NEWS: Upland medical marijuana co-ops file with state Supreme Court

UPLAND - Medical marijuana cooperatives fighting the city to stay open are looking to the state Supreme Court for help.

An attorney representing three cooperatives in the city has filed a petition for review and an application for a stay with the state Supreme Court in San Francisco.

The city shut down the cooperatives because its zoning ordinance does not allow such facilities to operate.

G3 Holistic, Upland Herbal Patient Cooperative and Old World Solutions were shut down Aug. 13 after a preliminary injunction was awarded to the city by Judge Barry Plotkin at West Valley Superior Court in Rancho Cucamonga.

"The Court of Appeal declined summarily so now they're taking another bite at the apple, so to speak, seeking the Supreme Court opinion," Upland City Attorney William Curley said. "We're feeling pretty confident the court would uphold Judge Plotkin and his position, but certainly we'll see. It's certainly their right to seek the high level of review."

A request similar to the one sent to the state Supreme Court has been rejected by the Court of Appeal in Riverside.

"We have no ruling and we're hoping the Supreme Court will get involved," said Roger Jon Diamond, the attorney representing the three cooperatives. "It's difficult to get the attention of the Supreme Court because they're busy with a lot of cases, and they ordinarily don't like to take cases until there's been a few decisions by a Court of Appeal."

Diamond filed a petition for a stay with the Court of Appeal in Riverside, but it was denied, which led to the Supreme Court filing.

"The Court of Appeal, without giving any reason and with no explanation, denied our petition," Diamond said. "That order from the Court of Appeal filed Sept. 9 is what we're challenging in the Supreme Court."

Plotkin granted the injunction to the city after an opinion was made by an appeals court in Santa Ana regarding a similar case in Anaheim.

The case involved an Anaheim-based cooperative - Qualified Patients Association - that had sued the city of Anaheim in 2007. The city had attempted to implement an ordinance banning all dispensaries.

A dispensary is a for-profit entity that provides medical marijuana to qualified patients. A cooperative is a nonprofit that provides medical marijuana in a shop-like setting.

The opinion, published Aug. 18, was expected to address whether cities have the right to ban cooperatives, but the court ordered that part back to trial court for more hearings.

However, the court determined that California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which decriminalized medical marijuana, trumps federal law when cities attempt to ban dispensaries based on federal law. Federal law considers growing and using marijuana to be illegal. A footnote in the ruling went against an argument used by Anaheim attorneys.

The city of Upland relied on the same cases to argue for a preliminary injunction on the cooperatives.

"All of those that are representing cities or are on our side of the fence, so to speak, don't see that the Qualified Patients' case did anything to alter the status quo," Curley said. "Those in favor of the marijuana vending read into the footnotes and see a whole bunch of things that they cling to to say they're right."

Officials from the cooperatives announced they may present settlement terms to the city. Curley said he has not seen the terms and could not comment on them.

But, he said, the city does not intend to stop enforcing its ordinance.

Cooperatives "are prohibited. There's no middle ground, Curley said. "So if we have a proposal that says `Let us be open every other day,' there is no middle ground other than `you're not allowed.' I'm not sure what the proposal is, but, if and when we get it, we'll fairly look at it."

Officials from the cooperatives are also gathering signatures for a petition that could bring the issue up for vote in Upland. They will need about 3,500 signatures from registered voters in the city to get a measure on a ballot that would ask whether cooperatives can operate in the city under certain guidelines.

"The city is spending a lot of money fighting," Diamond said. "I don't know what their hang-up is. I mean, it seems to me that it is a crime not to allow someone undergoing chemotherapy whose nauseous, whose doctor recommends marijuana - it's a crime for the city to say you can't do it here in Upland."

Source: Inland Valley Daily Bulletin

NEWS: Four San Diego lawyers focus on medical marijuana law

The specialty keeps them busy as legal issues arise over what's allowed

Jeffrey Lake is a veteran lawyer whose law practice focused on real estate, mortgage lending and construction defect cases.

Lance Rogers worked on a variety of criminal cases before finding a niche in one area. Michael Cindrich used to work for the District Attorney’s Office before quitting to start his own practice. And after graduating from law school in 2008, Kimberly Simms set up her new law practice determined to focus on one emerging area of law.

What do these lawyers have in common?

They have become part of an informal medical marijuana bar in San Diego — lawyers who work almost exclusively on civil and criminal cases dealing with the often contentious and complex issues surrounding the legal use of cannabis as medicine.

They do it in a county that has a reputation for taking one of the hardest lines against medical marijuana use in the state. District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis has aggressively pursued cases against members of cooperative or collectives, contending they were illegally engaged in drug sales and not in compliance with the state law that voters approved in 1996 to allow the use of pot with a doctor’s prescription.

The city of San Diego’s code enforcement officers also have been methodically going to medical marijuana outlets and citing them for zoning violations, at the same time that city leaders are fashioning new regulations for the pot dispensaries, Lake said.

He represents more than 70 collectives and cooperatives in the county, assisting them with the civil side of the law: how to legally set up such entities, deal with zoning and leasing issues, and help clients who are trying to navigate different rules from city to city.

Some cities have a moratorium on opening medical marijuana outlets. Other governments, including the county, restrict them to certain areas, Lake said.

He also is active in the policy issues surrounding medical marijuana.

“It’s legally challenging, because this is a new area of the law,” he said. “There is not very much case law on a lot of these issues yet, and it’s an emerging field.”

That sentiment of working in largely uncharted legal territory was echoed by the other attorneys. Kimberly Simms graduated from law school in San Diego in 2008 and now works exclusively on medical marijuana cases. She said she was drawn to the field because she sees medical marijuana use as a civil-rights issue and was intrigued by the combination of law and politics.

“The political push and pull over medical marijuana, and how that interacts with our laws, is fascinating,” Simms said.

While use of medical marijuana is allowed under California law, it is prohibited under federal law. That conflict is just one of several areas of uncertainty and confusion among patients, caregivers and cooperatives that the lawyers have to grapple with.

Cindrich said the first thing he tells clients in his practice is that marijuana is illegal under federal law. But then he warns them that dealing with cities and the county won’t be easy either.

“My other advice is that the city of San Diego is not currently receptive to new dispensaries opening up, so this most likely will be a headache for you,” he said. “But if you feel strongly about this, and you are in it for the rights reasons — to help patients, and not just to make money — this could be for you.”

Cindrich worked for the District Attorney’s Office in San Diego for a year or so when he graduated from law school in 2006. He did not work on any medical marijuana cases, but when he decided to start his own practice he became intrigued by the issue.

Now he represents patients, caregivers and members of cooperatives who are being targeted by his former employer, who he says is making it unnecessarily difficult for patients.

“The DA’s Office here is taking an extremely narrow view of the medical marijuana law,” he said. “Attorneys in other parts of the state are aware of that and realize how difficult the legal environment is in San Diego for medical marijuana.”

The District Attorney’s Office does not have a special unit or designated prosecutor devoted to medical marijuana cases, said Deputy District Attorney Steve Walter, the assistant chief of the narcotics section. Cases are assigned to a variety of prosecutors.

As for taking a narrow view of the law, Walter said the office pursues cases only when they have determined a law has been broken. “It’s fair to say,” he added, ”our office’s belief is, if you are selling marijuana, that is illegal.”

The medical marijuana law allows possession and cultivation under certain circumstances for qualified patients. State guidelines say collectives or cooperatives should be nonprofit and can’t sell to nonmembers.

Last week, a medical marijuana prosecution began that is being closely watched in San Diego Superior Court. Jovan Jackson, who won an acquittal from a jury last year on charges he was illegally selling the drug from the Answerdam cooperative in Kearny Mesa, is again on trial on charges stemming from a second raid on the cooperative.

Rogers represented Jackson in his first case and is doing so again. His task may be made more difficult because Judge Howard Shore ruled that Jackson could not raise the medical marijuana defense.

Three months ago, Rogers decided to leave the law firm he was working at and open a practice devoted only to medical marijuana cases like Jackson’s. With debate over marijuana use heating up, he said it was important that people who use pot for medicine have lawyers who know the nuances and intricacies of the law.

Source: San Diego Union-Tribune

VIDEO: Fred Remek's testimony on medical marijuana collectives at SD Council Meeting [09/13/10]

Federalism and Medical Marijuana

Let the states serve as experimental laboratories.

Since medical marijuana was legalized in California in 1996, use has been widespread. And once the Obama administration reduced the harassment, the number of dispensaries has grown rapidly. Not that pot was ever that hard to get out West, but it is now fair to say that the "medical" qualification is close to irrelevant.

So marijuana is now de facto legal in California, requiring only a couple hundred bucks and a short doctor's visit to become a qualified purchaser. Perhaps as a result, a ballot initiative to fully legalize marijuana is polling at about even odds in the Golden State, and marijuana initiatives are in the pipeline elsewhere.

Now, any libertarian must raise a cup, pipe, vaporizer (or whatever) to finally seeing a little bit of progress in the demented War On People Who Use Some Kinds Of Drugs. Combined with the resurgence in research on medical uses of psychedelics—which often find positive benefits—it looks like this may be the beginning of a positive shift in America’s drug policy. Slow, partial, and late, but in the right direction.

Change, however, often causes backlash, and we need to be prepared with the right arguments to make sure that the right lessons get drawn from this experience. It is far too easy to make superficial slippery slope arguments against medical exemptions—as early as 1997, Reason's Nick Gillespie quoted Clinton drug czar Barry McCaffrey as calling medical use "a stalking horse for legalization," a phrase frequently repeated since.

In private, we will of course celebrate a moral victory. But in public, our best tools are those which do not depend on appeals to moral values that many voters do not share. Hence the importance of framing this as a successful experiment, a perspective which can serve as an antidote to the irrational fear that prohibitionists will attempt to generate with slippery slope arguments.

The classic slippery slope argument says that if we do A we will inevitably go on to do B, and while A would be a good thing, B would not. In this case, suppose we see medical exemptions for pot leading later to legalization in one state and then others. Opponents would then point to this transition as a reason not to pass future medical exemptions for other psychedelics, because even if medical use is a positive, legalization is not. They would then conclude that we should hold a hard line against any legal use of Schedule I drugs. Or as Robert DuPont, the first director of the NIDA argued in a letter to The Washington Post, "Medical marijuana is a stalking-horse for legalization. This can be seen in California, where medical marijuana advocates have had great success and are pushing for full legalization."

Now, many of us would take issue with the claim that legalization is a negative (Milton Friedman, for example). But this should not be our only tactic, and I’d like to suggest a very different approach, born from the philosophy of competitive, experimental government we advocate on Let a Thousand Nations Bloom. This is nothing new—it's the philosophy that America was founded on over two centuries ago, the idea of states serving as experimental laboratories.

From this perspective, we can fight back against the assumption that medical exemptions will always lead to legalization. We can argue instead that medical use serves as a limited experiment—a sort of partial legalization for the cases most likely to have more benefit than harm. Marijuana for cancer patients, for example, or therapists giving Ecstasy to vets with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Nor is this experiment a mere formality, inevitably leading to full legalization. Suppose we lived in the counterfactual world of Reefer Madness, where a few puffs of sweet ganja turned an ordinary citizen to violence, promiscuity, suicide, apathy, or whatever the current worry of the elder generation is. Then the result of medical marijuana would have been a disastrous rise in these outcomes—and a repeal of the experiment. Instead we have seen nothing particularly bad happen. People got high (with less cost and less stress), the sky did not fall, and so pressure is growing to expand the experiment.

Like any experiment, medical use is imperfect. Negative effects might occur years later (teenage pot use increasing mental illness risks). Of course, so might positive ones—like the neural growth promoted by ketamine and LSD. Interpreting these experiments correctly is far from straightforward, but it is through such imperfect experiments that we Enlightenment-era humans accumulate scientific knowledge.

Regardless of the underlying morals driving prohibitionists, most public arguments for banning substances are based on claims about those substances’ harmful effects. This is a fundamentally empirical claim, and like any controversial empirical claim, experiments are absolutely crucial in resolving it. Regardless of our politics, surely all sensible people can agree that more accurate beliefs about the world are valuable for shaping optimal policies.

Unfortunately, not all our political opponents are sensible, but it still behooves us to argue for experimentation. The sensible opponents will agree with the need for experiments, but make different predictions about the outcomes. Meanwhile, those who oppose medical exemptions for promising experiments will be revealed for the irrational prohibitionists they are—and their agenda will get less sympathy when we show its anti-scientific nature.

Experiments and the accumulation of knowledge are what drive human progress. Alcohol prohibition was a failed experiment—and we learned from it. Medical marijuana has been an experiment—and we’re learning from it, too. Let's keep experimenting, keep learning, and move towards policies based on accurate facts, not irrational bias. After all, the truth is on our side. Unlike our opponents, we can afford to move forward one experimental step at a time.

Patri Friedman, grandson of economist Milton Friedman, is the founder of the Seasteading Institute.

Source: Reason Magazine

VIDEO: Gregory Moore's Public Comment on Medical Marijuana at LB Council Meeting [09/21/2010]

NEWS: Teamsters represent Calif. medical marijuana growers

OAKLAND, California — As organized labor faces declining membership, one of the United States' most storied unions is looking to a new growth industry: marijuana.

The Teamsters added nearly 40 new members earlier this month by organizing the country's first group of unionized marijuana growers. Such an arrangement is likely only possible in California, which has the loosest U.S. medical marijuana laws.

But it's still unclear how the Teamsters will safeguard the rights of members who do work that's considered a federal crime.

"I didn't have this planned out when I became a Teamster 34 years ago, to organize marijuana workers," said Lou Marchetti, who acted as a liaison between the growers and Oakland-based Teamsters Local 70. "This is a whole new ballgame."

The new members work as gardeners, trimmers and cloners for Marjyn Investments LLC, an Oakland business that contracts with medical marijuana patients to grow their pot for them.

Their newly negotiated two-year contract provides them with a pension, paid vacation and health insurance. Their current wages of $18 per hour will increase to $25.75 an hour within 15 months, according to the union.

Historically, the Teamsters are no strangers to entanglements with federal law enforcement, from the infiltration of the union by organized crime to the disappearance of union leader Jimmy Hoffa. If the federal government decided to crack down on Marjyn, Marchetti said the union was still figuring out how it might intervene.

Growing marijuana outdoors is not hard — the nickname "weed" is well-earned. Indoor growing operations require more know-how and more work. But the most labor-intensive part of the process comes at harvest time, when growers rely on small armies of trimmers to clip the plant's resin-rich buds.

The work can be difficult and the hours long — and trimmers cannot count on federal labor regulations to protect them while doing work banned under federal law.

Michael Leong, assistant regional director for the Oakland office of the National Labor Relations Board, said he did not know of any case in which the federal government had been asked to mediate a dispute involving a business that was blatantly illegal under federal law.

He also said it wasn't clear if the new Teamsters would count as farmworkers, which would put them outside the NLRB's domain.

Michael Lee, general counsel for the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, said the growers probably would qualify as agricultural workers. Any conflict between workers and the union would likely fall under his board's jurisdiction, but contract disputes between workers and management would have to be decided in state court.

Even within the state, marijuana cultivation has remained in the shadows as retail dispensaries have flourished because California's medical marijuana law provides no clear rules for growing the plant.

The Oakland City Council sought to change that dynamic in July by making the city the nation's first to authorize industrial pot cultivation. More than 260 potential applicants have expressed interest in competing later this year for four permits for large-scale growing operations, said Arturo Sanchez, an assistant to the Oakland city administrator who will ultimately issue the permits.

Union membership will not be a requirement for receiving a permit, but labor standards are one of many factors that will be considered. The union organizing effort and contract negotiations went smoothly at Marjyn, which hopes to win one of the permits.

"There was no strife between employees and management at all," said a Marjyn worker who would only identify himself as Rudy L. because he worried about his personal security if it became known that he grew marijuana for a living. He said he was not worried about getting arrested because he believed Marjyn was operating in compliance with state law, though the threat of a federal crackdown is never far from anyone's mind.

About 100 workers in Oakland's retail medical marijuana dispensaries joined the United Food and Commercial Workers in May. The Teamsters have never tried to organize dispensary workers, because retail has never been an industry in which they have been traditionally involved, Marchetti said.

The Teamsters have long vied with the United Farm Workers and other unions to represent agricultural workers. So far, no other unions have competed with the Teamsters for the membership of medical marijuana growers.

Marchetti said the union would not have gotten involved with the growers if it didn't believe the business was legitimate under state law.

"The Teamsters would never organize an illegal business," Marchetti said.

Source: MSNBC

VIDEO: Richard Eastman's Public Comment on Medical Marijuana at Long Beach City Council Meeting

NEWS: Advocates warn cities federal law can't stop marijuana shops

Hinting at potential legal actions to come, an advocacy group for medical marijuana users is warning California cities and counties that they cannot ban pot stores on grounds that state and federal marijuana laws are conflict.

Americans for Safe Access, the Oakland-headquartered organization representing marijuana patients, has sent letters to 134 California cities and nine counties, urging them to lift local bans on marijuana dispensaries as a result of an August state appeals court ruling.

In a closely watched case challenging a dispensary ban in the Orange County city of Anaheim, the California 4th District Court of Appeal failed to resolve the central argument over whether cities can bar pot shops or be forced to accept them under state law.

But in sending the case back to a lower court, the 4th District Court ruled that Anaheim couldn't keep dispensaries out on grounds that federal marijuana law supercedes medical pot use in California.

"It is true that California and the federal government have conflicting views of the potential health benefits of marijuana," Judge Richard M. Aronson wrote in the Aug. 18 court decision. "But...we discern nothing in the city's compliance with state law that would require the violation of federal law. The federal CSA (Controlled Substances Act) does not direct local governments to exercise their regulatory, licensing, zoning, or other power in any particular way."

In a letter to local governments barring pot shops, Americans for Safe Access chief counsel Joe Elford said the court ruling means "it is not unlawful for localities to ban medical marijuana dispensaries absolutely, due to a preference for contrary federal law."

In the letter, Elford told municipal officials: "I ask that you regulate medical marijuana dispensaries, rather than ban them."

He added: "Otherwise, we will explore our legal options."

Source: The Fresno Bee

NEWS: Authorities seize 65,000 marijuana plants in Tulare County

Seven individuals are being sought for federal arrest warrants for the cultivation of 65,000 marijuana plants found on illegal grow sites in Tulare County and for attempting to use the state’s medical marijuana laws as a cover for drug trafficking, the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department reported.

The drug trafficking organization was responsible for grow sites on public lands near Badger, Eshom, Kennedy Meadows, Three Rivers and Springville as well as a private land grow site in an okra field near Ivanhoe, the Sheriff’s Department reported.

Authorities are investigating the possibility of falsified medical marijuana referrals used by the organization to grow marijuana in backyards of residences throughout Tulare County — all backyard medical marijuana grow sites associated with the group are being seized, officials reported.

Additional public land grow sites were located within Monterey, Riverside and Santa Clara counties and federal search warrants were also served in Fresno and Riverside counties.

Authorities served federal search warrants at six locations in Tulare County and multiple additional subjects involved will face state charges.

Source: South County Recorder Online

VIDEO: Ivonne Shaefer's Public Testimony on Medical Marijuana at Long Beach City Council Meeting

UPDATED: Calendar of Events

NEWS: Marijuana dispenseries targeted by county moratorium

Medical marijuana dispensaries in unincorporated Orange County could be banned under a proposed 45-day moratorium as the county prepares for the possible legalization of marijuana by voters in November’s statewide election.

The county ordinance, which would ban new dispensaries and dispensaries without permits, must be approved by 4/5 of the board of supervisors. The board meets Tuesday to debate the issue.

Currently, Orange County does not have any laws on the books for regulating the permitting or establishment of medical marijuana collectives, but the California attorney general set up guidelines that require dispensaries register as a nonprofit, obtain a seller’s permit, and supply security, among other conditions.

According to county staffers, an estimated 11 medical marijuana dispensaries are operating in unincorporated Orange County. None of the cooperatives are permitted under California Attorney General guidelines, according to a county staff report, which would make them illegal under the moratorium, and subject to code enforcement and criminal prosecution.

If approved, the county’s moratorium – which includes medical marijuana delivery services - would run at least past California’s Nov. 2 election, which will put Prop. 19 - and its proposed legalization of marijuana - up to a vote by California voters.

Prop. 19 would legalize the use and possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for personal use for people over the age of 21 – and allow local governments to regulate and tax businesses that sell marijuana.

Using and growing marijuana in non-public places would also be allowed under Prop. 19.
The idea of a temporary moratorium, according to county staffers, is to give the county time to study the issue and come up with a plan on how to regulate medical marijuana cooperatives. The ordinance could be extended up to an additional ten months and 15 days beyond the original 45 days.

Still at issue, however, is how the inherent conflict with federal law - which bans the use, possession, and sale of marijuana - will be resolved.

California voters legalized medical marijuana in 1996, making it the first medical marijuana state, but the law did not police dispensaries or set up a system to hand out the drugs.

In 2003, the state Legislature passed the Medical Marijuana Program Act, which set up an identification system for medical marijuana users which allowed qualified patients and their primary caregivers to obtain medical marijuana.

The law, however, does not allow dispensaries to sell marijuana.

"It’s a battle between the implied interpretation of the law and the direct interpretation of the law," said Anthony Curiale, a Brea-based attorney for medical-marijuana dispensaries.

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in America, with 16.7 million Americans using marijuana at least once in the past month, according to a 2009 report by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Marijuana use in the United States is up 8 percent from 2008, a trend that the report says may be because of legalization campaigns, “medical marijuana” and a flood of pro-drug messages in pop culture.

Law enforcement officials accuse many dispensaries of hiding behind the guise of providing medicine to patients to operate highly profitable businesses that can pull in millions of dollars of profit a year.

Dispensaries, according to the California Police Chiefs Association, have been tied to organized criminal gangs and their inventory of cash and drugs have made them attractive targets for armed robbers and burglars.

Last month, a triple murder in West Hollywood was blamed on a marijuana heist. A La Habra woman was arrested on suspicion of possession of marijuana for sale. Her boyfriend was arrested on suspicion of gunning down three men because he didn’t want to pay for the marijuana they had bought from a local collective.

Other dispensaries owners have been attacked and murdered at their storefronts and homes, according to the police chiefs association.

Curiale, the medical marijuana dispensaries attorney, said medical marijuana collectives aren’t any different from banks, liquor stores and pharmacies which regularly get held up by robbers after money.

Sheriff’s officials declined through a spokesman to comment for this article.

Medical marijuana access has been growing since the Obama administration last year said people complying with state medical marijuana laws would no longer be subjected to federal drug raids and prosecution.

With no state oversight, cities and other local jurisdictions have been forced to police it themselves.

How that is done, and the logic behind it, has run the gamut. In Oakland, lawmakers commanded strict oversight of dispensaries, telling them where and how they can operate. The city of Los Angeles took a much more laisser-faire approach. The result - dispensaries popped up in mind-blowing numbers.

Then, the Los Angeles City Council had second thoughts, limiting the number of dispensaries to 70 and laying down the law on where and how they can operate.

With the new strict rules in place, Los Angeles city officials announced last month that only 41 marijuana dispensaries are eligible to stay in business.

“The problem with the cities is they take a bludgeon approach when what should be used is a scalpel,” said Curiale. “The answer is not to ban medical marijuana. The answer is to regulate medical marijuana.”

Any violation of Orange County’s emergency marijuana collective ordinance would be a misdemeanor.

The Board of Supervisors meet at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday at the Hall of Administration at 333 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Santa Ana.

Source: OC Register

NEWS: As L.A. Still Struggles To Regulate Pot Shops That Opened After 2007, O.C. Prepares For The Next Challenge: Prop. 19 -- Full Marijuana Legalization

Several Orange County cities outright ban 'em, the County of Orange looks the other way at 'em and our neighbors in Long Beach hold lotteries to allow 'em.

'em are medical marijuana dispensaries, and as California marches toward possible legalization of the devil's weed this November, existing clinics are finding their right to exist varies from address to address.

As reported here (endlessly), Orange County dispensary owners and patients are embroiled in seemingly endless battles with local cops, code enforcement and city councils that prohibit clinics.

In one of those towns seeking to close dispensaries, Dana Point, the debate has infiltrated the current City Council race.

In another, Costa Mesa, the OCDA--which in this case stands not for Orange County District Attorney but the Orange County Directors Alliance--has recruited council candidates to try to change the city's strict stance against clinics.

Talk about a grass-roots movement!

Meanwhile, buzzkillers told the Orange County Board of Supervisors Tuesday that an emergency ban on dispensaries in unincorporated areas is needed, especially following citizen complaints from Sunset Beach and Midway City.

Dispensaries in Orange County cities are subject to local laws, but those in unincorporated areas exist in sort of a gray area. The county does not issue general business licenses but land use permits are doled out to applying merchants. Meanwhile, collectives are not among the businsses, like escort services and public baths, that must secure county Sheriff's Department licenses to operate legally.

Individual supervisors expressed frustration Tuesday at the lack of rules and regulations for medical marijuana dispensaries and some advocated the moratorium so laws could be whipped up before California voters potentially legalize pot on Nov. 2.

However, the ban, which required a 4/5ths vote, failed when supervisors Shawn Nelson and John Moorlach voted no. They argued without existing laws in place to strengthen, an emergency warranting an immediate ban is not justified. Instead, county staff was directed to come up with a medical marijuana ordinance by Nov. 9, after voters may have decided non-medical use of ganja is just fine.

While the fate of OC dispensers seems to depend on where they are located, in Long Beach they give away the right operate in something akin to the state's Lucky Lotto show. On Tuesday, 32 collectives won the right to advance to the next stage of the permitting process under the city's new medical marijuana laws.

Unfortunately, 43 had applied. Eleven were eliminated because the new law also stipulates collectives cannot be within 1,000 feet of one another.

Meanwhile, five winning collectives also won the right to operate separate cultivation sites.

Taso Nikolaou, who operates Cannabis Evaluation Center on Seventh Street, went to church, lit a candle and asked God for help before the lottery was held. His prayers were answered when his number was picked.

"I'm ecstatic right now," Nikolaou told the Long Beach Press-Telegram.

Hallelujah!

Source: LA Weekly

NEWS: California Pot Initiative Opposed By Beer Industry

The California Beer & Beverage Distributors is spending money in the state to oppose a marijuana legalization proposition on the ballot in November, according to records filed with the California Secretary of State. The beer sellers are the first competitors of marijuana to officially enter the debate; backers of the initiative are closely watching liquor and wine dealers and the pharmaceutical industry to see if they enter the debate in the remaining weeks.

The opposition to pot among beer makers, however, is not unanimous among the CBBD's membership. Sierra Nevada and Stone Brewing Co., microbrews that began in California but have become popular national brands, both lashed out at the CBBD after news of the distributor's donation was reported on Celebstoner.com, a popular website focusing on marijuana-related news, and Alternet.com.

"Stone is not a part of this campaign in any way. This issue has caught us off guard," said a statement from the San Diego-based microbrewery, calling itself "merely a non-voting Allied Member of the CA Beer & Beverage Distributors (CBBD).As such, Stone Brewing does not/cannot participate in the political action decisions of the CBBD."

A statement from Sierra Nevada said that the company has "requested the CBBD to remove our name from their list of members, and also to disassociate the brewery from this and any future political actions."

The last thing a California microbrew needs is to be associated with the effort against legalizing marijuana. "We regret any implied association with this action by the CBBD, and maintain our independence and neutrality regarding matters of politics," the Sierra statement said. "The CBBD does not represent Sierra Nevada's political interests in any way, and does not represent the brewery's stance on the issue."

The CBBD did not return calls for comment; it donated $10,000 to Public Safety First, a committee organized to oppose the proposition, on Sept. 7, 2010, though the contribution was only recently made public. The alcohol industry has long seen illicit drugs as a threat to sales, as consumers may substitute pot for booze. A night spent on the couch smoking marijuana and watching television is a night not spent at the bar.

Public Safety First is largely funded by a different industry whose interests are threatened by the legalization of marijuana: law enforcement. Police forces are entitled to keep property seized as part of drug raids and the revenue stream that comes from waging the drug war has become a significant source of support for local law enforcement. Federal and state funding of the drug war is also a significant supplement to local forces' budgets.

The California Narcotics Officers' Association has donated $20,500; the California Police Chiefs Association has contributed $30,000. The Placer County Deputy Sheriff's Association, the California Peace Officers Association, the California District Attorney Association and the Peace Officers Association of Los Angeles County have all contributed, as well. Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca has been an outspoken opponent. Earlier this months, current and former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration held a press conference in Washington to oppose the proposition and urge the White House to sue to stop it if it passes.

The pro-legalization forces, however, have caught at least one break: The prison guards are staying neutral. One of the most potent political forces in California is the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. The prison guards spent more than a million dollars in 2008 to defeat a proposition that would have sent some nonviolent drug offenders into treatment rather than to prison -- a law that would have cut down on overcrowding and overtime.

So far, the prison guards' bosses have gotten involved -- the California Correctional Supervisors Organization has given $7,500 -- but the guards themselves are on the sidelines.

Advocates for Proposition 19, meanwhile, are running the campaign on a shoestring budget. Wealthy individuals who generally bankroll the legalization movement such as Peter Lewis, the head of Progressive auto insurance, are sitting out.

Organized labor, however, is stepping into the breach. The Service Employees International Union, a major presence in California, has endorsed the proposition. The Teamsters in September made its first successful foray into organizing pot growers. The United Food and Commercial Workers is backing the initiative and organizing cannabis club employees in the Bay Area. The teachers union, citing the revenue that could be raised for the state, is also backing the initiative.

On Saturday, Roger Salazar, a spokesman for Public Safety First, was confronted on CNN over his group's alliance with the beer distributors. He blamed it on the forklift operators. "Let's keep in mind the beer and beverage distributors are the folks who deliver beer and beverage products. The truck driver, the forklift drivers, you know, the warehouse workers. You know, these are folks who have traffic safety and employee safety issues, first and foremost," Salazar said, though the beer distributors are the only distributor of any product to oppose the proposition.

Mason Tvert, head of the organization SAFER, which makes the case that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, told Salazar that driving or operating a fork lift while high would still be illegal if the proposition becomes law -- just as alcohol is legal but it's against the law to drive while drunk.

"With all due respect to this gentleman, he is a political consultant being paid by the booze industry to protect their turf," said Tvert. "We also need to consider the fact that this gentleman mentions all the jobs that are created by the alcohol industry. These are all jobs that can be created by the marijuana industry as well. And at the same time, we're giving Californians the ability to use a substance like marijuana that doesn't contribute to domestic violence and sexual assault and overdose... and all the other problems that alcohol contributes to."

Stephen Gutwillig, the state director for the Drug Policy Alliance in California, noted the irony of cops working together with the beer lobby. "Who knows better than law enforcement the violence, death and disease booze inflicts on our society? The Feds clock it at $200 billion a year, including alcohol's direct involvement in up to 30 percent of violent crime every year. Marijuana consumption has none of those associations. The cop-run No on 19 campaign getting in bed with the alcohol lobby would be amusing if the implications weren't so nauseating," he said.

UPDATE: Rhonda Stevenson, a spokesman for the CBBD, said that the lobby does not oppose legalizing marijuana in principle, but objects to the specific proposition. She added that Sierra Nevada and Stone do not contribute to their Political Action Committee, so none of their money has been invested in opposition to the initiative.

"First and foremost, we are not opposed to the legalization of marijuana. We have no position on that...That's for the voters to decide. Second of all, we do not think of [marijuana] as a competitive product in the marketplace," she said. "That's not the issue. Our issue is it's a poorly written initiative. When prohibition was repealed, there was already a regulatory system in place to deal with the distribution or sale of alcohol. Under this initiative, there is not going to be anything in place state run. It's going to be 500-some different counties and cities" involved in regulating the sale and distribution of marijuana.

Indeed, when California legalized medical marijuana, regulation moved in fits and starts in different parts of the state. Oakland, where medical pot was more pervasive, moved to regulate dispensaries long before Los Angeles did, for instance. Different communities had different responses to legalization. If marijuana is legalized for recreational uses, as well, it's reasonable to assume that there will be accompanying regulatory failures and successes in various parts of the state. Localities, however, will be able to rely to some degree on the experience over the past 14 years with medical marijuana.

Ryan Grim is the author of This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America

Source: The Huffington Post

NEWS: Making The City Attorney Account For Erroneous Legal Information

By Greggory Moore

9:30am | Long Beach allows medical-marijuana collectives to operate within city limits. For a very heavy price. If I'm not mistaken, the heaviest price in the country.

Ironically, the price is heaviest on the smallest collectives. In fiscal terms, our City treats collectives with as few as four (4) members exactly the same as a collective with 500 members.

Why such a heavy burden on such small collectives? From whence this definition of collectives as being "four (4) or more Qualified Patients and their designated Primary Caregivers (LBMC § 5.87.015(I))?" That's exactly what Councilmember Rae Gabelich wanted to know at the May 18 City Council meeting. Here's exactly what she was told by Assistant City Attorney Mike Mais: "We came to that number because that's what the state, the Compassionate Use Act, defines a collective as: four or more." One minute later, in response to Gabelich's inquiry into the possibility of raising the figure, Mais replied, "Since we did follow the state law, which defines a collective as four or fewer [sic; he meant to say "more"], I would suggest that we stay with that for the purposes of regulation."

Trouble is, what Mais said is completely false. State law does not define collectives, period. Consider the following:

• The word 'collective' does not appear in the Compassionate Use Act (1996), nor does any synonym for 'collective.'1
• In the Medical Marijuana Program Act (2003), the word 'collective' and its synonyms appear only as adjectives. No number of patients, members, etc., is associated with their usage nor anywhere discussed.2
• In State Attorney General Jerry Brown's August 2008 guidelines regarding medical marijuana, he notes that "California law does not define collectives" (IV.A.2).3

Being that the City Attorney's office explicitly referred to all three of these documents numerous times during the process of crafting our medpot guidelines, it is (to put it politely) puzzling why they would provide such erroneous legal counsel. Worse, the City has made policy in part based on this erroneous counsel.

Am I the only one who thinks that the City Attorney's office providing erroneous counsel and the City Council making policy based on that erroneous counsel is cause for concern—and that it's an issue that transcends the specific context in which it occurred?

During public comment on non-agenda items at the June 15 City Council meeting, I pointed out all of this4. City Attorney Robert Shannon replied that he did not believe his office had provided any erroneous information but that he'd be happy to look into it, and Mayor Bob Foster request that Shannon provide the Council with a memo on where this figure "4 or more" comes from.

It's three months since then, and to my knowledge this memo has never materialized. But I'm going to the September 21 City Council meeting to find out. I'll let you know what happens.

Source: LB Post

NEWS: First NIDA Avant-Garde Awards for medications development research

Awards support novel approaches for treating tobacco and cocaine addiction

A potential immunotherapy, a new gene therapy, an enzyme inhibitor, and a compound originally isolated from a Chinese herb are among the latest approaches scientists are proposing to treat addiction. The recipients of the first-ever Avant-Garde Awards for Innovative Medication Development Research by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the National Institutes of Health, will receive $500,000 per year for five years to support their research.

"Science has clearly shown that drug addiction results from profound disruptions in brain structure and function, presenting numerous potential targets for medications development—yet, few medications have come to fruition," said NIDA Director Nora D. Volkow, M.D. "The array of creative problem-solving approaches submitted by the awardees could help us quicken the pace to find urgently needed medications for addiction."

Awardees are listed below:

Awardee: Andrew Norman, Ph.D., University of Cincinnati
Project: A Human Antibody as an Immunotherapy for Cocaine Abuse

Dr. Norman will move forward with the development of a human monoclonal antibody against cocaine, designated h2E2, which when injected into the bloodstream will attach to cocaine, preventing it from entering the brain and thereby limiting its behavioral effects. A similar mouse-human antibody, 2E2, has been shown to reduce cocaine's effects in a rat model of relapse.

Awardee: William Brimijoin, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
Project: Cocaine hydrolase gene therapy for cocaine abuse

Dr. Brimijoin's lab is developing a gene therapy to prevent relapse to cocaine abuse. Their strategy is to use gene transfer to produce high and sustained levels of a modified version of the enzyme butyrylcholinesterase (BChE), which efficiently degrades cocaine in the bloodstream before it reaches the brain.

Awardee: Jia Bei Wang, M.D., Ph.D., University of Maryland at Baltimore
Project: Development of l-THP as New Medication for Drug Addiction

Dr. Wang and colleagues will perform preclinical and small-scale human safety and efficacy studies of the compound l-tetrahydropalmatine (l-THP), a molecule originally discovered in the extract of Chinese herbs, as a treatment for cocaine addiction. Recent animal studies have shown that l-THP can reduce cocaine reward and self-administration.

Awardee: Daniele Piomelli, Ph. D., University of California Irvine
Project: Optimization and preclinical development of FAAH inhibitors for smoking cessation

Dr. Piomelli and his team of researchers are pursuing a medication for smoking cessation using a novel approach of targeting the endogenous cannabinoid system. They will identify and optimize compounds that inhibit an enzyme called fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH), which degrades the endocannabinoid anandamide. Animal studies have shown that blocking FAAH reduces nicotine self-administration and prevents nicotine-induced reinstatement, a model of relapse.

"The pharmaceutical industry has been reluctant to invest in medications development for addiction due to stigma and perceived financial disincentives," said Dr. Volkow. "These studies could lay the foundation to encourage greater pharmaceutical industry involvement, further helping to achieve our public health mandate to stop the devastation caused by drug abuse and addiction in this country."

--------
The newly launched research competition is an extension of NIDA's successful Avant-Garde Award for Innovative HIV/AIDS Research, now in its third year. For further information about the Avant-Garde Award, please visit the NIDA Avant-Garde Award Web site at http://drugabuse.gov/avgp.html. Information about applications for the 2011 Avant-Garde Awards will be posted on this site soon.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse is a component of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIDA supports most of the world's research on the health aspects of drug abuse and addiction. The Institute carries out a large variety of programs to inform policy and improve practice. Fact sheets on the health effects of drugs of abuse and information on NIDA research and other activities can be found on the NIDA home page at www.drugabuse.gov. To order publications in English or Spanish, call NIDA's new DrugPubs research dissemination center at 1-877-NIDA-NIH or 240-645-0228 (TDD) or fax or email requests to 240-645-0227 or drugpubs@nida.nih.gov. Online ordering is available at http://drugpubs.drugabuse.gov.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) — The Nation's Medical Research Agency — includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary Federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical and translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

NEWS: Trial Begins For Former Medical Marijuana Collective Manager

SAN DIEGO -- Opening statements are scheduled Monday for the former manager of a medical marijuana collective accused of illegally possessing and selling the drug.

Jovan Jackson -- himself a medical marijuana patient -- was acquitted last year of similar charges stemming from a raid at the Kearny Mesa collective in which an undercover detective bought marijuana in the summer of 2008.

The medical marijuana dispensary -- called Answerdam Alternative Care -- was also raided on Sept. 9, 2009, leading to the second set of charges against the 32-year-old Jackson.

Defense attorney Lance Rogers has said that part of the problem is the vagueness of the state law, which allows medical marijuana patients to grow the drug for medicinal purposes.

The California Attorney General's Office issued guidelines in 2008 on how medical marijuana could be grown and distributed, but those guidelines are interpreted differently in different counties.

Another problem is "cross-sworn officers" who are charged with enforcing both state and federal law, because all marijuana possession is illegal under federal law, Rogers said.

Jackson faces up to five years in prison if convicted.

Source: 10 News - San Diego

NEWS: Long Beach holds lottery for medical marijuana collective permits

LONG BEACH - The dreams of 11 medical marijuana collectives went up in smoke Monday afternoon.

The collectives will be forced to close after they lost a lottery held Monday in the City Council chamber at City Hall. The lottery is part of the permitting process established under Long Beach's new medical marijuana law and determined which collectives can move forward to the next stage in the process.

Thirty-two out of 43 collectives that had submitted permit applications will do just that, although for some, the lottery was just a formality.

Under the new ordinance, collectives aren't allowed to be within 1,000 feet of each other. While 25 collectives didn't have that problem, the other 18 did, 11 of which were eliminated.

Among the lottery winners, five collectives also each have a separate cultivation site, which is allowed by the ordinance, bringing the total number of marijuana sites to 37. Those that passed the lottery still must go through a process of building inspections, public notice and hearings before they receive their permits.

No more collectives will be allowed to open in Long Beach until the city starts a new permit application period, which has yet to be determined.

Taso Nikolaou, who operates Cannabis Evaluation Center at 5595 E. Seventh St., breathed a sigh of relief outside the council chamber after his lottery number was called out before that of his competitor.

"I asked God for help. I went to church this morning, lit a candle," Nikolaou said. "I'm ecstatic right now."

Although many collective operators have spoken out against some of the requirements and the process of the medical marijuana ordinance, Nikolaou said he was just happy to see Long Beach accept the need for collectives.

"I think they're finally getting to a point where they can regulate the industry and provide safe access" to medical marijuana, he said.

One aspect of the ordinance that has met strong opposition was a $14,742 non-refundable permit application fee.

Unlike Nikolaou's collective, Jim Stienecker's Wardlow Collective west of Long Beach Airport lost the lottery, leaving him empty-handed - no permit and almost $15,000 gone.

"It's not really fair to go into something when you don't know the odds," said a visibly upset Stienecker.

He said he had invested "multiple tens of thousands of dollars" into his collective, though he conceded that he had just opened the collective seven or eight weeks ago and knew there were risks.

Still, Stienecker said, he is most concerned about his 350 patient members, to whom he provides medical marijuana "so that they don't have to go to a street dealer and feel like a criminal."

Despite the high emotion, Monday's lottery was eerily silent as the crowd of about 130 waited in anticipation.

The drawing was a far cry from the dozens of council meetings over the past year that have been packed with vocal and passionate medical marijuana advocates who queued up to give the council a piece of their minds.

The council approved the medical marijuana law in March to control the growing number of collectives and created the permit process in May. The ordinance prohibits collectives from residential areas, creates buffer zones around schools and sets many other requirements.

Much like those council meetings, Monday's lottery didn't turn out to be a simple process.

The lottery balls, each printed with an identification number corresponding to the collectives, didn't fit through the tube of the air-mixed lottery machine. So, City Clerk Larry Herrera ended up drawing the balls out of a blue recycling bin, shaking it each time before the drawing.

Muffled cheers and curses could be heard as the winners in the contested areas were announced, which pretty much made clear who the losers were. Overall, the crowd stayed calm, perhaps due in part to a high police presence and the requirement that anyone entering the chamber be scanned with a metal detector.

Erik Sund, the city's business relations manager who is in charge of the medical marijuana permit process, said he had asked for extra police officers at the lottery, "keeping in mind that there were going to be people that won and people that lost, and some people can be sore losers."

Source: Contra Costa Times

NEWS: Trial Begins For Former Medical Marijuana Collective Manager

SAN DIEGO -- Opening statements are scheduled Monday for the former manager of a medical marijuana collective accused of illegally possessing and selling the drug.

Jovan Jackson -- himself a medical marijuana patient -- was acquitted last year of similar charges stemming from a raid at the Kearny Mesa collective in which an undercover detective bought marijuana in the summer of 2008.

The medical marijuana dispensary -- called Answerdam Alternative Care -- was also raided on Sept. 9, 2009, leading to the second set of charges against the 32-year-old Jackson.

Defense attorney Lance Rogers has said that part of the problem is the vagueness of the state law, which allows medical marijuana patients to grow the drug for medicinal purposes.

The California Attorney General's Office issued guidelines in 2008 on how medical marijuana could be grown and distributed, but those guidelines are interpreted differently in different counties.

Another problem is "cross-sworn officers" who are charged with enforcing both state and federal law, because all marijuana possession is illegal under federal law, Rogers said.

Jackson faces up to five years in prison if convicted.

Source: 10 News - San Diego

NEWS: Arrest made in connection with Echo Park dispensary slaying

Los Angeles police have arrested a man in connection with the June slaying of an employee at a medical marijuana dispensary in Echo Park.

Authorities identified the suspect as Raymond Easter. He was arrested without incident Friday afternoon at a Van Nuys apartment by officials with the LAPD and the U.S. Marshal's Service.

Matthew Butcher, 27, was working at Higher Path Holistic Care in the 1300 block of West Sunset Boulevard on June 24 when four suspects entered looking for marijuana and cash.

Butcher and another employee were ordered to lay face-down on the ground and did not resist. Even so, both were shot; Butcher died from his injuries.

That attack took place the same day as the fatal stabbing of Ila Packman at the Hollywood Holistic II dispensary in the 1600 block of North El Centro Avenue. The Times has found at least eight slayings since 2007 that are linked to the medical marijuana industry.

Butcher was the son of Julie Butcher, a well-known L.A. labor leader. At the time of the slaying she described the crime as "totally senseless," saying that her son's job at the pot store was one of several jobs he was working to get by in a tough economy.

Source: Los Angeles Times

El Centro Medical Marijuana Dispensary Raided

I’m an El Centro resident and have glaucoma. For the past two years I have been using medical marijuana to help lower the pressure in my eyes, and it has controlled it. I usually have to go to San Diego or Palm Springs to get it. Having one in the Valley helps save money and is less hassle from federal authorities. On Tuesday of last week (Sept. 7), I went to the dispensary and found that it was being raided. About 10 DEA agents with bulletproof vests were there. After a bit, one jumped into his SUV and took off pretty fast down State Street. Now what’s up with that? The lady there is doing everything legit, and the feds still treat her like she’s selling crack on the corner. — Smokeless, El Centro

We had high hopes for this PROBE question, but alas, the lack of a good answer has harshed our buzz.

Still, we’ve got some good stuff — not the kind kind — but enough to make it interesting.

We got confirmation from the El Centro police that local U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents did indeed raid the marijuana “collective” at 119 S. Fifth St., and they did so Sept. 7, the day the El Centro City Council was to mull extending its moratorium on banning dispensaries in the city. No vote was taken at that meeting, though.

ECPD knew about it as a law enforcement courtesy, but Cmdr. Jeff Mason said the department knows no details.

We attempted several times to contact the DEA’s office in both San Diego and El Centro, but we never got a callback from the right people by presstime.

What still makes this interesting, though, is the fact that the letter writer implies he was actively doing business with the “collective,” or at least attempting to when the raid was occurring.

If that is correct, then no wonder the raid was happening. Despite the fact that medical marijuana is legal in California, the collective is operating without a business license. The fact that the city has a moratorium on the books at the moment also means it cannot get one or even be open as a dispensary.

Basically, it’s just a storefront at this point, and any sales being conducted there would be illegal. And that’s no comment on the whole legality of medical marijuana; rather it’s a comment on illegally operating a business in the city.

That said, we don’t imagine the DEA was there to hand out tickets for not having a business license, but we don’t know the nature of the raid at this point.

The Fifth Street collective first came to our attention in July, when the Imperial County Narcotic Task Force raided the dispensary and seized several pounds of high-grade marijuana. No one was arrested.

At the time, the collective/dispensary was operating unlicensed.

By the way, the city will take up the moratorium issue again when the council votes whether to extend it Oct. 3. Dude, that could definitely be a bummer of a meeting.

Source: Imperial Valley Press

VIDEO: Tiffany Kjeldergaards at SD Council Meeting Discusses Medical Marijuana Ordinance (09/13/2010)

NEWS: Is Big Pharma Courting Widescale Cannabis Distribution?

When Professor Roger Pertwee announced to the world 'cannabis should be sold in shops ' it was quickly the talk of social networks facebook and twitter.

Here, was a respected academic in his field, promoting the harm recuction possibilities of doing away with the prohibition of cannabis, and in doing so he was also rubbishing the 'public health' message behind government generated anti-cannabis propoganda.

Not only a respected academic, but THE respected academic in cannabis research.

Professor Pertwee is said to be a 50 percent share in the partnership which actually discovered THC, the active component in cannabis. But maybe '50% share' was a bad use of verbage? Or was it?

All of a sudden the realisation of what looks like a clumsily implemented PR campaign becomes apparent.

The mist clears..and the reasons an educated and wholly qualified academic was stumbling and bumbling over his lines (it might work, it won't work) is clear for all to see.
In 2003 Professor Roger Pertwee was appointed as 'Head of Pharmacology' at UK cannabis pioneers GW Pharmaceuticals.

GW Pharmaceuticals manufacture the cannabis based medicine 'Sativex' which is commanding so many column inch's in today's press, (its a licensed medicine, although no-one on the NHS is allowed to have it - weird huh?).

They are also the only commercial enterprise in the United Kingdom which is ideally positioned to take advantage of a relaxation in the UK's frankly ridiculous cannabis laws as they are already geared up with tens of thousands of cannabis plants already growing, today, under glass.

In an announcement dripping with platitudes for Professor Pertwee's work , GW Pharma announced to the world, "Professor Pertwee is one of the world's leading cannabinoid scientists, having researched this area for over 30 years, and is the author of over 220 publications. He is a Past President of the International Cannabinoid Research Society and is frequently consulted about the therapeutic potential of cannabis and cannabinoids by parliamentary committees as well as leading medical organisations.

So no one is doubting Professor Pertwee's credentials, and at the time the good prof himself was clearly on a scientific mission. But has the professor made a deal with the devil in securing funding for further cannabinoid research?

Professor Pertwee said of the appointment, "The prospect of exploring the pharmacological actions of individual plant cannabinoids, separately and in combination, is exciting for both scientific and clinical reasons. The setting up of the Institute [Cannabinoid Research Institute] will greatly facilitate fundamental research into the pharmacology of plant cannabinoids and the exploitation of these constituents of cannabis as medicines."

Exploitation?

Thats right. No one is going to spend millions of pounds researching something without there being some form of payback on the horizon. Thats called enterprise.

Dr Geoffrey Guy, Executive Chairman of GW, commented, "It is our aim that GW should occupy the centre ground of cannabinoid science. We are therefore building a bridge between commercial enterprise and academia by establishing the Cannabinoid Research Institute .

So it would seem as far back as 2003 (coincidentally the year Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett decided to declassify cannabis from B to C), GW Pharmaceuticals were already looking towards a day in the not too distant future when democracy (remember that Mr Cameron?) would force cannabis onto the ballot.

Well that day has come. Proposition 19 hits the voting booth's in California come November 2010, when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will allow the electorate to decide how cannabis stands in the eyes of the law.

Here in the UK the blue-print for a mass-production facility already exists.

The only question which remains, is whether or not the average British toker is going to support a mass-produced product over something they can grow themselves for a few pounds invested at the local garden centre.

One would suspect not.

Source: PR Cannazine

NEWS: Marijuana Co-ops To Roll Dice

Lottery numbers have been issued to 43 nonprofit medical marijuana collectives in Long Beach, and those collectives’ names have been released. On Monday, each will find out its lottery fate.

A lottery system was implemented to resolve the last bit of Municipal Code 5.87 — the fact that collectives are not allowed to operate within 1,000 feet of one another. All other sections of the law officially went into effect on Aug. 29.

Names and addresses of the collectives that will be a part of the lottery have been compiled on the city’s Web site, www.longbeach.gov/finance/business_relations/medical_marijuana.asp.

During the lottery, each collective’s number that is pulled gives that collective preference in regards to the 1,000-feet requirement over any other pulled afterwards.

“So now, Sept. 20 — 3 p.m., City Council chambers — is the day of the lottery,” said Erik Sund, the city’s business relations manager. “We are preparing ourselves. We are going to be ready for it. That is the day we’ll theoretically pull the lottery numbers and implement the next step of the ordinance.”

According to Sund, from 30 to 35 collectives are expected to move forward out of the lottery. After that, the city will have 60 days to complete inspections, public noticing and to conduct final permit hearings.

“They have to pass all of those hurdles before they actually get that permit in hand,” he said.

Previously, Sund had estimated that about 95 collectives existed within Long Beach before Municipal Code 5.87 went into effect. The new law was going to eliminate more than 50% of those collectives due to the restrictions on how close they could be to schools. Under the law, collectives cannot operate within 1,000 feet of any school servicing grades kindergarten through eighth grade and collectives cannot operate within 1,500 feet of high schools.

Before the original June 18 deadline for accepting applications, Sund said he received 54 requests for a permit. That number has since shrunk to 49 — six of which are for separate cultivation sites — so 43 collectives in total.

“Five applications were deemed incomplete, resulting in 49 potential cultivation and collection sites going into the process,” Sund said.

Each request for a permit requires an application fee of between $10,000 and $30,000, depending on how large the collective is.

Only one lottery number was given to collectives that had a separate cultivation site application. If that number is drawn, both the collective and cultivation sites are considered together when applying the 1,000-foot standard, Sund said.

Whether a collective is disqualified before or during the lottery, that collective will not receive its application money back.

“The ordinance was very clear that the application fee was non-refundable,” Sund added.

Sund also said that there should be no fears of any one owner taking advantage of the lottery system, because the ordinance does not allow for the same owner or director to apply for different collectives.

“I can’t apply for multiple locations,” he said. “I can apply for a collective to distribute my marijuana and also a cultivation site on which to grow my marijuana. Referring to the ordinance, it says you can’t be a manager member for a number of different collectives.”

Despite public accusations and protests from a disqualified collective claiming that its money was taken disingenuously and a lawsuit pending from another regarding the school restrictions, Sund said the application period has gone relatively well.

“I think the process is running pretty smoothly,” he said. “I think we’ve been able to handle it.”

Source: Gazette Newspapers

NEWS: SD Board of Supervisors condem ballot measure on marijuana

County supervisors recently passed an ordinance regulation how and where medical marijuana exchanges can operate.

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors today unanimously condemned a statewide ballot measure to legalize small amounts of marijuana, calling Proposition 19 poorly written and dangerous.

“It raises many health and safety issues,” Supervisor Ron Roberts said.

County supervisors recently passed an ordinance regulation how and where medical marijuana exchanges can operate, and the city is considering a similar set of rules.

A county resolution against Proposition 19 states that implementing the act would worsen the budget strain of state and local governments because of the need to create regulations and oversight.

The quasi-legal weed, however, could bring in a mother lode of new tax dollars.

District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis said passage would lead to an increase of people driving under the influence of the drug, something prosecutors are seeing more of already.

“It’s not smart to legalize a mind-altering substance,” Dumanis said.

Even the title of the initiative, the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannibis Act of 2010,” is misleading because it does none of those things, she said.

“By passing on responsibility to local governments to regulate marijuana use, there is the strong possibility that we will see a patchwork of conflicting local laws and regulations developed with no unified state standards,” the supervisors’ resolution states.

A handful of people involved in anti-drug abuse organizations spoke in support of the board’s action, while the only opponent was not allowed to speak because she was late.

Source: Southwest Riverside News Network

NEWS: County planning commission rejects bid for medical marijuana dispensary in unincorporated Arcadia

DUARTE - Leon San Blas' plans to bring a medical marijuana dispensary to the foothills has been shut down before it started.

The Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission unanimously rejected on Monday a use permit for a dispensary at 4332 E. Live Oak Blvd. in an unincorporated area in Arcadia.

Commissioners said they were disappointed in San Blas' presentation and that while most of them favored marijuana as a medicinal use, that San Blas did not meet the burden of proof for developing this particular location.

"The burden of proof is incomplete ... the buffer from the community is difficult," commissioner Harold Helsley said at the hearing held at the Pamela Park gymnasium in Duarte.

But Helsley also made a plea to the audience to be more open minded to medicinal marijuana use - as did some of his colleagues after the decision.

"We as a community need to realize this is something that can assist in pain relief ... and we certainly don't give it its dues," Helsley said.

More than 100 people, including residents near the dispensary, attended the meeting in support of turning down the proposal. When the commission voted, the audience responded with loud cheers in favor of the decision.

The dispensaries location would have been at a site of a former car wash in county area that falls somewhat inbetween El Monte, Baldwin Park, Duarte, Monrovia and Arcadia.

Most of those who spoke out against the plan focused on its vicinity to residential homes and playing children.

"I have known plenty of drug addicts and have known the crowds associated with them," said Daryl Dittebrand, 41, who lives directly across from the proposed plan. "My concern is the type of individual that would be at this facility. These facilities are being abused."

Few speakers spoke in favor of the plan. Those who did outlined how marijuana helps ease pain from a personal injury or ailment. Speakers said this dispensary would be more convenient than ones in La Puente or Los Angeles, and due to its location, safer than others.

San Blas argued that he would have run a quality facility with armed security and ensure that patients wouldn't smoke on the property. He compared what he was trying to do to the nearby liquor store and that he would adhere to laws just as cigarette and alcohol sellers do.

In the end, he knew most of the community stood against him.

"I'm sorry to say this, but the community that is against me is closed-minded," he said at the hearing.

At the beginning of the meeting, commissioner Wayne Rew said speakers should focus on the facts of this case and not focus on the upcoming Proposition 19 that aims to legalize marijuana.

In the end, Rew and other commissioners talked about other ways to better enforce laws and keep medicinal marijuana dispensaries safe, such as using medical facilities as distributors.

Dittebrand, who was accompanied by his two children and wife, thought the commissioners should have stayed focused on this project rather than lecture on the merits of medicinal marijuana.

"I stuck to land use," he said. "He should have stuck to land use."

Source: Pasadena Star-News

NEWS: New San Diego Rules Could Snuff Out Some Pot Dispensaries

The San Diego City Council directed the City Attorney's Office on Monday, to develop a zoning ordinance for the city's 125 medical marijuana dispensaries.

The ordinance is expected to be similar to one approved in June by the County's Board of Supervisors last June.

The new zoning regulations would require medical marijuana dispensaries to be at least 1000 feet away from schools, churches, parks, playgrounds, libraries, child care centers, youth facilities, and other dispensaries.

All dispensaries would be required to be a non-profit and apply for a conditional use permit. The dispensaries would only be allowed in industrial and commercial zones, without any residents living nearby.

This is only be the beginning of the process to create ordinances to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries. The Medical Marijuana Task Force, established in 2009, made several recommendations to the Land Use and Housing Committee, including requiring collectives to have security guards present during operating hours, more lighting outside dispensaries, limited operating hours, and rules regulating the types of signs dispensaries can use.

The city developed the Medical Marijuana Task Force to help city council create guidelines for medical marijuana patients, primary caregivers, marijuana cooperatives and collectives, and police enforcement.

Once the ordinance is written, it will go to the Planning Commission and return to the City Council for a final vote.

A statewide ballot measure to legalize Marijuana in California has been backed by a group of former law enforcement officials. The group includes former or retired police officers, judges and prosecutors.

They say keeping marijuana illegal props up drug cartels, and steers law enforcement away from more serious crimes.

Voters will have the final say on Proposition 19 in November. If passed, adults would be allowed to possess up to one ounce of marijuana.

Source: NBC San Diego

VIDEO: Adela Falk's Public Comment on Medical Marijuana Legislation at the San Diego City Council Meeting (September 7, 2010)

NEWS: Council to weigh in on medical marijuana stores

There are 125 medical marijuana dispensaries in the city of San Diego but, technically, none of them are legal.

That may change.

The City Council on Monday will take a step toward addressing that situation by looking at a zoning ordinance that could allow some of the medical marijuana collectives to remain, while forcing others to move or shut down.

Medical marijuana supporters have been increasing pressure on the council to tackle the zoning issue since June, just after the county approved its rules for dispensaries.

Pressure increased over the summer as code enforcement officials answered complaints about dispensaries from across the county, with many of the stores receiving cease and desist orders.

Medical marijuana dispensaries are not a permitted use according to the city’s current zoning code. The only way a dispensary could comply with city rules would be for it to shut its doors.

However, that has not been the case for most San Diego dispensaries.

Only two of the city’s collectives have been closed. The rest are open for business.

The city of San Diego and other local governments have struggled to deal with dispensaries after the California voters legalized medical marijuana in 1996. The boom of dispensaries in recent years have led to efforts for a comprehensive solution.

Frederick Aidan Remick, the director for the Association of Clinical Dispensaries, said many operators are scared of what the future holds for their businesses. “There’s a lot of confusion right now,” he said.

Most of the collectives were initially cited for violations like improper electrical wiring or walls built without a construction permit.

Remick said the dispensary he’s involved with, the Higher Healing Patient’s Association, received a notice that it violated a few building codes, and should shut down. But when he and his partners consulted their lawyer, who told him to just fix the violations and keep moving on.

The city code violations had no connection to high-profile arrests at some pot stores across the county over the past year where authorities said the drug was being dealt illegally and not for legitimate medical purposes.

Monday’s proceedings are preliminary for deciding the zoning rules that will determine which dispensaries stay and which go. If the council chooses to move forward, the rules will have to go through the planning commission and then back to council for an official vote.

City officials said it could be early 2011 before the zoning rules are finalized.

“I think it’s important to say that the goal is to provide the legal guidelines to allow members of the public to comply with the law,” Councilwoman Donna Frye said.

The city’s Medical Marijuana Task Force recommends dispensaries should only be allowed in commercial and industrial zones and must be at least 1,000 feet away from school, playgrounds and other areas children frequent as well as other dispensaries.

To put that into perspective, most city blocks in downtown San Diego are about 300 feet by 400 feet. In essence, there could be a dispensary every two and a half blocks, as long as each met the other criteria.

Also, all of the dispensaries would have to show proof of non-profit status before being able to attain a business license.

For now, Remick and the 18 dispensaries that belong to his organization are trying to take regulation into their own hands.

To become a member of the association, a dispensary must meet 14 guidelines. The first item on the list is that a dispensary should try to follow the proposed guidelines of the task force.

Others include a clean interior akin to a doctor’s office and a discreet outward appearance to blend in with the community. In other words, no members will have a giant neon marijuana leaf in their storefront window.

Remick said he thinks membership could grow to 40 or 50 dispensaries later this year.

Patients like Earnie Ashwood, an El Cajon resident who regularly goes to Green Tree Solutions in San Diego to get marijuana to treat his migraine headaches and insomnia, are concerned about the legal issues surrounding the dispensaries.

However, he said it doesn’t deter him from going.

“I’m really trying to do this as legally as possible,” he said. “Legality is huge for me because I don’t use it recreationally. I can’t just take Vicodin for my migraines.”

When the issue was discussed in March before the council’s land use and housing committee, only Councilman Tony Young voted against creating an ordinance to go to the full council.

Council members Sherri Lightner, Todd Gloria and Kevin Faulconer all voted to move forward with the ordinance, but made a few changes to the original recommendations.

Source: San Diego Union-Tribune