Cannabis Law Group's Medical Marijuana Legal Blog

Nevada's marijuana laws are surrounded by a fair amount of ambiguity, as are those of a number of other states (we're looking at you, California).

In an effort to clear some of this confusion, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that legislators in the silver state have introduced two measures - one in the assembly and another in the senate - to address two of the primary issues of contention: the purchase of marijuana and the threshold for a criminal charge of marijuana DUI.

All of this starts back in 2000, when 65 percent of voters green-lighted Question 9, which allowed qualifying patients with conditions such as cancer, HIV/AIDS and glaucoma to carry up to one ounce of marijuana and grow up to seven plants.

Nevada was progressive in that it was among the earlier states to pass medical marijuana legislation (California, of course, being the first back in 1997). However, like California, there was a lot that legislators failed to fully think through in passing this law. Perhaps the biggest oversight was that while the law allowed for medical marijuana patients to possess the drug, it did not specifically address the allowance of marijuana dispensaries or the sale of the drug. As such, it's always been a concern for patients that when it came to purchase, they were committing a crime - despite having a legitimate prescription. Seeds are also illegal to buy and the drug is tough to grow in Nevada's arid desert soil. Most patients are between the ages of 55 and 64, and cultivating the fickle plant has proven difficult for many.

So in March, legislators introduced SB 374. This measure, which lawmakers said should have been enacted 13 years ago, would establish a provision to the law authorizing the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries to serve the more than 3,600 prescription-holding marijuana patients in Nevada.

SB 374 would require dispensaries to be strictly regulated by the state's Department of Health & Human Services, with marijuana grown in locked, enclosed facilities that would be monitored 24-7 with video surveillance.

Additionally, the bill would make forgery of a medical marijuana prescription card a felony, punishable by up to four years in prison.

So far, the measure has passed the Senate and is currently being mulled in an Assembly committee.

The second measure, AB 351, which would exempt marijuana patients from subjection to arbitrary marijuana DUI laws, is in the opposite boat, awaiting Senate committee vote after having passed in the Assembly. This measure holds that prosecutors would have to rely on means other than a blood test revealing the presence of marijuana to prove intoxication. That is, if a person was driving recklessly or was speaking incoherently or had other signs of intoxication, those would be bigger factors in the prosecutor's case than simply whether or not a patient had marijuana in his system. Obviously, if he is a marijuana patient, he will have marijuana in his system, and it might remain there for some time even after consumption. The presence alone doesn't automatically indicate intoxication, and that's the whole point of this bill.

We often argue the same stance in marijuana DUI cases here in California. Thankfully, we have no arbitrary legal threshold (yet), but many other states do or soon will, so it's certainly not something about which we can become passive.

Continue reading "Marijuana DUI, Purchase, Debated By Nevada Legislature " »

We have all heard the calls to regulate marijuana the same way we regulate alcohol.

But regulating it like pornography?

As our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand it, that's precisely what a bill in Colorado would do if signed into law by the governor.

The move is interesting because Colorado, more so than California in recent memory, has been careful not to limit marijuana freedoms - becoming the first of two states to enact legislation that allows marijuana use for recreational purposes.

And yet, it is on the verge of likely passing not only a nonsensical marijuana DUI law, setting the legal threshold at an arbitrary 5 THC ng/ml, but it's looking to put literature regarding marijuana behind gas station and convenience store counters - alongside the pornography.

If the measure is signed into law, establishments that allow entry to shoppers under the age of 21 would have to hide marijuana magazines from plain site of general age shoppers.

One of the most popular marijuana literature magazines, High Times, has voiced fierce opposition to the measure, with an attorney for the publication calling the measures patently unconstitutional. There is no legal precedent, he said, for treating images of a drug - particularly a legal one - as obscene.

This is where threats of First Amendment lawsuits have been cropping up.

If Time magazine published an issue with images of oxycodone on the front cover, would we consider forcing those editions behind the counter? Why not? After all, it's a prescription drug that is abused - often by teens - and with arguably more severe consequences than what we might expect with marijuana use.

This provision of the bill was wedged into a longer list of regulatory actions regarding recreational marijuana use in the state. The provision was a late addition to the earlier version, and even the bill's original sponsor said she wasn't quite sure what the addition entailed.

As it was originally penned, the measure mandates certain packaging and labeling requirements of marijuana for recreational purposes and also limits retail sales of the drug to out-of-state adult customers to no more than 0.25 ounce for a singular transaction. However, all adults would legally be allowed to possess a maximum of one ounce without facing criminal penalties.

While legislators said that legalization comes with a responsibility to also regulate advertising, lawyers for marijuana publications contend that it would be one thing if alcohol and tobacco publications were treated the same way. But they aren't, and no one is suggesting that they should be.

High Times has been published and sold since the mid-1970s throughout the country, and has never before faced a requirement that it be sold behind the counter.

Meanwhile in Washington, the other state last fall to legalize recreational use of the drug, authorities say they too are close to releasing the first draft of regulatory provisions for general public sales. Those provisions are expected to cover cultivation, labeling, quality assurance testing and security mandates, among other aspects.

Continue reading "Pot vs. Pornography: First Amendment Lawsuits Threatened Over CO Bill" »

Just days ahead of an election that will determine the future of marijuana rights in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Times editorial board issued a ringing endorsement of one of three competing regulatory measures that will ultimately be decided by voters.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that the board is backing Measure D, the council-backed measure that would slash the number of dispensaries in the city from between 850 and 1,600 (no one knows for sure how many there are at this point) to about 135. Those that remain would be those that were open prior to the city's 2007 law that banned dispensaries. These sites would also have been expected to have re-registered in 2011.

These operations would also have to abide by a number of statutory provisions, including maintaining a certain distance from schools, parks and other dispensaries, paying higher taxes ($60 on each $1,000 of gross receipts) and hours of operation would be limited to between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. Additionally, marijuana consumption on the premises would be prohibited, and those employed by the dispensaries must undergo background checks and not have felony criminal records.

This is perhaps the most restrictive of all three measures. Proposal E is quite similar, but even supporters have abandoned it in favor of Measure D. As such, Proposal E isn't likely to get the 50 percent-plus-one support required for the measure to pass. By the time supporters switched gears, it was too late to pull Proposal E off the ballot, so it still remains.

Measure F, meanwhile, would allow far broader guidelines. The Times says it "sets no limits." That's actually not the case because it does set some strong protections and rules, which in some instances are more stringent than those set by Measure D. However, unlike D, Measure F would basically allow for an unlimited number of marijuana dispensaries in the city. Granted, that's not something that appeals to the small, but vocal, group who wanted dispensaries ousted altogether.

Still, given that Los Angeles has a population of 3.82 million, allowing for only 135 dispensaries would mean just one facility for every 29,000 people.

Plus, once all the restrictions are in place, the boundary limitations and other requirements are in place, the actual number of dispensaries would be further reduced. However, it's worth considering that there is nothing in Measure D that would allow for expansion as necessary, per population growth.

The one thing we do tend to agree with the Times editorial board on is this: The implementation of Proposition 215 has been largely unsuccessful. Both state lawmakers, the state attorney general's office came far too late in offering critical guidance on the legal issues, and the federal government has sent conflicted messages about what it would and would not allow.

Even the state supreme court only within the last month issued a decision affirming cities' rights to ban dispensaries within their jurisdictions.

Continue reading "Los Angeles Marijuana Measure D Gets L.A. Times Endorsement " »

The issue of marijuana DUI in California has been gaining steam, as proposed legislative measures in other states, such as Colorado, seek to quantify marijuana intoxication of motorists - a tough thing to do fairly, considering the length of time the drug remains present in one's blood stream.

However, a recent case out of Orange County involving a college student reveals that marijuana DUI cases are often very winnable. In fact, these cases may actually be easier to win than alcohol DUI charges, where the standards are much more clear-cut.

It's worth noting that between 1997 and 2006, state data shows that about 25 percent of all DUI cases are either dismissed or the defendant is found not guilty. It's believed that the dismissal/not guilty rate for marijuana DUI defendants is much higher.

In this case, People v. Gibson, the defendant was psychology major at the University of Southern California. She was reportedly pulled over in December by an officer in Orange County for a minor traffic infraction.

The officer proceeded to initiate several field sobriety tests on the young woman. He reported her performance on these tests were poor.

He then had a blood test ordered, which revealed she had 8 nanograms per mililiter of THC in her blood.

In California, there is no legal standard that defines marijuana intoxication, though there have been numerous efforts to try. Right now in Colorado, a measure establishing a 5 ng//ml standard has passed both the state House and Senate, and is awaiting approval from the governor. It appears poised to pass, despite very clear and convincing evidence that such a standard does not accurately reflect intoxication of a driver.

As we've mentioned before in this Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer Blog, marijuana, unlike alcohol, remains in a person's systems for weeks and possibly even more than a month. For someone that uses the drug for medicinal purposes (or even someone who uses it heavily for recreational purposes), the level of THC in a person's blood could easily be higher than 5 ng/ml or 8 ng/ml - without that person actually being intoxicated. That's why having a set standard is such a bad idea in the first place.

In this case, the defense attorneys argued the case on two fronts: One, the subjective nature of the field sobriety tests and two, the standard of intoxication based on the 8 ng/ml reading.

With regard to the sobriety tests, we place a huge amount of credence in an officer's observations. It is true that they deal with these matters on a daily basis, but unlike alcohol intoxication, drug intoxication is much more difficult to accurately "diagnose." This is evidenced by the fact that many agencies pay good money to specially train officers to recognize certain types of drug intoxication. If an officer doesn't have this training - and most don't - there is a good chance the case could be dismissed, if it relies heavily on the officer's observations.

With regard to the standard of intoxication, as we mentioned earlier, California has no statute at this point that quantifies that at any level. So it's not an automatic win for a prosecutor to say that someone had a certain amount of THC in his or her system and therefore was intoxicated. It's simply not an accurate measurement.

Ultimately in this case, the jury hung 9-to-3, and the prosecutor has declined to try the case again.

Continue reading "California Marijuana DUI Cases Winnable " »

If you thought the federal assault on medical marijuana dispensaries in California had subsided, think again.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers have learned the aggressive barrage of action against law-abiding facilities is marching on, with the latest actions targeting dispensaries in northern California.

Recent reports indicate that U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag recently served the Berkeley Patients Group with paperwork indicating it will attempt to seize the property and ultimately close down the shop.

We're talking about one of the oldest and most respected dispensaries in the U.S. The federal government's action has angered not only advocacy groups such as Americans for Safe Access, which calls the action "mean and vindictive," but also local officials in Berkeley.

One city council member was quoted as saying that the facility provides substantial benefits to the community. Specifically, it has:

• Assisted the end-of-life transitions for thousands of patients;


• Improved the lives and reduced pain for many, many people;


• Been a positive contributor to the community, donating dozens of local charitable organizations;


• Provided tax revenue for the city;


• Helped to alter attitudes regarding medical cannabis not only locally, but across the state and throughout the country.

Last year, Haag's office sent a warning letter to the facility, indicating it was within 1,000 feet of a school and had therefore broken state law. So, the facility picked up and moved without a fuss. Now, this current letter of intent makes no mention of its proximity to to any school or church or park or any violation of a specific law.

Simply, they are on notice that they have been targeted.

As dozens of protestors voiced their opposition to the action in downtown Berkley recently, news outlets noted that several other dispensaries throughout the region are facing a similar fate, with the U.S. attorney's office issuing similar letters to a number of other locations over the last several weeks. The letters indicate the threat of property seizure and federal prison if they do not immediately close.

Additionally, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has revealed it is investigating numerous dispensaries in the San Francisco area.

These measures once again are contrary to the repeated pledges made by President Barack Obama to respect state laws pertaining to medical marijuana.

Although California became the first state in the country to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes, the drug remains illegal under federal law. Since 1996, the drug has generated some $100 million in annual tax revenue for the state.

Obviously, bureaucrats in the U.S. Department of Justice are feeling increasingly uneasy with the growing amount of acceptance in this country when it comes to medical marijuana - including the measures legalizing recreational use in both Colorado and Washington state.

But this fear does not constitute a proper basis upon which to pursue action which is detrimental not only to patients, caregivers and dispensary operators, but also to entire communities who benefit so greatly from the presence of these operations.

Continue reading "Federal Marijuana Crackdown on California Dispensaries Continues" »

As pro-marijuana advocates have continued to absorb the disappointing decision handed down recently by the California Supreme Court, affirming the right of local government to ban dispensaries, our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers want to share this silver lining: The decision shouldn't have an immediate or adverse affect medical marijuana distribution centers in L.A.

Here in Los Angeles, the city council had originally attempted to pass legislation that would all but ban dispensaries in the city limits. However, that ban was later repealed amid fierce opposition as well as a credible threat to have the measure reversed with a ballot initiative.

That initiative was scrapped and followed by three competing proposals for medical marijuana regulation within the city. those measures - Proposition D, Proposition E and Proposition F are slated for a vote later this month on May 21.

Early proponents of Proposition E have abandoned their efforts in favor of the city-backed Proposition D. Both of those measures would result in slashing the number of the city's dispensaries from roughly 800 down to about 135.

Proposition F would allow for substantially more dispensaries, provided they abide by a strict criteria. That criteria includes adherence to local land use ordinances and limits on proximity to schools, playgrounds, parks and religious centers.

Even if the earlier proposed ban had been passed after the state supreme court's ruling, pro-marijuana advocates in Los Angeles could have taken the same measures to circumvent it.

However, proponents of Proposition F say that Proposition D, the more restrictive measure, is the first step in ensuring the permanent shut-down of dispensaries in Los Angeles. They say the passage of this measure will make it easier for federal authorities to target and shutter any existing facilities. Now, with the state Supreme Court decision, they say it could mean the eventual elimination of safe access to medical marijuana in Los Angeles.

In response to the court ruling, the mayor of San Diego, Bob Filner, wrote to Gov. Jerry Brown and members of the state Legislature, requesting the implementation of common sense medical marijuana guidelines that would serve to provide uniform clarity to local governments and reflect the overwhelming will of the people in California to provide safe access for compassionate use.

There is growing concern that the state Supreme Court decision will ultimately push legitimate marijuana patients into obtaining the drug through illicit means. That would mean three steps back from where we had progressed on this issue. It would make the sale process riskier for patients, less profitable for local governments, better for illegal dealers and an increase of danger in neighborhoods.

If there is any effect that the ruling will have directly on the city in the short-term, it is simply that it raises the stakes of this ballot measure. One of these three measures has to have the majority - 50 percent-plus-one - in order to pass. Otherwise, none of them do and it's back to the drawing board. In light of the Supreme Court's decision and the city's history on this issue, that is a concerning prospect.

Continue reading "California Marijuana Lawyers: Supreme Court Ruling Shouldn't Affect L.A. Dispensaries" »

Bad news breaking out of Riverside: The California Supreme Court has issued a 7-0 unanimous ruling, affirming the right of local governments to ban medical marijuana dispensaries within their districts.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers are deeply troubled by this position, primarily as it appears to run directly counter to Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which granted all medically-cleared Californians the right to safe and reasonable access to the drug.

What this ruling means is that the approximately 200 bans pending throughout the state will be allowed to remain in effect. This ruling further emboldens other cities, counties or jurisdictions who had been considering a ban, but wanted to wait to find out the state Supreme Court's take before pressing forward.

The case stems from a ban initiated by the city council in Riverside, where the city attorney said constituent complaints about crime, blight, drug abuse by minors and traffic congestion surrounding marijuana clinics had spurred council to initiate the process of a ban.

The city attorney has said the extent of these dangers could vary from community to community, and that each district should be allowed to consider what works best for them.

The problem however is multifaceted. First, it discounts the fact that chronically and terminally ill patients are going to be denied their right to safe and reasonable access to the drug. Unless they grow it themselves or have a primary caregiver do it for them (a process that is tougher than it sounds), patients won't be able to obtain the drug at all unless they travel long distances.

Secondly, we believe that problems surrounding these facilities were either exaggerated or unfairly pinned on the dispensaries, which were scapegoated as part of a concerted effort to drive them out.

Riverside's attorney has said this case is the be-all-end-all on the issue of medical marijuana dispensary bans enacted by local governments in California. And it's true that this case will certainly pose even more serious challenges for dispensaries.

However, even the state Supreme Court justices conceded this may not be the end of the story. There is nothing, they said, that would block a ballot initiative or the state Legislature from amending the current law to explicitly deny local governments the ability to infringe upon some of its citizens' rights.

And in fact, an effort to do so is already underway.

However, that could take some time, and the Supreme Court's decision will begin affecting dispensaries immediately. Legal action is now expected to proceed in Riverside on 10 storefront clinics that are still operating in that city, including the Inland Empire Patient's Health & Wellness Center, which is the facility named in the lawsuit. Nearly five dozen other dispensaries in the city have already been shut down as a result of the ordinance.

In addition to shuttering these locations, the city said it also intends to go after the remaining dispensaries for the cost of their legal expenses over the last four years.

Other areas that also have bans:

• San Bernadino;


• Murrieta;


• Moreno Valey;


• San Jacinto;


• Norco;


• Redlands;


• Corona;


• Temecula.

The City of Los Angeles had also enacted a ban, but that was later overturned amid fierce opposition. Now, voters await a chance to vote on new regulations later this month.

Continue reading "California Supreme Court Affirms Right to Ban Marijuana Dispensaries" »

A marijuana DUI bill that is likely to pass in Colorado will almost certainly result in the conviction of sober drivers.

Our Los Angeles marijuana attorneys are highly disappointed with the state legislature there. Even though the law will not directly affect California marijuana users, unless they travel to that state, it sets a troubling precedent that we worry may be copied in other states.

Indeed, California Senate Bill 289, introduced back in February by Santa Ana Democrat Lou Correa, would result in the criminalization of "any detectable amount" of a drug classified as Schedule I, II, III or IV under the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act - unless he or she has a valid prescription.

This might seem fair enough. But here's the problem: While medical marijuana in raw form may be recommended by a licensed health care practitioner in the state of California, it's not a drug certified by the FDA so it's not prescribed through a pharmacy, as most narcotics are. Additionally, marijuana right now is a Schedule I drug. So if this measure passes, marijuana patients could be stopped and arrested while their on their way to work or while running errands.

Because the drug remains in a person's system for days and possibly even weeks after consumption, the "any traceable amount" threshold is especially unfair. The presence of the drug is in no way an indication of intoxication, as the person could have consumed the drug days or weeks earlier, even though the drug was found in his or her system.

Colorado's likely new law takes a somewhat different approach. Rather than saying "any detectable amount" is a crime, legislators are saying that if the driver is found to have at least 5 nanograms of THC in their bloodstream - or more - then he or she is considered impaired.

This is not only poor policy, it's bad science. Again, marijuana stays in your system for longer periods of time, compared to alcohol. So while it may be appropriate to test a person's blood alcohol level as an accurate indication of whether he or she is impaired, it doesn't work that way with marijuana. Medical marijuana patients are likely to have high concentrations of THC in the blood - but that doesn't equal intoxication.

This is the sixth time that the Colorado legislature has proposed this measure. However, it appears this time, it will be successful. It has passed both the state House and Senate, and is headed for the desk of the governor, who has already voiced his support.

The one saving grace of the Colorado measure is that a reading of 5 nanograms of marijuana blood concentration isn't an automatic conviction and defendants will have the opportunity to present evidence indicating they were not in fact impaired or driving in a way that was dangerous or might suggest intoxication. However, the law puts the burden of proof for that on the defendant, rather than the prosecution.

Inevitably, we are going to see the arrest and conviction of innocent people in both states if and when these measures are passed.

To contact your state senator to voice opposition for Senate Bill 289, visit http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.

Continue reading "Marijuana DUI Laws Debated By State Legislatures" »

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers aren't confident that President Barack Obama is going to do a full about-face on the issue of legalization anytime soon.

Even when he has conceded that medical marijuana users and suppliers in states where the drug is legally available were not a top criminal priority for his administration, federal prosecutors still aggressively pursued those very same individuals.

Yet, there are indications that the administration could be shifting slightly with regard to the issue of marijuana.

With the recent roll-out of the administration's new drug policy strategy, unveiled at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore - a city ravaged by the effects of the failed War on Drugs - Obama noted a significantly softer tone, especially in regards to the issue of marijuana.

We don't want to jump the gun too soon and say that the administration is preparing to shift focus entirely from incarceration to rehabilitation, but there does seem to be some pivoting.

With regard to the increasing efforts to legalize marijuana - most notably in Washington and Colorado, where such measures were successful - the White House had previously declined to offer support. The administration underscored that it has stood firmly against "any form of drug legalization," which it purported would further burden the criminal justice system.

But then in a recent interview with reporters regarding the new national drug policy, National Drug Control Policy Director Gil Kerlikowske said the administration would continue to "deprioritize" the criminalization of marijuana issue.

Now, the administration has said many things that were later contradicted with action. However, the reason this may be significant is because the federal crackdown on marijuana dispensaries in California is ongoing. If it's true that this will recede on the government's list of important matters to address, we may see fewer and fewer actions against medical marijuana providers here in this state.

Although the White House had tended to downplay the effect of aggressive prosecution of marijuana crimes, saying that most arrested for marijuana offenses don't go to prison, the reality is that the federal drug policy very often consequences to families. A drug conviction can result in the loss of federal financial aid, loss of child custody, loss of a job - not to mention the loss of freedom, depending on how your state approaches the issue.

has tended to have a disproportionate effect on our nation's minority populations.

For example, the aggressive "stop and frisk" policy that was ongoing for years in New York City frequently targeted young black men. Even though police had no probable cause to suspect these individuals for a crime, they were stopped, searched and often arrested for minor drug crimes.

That policy has since ceased and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently pledged that people arrested for possession of small amounts of marijuana will no longer be held overnight for those offenses. Rather, it will be charged as a simple violation, as opposed to a misdemeanor.

Kerlikowske used this action as an example of how the federal administration may be able to find a middle ground on the issue.

It's worth noting that the Affordable Care Act mandates insurers cover substance abuse treatment for those with a history of drug abuse.

But perhaps even more significant is that the White House - for the first time ever - has voiced a dedication to the reform of work laws that might penalize drug offenders by limiting their access to employment, education and housing. Whether we will see that kind of dramatic reform before Obama leaves office remains to be seen.

Continue reading "Is Federal Marijuana Policy Evolving? " »

A bill that would reduce criminal penalties in criminal drug possession cases in California - thereby helping to reduce overcrowding in both the state jails and prisons - has passed its first hurdle in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that Senate Bill 649 is now poised for a full vote on the Senate floor.

Previous similar legislation - specifically, SB 1506 - has sputtered out in the Senate. But this time, it may be different, for the simple fact that the California governor and other public officials were recently given less than a month to address the inmate overcrowding issue in California, they will face legal action - including contempt of court.

The state has 33 prisons, and many of those are filled with individuals who have been arrested or convicted of minor drug offenses - the majority of those involving marijuana.

A report released earlier this month by the Department of Corrections reveals that the state is currently housing nearly 120,000 inmates, which is about 150 percent of what those facilities were designed to hold.

A three-judge federal panel has ordered that the percentage has to be slashed to 137 percent by the end of the year. That's about 9.500 inmates that need to be freed by December.

Gov. Jerry Brown had requested those terms be softened, but the panel said not only has Brown done nothing to comply with the orders of the panel, his administration has openly defied it.

SB 649 could be one way for state leaders to show a good-faith effort. The measure will specifically help to roll back Brown's 2011 Public Safety Realignment that resulted in an uptick of state prisoners in the first place.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and co-sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Drug Policy Alliance, the William C. Velasquez Institute, the California Public Defenders Association and the Californians for Safety and Justice and Friends Committee on Legislation.

SB 649 would not apply to those charged with manufacturing, selling or possessing drugs for sale. What it would do is reduce penalties for possession of any controlled substance without a prescription from a potential felony to a misdemeanor, punishable by only up to a on year in jail. It would also make the maximum fine $70 - as opposed to the $1,000 it would have been if the charge were a felony. Additionally, the court would be required to take into consideration a defendant's ability to pay.

There are 13 other states, as well as the District of Columbia and even the federal courts that treat drug possession as a misdemeanor. Drug crimes are no higher there than anywhere else.

This kind of drug sentencing reform is supported by two-thirds of Californians, according to a poll conducted by Tulchin Research last year.

Having recently cleared the committee by a vote of 4-2, the measure is expected to go fora full Senate floor vote next month.

Continue reading "Marijuana Criminal Penalty Reduction Bill Progressing in California" »

Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom has been vocal in recent months about the fact that the federal drug laws in this country no longer make good sense.

Recently, while in Sacramento at the California Democratic Party convention, Newsom took it a step further. Not only did he refer to the War on Drugs as an "abject failure," he said the time has come for marijuana to be decriminalized, taxed and regulated.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers know Newsom's words reflect the strongly-held beliefs of many in this state and throughout the country.

In looking at just 2011, some 2 million people in the U.S. were arrested for violations of marijuana laws. Of those, nearly 90 percent were for simple possession. At the recent convention, Newsom went on to point out that African American children are 10 times more likely to be arrested for crimes involving drugs than white children. This is despite research revealing that white children are more likely than black children to abuse drugs.

Newsom's statements are important, considering that the former San Francisco mayor has been tapped as one of the top Democratic gubernatorial candidates in the 2014 race, should Gov. Jerry Brown opt not to run for re-election.

The other leading contender for that spot, Attorney General Kamala Harris, also spoke at that same convention, though she did not mention the subject of marijuana legalization in her speech.

Newsom made it a key point. He went on to say that the percentage of African American males locked up in our nation's jails and prisons makes up a higher amount than the number who are enrolled in higher education institutions in the state of California.

The War on Drugs is into its 42nd year. It's not working, Newsom underscored. He said the time has come to admit that if we continue on this path, nothing is going to change - and the people of California and of the U.S. deserve better outcomes.

He said many politicians and high-profile figures - even those on the Republican side of the aisle - believe in this truth. However, he said few are willing to come forward publicly and say it. He called this a kind of "coming out of the closet," and he urged more politicians to do the same.

The shift on the issue of marijuana has been fairly recent for Newsom. For years, he had been a vocal opponent of full-scale legalization. Previously, he had supported access to marijuana solely for medicinal purposes.

In 2010, he was quoted by one publication as saying that he had concerns about how full-scale legalization would be implemented, and worried that it "sent the wrong message."

Today, he says part of what changed his mind was the sheer number of people who use the drug - individuals who are upstanding, exceptional community leaders.

Marijuana advocates note that Newsom's public change of heart is important in the context of the issue's legitimacy. No longer is it viewed as a risky third-rail of politics.

Continue reading "California Lt. Governor Newsom: Legalize Marijuana" »

When the National Drug Control Policy office of the White House (more commonly known as the nation's Drug Czar) released its 2013 National Drug Control Strategy report, we were pleased to see that the federal government appeared to be shifting - ever so slightly - from its previous drug strategies.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that the agency put a special emphasis on the fact that three-fourths of all Americans believe the country's "War on Drugs" to be one that has failed abysmally. As such, the agency referred has referred to its new strategy as the "21st Century Approach," supposedly marking a distinctive pivot from attacking drug use and even abuse as a criminal action to one that should be approached more from a health-related standpoint.

But for all of that rhetoric, the actual policies contained in that drug strategy report don't reflect it.

The director of National Affairs for the non-profit Drug Policy Alliance was recently quoted as saying that while the administration says in one breath that drug use and abuse in this country are matters of public health, in the very next breath, it's outlining strategies for dealing with drug abusers in drug court. Granted, these courts do have more of a heavy emphasis on substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation. However, it's still an arm of the criminal justice system.

The Drug Czar's office can talk all it wants about drug abuse being a public health issue, but unless and until we make a firm commitment to stop arresting people for using drugs, it's not actually being treated as a public health issue.

We wouldn't prosecute cancer patients in this way (unless of course they were using medical marijuana to treat their illness - then, it seems, they are fair game). Why is it acceptable for the government to maintain this blatant imbalance?

The conflict in the way the government talks about people who use drugs and the way it actually handles them doesn't stop with drug courts.

The obvious one for us is the total disregard for state medical marijuana laws. Our president says lawful users aren't a priority for federal authorities. But then those same authorities turn around and begin taking aggressive action against marijuana dispensaries providing an invaluable service to sick and dying patients.

Then there is the high priority given to low-level drug arrests, which continue to swallow up a huge amount of time and money, especially for local law enforcement agencies.

Additionally, we're wasting huge amounts of money at all levels of enforcement in interdiction efforts to curb supply. But it doesn't actually get us anywhere. Whatever void is left by the arrest of one drug supplier is soon filled by another. The approach isn't working - but it's not changing.

The one change that was applauded by the DPA director was the pledge to ensure greater access to a low-cost antidote that serves to reverse the effects of an overdose on opiates.

But it's not enough. Some 750,000 Americans are locked up every year for low-level marijuana offenses, often involving patients using the drug for medicinal purposes in states where it's not legal to do so.

Would we find it acceptable that patients in Ohio couldn't receive the same kind of chemotherapy treatments as the patients Colorado? Why should we accept that the benefits of medical marijuana should not be accessible to patients everywhere?

The very least the federal government could do would be to stop interfering in those states whose voters have approved medical marijuana laws.

Continue reading "Medical Cannabis Policy Doesn't Match the Promises" »

A bill that would create a new agency to oversee medical cannabis regulation under the umbrella of the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has cleared its first hurdle.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that Assembly Bill 473 was passed by the Public Safety Committee with a vote of 5-to-2. Now, the bill has been forwarded to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, where it is awaiting a hearing.

The medical marijuana industry has remained largely unregulated in California since the passage of Proposition 215 back in 1996. Local governments have been left to their own devices to determine the best course of regulatory action. That has resulted in a spotty patchwork of marijuana laws that lack uniformity.

So essentially, what is fully acceptable in the eyes of the law in one city may be a prosecutable offense in another.

AB 473, introduced by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) aims to change that. Ammiano has been quoted as saying the situation has been chaotic for everyone. Counties and cities don't know what their responsibilities are. Police don't know what enforcement actions they should take. And the actions of the federal government are confusing - with the president and Department of Justice saying something one day, and acting completely differently another.

As it stands right now, there are more than 50 local ordinances that somehow regulate medical marijuana clinics. That means some patients are served, and others aren't. Some are forced to travel exceedingly long distances in order to maintain their supply. A few end up turning to black market providers out of necessity.

Cities and counties need and want guidance, Ammiano says. Patients deserve some certainty about how their medical needs are going to be met.

AB 473 would establish the creation of the Division of Medical Cannabis Regulation and Enforcement. The primary focus would be develop consistent policies throughout the state with regard to growth, supply and sale.

The agency would also partner with state-level law enforcement officials to ensure that dispensaries are meeting legal requirements.

The ultimate goal is to make sure marijuana is safe, accessible and beneficial to patients as well as local and state governments and communities.

A similar bill had been introduced last year by Ammiano that would have established a new independent regulatory agency. However, Assembly Bill 2312 had a fair amount of critics who were worried that the action would have created confusing jurisdictional issues for local, state and federal officials. In the end, the measure made it through the House with support from dispensaries, patients and other advocates, but sputtered out in the Senate.

Ammiano said this measure already has more support than the last bill because it doesn't require the creation of an entirely new agency and the defined processes are more streamlined.

Just in the past several years, hundreds of California dispensaries have been forced to close their doors amid a federal crackdown on the medical marijuana industry.

Continue reading "California AB 473 Advanced By Public Safety Committee" »

It's hard to argue that your marijuana joint is for personal or medicinal use when it's 4 feet long and weighs more than 2 pounds.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers have learned that a 25-year-old student was arrested at UC Santa Cruz in just such circumstances. He was reportedly one of the many revelers at the annual 4/20 rally held on campus.

Hundreds of students gather there on April 20 each year and smoke marijuana. Similar rallies are held at schools in Colorado, Washington and in other states where the drug is legal for medicinal purposes.

April 20 has been celebrated by marijuana smokers since the early 1990s. Back in the 1970s in Northern California, a local police department used "420" as code for "marijuana smoking in progress." When a few high school students learned of this code, they began using it themselves.

It didn't become popular though until a Grateful Dead concert until 1990, when a flyer was distributed saying that a group of fans would be meeting at "4:20 p.m. on 4/20 for 420-ing." The reference was then published by a reporter for High Times. It caught on from there.

Inevitably, the 4/20 gatherings that continue on campuses across the country attract a strong police presence. These students and participants are easy targets, as far as law enforcement is concerned.

In the state of California, possession of 28.5 grams of marijuana or less without a prescription is deemed a for personal and is a non-criminal infraction. That means it carries no jail time, but it is accompanied by a $100 fine.

There are, however, two exceptions to this rule:

• If the individual is over the age of 18 and the incident occurred on school grounds, it carries a possible 10-day incarceration and a $500 fine.


• If the individual is under the age of 18, the incident is punishable by up to 10 days of incarceration, but the fine is just $250.


• Personal possession of more than 28.5 grams is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $500 fine.

The incident in Santa Cruz would probably qualify as personal possession of more than 28.5 grams, though we would not be surprised if authorities charged the defendant with a felony for possession with intent to distribute. It doesn't matter if the individual had intended to actually sell his gigantic joint. "Distribute" can mean to furnish or give away. This crime would be punishable by between 16 months and three years in prison.

If that distribution, sale or delivery involved anyone under the age of 17, the punishment is automatically boosted to a minimum 3 years, with a maximum of 7 years.

Usually, police crackdowns in these cases lead to minor possession charges or simple confiscation of marijuana paraphernalia and small amounts of personal use.

Officers in this case were booed by the crowd as they hauled off the suspect in handcuffs as he argued that he was being harassed.

Continue reading "Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyers Available to Represent 4/20 Arrestees" »

The rivalry among medical marijuana advocates backing one of three proposals to regulate the drug within the city of Los Angeles has been sharpening in recent weeks.

Our Los Angeles marijuana lawyers understand that each measure has collected its own group of supporters, though one of those, Initiative Ordinance E, has largely been abandoned by its primary stronghold of dispensary union employees in favor of a similar measure, Proposition D, which is backed by city council.

The other proposal, Measure F, is supported by a number of medical marijuana dispensaries and patients' groups.

The competition is biting, with the Los Angeles Times reporting that both sides are allege that the other is only pledging support for one measure over another in order to fatten their pockets.

One thing is clear: Any one of these measures is preferable to the action that was passed and almost implemented last year. Last summer, council voted to ban storefront medical marijuana dispensaries.

We recently offered an in-depth look at what each of these measures would mean in a recent Marijuana Lawyer Blog post.

Here's the abridged version:

• Initiative Ordinance E would allow only older shops - those in existing since 2007, when the city first placed a moratorium on new operations - and it would not raise taxes for shop owners.


• Proposition D, the measure backed by council and also the Los Angeles County Democratic Club and now the labor union, would also limit the number of dispensaries to those in existence as of 2007, but it would also increase taxes for dispensaries.


• Meanwhile, Measure F would not place any limit on the number of marijuana dispensaries, but they would be required to submit to regular city audits, test their product for certain toxins and keep a certain distance away from parks, schools and other dispensaries.

The primary reason why the union has shifted its support had do with the fact that the winning measure will have to get more than 50 percent of the vote in order to pass. If none of those three receives approval from the majority of voters, they will all fail - and we'll be back to square one.

Opponents of Proposition D say that it would create a monopoly for older shops, of which there are about 200 or so. This kind of cornering of the market would essentially create an opportunity for "pot superstores," which opponents say would increase crime rates and encourage massive operations. Supporters say market forces - not government - should be the primary decider of the number of dispensaries.

Opponents of Measure F, meanwhile, say that the current model hasn't worked, as there are a heavy concentration of shops in certain areas of the city.

Either way, voters will have a tough choice. The city has played tug-of-war for years on this issue, and it's part of an ongoing saga of contradictory court opinions on whether cities even have the right to regulate access to marijuana in California.

Continue reading "Rival Marijuana Measures Set for a Vote Next Month" »