NEW ADDITIONS: La Puente Dispensaries, Collectives and Co-ops

Azusa Patient Remedies NEW!
393 S. Azusa Ave.
La Puente, CA 91744
Hours: Mon-Sun 10:30am to 8pm
Phone: 626-839-3883
Fax: 626-839-3898

Green Comfort Collective NEW!
15420 Fairgrove Ave.
La Puente, CA 91744
Hours: Mon-Fri 10am to 8pm, Sat 10am to 7pm, Sun 12pm to 5pm
Phone: 626-343-9039

La Puente Medical Cannabis Center NEW!
824 N. Hacienda Blvd.
La Puente, CA 91744
Hours: Mon-Sat 10am to 7pm, Sun 12pm to 5pm
Phone: 626-723-4163

THC2
15416 W. Francisquito Ave. [map]
La Puente, CA 91744
Hours: Mon-Sat 9am to 8pm, Sun 10am to 7pm
Phone: 626-919-1999

Covers the following zip codes in La Puente, California: 91744, 91745, 91746, 91747, 91748, 91749

What Part of “Not a Priority” Does the DEA Not Understand?

Earlier this month the DEA conducted several coordinated raids of California medical marijuana dispensaries and collectives. The federal agents raided a medical marijuana farm in the northern county of Mendocino, as well as a dispensary in San Diego. They destroyed all the marijuana plants and seized the grower’s computer and cash from the property.

Problem is, these DEA raids are in direct opposition to the directive issued by President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder last year that designated raids on legal medical marijuana dispensaries to “not be a priority” for the DEA. The places raided by the DEA were not just in total compliance with state and local laws, but the raided farm was the very first to come into legal compliance with local authorities.

Greenfield had applied in the name of her collective, “Light The Way,” which opened in San Diego earlier this year. Her property had passed a preliminary inspection by the Mendo sheriff’s deputies shortly before the raid, and she had bought the sheriff’s “zip-ties” intended to designate her cannabis plants as legal.

In the days before the raid, Greenfield had seen a helicopter hovering over her property; she inquired with the sheriff, who told her the copter belonged to the DEA and wasn’t under his control.

The agents invaded her property with guns drawn, tore out the collective’s 99 plants and took Greenfield’s computer and cash.

Joy was not at home during the raid, but spoke on the phone to the DEA agent in charge. When she told he she was a legal grower under the sheriff’s program, the agent replied, “I don’t care what the sheriff says.”

So today, Firedoglake publisher Jane Hamsher joined drug policy reform organizations and a conservative group, led by the Marijuana Policy Project, in condemning the DEA’s raids.

Two ideologically diverse advocates today echoed an earlier call by a coalition of drug-policy reform groups and condemned a series of recent raids by the Drug Enforcement Administration on medical marijuana collectives that were operating legally under state law. The Tenth Amendment Center, a group that advocates on behalf of states’ rights, and Jane Hamsher, the publisher of FireDogLake.com, called on the DEA to respect duly adopted state medical marijuana laws and immediately end these raids.

The DEA is out of control. The agency and its acting administrator, Michele Leonhart, are clearly flouting a direct order from the Attorney General and the President of the United States. But Leonhart isn’t just an acting administrator – President Obama nominated her to take the job full time, but her nomination is stalled in the Senate.

Jane Hamsher singled out Leonhart in her criticism of the DEA’s raids:

“At least 73% of Americans support medical marijuana, according to recent polls, and its use has been made legal in 14 states plus the District of Columbia,” said Jane Hamsher, publisher of progressive political blog and advocacy group Firedoglake.com. “Attorney General Eric Holder was crystal clear last year when he directed officials within his department not to waste federal resources interfering with state medical marijuana laws. Yet throughout the tenure of President Obama’s administration, the DEA’s raids have continued in a manner wholly inconsistent with the spirit of that directive.

“What part of “not a priority” does Michele Leonhart not understand?”

Drug policy organizations were quick to organize against these unlawful raids. Along with the Marijuana Policy Project, groups like Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, NORML, Drug Policy Alliance, and Students for Sensible Drug Policy all joined in a petition to Obama to withdraw Leonhart’s nomination to head the DEA. It’s a smart move, and is much needed if the Obama Administration was actually serious about making senseless medical marijuana raids “not to be a priority” for federal law enforcement.

Source: Fire Dog Lake

NEWS: Wildomar could become medical marijuana pioneer

Think Wildomar and concepts such as a feisty spirit (it says so right on the city website) and anti-government bent (one of the reasons it took the community so long to incorporate) might come to mind.

Reefer madness probably isn't one of them.

Yet which southwest Riverside County city is on the verge of allowing retail outlets to sell medical marijuana to patients?

That would be wacky Wildomar at the forefront of distributing the wacky weed.

Or so go the fears of critics who envision the community turning into the cannabis capital of the area, hippies on the street corner doling out joints, political types toking at City Council meetings and the dawning of the Age of Aquarius near.

Lest you wonder what I've been smoking myself, I'm exaggerating the fears just a tad. OK, a country mile.

Exaggeration is what City Councilwoman Sheryl Ade worries about, which is why she chants this mantra about the issue: "Educate, educate, educate."

She says the people using medical marijuana are "everybody people," folks who need it to alleviate pain. It's got nothing to do with that 1960s stereotype of hippies, flower power, anti-war protests.

Ade favors nonprofit collectives in Wildomar, nondescript places where people can pick up their medical marijuana. Wildomar would be the county's second city -- Palm Springs was the first in 2009 -- to pass a law allowing such joints, I mean places.

As to the notion this would turn Wildomar into another sin capital such as Las Vegas as some residents expressed at a planning commission meeting last week, Ade doubts it.

"Nothing will change in Wildomar," she says.

As to her belief that people need to be more educated, talk to Paula Carter, who runs a collective from a home office in Lakeland Village. She'd rather do it in her hometown of Wildomar, but that's not allowed.

So how many local residents are part of Carter's collective that she distributes medical marijuana to? I thought she'd say about 25, maybe 50. Not even close. She has about 420, including a retired judge, a former FBI agent, some lawyers and a couple of doctors.

Or do as she suggests and Google weed maps. Click into the Temecula-Murrieta area and see there are 14 outlets listed, from the Ministry of Cannabis to Mr. Herbs Collective.

Carter's point is plenty of medical marijuana is being distributed in southwest Riverside County. She's a former firefighter and paramedic who started using medical marijuana when she had intestinal cancer a couple of years ago after finding she didn't care for the narcotics prescribed for the pain and nausea. She switched to medical marijuana and was more content.

Carter and her husband Michael have run the collective for about a year. To her, it's an industry that's here to stay, no matter what critics conjure up. Given the size of her clientele and the number of local collectives, it's hard to argue, wacky as it may sound to some.

Source: The Press-Enterprise

NEWS: A federal-state law inconsistency shouldn't stop Californians from legalizing marijuana

No law is infallible. As it has done in the past, California can show leadership in driving needed reforms by passing Proposition 19.

The law is the law. If we unquestioningly accepted that maxim, imagine where we would be today. Jim Crow would be alive and well, rivers and skies would be polluted, and women wouldn't be allowed to vote.

Yet such is the mindset of many of those who criticize Proposition 19, the marijuana regulation and taxation initiative on the November ballot. In his July 18 Times Op-Ed article, UCLA public policy professor Mark A.R. Kleiman declares that state legalization "can't be done." He points out, correctly, that if the initiative is successful, the federal marijuana prohibition laws will remain in place. What he assumes, incorrectly, is that federal agents will swarm into California, busting farmers and arresting distributors and shopkeepers, to say nothing of the garden stores that sell them equipment and supplies, the accountants who do their books and the municipal tax officials who delight in assessing and collecting the new tax revenues.

Kleiman might well have uttered, "The law is the law."

Get the best in Southern California opinion journalism delivered to your inbox with our Opinion L.A. newsletter. Sign up »

But the law is neither absolute nor infallible, and that's why Californians can — and should — legalize, regulate and tax marijuana-related commerce.

The federal-state dynamic concerning marijuana is not complicated. Under our system of federalism, both the states and the feds may prohibit commerce in marijuana, but neither is required to do so. Similarly, during alcohol prohibition (1920-33), commerce in alcoholic beverages was prohibited not only by federal law (the Volstead Act) but by the laws of most states. In 1923, New York repealed its state prohibition laws, leaving enforcement, for the remaining 10 years, entirely to the feds. California voters overwhelmingly did the same thing in 1932, one year before national prohibition was repealed.

Let's think this through. If Proposition 19 passes, two important balls roll into the feds' court. The first is that the sole responsibility and expense of enforcing marijuana prohibition will be shifted to them. After Nov. 2, marijuana "offenders" could be arrested only by federal agents, prosecuted only under federal law, and sentenced only to federal detention.

If the feds undertook this, cases involving simple possession cases and small-time marijuana businesspeople, usually relegated to state courts, would flood federal courthouses. But even with a drastic increase in funding for federal enforcement, such activity would barely put a dent in California's marijuana trade, and would fail to stifle California's policy change, as the federal government has failed to do since the first medical marijuana laws were passed 14 years ago. Moreover, justifying the invasion into a state's province to undermine the will of the voters at such great expense to taxpayers would be highly questionable, especially in the current economic climate, not to mention a political climate that is at best lukewarm on prohibitionist policies.

The second ball is even more significant. Voter approval of Proposition 19 would shift to the feds the responsibility and burden of justifying marijuana prohibition in the first place. Now, the Washingtonians who have never questioned decades of anti-pot propaganda can explain to the people of California why we cannot be trusted to determine our state's marijuana policies. Let them endorse the prohibition laws' usefulness as a tool of oppressing minorities. Let them celebrate how minor marijuana violations cost people their jobs, their housing, custody of their kids, and entrap them permanently in vast criminal justice databases. Let them justify the utter hypocrisy of the legal treatment of alcohol and tobacco, as compared with the illegal treatment of marijuana. Let them tell us how many more people will have to be prosecuted and punished before marijuana is eradicated, how much that will cost, and where the money will come from.

Proposition 19's success in November would put the feds in a quandary, yes, but it is a quandary of their own making. Unlike alcohol prohibition, which required a constitutional amendment, Congress could fix this easily with a simple amendment to the Controlled Substances Act allowing conduct legal under state law and respecting the right of states to regulate and tax the cannabis industry. After all, determining what is a crime is traditionally handled at the state level; indeed, federal prosecutions of drug possession make up a miniscule portion of overall drug arrests.

Instead of hewing to a misguided and unworkable federal hegemony in this area, encouraging innovation at the state level would be a more rational federal policy. And to be clear, legal scholars have long disagreed with Kleiman's conclusion that the feds must and will intervene to try to quell state action in this area.

States need not shrink from countering federal policy on marijuana. California can show leadership in driving needed reforms, as it has before. In other words, the law need not be the law if you're willing to stick your neck out. Cautious academics and politicized public employees will always embrace the status quo, joined by risk-averse politicians who misconstrue a lack of constituent "noise" on this issue as satisfaction with current law, not fear. But voters know better.

Not only can Californians regulate and tax marijuana, we should.

Source: Los Angeles Times

NEWS: VISTA: Judge nixes defense in medical marijuana case

A Vista man who ran a medical marijuana dispensary cannot argue to a jury that he believed the federal government was OK with shops selling the herb to sick people, a federal judge decided.

The July 12 written ruling is a blow to defendant James Stacy, 46, who has argued he took public statements by officials, including President Barack Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, as a green light to open up shop in June 2009, so long as he followed California's medical marijuana law.

U.S. District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz rejected that argument, finding "no evidence that defendant reasonably believed that a government agent authorized him to engage in illegal acts."
He said Stacy should have called federal prosecutors to gauge the legality of the operation before opening up shop.

Stacy's now-defunct medical marijuana store on South Santa Fe Avenue was one of 14 San Diego County shops raided by local and federal authorities on Sept. 9, 2009. A search of the Vista shop turned up eight dozen marijuana plants and a semiautomatic gun.

Moskowitz's ruling leaves Stacy with little defense at his trial, set to start Aug. 30. He faces three counts of illegal drug sales, as well as charges of growing it, intending to sell it, and possessing a gun in furtherance of his operation.

In the 14-page ruling, the judge said Stacy "selectively picks and chooses statements" on which to rely.

The judge pointed to one news story ---- one of those on which Stacy said he had relied ---- in which Holder said federal prosecutors would not put great effort into chasing low-level medical marijuana cases.

Moskowitz noted that the news story went on to say that federal authorities still had the power to arrest and prosecute marijuana users and sellers if they chose to.

"Apparently, Defendant chose to ignore these portions of the article," Moskowitz wrote.
Moskowitz also said Stacy cannot raise any medical marijuana defenses to the jury, including arguments over whether the dispensary was legal under California law.

He barred Stacy from presenting philosophical arguments, including whether marijuana should be legal, whether it has legitimate medicinal value and whether providing it to patients was humanitarian.

Source: North County Times

NEWS: Jobs, Taxes and Crime: Keys to California's Marijuana Vote

Inside City Hall in Oakland, Calif., Jim Wilcox explained his plan for a commercial marijuana farm. "My idea was a Silicon Valley of cannabis," he told the city council recently. "An office park for pot." The council has approved the creation, licensing and taxing of four such medical marijuana farms inside Oakland city limits.

Four hundred miles to the south in Los Angeles, it's a completely different story. After four years running the Pure Life Alternative Wellness Center, Yami Bolanos fears her medical marijuana dispensary will be shut down. "The patients are the ones that are getting screwed royally by the city council."

Los Angeles is cracking down hard on the number of "collectives", which have grown like weeds in the last few years. By some estimates, there were 700 medical marijuana dispensaries a few months ago, more pot outlets than Starbucks in LA. A new law will reduce that number to 182. "The sale of marijuana has never been approved by voters," says Los Angeles Assistant Attorney Asha Greenberg. "Cities have the ability to restrict the numbers of collectives."

This tale of two cities reflects a divergence of opinion in California over the future of what may be its largest cash crop. Voters will decide in November whether to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes.

The State Board of Equalization estimates that pot in California is worth $15 billion a year. Taxing it could bring in $1.5 billion in much-needed revenues. But that's based on current prices. A Rand study suggests that if the November ballot measure passes, prices could drop 90 percent to $38 an ounce, while consumption could increase as much as 100 percent.

The November initiative, called Proposition 19, would allow California residents 21 years or older to grow marijuana at home for personal use, in an area no larger than 25 square feet. It would also allow adults 21 and older to possess and transport up to an ounce. Finally, it would allow local governments to license, regulate, and tax commercial growers and sellers. Like alcohol, sales to anyone under 21 would be banned.

"Look at all the people that are being killed in Mexico every day, as well as the home invasion robberies and other things that come from the inflated price that's caused by prohibition," says Richard Lee, who authored Prop 19. Lee runs Oaksterdam University in Oakland, a school which teaches people how to grow medical marijuana and run a dispensary.

Lee says the benefits of legalization go beyond sales tax revenues, and include "ancillary benefits such a tourism, jobs, and hotel rooms and transportation and food that would go along with the cannabis industry."

"They will probably two, three, four to one outraise us financially," says Covina police chief Kim Raney, leading the No on Prop 19 campaign, "but I think our message will be clear. I think our message will be the truth, and I think the voters in the state will understand that."

What is clear is that Prop 19 will again put California's marijuana laws in direct opposition to the feds. Because of that, the state's Legislative Analyst's Office says it's impossible to know how much money the state might bring in.

The LAO says savings to correctional facilities "could reach several tens of millions of dollars annually," and a new jobs-creating industry could let the state "eventually collect hundreds of millions of dollars annually in additional revenues." But with the federal government poised at any moment to snuff out any legalized pot business, "the revenue and expenditure impacts of this measure are subject to significant uncertainty."

Public opinion polls have delivered conflicting results on the initiative's chances for success. "I think in November, (voters) will realize the consequences and devastation that this act will have on their communities, and I think the voters will turn it down," says Chief Raney.

Richard Lee's pro-Prop 19 group has hired an Internet fundraising company used during the Obama campaign, and its Facebook page has well over 130,000 fans. The political battle will be fierce, and opposition may come from unexpected sources. "Two groups that have come out against (Prop 19) are growers who don't want to pay taxes," he says, "and the cops who want to keep getting the forfeiture money and seizure money, and job security from it."

Source: CNBC

NEWS: 'Rancho Santa Fe 13' indicted for alleged marijuana fraud, leader refuses to appear at court

Only 12 of 13 people indicted for growing, and distributing, medical marijuana at a $2 million Rancho Santa Fe home appeared at federal court in San Diego on Thursday, July 22 to enter pleas.

Joshua John "Jacob" Hester, who was arrested two weeks ago at a West Hollywood residence, in an unusual move, according to legal experts, refused to appear before Federal Magistrate Anthony Battaglia.

At Thursday's preliminary hearing, Battaglia set a new hearing date for next week on the 45-count indictment. Earlier this month, he set bond for each of the defendants at between $25,000 to $100,000.

The indictment, unsealed two weeks ago by federal authorities, alleged the 13 defendants conspired to distribute medical marijuana illegally, conspired to launder millions of dollars, as well as other felony charges, related to their purchase of a home at at 15702 Circo Diegeuno Rd., Rancho Santa Fe, where 89 marijuana plants were grown at a "bonus room" accessible only by a hidden door behind a bookshelf.

The defendants are Hester, 29; Rex Naanos, 30; Jay Hansen, 30; real estate agent Marco Manuel Luis, 30; Kelsey Lynn Wiedenhoefer, 27; Ryan Michael White, 24; Tara Hester, 26; Zachary Dickinson, 22; Justin Matthew Hunt, 28; Stephanie Tine, 20; Alec Pacillas, 24; Adam Muscat, 33; and Joseph Matthew Nunes, 33.

The 13 were accused of selling the medical marijuana to the Green Kross Collective at Pacific Beach and San Diego's Downtown Kush Lounge, situated only a few blocks from the federal courthouse.

Internal Revenue Service criminal investigators, a Drug Enforcement Administration narcotics task force, and the U.S. Marshals Service investigated the case. Charges were brought on the basis of informants and wiretaps, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Hester was a no-show at Thursday's court proceedings. He refused to leave his Metropolitan Correctional Center cell, near the courthouse, but did not give a reason.

Marcel Stewart, Hester's attorney, refused to discuss the refusal to appear, but added he did not believe this would affect the case. Stewart called it a non-event, saying his recent agreement to represent Hester meant he would have asked for a delay anyway to prepare the case.

Stewart also said the federal government's case represented its challenge of California medical marijuana laws, setting up a trial whose central issue would be whether defendants complying with state medical marijuana statutes could be charged for federal violations.

Charles Reese, a former federal prosecutor not involved in the case, told NBC San Diego 7/39 that skipping the court appearance sent the wrong message to the judge and could be considered a sign of disrespect for the process.

For more background on the Rancho Santa Fe connection, visit this Ah-Ha Rancho Santa Fe News link.

Source: Ah-Ha Rancho Santa Fe News

NEWS: Medical marijuana to be OK in some VA clinics

WASHINGTON — Patients treated at Veterans Affairs hospitals and clinics will be able to use medical marijuana in the 14 states where it's legal, according to new federal guidelines.

The directive from the Veterans Affairs Department in the coming week is intended to clarify current policy that says veterans can be denied pain medication if they use illegal drugs. Veterans groups have complained for years that this could bar veterans from VA benefits if they were caught using medical marijuana.

The new guidance does not authorize VA doctors to begin prescribing medical marijuana, which is considered an illegal drug under federal law. But it will now make clear that in the 14 states where state and federal law are in conflict, VA clinics generally will allow the use of medical marijuana for veterans already taking it under other clinicians.

"For years, there have been veterans coming back from the Iraq war who needed medical marijuana and had to decide whether they were willing to cut down on their VA medications," John Targowski, a legal adviser to the group Veterans for Medical Marijuana Access, which worked with the VA on the issue.

Targowski in an interview Saturday said that confusion over the government's policy might have led some veterans to distrust their doctors or avoid the VA system.

Dr. Robert A. Petzel, the VA's undersecretary for health, sent a letter to Veterans for Medical Marijuana Access this month that spells out the department's policy. The guidelines will be distributed to the VA's 900 care facilities around the country in the next week.

Petzel makes clear that a VA doctor could reserve the right to modify a veteran's treatment plan if there were risks of a bad interaction with other drugs.

"If a veteran obtains and uses medical marijuana in a manner consistent with state law, testing positive for marijuana would not preclude the veteran from receiving opioids for pain management" in a VA facility, Petzel wrote. "The discretion to prescribe, or not prescribe, opioids in conjunction with medical marijuana, should be determined on clinical grounds."

Opioids are narcotic painkillers, and include morphine, oxycodone and methadone.

Under the previous policy, local VA clinics in some of the 14 states, such as Michigan, had opted to allow the use of medical marijuana because there no rule explicitly prohibiting them from doing so.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, there are 14 states and the District of Columbia with medical marijuana laws. They are: Alaska, California , Colorado, Hawaii , Maine, Maryland , Michigan, Montana , Nevada , New Mexico, Oregon , Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. New Jersey also recently passed a medical marijuana law, which is scheduled to be implemented next January.

Source: San Diego Union-Tribune

NEWS: Humboldt medical marijuana panel urges industry to seize opportunities

As Humboldt County's well-known marijuana industry faces potential legalization, cannabis experts gathered in Bayside Saturday to share information about how it might seize the opportunities of the day and prepare for a different future.

Some of those who spoke on the Humboldt Medical Marijuana Advisory Panel warned that while legalization may decriminalize marijuana, it will also mean significant government regulation, and that some areas -- Oakland was repeatedly mentioned -- are likely years ahead in preparing for it. The message was one of urgency, that people involved in the marijuana industry should act now to ensure the Humboldt brand will last beyond legalization.

Medical marijuana attorney Mel Pearlston told a packed Bayside Grange that California's Proposition 215 law remains vague, but more than a decade after it passed, there appear to be two legal means of growing marijuana collectively. One is to form a collective, usually with family or friends, each of which can provide something -- space, equipment, expertise -- to grow marijuana for their own use or as a primary caregiver to a medical marijuana patient.

One can also form a California consumer cooperative, which can be taxed and must sell marijuana on a nonprofit basis, a murky term, Pearlston said.

But Pearlston said that selling marijuana to another person or a dispensary is illegal, unless the grower is an employee of the dispensary, a model that is being used more and more.

That is where Humboldt County can seize an advantage today -- and whether the marijuana bill on the November ballot passes or not, he said.

”It's legal now and the opportunity is here and can be taken advantage of,” Pearlston said.
Plenty of dispensaries in big cities, he said, would be willing to come to Humboldt to buy or lease farmland and employ thousands of workers to grow the crop.

Some of the panelists acknowledged a fear of change as they watched the industry shift 20 to 30 years ago. As more people became involved in growing marijuana, said Redway blogger Kym Kemp, she saw prices fall significantly, and with it hospitals and fire departments in Southern Humboldt suffer. But with attitudes changing about marijuana, Kemp said there may be a bright light ahead.

”I'm thinking instead of a world of doom and gloom, there's a world of possibilities,” Kemp said.

Humboldt County Supervisor Mark Lovelace said that Humboldt County's familiarity with marijuana means it should be actively involved in how marijuana is regulated if and when it becomes legal.

Legalization isn't going to be carte blanche, Lovelace said; there will be a host of regulations that come with it. And yet, many of the people in the state who will be regulating the herb “can't say marijuana at full volume,” he said.

He said the people in the industry now will have to help state and local governments “get it right.”

Source: Contra Costa Times

NEWS: 13 Indicted for Drug Dealing from Rancho Santa Fe Mansion

SAN DIEGO - Thirteen people have been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges stemming from a marijuana distribution and multimillion-dollar money laundering operation in San Diego.

The 45-count indictment charged 13 defendants with crimes including conspiracy to distribute, conspiracy to launder millions of dollars, as well as felonies related to the purchase of a $2 million Rancho Santa Fe home and marijuana cultivation on the property, according to U.S. Attorney Laura E. Duffy.

The defendants are Joshua John Hester, 29; Rex Naanos, 30; Jay Hansen, 30; real estate agent Marco Manuel Luis, 30; Kelsey Lynn Wiedenhoefer, 27; Ryan Michael White, 24; Tara Hester, 26; Zachary Dickinson, 22; Justin Matthew Hunt, 28; Stephanie Tine, 20; Alec Pacillas, 24; Adam Muscat, 33; and Joseph Matthew Nunes, 33.

Federal prosecutors say they grew marijuana in a vacant Rancho Santa Fe home and sold it to medical marijuana collectives in downtown San Diego and Pacific Beach.

Hester is the leader of the drug ring, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Sherri Walker Hobson.

The ring is accused of selling marijuana to the Green Kross Collective in Pacific Beach and the Downtown Kush Lounge in San Diego.

Both operated as legal medical marijuana dispensaries under state law, the prosecutor said.

A federal complaint unsealed earlier this month reveals Hester purchased a $2 million home at 15702 Circo Diegueno in Rancho Santa Fe (map) and used as a location to grow marijuana

Earlier this year, during a raid on the house, drug agents found a secret door that lead into rooms where marijuana plants were growing.

Agencies involved in the case were an Internal Revenue Service criminal investigation unit, a Drug Enforcement Administration narcotics task force, and the U.S. Marshals Service.

Source: San Diego Channel 6

NEWS: Santa Barbara Set to Implement New Marijuana Ordinance

Santa Barbara’s new ordinance on medical marijuana goes into effect July 29, and city officials are readying themselves to implement the new requirements.

After nearly a year of revisionary meetings, the consensus called for a three-storefront citywide cap and stricter security and operational rules.

Only one of the three permitted storefronts — at 331 N. Milpas St. — can stay, and all other locations have six months to shape up, with a permit under the new ordinance, or close up.

Under the new ordinance, members must live within Santa Barbara County and have a valid doctor’s recommendation, cultivation must be within the Tri-Counties and the operations can’t turn a profit — though reasonable compensation is thought to be acceptable. Vending machines are OK, as long as they’re located within a permitted collective dispensary, and edible products also are allowed.

In fact, according to the ordinance, anyone who "assists" in preparing the edibles will be viewed as "an individual who provides assistance to a qualified patient or person with an identification card, or his or her designated primary caregiver, in administering medical marijuana to a qualified patient …" as the phrase is mentioned in the Health and Safety Code.

Criminal Investigations

While the zoning ordinance requires operators to comply with state laws — such as being nonprofit — a permit is by no means a get-out-of-jail-free card.

The Pacific Coast Collective is permitted at 331 N. Milpas St., but after a traffic stop prompted an investigation, the owner was arrested and charged with cultivation and possession for sales of marijuana, and the storefront was temporarily shut down, Santa Barbara police Capt. Armando Martel said.

Martel, who represented police at most city meetings on the subject, is a 25-year veteran of the department in charge of the investigative division.

Local law enforcement agencies have conducted raids on several city dispensaries and residences, which yielded arrests and seizures of marijuana and cash for evidence purposes.

“The city takes people for face value when they say, ‘I’m going to open up this business,’” he said. “(The city) isn’t endorsing them — there’s an assumption that the business owners are going to obey laws.”

Regardless of civil actions, the police department will always investigate potential law violations, whether they’re reported by the public or discovered by police personnel, Martel said.

“Don’t think that I or anyone else thinks, ‘I’m going to go to a dispensary and pick on them,’” he said.

Investigations into the storefront collective and dispensary raids are resource-and-time intensive and can take four to six months from the start to getting warrants and taking enforcement action, Martel said.

Enforcing the Ordinance

Danny Kato, a senior planner with the city’s Community Development Department, had stayed busy with storefront-collective applications and ordinance updates, but has found a reprieve now that policy decisions are made.

He said he’s in the middle of writing letters to all known dispensaries telling them to close or update their applications.

Many applications stuck in limbo while the moratorium was in place are no longer valid, Kato said, leaving at least three current owners vying for two open spots — all of whom ignored cease-and-desist letters issued by the city attorney.

The Santa Barbara Patients Group has an application for a new location, and The Compassion Center on De la Vina Street and Hortipharm on Upper State Street have applications submitted with updated operational plans to comply with the new ordinance.

The owners of the Pacific Coast Collective and Hortipharm were arrested on charges of possession of marijuana for sales after investigations into compliance with the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

The Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office is prosecuting cases involving six dispensaries, four of which are within city limits, District Attorney Joyce Dudley told Noozhawk in an e-mail.

She said that everyone arrested in connection with those cases are awaiting preliminary hearings, most of which are scheduled for August or September.

No owner of a dispensary can have a felony conviction, but the city takes no action on arrests alone, Kato said.

“We’re not going to try to revoke their permit just on the arrest,” he said of the Pacific Coast Collective.

Although some owners have been involved in court action with the city over shutting down, Kato said none complied right away with the cease-and-desist letters.

City Resources

Enforcement and the processing of applications can be a drain on the police department, the city attorney’s office and the community development department, but the heavy implementation process could be short-lived.

A new $120-per-hour fee for processing applications is designed to help with cost recovery, and after the six-month deadline to comply or shut down, there will be only three to deal with, Kato said.

Plans for annual reviews and record-keeping, with cooperation from the police department, are still being developed, but operators of storefront collectives must keep all financial, membership and cultivation records on hand for three years and make them available to city staff.

New applications will be accepted through July 29, though chances could be slim as there are many people fighting for two available spots.

“You could spend a lot of money and not even get the chance to present your case,” Kato said.

Other Jurisdictions

Santa Barbara County is one of 15 in California with a moratorium against dispensaries, and the city is one of 36 with an ordinance, according to Americans for Safe Access.

Many jurisdictions have their eyes on the November ballot measure that proposes legalizing the use of marijuana, and 101 cities have adopted moratoria and another 132 have bans. The Santa Barbara City Council approved a ballot measure for November that would ban all storefront collectives.

Just recently, the Ventura City Council continued its moratorium. During the meeting, some people made references to Santa Barbara, calling it a marijuana mecca, and said the distinction between legitimate collectives and for-profit dispensaries is too difficult to discern, according to the Ventura County Star.

The nearest areas with an ordinance allowing dispensaries are cities in Santa Clara County, Tulare County or the Long Beach area, depending on which way you’re driving.

Source: Santa Barbara & Goleta Noozhawk

NEWS: Cannabinoids reduce ErbB2-driven breast cancer progression through Akt inhibition

ErbB2-positive breast cancer is characterized by highly aggressive phenotypes and reduced responsiveness to standard therapies. Although specific ErbB2-targeted therapies have been designed, only a small percentage of patients respond to these treatments and most of them eventually relapse.

The existence of this population of particularly aggressive and non-responding or relapsing patients urges the search for novel therapies. The purpose of this study was to determine whether cannabinoids might constitute a new therapeutic tool for the treatment of ErbB2-positive breast tumors.

We analyzed their antitumor potential in a well established and clinically relevant model of ErbB2-driven metastatic breast cancer: the MMTV-neu mouse. We also analyzed the expression of cannabinoid targets in a series of 87 human breast tumors.

Results: Our results show that both Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the most abundant and potent cannabinoid in marijuana, and JWH-133, a non-psychotropic CB2 receptor-selective agonist, reduce tumor growth, tumor number, and the amount/severity of lung metastases in MMTV-neu mice.

Histological analyses of the tumors revealed that cannabinoids inhibit cancer cell proliferation, induce cancer cell apoptosis, and impair tumor angiogenesis. Cannabinoid antitumoral action relies, at least partially, on the inhibition of the pro-tumorigenic Akt pathway.

We also found that 91% of ErbB2-positive tumors express the non-psychotropic cannabinoid receptor CB2.

Conclusions: Taken together, these results provide a strong preclinical evidence for the use of cannabinoid-based therapies for the management of ErbB2-positive breast cancer.

Author: Maria CaffarelClara AndradasEmilia MiraEduardo Perez-GomezCamilla CeruttiGema Moreno-BuenoJuana FloresIsabel Garcia-RealJose PalaciosSantos ManesManuel GuzmanCristina Sanchez
Credits/Source: Molecular Cancer 2010, 9:196

Source: 7th Space Interactive

NEWS: County marijuana ring charged by feds

RANCHO SANTA FE — Federal prosecutors charged a dozen people last week, including the mastermind behind two San Diego medical marijuana collectives, for their roles in a large-scale marijuana cultivation and distribution operation.

In addition to owning the Green Kross Collective in Mission Beach and the Downtown Kush Lounge in the Gaslamp District, authorities believe Joshua John Hester, 29, operated a large grow operation in a vacant $2 million Rancho Santa Fe residence that he had his then-girlfriend, Kelsey Wiedenhoefer, purchase for him as a straw buyer in 2007.

When police raided the house on 15702 Circo Diegueno in May, they found two secret back rooms hidden behind a bookshelf where 89 marijuana plants were being cultivated under the guise, authorities allege, of the “medical marijuana” shield, according to federal court documents. Hester is also accused of operating the aforementioned collectives under the false pretense that the businesses were nonprofit medical marijuana collectives.

Wiedenhoefer, as well as Hester’s realtor, Marco Luis, are charged with one count each of conspiring to launder money relating to their involvement with the alleged ringleader, court records state. The other nine defendants had varying involvement with Hester. Some transported marijuana for him, while others worked at the collectives.

Police arrested Hester on July 9 in his West Hollywood apartment.

In 1996, California voters approved the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Federal law still deems the drug illegal. Authorities allege Hester’s collectives were operated as retail outlets selling marijuana, and were not in compliance with the state’s medical marijuana guidelines.

On paper, Joseph Nunes was the official owner of the two dispensaries; however, after an extensive investigation, which included interviews with a “cooperating defendant,” it was revealed that Hester was the “true owner” of the businesses, court records state.

Nunes was sentenced to one year in federal prison in May after pleading guilty to manufacturing marijuana, maintaining premises to sell marijuana and money laundering, several months after the two collectives were raided in September 2009.

As part of their investigation, federal agents monitored the defendants using wiretaps. Several weeks after Nunes arrest, Hester was recorded saying he was “safe” and “insulated” from prosecution for operating the dispensaries.

Authorities also point to Hester’s intent to sell Green Cross Collective for $250,000 over Craigslist, as even more evidence he was a silent owner of the business. According to the federal complaint, Hester told several potential buyers that “they” made $1.5 million from the collective. Additionally, Hester revealed over the wiretaps that the dispensaries were averaging $5,000 to $7,000 a day.

Source: The Coast News

NEWS: Gunmen Rob a Little Italy Medical Marijuana Dispensary

SAN DIEGO - Two thieves armed with guns held up a Little Italy marijuana dispensary Wedensday, getting into a scuffle with a clerk before fleeing with cash and marijuana.

The robbery at Tri-City Holistic, 915 W. Grape St., was reported shortly after 12:30 p.m., according to San Diego police.

The bandits -- men who appeared to be in their late teens to mid-20s, wearing jeans and black sweat shirts with the hoods pulled over their heads -- fought with an employee, then ordered the victim to fill duffel bags with marijuana and money, San Diego Police Department Officer Frank Cali said.

The pair fled to the south on California Street on foot, got into a charcoal-colored Chevrolet Camaro and drove out of the area.

Source: San Diego Channel 6 News

VIDEO: Barry Kramer testifies on Medical Marijuana Ban in LA at Board of Supervisors Meeting

Barry Kramer's public testimony regarding a proposed ban on medical marijuana dispensaries/collectives in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. From Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Meeting on July 6, 2010.

NEWS: Oakland allows industrial-scale marijuana farms

OAKLAND -- Oakland's City Council late Tuesday adopted regulations permitting industrial-scale marijuana farms, a plan that some small farmers argued would squeeze them out of the industry they helped to build.

To address concerns from smaller farmers, the council pledged to create regulations on regulating small- and medium-size marijuana farms this year. Council members and proponents of marijuana cultivation regulation viewed the proposal as smart public policy: It would generate revenue, ensure that fire and building codes are enforced, keep neighborhoods safe from robberies, and further position Oakland as the center of the state's cannabis economy.

"It's really important for Oakland to be a vital part of that growth and development for licensed facilities," said Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan.

But many of the folks on the front lines of the young industry say it will change the culture of what they've built.

They say industrial farms will turn a grassroots economy into a corporate one, driving down costs but also eroding the quality of the marijuana, which state voters defined in 1996 as medicine.

The most influential critic was Steve DeAngelo, owner of Oakland's Harborside Health Center, the largest medical marijuana dispensary in the nation.

His dispensary buys from some 500 different growers, meaning Harborside offers about 100 varieties at any time. Permitting only industrial operations would reduce variety, he said.

"Government should not choose the winners and losers but create a level playing field," he said. "Some people might prefer mass production, assembly-line cannabis that costs less. Others might prefer cannabis grown by a master gardener in a smaller plot.

"Let the market sort it out," he said.

The regulations will award permits to four indoor marijuana farms. There will be no size limit, but there have been proposals for farms as large as 100,000 square feet - about the size of two football fields.

DeAngelo said he would prefer farms of various sizes.

The regulations will require applicants to have a minimum of $3 million worth of insurance, hire security and pay a $211,000 annual permit fee.

The city will be begin to issue permits in January and will allow the industrial farms to sell only to medical cannabis dispensaries.

But if state voters pass Prop. 19, a November initiative that would legalize recreational use of marijuana, proponents believe the city would be well situated for the booming industry.

By regulating certain growers, Oakland also plans to crack down on illegal grows, said Arturo Sanchez, an assistant to the city administrator.

His comments immediately prompted hissing and booing in the crowd.

Oakland has long been pushing the boundaries of marijuana legalization.

In 2004, voters passed Measure Z, declaring marijuana a low concern for law enforcement. In 2009, voters passed Measure F to tax medical cannabis at 1.8 percent.

The taxation, believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, was a step toward legalization.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

NEWS: Lake Elsinore medical marijuana initiative fails to make the ballot

Lake Elsinore voters won't decide whether they want medical marijuana dispensaries in the city because backers of the proposal didn't gather enough valid signatures to put the measure on the ballot, election officials said Tuesday.

The group We the People gathered 870 valid signatures of registered voters, about half the 1,623 needed to qualify the measure for the Nov. 2 general election, according to the Riverside County registrar of voters.

The group gathered a total of 2,678 signatures, which were sent to the registrar's office on June 17 for verification. The Lake Elsinore city clerk's office received the results Tuesday.

News of the failure stunned Wayne Williams, a We the People spokesman who led the signature drive.

"I'm bummed right now," Williams said by phone. "I want to know how they disqualified that many."

Williams said he was sure he had gathered enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.

He said he and others who carried the petitions went only to homes of registered voters. He said he made sure they questioned those they approached in public places to ensure that they were registered in Lake Elsinore.

"When we went to gas stations and minimarts, we asked specifically, 'Are you registered in Lake Elsinore?' " Williams said. "I played it safe. I'm actually floored right now."

A breakdown of the registrar's results shows a variety of reasons for the rejected signatures.

Among the reasons for rejection: 645 were not registered voters; 203 were not residents of the city; 130 were registered at a different address; and 59 signed more than once, the registrar's report stated. Another 710 were rejected because the signatures did not match the voter registration card and 32 signatures could not be identified, the report said.

"I'm curious about the signatures that didn't match," Williams said.

Williams, of Wildomar, began the signature drive in December as Lake Elsinore adopted a temporary ban on medical marijuana businesses.

Williams said he was concerned about the number of unlicensed medical marijuana dispensaries in and around Lake Elsinore. One business in the city was closed recently after the City Council turned down an appeal of the business license revocation. The license allowed sales of clothing and holistic medicines, but not medical marijuana.

Williams could start another drive to get a dispensary measure on the ballot, but it is unlikely it could be completed in time for the November ballot. He said he's not sure he wants to do it just yet.

"We gave it a shot," Williams said. "We tried."

Source: The Press-Enterprise

VIDEO: Arnold Sachs testifies on Medical Marijuana Ban in LA at Board of Supervisors Meeting

Arnold Sachs' public testimony regarding a proposed ban on medical marijuana dispensaries/collectives in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. From Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Meeting on July 6, 2010.

NEWS: Medical Marijuana dispensary ruling a 'cliffhanger'

ANAHEIM – A major ruling on whether cities have the right to ban medical-marijuana dispensaries will have to wait until next month.

The California 4th District Court of Appeal is considering an appeal of Anaheim's ordinance that prohibits such dispensaries and makes it a crime to operate them.

The case could have wide-reaching impact: Dozens of cities are looking to Anaheim's case to establish whether municipalities can legally prohibit medical-marijuana dispensaries within their borders.

A decision was expected Monday – and eagerly awaited by attorneys and both sides. But the court posted on its website just after 1 p.m. that the written ruling is now set to be released Aug. 18.

No reason was immediately given by the court for the delay.

"This is a real cliffhanger," said Anthony Curiale, an attorney for the medical-marijuana patients. "It's very rare for the court to take more time than the 90 days."

Curiale said he learned that judges said that because of recently raised issues, they required additional time.

The decision has been a long time in coming – opening arguments were heard in September 2009.
The origins of the case date back to July 2007, when Anaheim unanimously approved its ordinance.
A group of medical-marijuana patients sued the city in Orange County Superior Court, but a judge dismissed that case. So the patients appealed to the state court, saying that the Anaheim ordinance was unfair to "qualified patients" and was counter to the state's Compassionate Use Act, approved by California voters in 1996.

Orange County cities that filed briefs in support of Anaheim's ordinance include: Costa Mesa, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Newport Beach, Orange, Placentia, Tustin and Westminster.

Only one Orange County city – Laguna Woods – has approved medical-marijuana dispensaries.

Source: OC Register

NEWS: Oakland could go to marijuana in a big way with four proposed factory farms

The state's pot-friendliest city could approve a plan to set up four marijuana factory farms. But it has ignited intense opposition from medical marijuana activists, dispensary operators and growers.

Reporting from Oakland — Oakland could approve a plan Tuesday to set up four marijuana factory farms, a step that could usher in the era of Big Pot.

The proposal is a testament to just how fast the marijuana counterculture is transforming into a corporate culture. And it has ignited a contentious debate in Oakland that could spread as cities face pressure to regulate marijuana cultivation and find ways to tax it.

"Everybody knows it's going bigger and big money is moving in," said Dale Gieringer, an Oakland resident and prominent marijuana activist. As the state edges toward legalization, he said, more businessmen will seek to capitalize on a fast-growing market in a recession-hindered economy, forcing cities to make difficult choices on how to exert control.

If the City Council approves the plan, one Bay Area businessman has already made it clear that he intends to apply for a cultivation permit. Jeff Wilcox, who owned a successful construction firm and has already incorporated as AgraMed, hopes to convert his empty industrial buildings near Interstate 880 into an enormous production facility. He plans to manufacture growing equipment, bake marijuana edibles in a 10,000-square-foot kitchen and use two football fields of space to grow about 58 pounds of marijuana every day, many times the amount now sold in Oakland.

What caught the City Council's attention was Wilcox's projection that he could hire 371 employees and pay at least $1.5 million a year in taxes. Oakland faces severe budget deficits and has already let go of 80 police officers.

Last week, a council committee sent to the full council the proposal to allow four large cultivation operations, worried that a delay might allow other cities to get the jump on Oakland. "I do want to encourage a few large growers because I think that's where the industry's going, and I don't think you're going to be able to hold that back," Councilwoman Jean Quan said.

But it has ignited intense opposition from medical marijuana activists, dispensary operators and growers in Oakland, who complain that the plan fails to include the growers who have risked federal prosecution for years to supply the city's four dispensaries. Normally secretive, they have started to speak out.

"It's not providing a pathway for folks to become more legitimate," said Dan Grace, an owner of Dark Heart Nursery, which raises about 10,000 pot clones a month in a 3,000-square-foot space. Grace said that his operation could triple its size — if Oakland allowed it.

Oakland takes pride in setting new marijuana precedents. It was the first city to regulate dispensaries, make marijuana crimes the lowest police priority and enact a special tax on marijuana. And Richard Lee, who operates one of its dispensaries, put the marijuana legalization initiative on the November ballot.

Even if Oakland approves the plan, it faces a serious obstacle: the feds. The Obama administration's policy is to leave medical marijuana operations alone if they are in "clear and unambiguous compliance with state law." In a memo, one council member wrote "this proposal is not legal under state law according to our city attorney." City Atty. John Russo's office declined to release his memo, citing attorney-client privilege.

Drug Enforcement Administration agents remain on the hunt for major growers. This month, agents raided a collective in Mendocino that was complying with the county's new cultivation ordinance, ripping out all 99 of its plants. The San Francisco DEA office referred questions on the Oakland proposal to the drug czar's office, which called it "the latest example of ongoing efforts to legitimize, through local ordinances, activities that remain illegal under federal law."

Said James Anthony, an Oakland lawyer who thinks the proposal should accommodate smaller growers: "There are no giant cannabis factories anywhere in the world, and it strikes me as a rather odd assumption that the first one is going to come into existence in the United States of America. I don't know. Maybe."

Oakland's proposal, drafted by council members Rebecca Kaplan and Larry Reid, would still allow small unregulated cultivation in homes but is intended to supplant hundreds of larger operations, establishing the four industrial operations "as the only legal model."

They argue that medium-size operations, often in gutted homes and illicit warehouses, are a hazard, causing electrical fires and drawing violent crime.

Many cities and counties are grappling with this issue.

Some, such as Redding and Tehama County, have placed strict limits on marijuana growing. . Long Beach has required its dispensaries to grow all of their marijuana on site. In Los Angeles, the City Council did not explicitly require collectives to grow on site, but the city attorney's office says that state law requires it.

And Berkeley, like neighboring Oakland, decided earlier this month to ask voters in November to approve six marijuana production operations of up to 30,000 square feet each.

Under Oakland's proposal, the four operations would pay an annual fee of $211,000, which would support a city staff to ensure they are operated safely and securely. But opponents see it as a steep barrier to entry and have proposed a sliding scale based on size.

"The ordinance basically sets up an oligopoly," said Gieringer, the longtime head of California NORML, which advocates for legalization. "I don't think we want just four humongous growers, not just Wal-Marts. We'd like to see lots of microbreweries, rather than Budweisers."

Steve DeAngelo runs Harborside on the Oakland waterfront, the largest legal marijuana retailer in the world. From his bright, airy dispensary, he and his 80 employees serve more than 600 patients a day, selling about 8 pounds of marijuana in about 100 varieties. He has nurtured a network of more than 400 patient-farmers, as he calls them. Fearing for their livelihoods, he has stirred up much of the opposition. "Any new system that is created needs to have a role for these pioneers," he said. "It's not the role of government to decide the winners and losers in the marketplace."

Standing next to about 60 thriving, 5-foot-tall plants sprouting from 30-gallon buckets, David Fry, a longtime Oakland grower, said he has little sympathy for these growers. "Why do it? It's not legal," he said. His operation, he said, is a by-the-book collective with members who share the work and the costs.

Scores of applicants are expected for the four permits, which would not be issued until January, but two businessmen who have been public about their dreams have galvanized opponents, who resent their wealth and recent arrival on the scene.

Wilcox declined to discuss his proposal until after Tuesday, when the council could vote. But when he spoke last week at the committee hearing, he appeared sensitive to the criticism. "I do not want and never want to monopolize this industry," he said. "I think we should open up some of these facilities for safe sanctuaries for the small- and medium-sized growers."

Dhar Mann made a lot of money brokering mortgages and escaped before the implosion. In January, he opened iGrow, a 15,000-foot hydroponics superstore , pitching it as the first to cater openly to medical marijuana growers. He also founded the University of Cannabis to teach cultivation classes. And he continues to envision new ventures at a rapid clip. "I really saw the pot industry as one with future growth," he said.

Mann said he has assembled a team to design an energy-efficient proposal for a large cultivation facility that would stack pallets of pot plants as high as five levels.. "This is the natural next step," he said. "If it is not Oakland, it's going to be some other city that's going to do it."

Source: Los Angeles Times

VIDEO: Richard Kearns testifies before LA County Board of Supervisors on Medical Marijuana

Aids patient and activist Richard Kearns testifies before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors regarding a ban on medical marijuana collectives in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County (July 6, 2010).

NEWS: Marijuana arrests at pivotal moment in San Diego

The region’s medical marijuana conflicts took another turn two weeks ago when federal agents fanned out across San Diego County and arrested 12 people who they said were connected to a large-scale pot dealer.

That suspect, Joshua Hester, was arrested by agents in a spacious West Hollywood home he was renting. In court papers, agents said Hester, 29, distributed 3,000 pounds of marijuana he purchased from a major Los Angeles dealer in 2007 and 2008.

But it is Hester’s role in San Diego beginning in 2009 that makes the case against him more than another big-time drug-ring arrest.

Agents say Hester was the silent owner of two collectives that sold medical marijuana in downtown San Diego and Mission Beach. He purchased a $2 million mansion in Rancho Santa Fe using a straw buyer and paid the $10,000 monthly mortgage in part with proceeds from the collectives, court papers say.

Federal authorities say Hester essentially used the state law that permits medical marijuana use as a shield to operate what they contend was nothing more than an illegal retail drug sales operation.

Hester’s arrest comes at a pivotal moment locally, just after the county approved zoning laws that would restrict dispensaries to a handful of locations. The city of San Diego is on the cusp of proposing its own rules.

And in the past year in state court, juries acquitted two operators of medical marijuana collectives after District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis charged them with illegal drug sales.

If the allegations against Hester are true, he would be Exhibit A for opponents of medical marijuana — someone using a law intended to help the sick as a vehicle for illegal dealing.

But advocates of using marijuana to help the sick say the Hester case shows something else that has been lacking so far: regulations and rules that govern how collectives and cooperatives can operate, allowing everyone to know what the rules are.

“This is the kind of thing that happens if you don’t have regulation,” said Alex Kreit, a law professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law and the head of San Diego’s medical marijuana task force.

That group recently completed a set of proposed guidelines for regulating collectives and cooperatives in the city. They would require background checks for employees, steep fees to cover regulatory expenses, and strict packaging and labeling requirements that would list the patient’s name and dispensing date.

“If there is not a system to distinguish between folks operating legitimately and those operating illegitimately, that is what creates the space for people to come in and try to take advantage of the law for illegal means,” Kreit said.

The arrests of Hester and the others has drawn sharp reaction from medical marijuana advocates, who condemn the federal raids on the dispensaries that occurred along with the arrests.

Federal law does not recognize medical marijuana as a legal usage, though California voters approved the use of marijuana for medical purposes in 1996. The Obama administration said this year it would not use federal laws to prosecute people involved with medical marijuana if they were in compliance with state laws, but it left open the possibility of pursuing cases when warranted.

Hester is apparently one of those. Federal agents outlined in court papers that he became involved with the Green Kross Collective on Mission Boulevard in Mission Beach in early 2009, though another man — Joseph Nunes — was listed as the owner on official business records.

Nunes was arrested in September as part of a wide raid conducted by local law enforcement. He pleaded guilty in federal court and was sentenced to a year in prison. Authorities say Hester also owned the Downtown Kush Lounge on Sixth Avenue between F and G streets in downtown San Diego.

Some advocates said the timing of the Hester arrest was suspicious, coming just after the county adopted an ordinance and before the city debate began.

“This is politics, sadly,” said Adela Falk of Wisdom Organics, a medical marijuana dispensary in Linda Vista. “I think it was to make bad publicity and hope the City Council will say. ‘Look, everyone involved is bad.’ ”

Eugene Davidovich of Americans for Safe Access sounded a similar criticism and said that if there were something illegal going on, it should be handled in state court, not federal.

“This is a state issue,” Davidovich said.

In San Diego, 127 known locations provide medical marijuana, according to the city code enforcement department. And much to the ire of advocates, that department has recently begun a campaign of citing establishments for violating city zoning laws. Falk’s location was inspected last week, she said.

She echoed Kreit’s call for regulations that let everyone know what is allowed and what is not. Kreit said rules requiring background checks for operators, regular audits and other measures would deter criminals from trying to set up shop under the protection of the law.

The other 11 people arrested in the case had varying involvement with Hester. Some are accused of being runners for him, one was a real estate agent accused of helping him buy property fraudulently, and others worked in the collectives.

Source: San Diego Union-Tribune

NEWS: Wildomar commission to consider regulations to allow medical marijuana dispensaries

Wildomar could start on a path this week toward becoming the second Riverside County city to allow medical marijuana dispensaries.

The city's Planning Commission on Wednesday will consider a new law that would regulate the dispensaries, lifting a ban in place since Wildomar became a city in 2008.

First, the commission must decide if dispensaries are appropriate for the city. If so, it must decide how and where they can operate.

City Attorney Julie Hayward-Biggs drafted regulations based on a law passed by the city of Laguna Woods, an Orange County retirement community.

In a report prepared for the meeting, Planning Director David Hogan said commissioners could accept the ordinance as is, reject it or modify it as they see fit.

For example, the draft would give the city administration power to issue permits to dispensaries. The commission could decide to make the process more onerous, requiring public hearings before a business can open.

The draft would allow dispensaries in commercial zones only. But, Hogan said in the report, the commission could decide to relegate the businesses to industrial zones only, or it could allow them in both commercial and industrial zones.

Commissioners must also decide how far the dispensaries should be from schools, parks and other places children are likely to be. The draft law calls for them to be at least 1,000 feet away.

The draft does not put a cap on the number dispensaries allowed in the city. It allows them to be open only from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. And it requires the businesses to have security cameras and to keep the tapes for at least two weeks in case police need them to investigate a crime.

All such regulations could be altered if the commission approves a new law.

The push to allow dispensaries began this spring, when a nonprofit marijuana collective, the Wildomar Patients Compassionate Group, opened a storefront location on Mission Trail. The collective's manager, William Sump, walked into City Hall and announced he would open the store, though city codes forbade it.

Wildomar's rules on medical marijuana were inherited from Riverside County when the city incorporated.

The collective's opening and subsequent quick closure sparked a response from local medical marijuana activists, who persuaded the council to consider allowing dispensaries.

In April, the council voted 4-1, with Mayor Bridgette Moore dissenting, to direct the city attorney to draft the new law. If the Planning Commission votes in favor of a new ordinance, the law would proceed to the City Council for approval.

Source: The Press-Enterprise

NEWS: City waits on medical marijuana decision

IMPERIAL BEACH — Citing a “thicket of legal uncertainty” and a case of bad timing, Imperial Beach has agreed to postpone a San Diego County grand jury’s recommendation that the city permit medical marijuana dispensaries.

The grand jury, which issued its report last month, recommended that the city adopt “cost-neutral” zoning and land-use ordinances as a way to effectively license, regulate and inspect dispensaries. The cost-neutral approach provides that the city couldn’t charge dispensaries more than its costs to regulate them.

In a letter to Judge Kevin A. Enright, city officials argued that they have “not fully analyzed the way such an ordinance would affect” Imperial Beach, and added that no local city has successfully regulated dispensaries through land-use or zoning laws.

The City Council last week joined two other South County cities in unanimously voting to extend a moratorium on dispensaries while further studying the issue.

The 1996 voter-approved Proposition 215, which permitted the dispensing of medical marijuana, has Imperial Beach and other San Diego County cities grappling with banning or managing cooperatives. Two weeks ago, San Diego joined nine other counties in the state in regulating dispensaries. The county now allows the sale of medical marijuana with limitations.

According to the grand jury report, four cities — El Cajon, Escondido, San Marcos and Vista — ban marijuana dispensaries. Five — Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, National City, Oceanside and Santee — have passed moratoriums.

Imperial Beach appears to be the first city to respond to the grand jury report. National City voted last week to extend its moratorium for one year. Chula Vista extended its moratorium for a year last month.

Imperial Beach City Manager Gary Brown said that in extending the moratorium, the council directed city staff to draft an ordinance allowing dispensaries — albeit one “toward the more restrictive end of the spectrum.”

“We’ll be coming back in August with a timeline,” Brown said. “We’ll come back with ideas for the ordinance, and it will be up to the council to decide.”

A handful of people at last week’s council meeting spoke in favor of allowing dispensaries.

Local business owner Tracey Rivera told the council that after developing allergies to painkillers for chronic pain caused by a car accident 20 years ago, her only option was medical marijuana. She has been using it for about six months and urged the council to come up with a solution to allow cooperatives.

“One hundred percent it has changed my life,” Rivera said.

Imperial Beach is not required to implement any of the grand jury’s recommendations, but all public agencies named in the report must respond to it within 90 days or, if more time is needed, within six months.

City officials note that two significant developments are expected during that time. The first is a decision in an Anaheim lawsuit involving local governments’ land-use authority over dispensaries. The second is a measure on the November ballot asking voters to decide whether marijuana should be legalized.

The city said any ordinance regulating dispensaries may require Coastal Commission and voter approval, and that reviewing the outcomes of the opinion and initiative would help create “a rational policy on medical marijuana regulation.”

Source: San Diego Union-Tribune

NEWS: San Diego Pot Trial Could Be National Test Case

Federal, state and local laws are confusing and contradictory

A Vista man facing federal drug charges for operating a medical marijuana dispensary was dealt a legal blow this week. U.S. District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz, the federal judge overseeing the proceedings against James Stacy, issued a ruling that will deny Stacy's lawyer from presenting the “Obama-said-I-can" argument, known as entrapment by estoppel (essentially, when an official grants legal permission to do something and then arrests them for it) as a defense at trial.

The judge’s motion also set limits on evidence that could be presented at trial to demonstrate Stacy’s compliance with state law.

The Movement in Action pot collective founder is the first to go to trial after the Obama administration ordered the Drug Enforcement Administration to stop raiding dispensaries in states where medical marijuana was legal.

Supporters of medical marijuana across the country see Stacy’s trial as a test case for the future of pot-shop litigation.

Last year on September 9, during a sting operation called Operation Endless Summer, more than a dozen dispensaries were raided. Stacy was arrested after an undercover narcotics officer bought weed from Stacy’sshop. But Stacy argued that all transactions at his collective met the legal standards of the state.

“There was nobody ever in my collective that wasn’t a verified patient,” he says.
Stacy was charged with conspiracy to grow and sell marijuana, growing marijuana, and the possession of a firearm in the furtherance of his pot operation. Stacy says the gun was registered when he purchased it in Texas.

“It’s a totally legally owned gun,” he says.

Attorney Kasha Castillo told a reporter that her client’s defense was not intended as legal maneuvering but rather a as a reflection that Stacy believed that he was in full compliance with local, state and federal laws. At his hearing in December, Stacy, who has been free on a forty thousand dollar property bond told the court that he contacted the Secretary of State’s office, the state Attorney General’s office, and that he had hired an attorney to make certain that his collective was in compliance.

“When I first heard about this kind of business,” he says, “I thought I was the right person for it because I do everything by the rules. I wait until the light changes to cross the street.”

Stacy, 46, a Dallas native, lives in Vista where he teaches martial arts. A medical marijuana user himself, Mr. Stacy had opened his Movement in Action dispensary and collective only a few months before the drug raid shut him down.

Of the more than 30 Operation Endless Summer arrests, only two marijuana dispensary owners were brought up on federal charges.Joseph Nunespleaded guilty in December of last year in exchange for a one-year prison sentence and three years probation. Stacy declined a similar plea deal that would have also culminated in his spending a year behind bars.

Jovan Jackson, another dispensary operator busted September 9 was acquitted of state charges by a local jury.

California was the first state in the nation to legalize medical marijuana with the passage of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. But state government’s direction has been to leave regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries up to individual jurisdictions. California pot law therefore is a patchwork quilt of confusion.

The crackdown of local law enforcement last September was due in part to a sudden proliferation of marijuana storefronts in neighborhoods countywide (and elsewhere in California) after the Obama administration, in the evidence of growing public pressure to legalize marijuana, announced that they would cease to prosecute medical marijuana collectives and their customers.
But in spite of Obama’s moratorium, pot to this day remains a Schedule One controlled substance.

David Speckman is a San Diego attorney in private practice who represents more than a dozen medical marijuana collectives. He says that Obama’s good intentions aside, federal law is unchanged and that as such, possession is still illegal, medical marijuana recommendation or not. Earlier, he told SanDiego.com that “What [the feds] are saying is that for purposes of medical marijuana, they are going to defer to the states but with a very important caveat: that one may believe that they are in full compliance with state law and still run amiss of the federal law.”

“What the bust is about,” says Stacy, “is whether the DEA can ignore what the President says and continue to harass medical marijuana dispensaries.”

Alex Kreit chaired the city council’s Medical Marijuana Task Force.

“Though Attorney General [Eric] Holder's memo stated that the federal government would not go after individuals who were operating in compliance with state medical marijuana laws, Mr. Stacy will not have the opportunity to present evidence in federal court that his actions were lawful under state law,” he says. “The San Diego U.S. Attorney's office should explain why it is not abiding by Attorney General Holder's directive and has instead decided to use previous federal law enforcement resources to interfere with California's medical marijuana law.”

On Friday, July 2, Stacy, who faces 20 years behind bars if convicted, pleaded not guilty in federal court to three additional charges brought by the district attorney.

“Unless and until federal law changes,” says Kreit, “there will always be a danger that overzealous federal prosecutors will target medical marijuana caregivers like Mr. Stacy.”

“This is aging me in ways you don’t even know,” says Stacy. “My poor wife, she’s starting to get gray hair. We both have upset stomachs all the time.”

Trial has been set for August 30.

Source: SanDiego.com