from containing alcohol or nicotine.


• Requires that stores must sell their products in sealed, opaque containers.

Even with the approval of the governor, House Bill 1318 will have to be approved by taxpayers this fall, as it deals specifically with taxes. Per the state's Taxpayers' Bill of Rights law, that means voters have to give the final green light.

It's not expected to be a major problem, at least according to a recent survey of 900 registered voters in the state. Researchers found that nearly 80 percent supported the taxes as proposed.

Supporters of the recreational marijuana movement have said that the state is leading the charge on leaving behind failed prohibition policy in favor of a more logical system of regulation.

The terms of Amendment 64 make it legal for anyone to possess up to one ounce of marijuana for personal possession if they are over the age of 21. An individual may also cultivate up to six plants each, so long as those plants are for personal use.

Continue reading "Colorado Marijuana Regulation Passes on Last Legislation Day" »