If you know of an event that you feel should be listed on our calendar, please send details to info@mjdispensaries.com ~Thank You
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
NEWS: ACLU Letter to Attorney General Argues There Is No Basis for Challenging California's Proposition 19
WASHINGTON - October 25 - The American Civil Liberties Union and its three California affiliates today sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), arguing that there would be no legal basis for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to sue to overturn Proposition 19 should it be approved next month by California voters, and urging the Justice Department to not change its current law enforcement focus on major criminal activity in favor of new enforcement activities against California marijuana users.
The letter asks Holder and Kerlikowske to stop threatening costly litigation and the deployment of federal drug police to arrest individuals who might use marijuana if the state enacts the proposition, which would allow adults 21 and older to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal use and allow cities and counties to regulate and tax commercial sales. The letter calls such rhetoric "unnecessarily alarmist" and says it does little to foster a balanced discussion of a legitimate policy issue.
"Proposition 19 would remove state criminal penalties for certain adult marijuana use," says the ACLU's letter. "The new law would not require anyone to do anything in violation of federal law. There would be no positive conflict."
News reports have indicated that federal officials have not ruled out following a recommendation by nine former Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) chiefs to sue to overturn Proposition 19 under a wrongly-held belief that it would violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In a letter to the nine former DEA chiefs made public earlier this month, Holder said he will "vigorously enforce" federal laws against marijuana in California, even if Proposition 19 is approved.
The ACLU's letter argues that states do not have to march in lockstep with the federal government's prohibition of marijuana possession and that California can decide for itself whether it wishes to remove state criminal law penalties for adult marijuana use. An explicit clause of the Controlled Substances Act, passed by Congress in 1970, holds that preemption of state drug laws is limited to a narrow set of circumstances where there is a "positive conflict" between state and federal law "so that the two cannot consistently stand together."
The ACLU's letter also highlights the fact that African Americans and Latinos are disproportionately arrested for low-level marijuana possession in California and across the nation even though their usage rates are the same as or lower than those of whites.
"The ACLU took heart from Director Kerlikowske's acknowledgement that the 'war on drugs' has failed," states the ACLU's letter. "But instead of scaling back the rhetoric associated with that ineffective and out-of-date campaign, it appears the administration would resist California's modest attempt to begin dismantling one of the defining injustices of our failed drug policies: that the war on drugs has become a war on minorities."
A new report released last week shows that from 2006 to 2008, police in 25 of California's major cities arrested blacks at four to 12 times the rate of whites.
"The historical and racially disparate enforcement of marijuana laws is a primary reason why [the ACLU of Northern California, the ACLU of Southern California and the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties] have endorsed Proposition 19," the ACLU's letter reads.
The ACLU's letter to Holder also questions why the federal government's response to the enactment of Proposition 19 should be any different than its approach to the existence in California and 13 other states of laws allowing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
"We commend DOJ's instruction last year to U.S. attorneys that prosecuting medical marijuana patients who comply with state laws should not be a federal law enforcement priority," the ACLU's letter reads. "The very same standards should apply if Proposition 19 is enacted. Regardless of the federal government's disagreement with California's choice to amend state criminal law, it makes no more sense for the federal government to waste scarce resources policing low-level, non-violent marijuana offenses after Proposition 19 passes, than before."
Californians have every right to enact Proposition 19, the ACLU's letter asserts, in an effort to curtail the wasting of criminal justice resources on the policing of low-level adult marijuana offenses and to help end the selective enforcement of drug laws.
"This is about priorities," the ACLU's letter reads. "Given the state of the economy, record unemployment and foreclosure rates, and thousands of troops deployed abroad, should voters enact Proposition 19, we hope the federal government will re-evaluate its priorities and use scarce federal enforcement resources wisely."
Source: CommonDreams.org
The letter asks Holder and Kerlikowske to stop threatening costly litigation and the deployment of federal drug police to arrest individuals who might use marijuana if the state enacts the proposition, which would allow adults 21 and older to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal use and allow cities and counties to regulate and tax commercial sales. The letter calls such rhetoric "unnecessarily alarmist" and says it does little to foster a balanced discussion of a legitimate policy issue.
"Proposition 19 would remove state criminal penalties for certain adult marijuana use," says the ACLU's letter. "The new law would not require anyone to do anything in violation of federal law. There would be no positive conflict."
News reports have indicated that federal officials have not ruled out following a recommendation by nine former Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) chiefs to sue to overturn Proposition 19 under a wrongly-held belief that it would violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In a letter to the nine former DEA chiefs made public earlier this month, Holder said he will "vigorously enforce" federal laws against marijuana in California, even if Proposition 19 is approved.
The ACLU's letter argues that states do not have to march in lockstep with the federal government's prohibition of marijuana possession and that California can decide for itself whether it wishes to remove state criminal law penalties for adult marijuana use. An explicit clause of the Controlled Substances Act, passed by Congress in 1970, holds that preemption of state drug laws is limited to a narrow set of circumstances where there is a "positive conflict" between state and federal law "so that the two cannot consistently stand together."
The ACLU's letter also highlights the fact that African Americans and Latinos are disproportionately arrested for low-level marijuana possession in California and across the nation even though their usage rates are the same as or lower than those of whites.
"The ACLU took heart from Director Kerlikowske's acknowledgement that the 'war on drugs' has failed," states the ACLU's letter. "But instead of scaling back the rhetoric associated with that ineffective and out-of-date campaign, it appears the administration would resist California's modest attempt to begin dismantling one of the defining injustices of our failed drug policies: that the war on drugs has become a war on minorities."
A new report released last week shows that from 2006 to 2008, police in 25 of California's major cities arrested blacks at four to 12 times the rate of whites.
"The historical and racially disparate enforcement of marijuana laws is a primary reason why [the ACLU of Northern California, the ACLU of Southern California and the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties] have endorsed Proposition 19," the ACLU's letter reads.
The ACLU's letter to Holder also questions why the federal government's response to the enactment of Proposition 19 should be any different than its approach to the existence in California and 13 other states of laws allowing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
"We commend DOJ's instruction last year to U.S. attorneys that prosecuting medical marijuana patients who comply with state laws should not be a federal law enforcement priority," the ACLU's letter reads. "The very same standards should apply if Proposition 19 is enacted. Regardless of the federal government's disagreement with California's choice to amend state criminal law, it makes no more sense for the federal government to waste scarce resources policing low-level, non-violent marijuana offenses after Proposition 19 passes, than before."
Californians have every right to enact Proposition 19, the ACLU's letter asserts, in an effort to curtail the wasting of criminal justice resources on the policing of low-level adult marijuana offenses and to help end the selective enforcement of drug laws.
"This is about priorities," the ACLU's letter reads. "Given the state of the economy, record unemployment and foreclosure rates, and thousands of troops deployed abroad, should voters enact Proposition 19, we hope the federal government will re-evaluate its priorities and use scarce federal enforcement resources wisely."
Source: CommonDreams.org
MERCHANT CREDIT CARD PROCESSING
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
Best Rates Available
Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
Best Rates Available
Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)
NEWS: Another lawsuit filed over fire sprinklers at medical marijuana collective
The owner of a Lake Elsinore medical marijuana collective has sued the city and City Council, accusing both of failing to comply with building and safety codes because automatic fire sprinklers are not installed in City Hall or the Cultural Center.
The suit filed on behalf of Carlos Stahl, owner of R Side Medical, seeks a court order requiring the city to put fire suppression systems in both Main Street buildings, which have been declared historic.
It is the second time this year that Stahl has sued the city and the second time the city has been sued because of the lack of fire sprinklers in both buildings.
City Manager Bob Brady declined Thursday to comment on the lawsuit.
Stahl sued the city in May in a dispute over the operation of his collective. City code enforcement officers revoked his business license this year when it was determined he was dispensing medical marijuana despite a city ban on the sales.
City officials said previously the business license issued to Stahl only allowed the sale of clothing, apparel and holistic medicines and included a notation barring the sale of medical marijuana. A copy of the license Stahl possessed did not include the notation.
The collective has been shut down by the city three times but continues to operate, Stahl said.
"The city has been very, very harsh on us," Stahl said Thursday.
Stahl's May lawsuit seeks to declare as unlawful city ordinances banning medical marijuana sales and to bar the city from enforcing the ordinances. A hearing is scheduled in December.
The new suit seeking the installation of fire sprinklers, Stahl said, is not being used as "a bargaining chip with the city."
"If I'm going to have to clean my house, you'd better clean yours," Stahl said.
In the suit filed Monday in Riverside County Superior Court, Stahl said the city has not followed the same rules it calls on others to follow, though state and local building codes require public agencies to comply with such measures just as the public.
In order to occupy both buildings, the suit states, City Hall and the Cultural Center are required to have automatic fire sprinkler systems that have been tested and approved.
"The city has not ... retrofitted the buildings according to code," Stahl said.
Stahl's lawsuit seeking fire sprinklers mirrors one filed by the owner of Trevi Entertainment Center, Michel Knight, whom Stahl has referred to as a "mutual acquaintance" in a letter to Brady.
Knight filed the suit a week after the planning commission revoked his conditional use permit that allowed live music, dancing and entertainment in his Mission Trail business. Knight agreed in June to drop the lawsuit in a deal that allowed him to offer live entertainment at Trevi.
Councilman Thomas Buckley said, "Stahl seems to be using the exact same red herring that Michel Knight used. I think the community should find that disturbing. The apparent connection between Michel Knight and Mr. Stahl is extremely disturbing."
Source: The Press-Enterprise
The suit filed on behalf of Carlos Stahl, owner of R Side Medical, seeks a court order requiring the city to put fire suppression systems in both Main Street buildings, which have been declared historic.
It is the second time this year that Stahl has sued the city and the second time the city has been sued because of the lack of fire sprinklers in both buildings.
City Manager Bob Brady declined Thursday to comment on the lawsuit.
Stahl sued the city in May in a dispute over the operation of his collective. City code enforcement officers revoked his business license this year when it was determined he was dispensing medical marijuana despite a city ban on the sales.
City officials said previously the business license issued to Stahl only allowed the sale of clothing, apparel and holistic medicines and included a notation barring the sale of medical marijuana. A copy of the license Stahl possessed did not include the notation.
The collective has been shut down by the city three times but continues to operate, Stahl said.
"The city has been very, very harsh on us," Stahl said Thursday.
Stahl's May lawsuit seeks to declare as unlawful city ordinances banning medical marijuana sales and to bar the city from enforcing the ordinances. A hearing is scheduled in December.
The new suit seeking the installation of fire sprinklers, Stahl said, is not being used as "a bargaining chip with the city."
"If I'm going to have to clean my house, you'd better clean yours," Stahl said.
In the suit filed Monday in Riverside County Superior Court, Stahl said the city has not followed the same rules it calls on others to follow, though state and local building codes require public agencies to comply with such measures just as the public.
In order to occupy both buildings, the suit states, City Hall and the Cultural Center are required to have automatic fire sprinkler systems that have been tested and approved.
"The city has not ... retrofitted the buildings according to code," Stahl said.
Stahl's lawsuit seeking fire sprinklers mirrors one filed by the owner of Trevi Entertainment Center, Michel Knight, whom Stahl has referred to as a "mutual acquaintance" in a letter to Brady.
Knight filed the suit a week after the planning commission revoked his conditional use permit that allowed live music, dancing and entertainment in his Mission Trail business. Knight agreed in June to drop the lawsuit in a deal that allowed him to offer live entertainment at Trevi.
Councilman Thomas Buckley said, "Stahl seems to be using the exact same red herring that Michel Knight used. I think the community should find that disturbing. The apparent connection between Michel Knight and Mr. Stahl is extremely disturbing."
Source: The Press-Enterprise
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Corona Dispensaries, Collectives and Cooperatives
« Back
We encourage you to call the collectives prior to making the trip, in case the hours have changed or the facility has been closed.
Peoples Medicinal Cooperative
2050 Frontage Road (Unit 104) [map]
Corona, CA 92882
Hours: Mon-Sat 9am to 10pm, Sun 10am to 9pm
Phone: 951-278-0250
Website: http://www.peoplesmc.com
Covers the following zip codes in Corona, California: 92877, 92878, 92879, 92880, 92881, 92882, 92883
We encourage you to call the collectives prior to making the trip, in case the hours have changed or the facility has been closed.
Peoples Medicinal Cooperative
2050 Frontage Road (Unit 104) [map]
Corona, CA 92882
Hours: Mon-Sat 9am to 10pm, Sun 10am to 9pm
Phone: 951-278-0250
Website: http://www.peoplesmc.com
Covers the following zip codes in Corona, California: 92877, 92878, 92879, 92880, 92881, 92882, 92883
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
NEWS: 3 Long Beach council members want to restrict medical marijuana law
LONG BEACH -- After months of convoluted debates, emotional meetings and a controversial lottery process, city officials are on the cusp of issuing medical marijuana permits for 37 cultivation or dispensary sites.
Now, three Long Beach City Council members want to stop the permit process midstream and change the law to make it more restrictive.
Council members Gerrie Schipske, Gary DeLong and Patrick O'Donnell plan to take a new medical marijuana proposal to the council Nov. 9, Schipske confirmed to the Press-Telegram today. DeLong and O'Donnell couldn't be immediately reached for comment today.
An attorney representing some of the medical marijuana collectives said "there's no question" that such a move would lead to legal action.
Schipske said the purpose of revisiting the law is "to put back in the ordinance what should have been there from the beginning, which is a thousand-foot buffer from parks and libraries and childcare centers."
The law that the council approved in March prohibits collectives from operating in residential areas and includes prohibited buffer zones around schools and each other -- no collective may be within 1,000 feet of another one.
The ordinance also contains many other requirements, such as providing information on the collectives' members to the city and taking security measures at the sites.
Another piece of the law that Schipske, DeLong and O'Donnell want to change is a requirement that allows for marijuana to be grown at the collectives, she said. They want cultivation to be allowed only in industrial areas, not in retail zones, Schipske said.
The council had heatedly debated whether to restrict cultivation within Long Beach or allow marijuana to be brought in from outside. It was ultimately decided that collectives must either grow their product on site or at a separate cultivation location elsewhere in the city.
The law clearly requires -- and allows -- this, but Schipske said the last thing she had intended was to have agricultural operations established in retail areas such as shopping centers.
"No, it wasn't clear in the ordinance," the councilwoman said.
Another possible piece of the new proposal, though Schipske said it wasn't as important to her, would limit the number of collectives to two in each of the nine council districts. It wasn't yet clear today whether that would be part of the proposal.
Attorney Rick Brizendine, who said he has helped about 10 collectives with the city's permit process, said that changing the ordinance would open the city up to legal action and financial liabilities.
"The city has the power to change the ordinance, but they have to suffer the consequences of using that power," Brizendine said.
As the rumor spread this week that the city may change the law, Brizendine said he has received calls from five collectives that are interested in taking legal action.
"There's no question," Brizendine said. "They're going to want to sue."
He said that he supports the law as it now stands, even though some collectives and medical marijuana patients are already suing the city over it.
"I believe the ordinance is enforceable," Brizendine said. "No one was a hundred percent happy with it, but everyone was willing to work with it."
Many collective operators disagreed with the city's requirement that they pay a $14,742 nonrefundable permit application fee before being put into a lottery that would determine which of the collectives that were too close together would be allowed to remain open.
The lottery itself last month was seen as a debacle by many collective operators. The city's lottery machines didn't work properly -- the lottery balls wouldn't fit through the chute that was to reveal the winning collectives -- and City Clerk Larry Herrera ended up drawing the balls by hand out of a trash can.
Thirty-two collectives operating at 37 locations, which includes cultivation sites, passed the lottery stage. The city still must do building inspections, post public notices and hold hearings before the collectives receive their permits.
Brizendine said that Long Beach's financial liabilities go beyond the permit fees for those collectives that would be forced to close if the council approves a new ordinance that has buffer zones around parks, childcare centers and libraries. Many collectives have signed leases and have invested money in their buildings to meet the law's current requirements, Brizendine said.
Schipske said the permit fee at least should be refundable in some cases.
"I would say with these changes, if someone who has paid this fee can't qualify, we should give the money back to them," Schipske said.
If part of the fees were given back, it could open up Long Beach to a whole new problem. The $777,000 in fees that the city collected was needed to help balance out the budget for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.
Source: Press-Telegram
Now, three Long Beach City Council members want to stop the permit process midstream and change the law to make it more restrictive.
Council members Gerrie Schipske, Gary DeLong and Patrick O'Donnell plan to take a new medical marijuana proposal to the council Nov. 9, Schipske confirmed to the Press-Telegram today. DeLong and O'Donnell couldn't be immediately reached for comment today.
An attorney representing some of the medical marijuana collectives said "there's no question" that such a move would lead to legal action.
Schipske said the purpose of revisiting the law is "to put back in the ordinance what should have been there from the beginning, which is a thousand-foot buffer from parks and libraries and childcare centers."
The law that the council approved in March prohibits collectives from operating in residential areas and includes prohibited buffer zones around schools and each other -- no collective may be within 1,000 feet of another one.
The ordinance also contains many other requirements, such as providing information on the collectives' members to the city and taking security measures at the sites.
Another piece of the law that Schipske, DeLong and O'Donnell want to change is a requirement that allows for marijuana to be grown at the collectives, she said. They want cultivation to be allowed only in industrial areas, not in retail zones, Schipske said.
The council had heatedly debated whether to restrict cultivation within Long Beach or allow marijuana to be brought in from outside. It was ultimately decided that collectives must either grow their product on site or at a separate cultivation location elsewhere in the city.
The law clearly requires -- and allows -- this, but Schipske said the last thing she had intended was to have agricultural operations established in retail areas such as shopping centers.
"No, it wasn't clear in the ordinance," the councilwoman said.
Another possible piece of the new proposal, though Schipske said it wasn't as important to her, would limit the number of collectives to two in each of the nine council districts. It wasn't yet clear today whether that would be part of the proposal.
Attorney Rick Brizendine, who said he has helped about 10 collectives with the city's permit process, said that changing the ordinance would open the city up to legal action and financial liabilities.
"The city has the power to change the ordinance, but they have to suffer the consequences of using that power," Brizendine said.
As the rumor spread this week that the city may change the law, Brizendine said he has received calls from five collectives that are interested in taking legal action.
"There's no question," Brizendine said. "They're going to want to sue."
He said that he supports the law as it now stands, even though some collectives and medical marijuana patients are already suing the city over it.
"I believe the ordinance is enforceable," Brizendine said. "No one was a hundred percent happy with it, but everyone was willing to work with it."
Many collective operators disagreed with the city's requirement that they pay a $14,742 nonrefundable permit application fee before being put into a lottery that would determine which of the collectives that were too close together would be allowed to remain open.
The lottery itself last month was seen as a debacle by many collective operators. The city's lottery machines didn't work properly -- the lottery balls wouldn't fit through the chute that was to reveal the winning collectives -- and City Clerk Larry Herrera ended up drawing the balls by hand out of a trash can.
Thirty-two collectives operating at 37 locations, which includes cultivation sites, passed the lottery stage. The city still must do building inspections, post public notices and hold hearings before the collectives receive their permits.
Brizendine said that Long Beach's financial liabilities go beyond the permit fees for those collectives that would be forced to close if the council approves a new ordinance that has buffer zones around parks, childcare centers and libraries. Many collectives have signed leases and have invested money in their buildings to meet the law's current requirements, Brizendine said.
Schipske said the permit fee at least should be refundable in some cases.
"I would say with these changes, if someone who has paid this fee can't qualify, we should give the money back to them," Schipske said.
If part of the fees were given back, it could open up Long Beach to a whole new problem. The $777,000 in fees that the city collected was needed to help balance out the budget for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.
Source: Press-Telegram
MERCHANT CREDIT CARD PROCESSING
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
Best Rates Available
Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
Best Rates Available
Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
NEWS: Medical Marijuana shop owner James Stacy pleads guilty to felony drug charge
SAN DIEGO ---- A Vista man who ran a medical marijuana dispensary pleaded guilty Tuesday to a federal charge of manufacturing marijuana, a spokeswoman for the San Diego U.S. Attorney's Office said.
James Stacy, 46, had faced nine federal drug charges arising from a raid of his dispensary, Movement in Action. He pleaded guilty to only the one charge, said Debra Hartman of the U.S. Attorney's Office said.
Federal prosecutors agreed to recommend that Stacy be sentenced to three years probation, according to federal court documents filed Tuesday. Stacy is set to be formally sentenced Jan. 7.
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 Sept. 9, 2009. A search of the Vista shop turned up eight dozen marijuana plants and a semiautomatic gun.
Of the 30 people arrested during the raids, San Diego County prosecutors criminally charged only one person and federal prosecutors charged two people: Stacy and Joseph Nunes, who ran a San Diego pot shop for medical patients. Nunes has since pleaded guilty.
Source: North County Times
James Stacy, 46, had faced nine federal drug charges arising from a raid of his dispensary, Movement in Action. He pleaded guilty to only the one charge, said Debra Hartman of the U.S. Attorney's Office said.
Federal prosecutors agreed to recommend that Stacy be sentenced to three years probation, according to federal court documents filed Tuesday. Stacy is set to be formally sentenced Jan. 7.
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 Sept. 9, 2009. A search of the Vista shop turned up eight dozen marijuana plants and a semiautomatic gun.
Of the 30 people arrested during the raids, San Diego County prosecutors criminally charged only one person and federal prosecutors charged two people: Stacy and Joseph Nunes, who ran a San Diego pot shop for medical patients. Nunes has since pleaded guilty.
Source: North County Times
OPINION: 2010 Voter's Guides for Medical Marijuana Patient Advocates
Opinion by ASA
Medical Marijuana Patient Advocates Issue Voter's Guides for November Elections
Two new state laws, California AG race, local tax & distribution measures are top concerns
OAKLAND, Calif. -- The country's leading patient advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) issued voter's guides today, highlighting several important races in the upcoming elections, including ballot initiatives establishing two new statewide medical marijuana laws in Arizona and South Dakota, and an expansion of Oregon's law to include licensed medical marijuana dispensaries.
At the local level, voters in California and Colorado will be deciding on dozens of local medical marijuana initiatives, including banning distribution and imposing new taxes on patients. The race for California Attorney General, however, may represent the greatest threat to patients this November. ASA strongly opposes AG candidate Steve Cooley, Los Angeles District Attorney and a longtime adversary of the state's medical marijuana laws.
"There are more reasons and ways for patients and their supporters to get involved in this year's election than ever before," said ASA Executive Director Steph Sherer. "This is not the election to sit out," continued Sherer. "Not only is there an opportunity to establish new, much-needed medical marijuana laws this November, but there is also a need to push back against literally dozens of local measures that prevent access and attempt, through taxation, to balance the budgets of cash-strapped economies on the backs of patients."
Proposition 203 in Arizona and Measure 13 in South Dakota would both enact new statewide medical marijuana laws. Both laws create criminal and civil protections for patients, a standard among state medical marijuana laws, but Arizona's initiative would also locally regulate and license nonprofit dispensaries. Measure 74 in Oregon creates a system of state-regulated, nonprofit dispensaries for a medical marijuana program that now serves approximately 40,000 patients. Measure 74 will still allow patients to cultivate their own medicine, but it will provide the option of a safe and affordable supply that will be self-financing, create many new jobs, and generate as much as $20 million in annual revenue for Oregon's cash-strapped treasury.
There are at least 14 local medical marijuana-related ballot measures in California, where voters will decide whether to impose new local taxes on medical marijuana distribution and cultivation in at least 10 different cities, including Albany, Berkeley, La Puente, Long Beach, Oakland, Rancho Cordova, Richmond, Sacramento, San Jose, and Stockton. The new taxes, which are strongly opposed by patient advocates, range from 2.5 percent in Berkeley and Stockton to 10 percent in San Jose and La Puente. Voters in Santa Barbara and Morro Bay will decide whether to permanently ban local dispensaries in ballot measures strongly opposed by patient advocates.
Colorado has a staggering list of 52 different local medical marijuana-related initiatives on the November ballot, most of which ask the question whether particular localities should ban cultivation and distribution. There are also a handful of local taxation measures similar to those in California. As described in the ASA Colorado Voter's Guide, bans against cultivation, distribution, and food-based medicine, "are unnecessary and will have a harmful affect on patient access to medical cannabis."
Other races across the country affecting medical marijuana patients include the offices of Governor of California and New Mexico, Attorney General of Michigan, and more than 40 Members of Congress from 18 states. Patient advocates strongly support particular candidates in some races, such as Diane Denish for Governor of New Mexico, but also vocally oppose candidates in other races, such as medical marijuana adversaries Steve Cooley and Bill Schuette running for Attorneys General of California and Michigan, respectively, as well as Meg Whitman running for Governor of California.
Amidst all of the controversy surrounding California's Proposition 19, aimed at legalizing marijuana, medical use advocates have been split on whether the measure would help or hinder the lives of patients. ASA has taken a neutral stance on Proposition 19, but believes much of the concern expressed against the measure so far has been unfounded. "If Prop. 19 can bring down the price of medical marijuana without diminishing its quality, patients will certainly benefit," said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. "However, it's unclear what impact Prop. 19 will have on local medical marijuana distribution, whether through court rulings or aggressive enforcement actions that fail to discern between medical and non-medical use."
Further information:
ASA Voter's Guide for California: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/ASA_Voter_Guide_CA_2010.pdf
ASA Voter's Guide for Colorado: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/ASA_Voter_Guide_CO_2010.pdf
ASA Voter's Guide for various races across the U.S.: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/ASA_Voter_Guide_US_2010.pdf
Campaign to defeat Steve Cooley: http://NotCooley.com
ASA FAQ on California's Proposition 19: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/Prop19
Source: Opposing Views
Medical Marijuana Patient Advocates Issue Voter's Guides for November Elections
Two new state laws, California AG race, local tax & distribution measures are top concerns
OAKLAND, Calif. -- The country's leading patient advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) issued voter's guides today, highlighting several important races in the upcoming elections, including ballot initiatives establishing two new statewide medical marijuana laws in Arizona and South Dakota, and an expansion of Oregon's law to include licensed medical marijuana dispensaries.
At the local level, voters in California and Colorado will be deciding on dozens of local medical marijuana initiatives, including banning distribution and imposing new taxes on patients. The race for California Attorney General, however, may represent the greatest threat to patients this November. ASA strongly opposes AG candidate Steve Cooley, Los Angeles District Attorney and a longtime adversary of the state's medical marijuana laws.
"There are more reasons and ways for patients and their supporters to get involved in this year's election than ever before," said ASA Executive Director Steph Sherer. "This is not the election to sit out," continued Sherer. "Not only is there an opportunity to establish new, much-needed medical marijuana laws this November, but there is also a need to push back against literally dozens of local measures that prevent access and attempt, through taxation, to balance the budgets of cash-strapped economies on the backs of patients."
Proposition 203 in Arizona and Measure 13 in South Dakota would both enact new statewide medical marijuana laws. Both laws create criminal and civil protections for patients, a standard among state medical marijuana laws, but Arizona's initiative would also locally regulate and license nonprofit dispensaries. Measure 74 in Oregon creates a system of state-regulated, nonprofit dispensaries for a medical marijuana program that now serves approximately 40,000 patients. Measure 74 will still allow patients to cultivate their own medicine, but it will provide the option of a safe and affordable supply that will be self-financing, create many new jobs, and generate as much as $20 million in annual revenue for Oregon's cash-strapped treasury.
There are at least 14 local medical marijuana-related ballot measures in California, where voters will decide whether to impose new local taxes on medical marijuana distribution and cultivation in at least 10 different cities, including Albany, Berkeley, La Puente, Long Beach, Oakland, Rancho Cordova, Richmond, Sacramento, San Jose, and Stockton. The new taxes, which are strongly opposed by patient advocates, range from 2.5 percent in Berkeley and Stockton to 10 percent in San Jose and La Puente. Voters in Santa Barbara and Morro Bay will decide whether to permanently ban local dispensaries in ballot measures strongly opposed by patient advocates.
Colorado has a staggering list of 52 different local medical marijuana-related initiatives on the November ballot, most of which ask the question whether particular localities should ban cultivation and distribution. There are also a handful of local taxation measures similar to those in California. As described in the ASA Colorado Voter's Guide, bans against cultivation, distribution, and food-based medicine, "are unnecessary and will have a harmful affect on patient access to medical cannabis."
Other races across the country affecting medical marijuana patients include the offices of Governor of California and New Mexico, Attorney General of Michigan, and more than 40 Members of Congress from 18 states. Patient advocates strongly support particular candidates in some races, such as Diane Denish for Governor of New Mexico, but also vocally oppose candidates in other races, such as medical marijuana adversaries Steve Cooley and Bill Schuette running for Attorneys General of California and Michigan, respectively, as well as Meg Whitman running for Governor of California.
Amidst all of the controversy surrounding California's Proposition 19, aimed at legalizing marijuana, medical use advocates have been split on whether the measure would help or hinder the lives of patients. ASA has taken a neutral stance on Proposition 19, but believes much of the concern expressed against the measure so far has been unfounded. "If Prop. 19 can bring down the price of medical marijuana without diminishing its quality, patients will certainly benefit," said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. "However, it's unclear what impact Prop. 19 will have on local medical marijuana distribution, whether through court rulings or aggressive enforcement actions that fail to discern between medical and non-medical use."
Further information:
ASA Voter's Guide for California: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/ASA_Voter_Guide_CA_2010.pdf
ASA Voter's Guide for Colorado: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/ASA_Voter_Guide_CO_2010.pdf
ASA Voter's Guide for various races across the U.S.: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/ASA_Voter_Guide_US_2010.pdf
Campaign to defeat Steve Cooley: http://NotCooley.com
ASA FAQ on California's Proposition 19: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/Prop19
Source: Opposing Views
Monday, October 25, 2010
NEWS: Men's Wearhouse Founder George Zimmer for Legal Pot in California
You're gonna like the way California looks with marijuana as a legal substance. George Zimmer guarantees it.
The Yes on 19 campaign to legalize marijuana in the Golden State, via the Proposition 19 ballot measure that California voters will consider next week, is airing its first TV ad of the election cycle, and they're doing it, in part, with money from George Zimmer of Men's Wearhouse.
In the ad, retired San Jose Police Chief Joseph McNamara warns that the war on marijuana has failed and that Prop. 19 would help law enforcers focus on violent crime. The campaign has committed several hundred thousand dollars to air it and hopes to raise more to expand the purchase of air time. It will air first in the Los Angeles market.
At the end of the ad, Zimmer's name appears in the disclaimer. "Yes on 19, Tax Cannabis 2010. Sponsoered by S.K. Seymour LLC, a medical cannabis provider, DBA Oaksterdam University, a cannabis educator with support from George Zimmer."
Zimmer is one of a few big-time donors known as sympathetic to marijuana legalization. Others are George Soros and Peter Lewis, the chairman of Progressive Insurance. The Prop. 19 campaign has been waiting for much of the election cycle to see whether such big donors would support them.
Zimmer donated $50,000 to the campaign last week, according to Yes on 19's financial disclosures with the California Secretary of State's office. Lewis donated $69,500 the week before. Another donor, Peter Thiel of Clarium Capital, donated $70,000 last week.
There is "lots of interest" in supporting the campaign among big donors, according to a spokesman.
Internal polling currently finds Prop. 19 passing, though respondents polled by live interviewers appear to be skeptical. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed Prop. 19 failing 53 - 43 percent in early October.
See the new ad below:
Source: The Atlantic
The Yes on 19 campaign to legalize marijuana in the Golden State, via the Proposition 19 ballot measure that California voters will consider next week, is airing its first TV ad of the election cycle, and they're doing it, in part, with money from George Zimmer of Men's Wearhouse.
In the ad, retired San Jose Police Chief Joseph McNamara warns that the war on marijuana has failed and that Prop. 19 would help law enforcers focus on violent crime. The campaign has committed several hundred thousand dollars to air it and hopes to raise more to expand the purchase of air time. It will air first in the Los Angeles market.
At the end of the ad, Zimmer's name appears in the disclaimer. "Yes on 19, Tax Cannabis 2010. Sponsoered by S.K. Seymour LLC, a medical cannabis provider, DBA Oaksterdam University, a cannabis educator with support from George Zimmer."
Zimmer is one of a few big-time donors known as sympathetic to marijuana legalization. Others are George Soros and Peter Lewis, the chairman of Progressive Insurance. The Prop. 19 campaign has been waiting for much of the election cycle to see whether such big donors would support them.
Zimmer donated $50,000 to the campaign last week, according to Yes on 19's financial disclosures with the California Secretary of State's office. Lewis donated $69,500 the week before. Another donor, Peter Thiel of Clarium Capital, donated $70,000 last week.
There is "lots of interest" in supporting the campaign among big donors, according to a spokesman.
Internal polling currently finds Prop. 19 passing, though respondents polled by live interviewers appear to be skeptical. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed Prop. 19 failing 53 - 43 percent in early October.
See the new ad below:
Source: The Atlantic
Sunday, October 24, 2010
VIDEO: Frank Sheftell's Public Comment on Medical Marijuana Collective at LA Council Meeting
MERCHANT CREDIT CARD PROCESSING
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
Best Rates Available
Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
Best Rates Available
Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)
NEWS: Marijuana Cooperative Files Suit Against City
The Conejo Wellness Center, Agoura Hills' sole medical marijuana collective, filed a lawsuit Friday against the city of Agoura Hills, its various agencies and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, alleging they violated its due process rights and infringed its constitutional right to operate lawfully. Seeking a temporary restraining order, the Center aims to prevent the city of Agoura Hills from taking any action to disallow Conejo Wellness from operating as a medical marijuana collective.
The suit alleges that the city of Agoura Hills overstepped its use of muncipal law enforcement by working cooperatively with the Sheriff's Department in thwarting the collective's operations, according to the Conejo Wellness Center's attorney, Arthur D. Hodge.
The Sheriff's Department Narcotics Strike Force raided the dispensary on Oct. 14, alleging it cultivated and distributed medical marijuana for profit.
"They weren't there to arrest anybody, just harass us," Mike Brown, a co-owner of the dispensary, told Patch the day after the raid. "They told us we are not allowed back there."
Assistant City Manager Louis Celaya contends that the city has been conducting a separate investigation into whether the Center was operating without the required business permit.
"The owner of the dispensary elected to open its non-conforming business in violation of municipal code," he said. "The Sheriff's Department does not handle matters of code enforcement."
The collective registered as an entity with the California secretary of state's office on June 8, 2006, according to Hodge, to provide medicinal marijuana to those patients in need. A tax registration certificate from the city of Los Angeles indicates that the business opened in Agoura Hills on Apr. 1, 2006.
Agoura Hills officials established a moratorium banning medicinal marijuana dispensaries after one such operation on Agoura Court, posing as a copier company, was evicted for lease violations in 2006. The City Council adopted an ordinance in 2008 making the ban permanent.
On Sept. 22, 2010, the City Council amended the ordinance, changing the definition of the word "business" from the original language to include not-for-profit cooperatives, such as the Conejo Wellness Center.
The lawsuit alleges that the enforcement of the amended ordinance, which disqualifies the Center from obtaining a business registration permit while at the same time mandating that it have one, is in violation of California and U.S. constitutional due process of rights.
Due process can be applied to persons as well as corporate entities, according to both California and US constitutions. Due process rights guarantee that the government cannot thwart a person's basic rights to life, liberty or property, without due process of law.
Hodge said the Conejo Wellness Center applied for a registration permit with the city on Dec. 14, 2009, despite the fact that it was not a profit-seeking entity. The Center was never verbally or otherwise told it was denied a business registration permit or had its $35 fee returned, he said.
Celaya said several attempts were made to contact the applicant by telephone. The application was denied, because it did not clearly state the nature of the business. "The property owner essentially disregarded concerns from the city," Celaya said.
The Conejo Wellness Center maintains that it is a collective of patients lawfully organized under the laws of the state of California, and that the city violated the Center's right to privacy and association. The collective's patients have a right to cultivate and distribute marijuana under California law, Hodge said.
The owners of the Conejo Wellness Center feel confident that they may be able to reopen its doors as early as next week, based on statements on its Facebook page.
A court date has been set for Monday at the Los Angeles County Superior Court at 600 S. Commonwealth Ave.
Source: Agoura Hills Patch
The suit alleges that the city of Agoura Hills overstepped its use of muncipal law enforcement by working cooperatively with the Sheriff's Department in thwarting the collective's operations, according to the Conejo Wellness Center's attorney, Arthur D. Hodge.
The Sheriff's Department Narcotics Strike Force raided the dispensary on Oct. 14, alleging it cultivated and distributed medical marijuana for profit.
"They weren't there to arrest anybody, just harass us," Mike Brown, a co-owner of the dispensary, told Patch the day after the raid. "They told us we are not allowed back there."
Assistant City Manager Louis Celaya contends that the city has been conducting a separate investigation into whether the Center was operating without the required business permit.
"The owner of the dispensary elected to open its non-conforming business in violation of municipal code," he said. "The Sheriff's Department does not handle matters of code enforcement."
The collective registered as an entity with the California secretary of state's office on June 8, 2006, according to Hodge, to provide medicinal marijuana to those patients in need. A tax registration certificate from the city of Los Angeles indicates that the business opened in Agoura Hills on Apr. 1, 2006.
Agoura Hills officials established a moratorium banning medicinal marijuana dispensaries after one such operation on Agoura Court, posing as a copier company, was evicted for lease violations in 2006. The City Council adopted an ordinance in 2008 making the ban permanent.
On Sept. 22, 2010, the City Council amended the ordinance, changing the definition of the word "business" from the original language to include not-for-profit cooperatives, such as the Conejo Wellness Center.
The lawsuit alleges that the enforcement of the amended ordinance, which disqualifies the Center from obtaining a business registration permit while at the same time mandating that it have one, is in violation of California and U.S. constitutional due process of rights.
Due process can be applied to persons as well as corporate entities, according to both California and US constitutions. Due process rights guarantee that the government cannot thwart a person's basic rights to life, liberty or property, without due process of law.
Hodge said the Conejo Wellness Center applied for a registration permit with the city on Dec. 14, 2009, despite the fact that it was not a profit-seeking entity. The Center was never verbally or otherwise told it was denied a business registration permit or had its $35 fee returned, he said.
Celaya said several attempts were made to contact the applicant by telephone. The application was denied, because it did not clearly state the nature of the business. "The property owner essentially disregarded concerns from the city," Celaya said.
The Conejo Wellness Center maintains that it is a collective of patients lawfully organized under the laws of the state of California, and that the city violated the Center's right to privacy and association. The collective's patients have a right to cultivate and distribute marijuana under California law, Hodge said.
The owners of the Conejo Wellness Center feel confident that they may be able to reopen its doors as early as next week, based on statements on its Facebook page.
A court date has been set for Monday at the Los Angeles County Superior Court at 600 S. Commonwealth Ave.
Source: Agoura Hills Patch
Saturday, October 23, 2010
NEWS: Council changes marijuana dispensary ban
COSTA MESA — The City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to amend its 2005 ban on medical marijuana dispensaries, agreeing not to arrest and seek prosecution against those running such businesses in the city as long as three or more people are not involved in growing and distributing the drug.
The amendment prohibits those who are not authorized under state law to grow and distribute marijuana from operating dispensaries and also declares off-site growing unlawful.
The change in the city's stance came as a result of a recent court ruling involving Anaheim that cast doubt on whether municipalities can use the federal government's stance against marijuana to ban dispensaries. Costa Mesa used the court's non-binding portion of the analysis to justify going after operations involving three or more individuals.
While the city would still consider operating dispensaries as a misdemeanor and issue citations, the new ordinance will not criminally prosecute any violators.
Even before passage of the new law, Costa Mesa hadn't been prosecuting violators.
Council candidate Sue Lester, who operates a medical marijuana dispensary, thanked the council for what she said was a first step toward a better solution to helping those in need of the drug.
"I would urge the council to not stop with this and continue to educate yourselves, and really look into the value of medical marijuana for people with legitimate illnesses," she said.
In other city business, the council voted 4 to 1 to uphold the Planning Commission's vote to revoke Garcia's Recycling center's permit. Councilwoman Katrina Foley dissented.
At lease a dozen residents spoke against keeping the center open, citing loud noise, bad odor and the type of customers who use the center.
While she agreed with residents' concerns, Foley wanted to give the business a six-month window to help the owner, who has operated in the city for 20 years, time to find a new space and relocate.
The council also voted unanimously to increase the Business Improvement Area tax by 1%, making it a total of 3%.
The tax would be added to overnight hotel guests' bills, and would go toward the Costa Mesa Conference and Visitor Bureau, which works to attract tourism to the city.
Source: The Daily Pilot
The amendment prohibits those who are not authorized under state law to grow and distribute marijuana from operating dispensaries and also declares off-site growing unlawful.
The change in the city's stance came as a result of a recent court ruling involving Anaheim that cast doubt on whether municipalities can use the federal government's stance against marijuana to ban dispensaries. Costa Mesa used the court's non-binding portion of the analysis to justify going after operations involving three or more individuals.
While the city would still consider operating dispensaries as a misdemeanor and issue citations, the new ordinance will not criminally prosecute any violators.
Even before passage of the new law, Costa Mesa hadn't been prosecuting violators.
Council candidate Sue Lester, who operates a medical marijuana dispensary, thanked the council for what she said was a first step toward a better solution to helping those in need of the drug.
"I would urge the council to not stop with this and continue to educate yourselves, and really look into the value of medical marijuana for people with legitimate illnesses," she said.
In other city business, the council voted 4 to 1 to uphold the Planning Commission's vote to revoke Garcia's Recycling center's permit. Councilwoman Katrina Foley dissented.
At lease a dozen residents spoke against keeping the center open, citing loud noise, bad odor and the type of customers who use the center.
While she agreed with residents' concerns, Foley wanted to give the business a six-month window to help the owner, who has operated in the city for 20 years, time to find a new space and relocate.
The council also voted unanimously to increase the Business Improvement Area tax by 1%, making it a total of 3%.
The tax would be added to overnight hotel guests' bills, and would go toward the Costa Mesa Conference and Visitor Bureau, which works to attract tourism to the city.
Source: The Daily Pilot
NEWS: Cities Look to Profit Off Marijuana
As Californians weigh whether to legalize marijuana statewide, many cash-strapped cities across the state are considering their own taxes on the drug.
Even if voters don't legalize pot for recreational use statewide, local ballot measures in at least 10 cities could provide a hefty new source of revenue from taxes on medical marijuana.
Many cities already have retail outlets selling pot legally for medical use. And some city leaders don't feel like waiting for the rest of the state to decide whether they can make money off an industry that's thriving despite the recession.
San Jose is one of those cities where voters will be deciding on a marijuana tax. The tax initiative, which would leverage a 10 percent tax on pot, has received a lot of attention because if passed, it would be the highest in the nation.
Measure U, which requires a majority vote, asks voters in the Nov. 2 election to consider a proposal to impose up to a 10 percent tax on the facilities, with the revenue used to fund city services.
A tax would be placed on the planting, cultivation, harvesting, transporting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, processing, preparing, storing, packaging, and wholesale and retail sales of marijuana in San Jose.
If it passes, the tax would generate millions of dollars in revenue from the city's marijuana facilities, which number somewhere around 40 to 50.
But opponents of the ordinance say it will limit the options for medical cannabis patients and open up their private medical records to police and other city officials.
One of the city's most outspoken advocates. Cannabis activist Dave Hodges, who founded the city's first medical marijuana dispensary, says leveraging a ten percent tax on the city's clinics is "just ridiculous" and "would put an undue burden on patients.
Other cities with marijuana tax measures on the ballot include Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, Berkeley and Stockton.
Source: NBC Bay Area
Even if voters don't legalize pot for recreational use statewide, local ballot measures in at least 10 cities could provide a hefty new source of revenue from taxes on medical marijuana.
Many cities already have retail outlets selling pot legally for medical use. And some city leaders don't feel like waiting for the rest of the state to decide whether they can make money off an industry that's thriving despite the recession.
San Jose is one of those cities where voters will be deciding on a marijuana tax. The tax initiative, which would leverage a 10 percent tax on pot, has received a lot of attention because if passed, it would be the highest in the nation.
Measure U, which requires a majority vote, asks voters in the Nov. 2 election to consider a proposal to impose up to a 10 percent tax on the facilities, with the revenue used to fund city services.
A tax would be placed on the planting, cultivation, harvesting, transporting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, processing, preparing, storing, packaging, and wholesale and retail sales of marijuana in San Jose.
If it passes, the tax would generate millions of dollars in revenue from the city's marijuana facilities, which number somewhere around 40 to 50.
But opponents of the ordinance say it will limit the options for medical cannabis patients and open up their private medical records to police and other city officials.
One of the city's most outspoken advocates. Cannabis activist Dave Hodges, who founded the city's first medical marijuana dispensary, says leveraging a ten percent tax on the city's clinics is "just ridiculous" and "would put an undue burden on patients.
Other cities with marijuana tax measures on the ballot include Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, Berkeley and Stockton.
Source: NBC Bay Area
MERCHANT CREDIT CARD PROCESSING
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
Best Rates Available.
Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
Best Rates Available.
Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)
Thursday, October 21, 2010
NEWS: Some compassionate pot shops caught in L.A. law's red tape
Legal loophole threatens some well-meaning, well-run collectives
They seem like just what California voters like me had in mind when we approved the "compassionate" use of marijuana to treat medical ills 14 years ago.
The Toluca Lake Collective operates out of a converted house on a quiet street, with no neon sign or ATM machine. It carries just six strains of marijuana — unlike the dozens some dispensaries offer. All are grown locally by members, and owner Frank Sheftel can tell you which works best to relieve pain, ease muscle spasms or just deliver a good night's sleep.
Across town, there's PureLife Alternative Wellness Center. It was created by cancer survivor Yami Bolanos as an alternative to "those blaring-music and strobe-light places, where you're taking advice from an 18-year-old with piercings all over her face," she said.
PureLife has a comfy lobby, high-end furniture, and rows of marijuana choices and medical information. The shop hosts tours for city officials and law enforcement officers and was selected by collective owners as the best example of a well-run place.
Both have been around since 2006 and were supposed to be among the 186 collectives "grandfathered" in when the city adopted tough medical marijuana restrictions that put hundreds of dispensaries out of business this year.
But they have wound up among 130 original collectives now threatened with closure because of — depending on how you see it — either a paperwork glitch or a dirty trick.
In Sheftel's case, his required registration was "inadvertently misdirected by city staff." The city acknowledged as much in a notation adding him to the approved list in 2008. But he has since been dropped from the list on the grounds that he missed the deadline when he filed his paperwork in Van Nuys instead of the clerk's office downtown.
Bolanos is caught in a bigger problem. PureLife is one of 58 collectives targeted for closure because they may have hired or fired a manager since they first applied.
"It's ridiculous for them to disqualify me because I have hired a manager," said Bolanos. "I want my business to be run well, so I have family members helping me manage now. What do they think I'm supposed to do when I can't be here? Is that a reason to shut us down?"
It's not as if the city is going easy on dispensaries now. After years of watching pot shops proliferate, the City Council this year passed one of the toughest marijuana regulation laws in the state. It requires dispensaries to be patient-dominated collectives, located at least 1,000 feet from schools, parks, libraries and homes, closed by 8 each night and without neon cannabis-leaf signs.
The regulations were a product of more than two years of contentious debate. I guess it's no wonder that a few things got mashed up in the soup-making. The new ordinance allowed the immediate shut-down of more than 400 dispensaries that had sprung up after the moratorium and validated only those that had opened before.
But among those, it excluded dispensaries that had changed ownership or management. The city attorney's office interprets that to mean that if a collective has hired or fired a manager since 2007, it no longer qualifies as an original.
And although it has not yet moved to shut those down, the city attorney's office has left them off the list of legal collectives and filed suit to keep them off.
"We want to be legal, but he wants to get rid of us," complained Bolanos, president of the Greater Los Angeles Collective's Alliance, referring to the city attorney. "I really believe this is very political, because the city attorney doesn't believe there should be such a thing as medical marijuana."
Councilwoman Janice Hahn isn't willing to go that far, but she is co-sponsoring an amendment to the ordinance that would put those collectives back on the list by allowing them to qualify as long as they "maintain at least one primary owner and/or manager" from their original registration.
"It's unfortunate that the city attorney misinterpreted our intent when it comes to a change in management," Hahn said. Allowing management changes is not just a question of fairness but of good business, Hahn said.
"I want them to have the flexibility to run a decent, safe, responsible business," she said. "They ought to have the right to make a management change if they need it."
The city attorney's office doesn't see it that way. "We have an obligation to enforce the plain-vanilla language of the rules," said Jane Usher, a special assistant city attorney handling the dozens of lawsuits swirling around the regulations.
The motion to amend the ordinance is scheduled to be heard by the City Council today. But Usher wants the discussion delayed until a judge rules next month on motions filed by dispensaries challenging the city's law.
Source: Los Angeles Times
They seem like just what California voters like me had in mind when we approved the "compassionate" use of marijuana to treat medical ills 14 years ago.
The Toluca Lake Collective operates out of a converted house on a quiet street, with no neon sign or ATM machine. It carries just six strains of marijuana — unlike the dozens some dispensaries offer. All are grown locally by members, and owner Frank Sheftel can tell you which works best to relieve pain, ease muscle spasms or just deliver a good night's sleep.
Across town, there's PureLife Alternative Wellness Center. It was created by cancer survivor Yami Bolanos as an alternative to "those blaring-music and strobe-light places, where you're taking advice from an 18-year-old with piercings all over her face," she said.
PureLife has a comfy lobby, high-end furniture, and rows of marijuana choices and medical information. The shop hosts tours for city officials and law enforcement officers and was selected by collective owners as the best example of a well-run place.
Both have been around since 2006 and were supposed to be among the 186 collectives "grandfathered" in when the city adopted tough medical marijuana restrictions that put hundreds of dispensaries out of business this year.
But they have wound up among 130 original collectives now threatened with closure because of — depending on how you see it — either a paperwork glitch or a dirty trick.
In Sheftel's case, his required registration was "inadvertently misdirected by city staff." The city acknowledged as much in a notation adding him to the approved list in 2008. But he has since been dropped from the list on the grounds that he missed the deadline when he filed his paperwork in Van Nuys instead of the clerk's office downtown.
Bolanos is caught in a bigger problem. PureLife is one of 58 collectives targeted for closure because they may have hired or fired a manager since they first applied.
"It's ridiculous for them to disqualify me because I have hired a manager," said Bolanos. "I want my business to be run well, so I have family members helping me manage now. What do they think I'm supposed to do when I can't be here? Is that a reason to shut us down?"
It's not as if the city is going easy on dispensaries now. After years of watching pot shops proliferate, the City Council this year passed one of the toughest marijuana regulation laws in the state. It requires dispensaries to be patient-dominated collectives, located at least 1,000 feet from schools, parks, libraries and homes, closed by 8 each night and without neon cannabis-leaf signs.
The regulations were a product of more than two years of contentious debate. I guess it's no wonder that a few things got mashed up in the soup-making. The new ordinance allowed the immediate shut-down of more than 400 dispensaries that had sprung up after the moratorium and validated only those that had opened before.
But among those, it excluded dispensaries that had changed ownership or management. The city attorney's office interprets that to mean that if a collective has hired or fired a manager since 2007, it no longer qualifies as an original.
And although it has not yet moved to shut those down, the city attorney's office has left them off the list of legal collectives and filed suit to keep them off.
"We want to be legal, but he wants to get rid of us," complained Bolanos, president of the Greater Los Angeles Collective's Alliance, referring to the city attorney. "I really believe this is very political, because the city attorney doesn't believe there should be such a thing as medical marijuana."
Councilwoman Janice Hahn isn't willing to go that far, but she is co-sponsoring an amendment to the ordinance that would put those collectives back on the list by allowing them to qualify as long as they "maintain at least one primary owner and/or manager" from their original registration.
"It's unfortunate that the city attorney misinterpreted our intent when it comes to a change in management," Hahn said. Allowing management changes is not just a question of fairness but of good business, Hahn said.
"I want them to have the flexibility to run a decent, safe, responsible business," she said. "They ought to have the right to make a management change if they need it."
The city attorney's office doesn't see it that way. "We have an obligation to enforce the plain-vanilla language of the rules," said Jane Usher, a special assistant city attorney handling the dozens of lawsuits swirling around the regulations.
The motion to amend the ordinance is scheduled to be heard by the City Council today. But Usher wants the discussion delayed until a judge rules next month on motions filed by dispensaries challenging the city's law.
Source: Los Angeles Times
MERCHANT CREDIT CARD PROCESSING
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
Best Rates Available.
Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
Best Rates Available.
Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
NEWS: Council extends dispensary moratorium
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. — A possible legal challenge to the city council's extension of a moratorium on the opening of new medical marijuana dispensaries in South Lake Tahoe may allow additional dispensaries to open.
The council unanimously approved the extension of the moratorium until Nov. 16, 2011 at their meeting on Tuesday.
The council enacted the emergency moratorium Nov. 17, 2009 to allow the city more time to study how to regulated dispensaries. Tuesday's extension is the last available to the city.
But former City Attorney Jacqueline Mittelstadt said she intends to challenge the moratorium on behalf of Chris Ziegler, the operator of a medical marijuana group called Mountain Collective.
The collective, which has operated out of Ziegler's home, has met the requirements to be considered an “established operation” and be exempt from the moratorium, Ziegler said.
But the city disagrees. the assistant city manager denied Ziegler's initial application for an exemption to the moratorium. Former City Manager David Jinkens upheld an appeal by Ziegler.
A July 16 letter from City Attorney Patrick Enright to then City Manager David Jinkens questioned whether Ziegler was operating a dispensary prior to a Nov. 1, 2009, deadline required to be exempt from the moratorium.
During Tuesday's City Council meeting, Assistant City Manager Rick Angelocci said Ziegler's application was denied because he did not have an active permit with the city and was operating the dispensary out of his home.
The language of the moratorium is unclear and the overriding requirement for an exemption under the moratorium was that Ziegler was providing medical marijuana to qualified patients as a primary caregiver under California's medical marijuana laws, Mittelstadt said.
The attorney said she will seek an injunction against the moratorium in an upcoming legal challenge.
If a judge rules in favor of an injunction, more dispensaries could be established in the city while the case is proceeding, Mittelstadt said.
Ziegler said he has been frustrated by the city's response to his requests and contends his concerns were “punted down the road” since he began working with the city regarding Mountain Collective in May 2009.
If he is successful in the legal challenge, Ziegler said he intends to make the collective the anchor for a property he manages, the “Eco-Green Center” at 1184 Emerald Bay Road.
The center would also include environmentally-friendly hotel rooms, a bakery and a community vegetable garden, Ziegler said.
Source: Tahoe Daily Tribune
The council unanimously approved the extension of the moratorium until Nov. 16, 2011 at their meeting on Tuesday.
The council enacted the emergency moratorium Nov. 17, 2009 to allow the city more time to study how to regulated dispensaries. Tuesday's extension is the last available to the city.
But former City Attorney Jacqueline Mittelstadt said she intends to challenge the moratorium on behalf of Chris Ziegler, the operator of a medical marijuana group called Mountain Collective.
The collective, which has operated out of Ziegler's home, has met the requirements to be considered an “established operation” and be exempt from the moratorium, Ziegler said.
But the city disagrees. the assistant city manager denied Ziegler's initial application for an exemption to the moratorium. Former City Manager David Jinkens upheld an appeal by Ziegler.
A July 16 letter from City Attorney Patrick Enright to then City Manager David Jinkens questioned whether Ziegler was operating a dispensary prior to a Nov. 1, 2009, deadline required to be exempt from the moratorium.
During Tuesday's City Council meeting, Assistant City Manager Rick Angelocci said Ziegler's application was denied because he did not have an active permit with the city and was operating the dispensary out of his home.
The language of the moratorium is unclear and the overriding requirement for an exemption under the moratorium was that Ziegler was providing medical marijuana to qualified patients as a primary caregiver under California's medical marijuana laws, Mittelstadt said.
The attorney said she will seek an injunction against the moratorium in an upcoming legal challenge.
If a judge rules in favor of an injunction, more dispensaries could be established in the city while the case is proceeding, Mittelstadt said.
Ziegler said he has been frustrated by the city's response to his requests and contends his concerns were “punted down the road” since he began working with the city regarding Mountain Collective in May 2009.
If he is successful in the legal challenge, Ziegler said he intends to make the collective the anchor for a property he manages, the “Eco-Green Center” at 1184 Emerald Bay Road.
The center would also include environmentally-friendly hotel rooms, a bakery and a community vegetable garden, Ziegler said.
Source: Tahoe Daily Tribune
Monday, October 18, 2010
NEWS: San Diego County Narcotics Task Force Detectives Open and Operate Medical Marijuana Dispensary in San Diego
By: Eugene Davidovich, October 18, 2010
The undercover officers dubbed themselves as ‘New Management’ before detaining and interrogating unsuspecting patients walking into the dispensary that day.
SAN DIEGO –Thursday morning of last week, San Diego County Narcotics Task Force (NTF) detectives arrested James Harder a founding member of the Helping Hands Wellness Collective at his home in San Diego. The detectives also served search warrants at the dispensary located on 5th Avenue in Hillcrest. The arrest and search of the dispensary was the extent of what the search and arrest warrants authorized the NTF to do that that day.
After booking Harder into San Diego County Jail, NTF Detective Mark Andrew Carlson however was not finished. He ordered his team to dawn orange Helping Hands Wellness shirts and open the dispensary on time at 10am, taking San Diego District Attorney (DA) Bonnie Dumanis’ fierce fight against medical marijuana to a whole new level.
Mark Carlson is the same detective who for over two years, under the direct orders of Deputy DA Chris Lindbergh led the investigation and helped prosecute Jovan Jackson of Answerdam collective. After Jackson was vindicated of all marijuana related charges in his first trial, Carlson was instrumental in convincing the DA’s office to continue with the second prosecution and trial.
According to Matt, one of the patients who visited the dispensary that day, detectives welcomed him to the collective, told him the facility was under ‘new management’, checked him in, and even provided him with free concentrated cannabis (hash) as a gift before inquiring with the unsuspecting patient whether he cultivated his own medicine. As soon as Matt told them that he did, the detectives pulled out their badges, said they were DEA, and then proceeded to detain and interrogate him for almost two hours.
San Diego Americans for Safe Access (SDASA), the local chapter of the nation’s largest advocacy group advancing therapeutic use and research medical marijuana, received a call on Thursday around noon from another patient who said the Helping Hands Collective was “taken over” by law enforcement. The call was followed by an email to SDASA from a sales representative of San Diego CityBeat, who also stopped into the dispensary that day to visit their advertising client only to find out that the place is ‘under new management’.
Upon receipt of these reports, SDASA quickly activated the local Raid Response Team (RRT). The team was successfully able to verify, confirm, and notify the community of the raid within minutes of the initial reports.
San Diego CityBeat reported on the story that afternoon, quoting Matt as saying, “They kept asking how much medicine do I buy, how am I affording it, where am I getting it from, what cooperatives I’m a member of where my garden is, they just basically, in a easy sentence, they raped me for everything I had and never told me I had a right to remain silent. They made me think if I didn’t talk they would arrest me on the spot.”
The NTF detectives were operating the collective from 10am to 2pm before being forced to cease their activity by San Diego Americans for Safe Access advocates, who quickly arrived on the scene.
Aside from the quick response, members of SDASA’s RRT that day, successfully and lawfully intervened and were able to stop to the NTF from operating the collective and putting additional patients at risk of this rogue action by San Diego NTF detectives.
San Diego Americans for Safe Access – Raid Response Team Eye Witness Account:
After receiving the call from a patient on Thursday morning, I first called Helping Hands to verify the reports of a ‘take over’. A male voice in a very polite manner answered the phone saying “Helping Hands, how may I help you today?”
I asked the male, “Is the collective open today?”
My question was quickly answered with another question. “Are you a customer or a vendor?”
This immediately raised a red flag for me and added to my suspicion that the person on the other line, was not a member of the collective but was in fact an undercover police officer posing as a member. I asked myself, “has the NTF actually stooped to this level?”
I proceeded to tell the person on the line, “My name is Eugene Davidovich and I’m calling from San Diego Americans for Safe Access, can we speak to a member of this collective?”
The male answered, “Hold on let me let you speak with the manager.”
After a short delay, another male got on the phone, and this time said “Who is this, can I help you?”
The voice was very familiar and only one name came to mind; Detective Mark Andrew Carlson, San Diego NTF detective who was the lead investigator in the Jovan Jackson case.
I introduced myself to the supposed “patient” and asked to speak to a member of the collective again. This time the undercover told me “hold on” and the line went dead.
Following this conversation, I activated the SDASA RRT and headed for the facility in Hillcrest.
Before I arrived at the collective, Terrie Best, another member of the RRT was already on the scene conducting an onsite survey. By the time I arrived, Terrie reported finding no evidence of police activity in front of the collective and at first, everything appeared to be normal. No police cars, DEA trucks or any other law enforcement activity was visible. The facility appeared open, and we could see people moving inside through the windows.
As soon as Terrie and I walked up to the front entrance of the facility, the lock in the glass tinted doors clicked shut. I knocked on the door and through the tinted window could see someone wearing an orange Helping Hands T-Shirt motioning to us with a finger that he would be right with us.
After not being let in through the fount doors, we walked around the back of the building into the alley.
This is when we realized the reports were true. The NTF had taken over the collective and was operating it under the guise of “new management”.
Six large F150 trucks were parked in the alley in back of the facility. A large white trailer was pushed up to the back door of the collective and almost a dozen undercover officers were scurrying back and forth loading unmarked boxes and bags in to the trailer.
After several minutes of watching the officers pack the trailer, I saw Detective Carlson walk out from the back of the collective. The minute he saw me, he screamed “Eugene, get out of here”.
While Carlson was busy venting his anger out at me, Terrie was busy questioning the other detectives as to why they were there, what agency they were with, etc.
I could hear Terrie ask one of the undercover officers, “are you San Diego County Sheriff or DEA”?
The undercover replied, “I’m a Sheriff from one of 58 Sheriff’s Department in the State”.
“Which one”? Terrie asked.
After hesitating for a moment the detective finally caved in and admitted, “I am with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department”.
“Why did you raid this collective?” Terrie continued.
The undercover replied, “That’s a part of an ongoing investigation, and I can’t talk about it unless you are with the media, are you with the media?”
“No I am not”, Terrie replied. “But what would you tell me if I was with the media?”
The detective could not resist Terrie’s friendly demeanor and sweet personality he told Terrie “I would tell you to call the Public Information Officer”.
“Great, what’s his name and number”, Terrie replied.
“That’s not Public information” the officer hissed.
Terrie was quick to point out that “you just told me that it was the ‘Public’ information officer was it not?”
The detective frustrated, let out a groan and walked away. Clearly perturbed with the SDASA RRT presence, Carlson proceeded to hurry all the detectives along to pack the trailer faster.
By this time Dennis and Melissa, two other members of the SDASA RRT arrived on the scene and joined our efforts.
As we continued to monitor the situation, one of the officers dressed in an orange Helping Hands t-shirt walked out of the collective and began to chit chat with the others, apparently forgetting that he was still dressed up as a ‘member’ of the collective.
I walked closer to him and called out “Excuse me sir, with the Helping Hands shirt, are you a member of this collective?”
The detective at first ignored me, then quickly two others ran up to him, and began to shout at the undercover, “I told you to stay inside, you are under arrest”.
When I realized, the detectives were trying to create the appearance that the person wearing the Helping Hands shirt, was actually a member under arrest and not an undercover officer, I couldn’t help but laugh at the pathetic attempt. Minutes later, a photographer from NBC arrived to document the events.
After seeing news cameras, detectives jumped in their cars and took off with tires screeching ending their day of opening and operating a dispensary.
Following this incident, I contacted Detective Carlson’s boss with the San Diego Police Department and inquired if Carlson was authorized as part of the investigation to operate the dispensary. His boss told me that he was not aware that the NTF was actually operating the facility. He said he was under the impression that San Diego detectives were simply assisting the Santa Barbara NTF in executing a search and arrest warrant.
Source: Americans for Safe Access (San Diego)
The undercover officers dubbed themselves as ‘New Management’ before detaining and interrogating unsuspecting patients walking into the dispensary that day.
SAN DIEGO –Thursday morning of last week, San Diego County Narcotics Task Force (NTF) detectives arrested James Harder a founding member of the Helping Hands Wellness Collective at his home in San Diego. The detectives also served search warrants at the dispensary located on 5th Avenue in Hillcrest. The arrest and search of the dispensary was the extent of what the search and arrest warrants authorized the NTF to do that that day.
After booking Harder into San Diego County Jail, NTF Detective Mark Andrew Carlson however was not finished. He ordered his team to dawn orange Helping Hands Wellness shirts and open the dispensary on time at 10am, taking San Diego District Attorney (DA) Bonnie Dumanis’ fierce fight against medical marijuana to a whole new level.
Mark Carlson is the same detective who for over two years, under the direct orders of Deputy DA Chris Lindbergh led the investigation and helped prosecute Jovan Jackson of Answerdam collective. After Jackson was vindicated of all marijuana related charges in his first trial, Carlson was instrumental in convincing the DA’s office to continue with the second prosecution and trial.
According to Matt, one of the patients who visited the dispensary that day, detectives welcomed him to the collective, told him the facility was under ‘new management’, checked him in, and even provided him with free concentrated cannabis (hash) as a gift before inquiring with the unsuspecting patient whether he cultivated his own medicine. As soon as Matt told them that he did, the detectives pulled out their badges, said they were DEA, and then proceeded to detain and interrogate him for almost two hours.
San Diego Americans for Safe Access (SDASA), the local chapter of the nation’s largest advocacy group advancing therapeutic use and research medical marijuana, received a call on Thursday around noon from another patient who said the Helping Hands Collective was “taken over” by law enforcement. The call was followed by an email to SDASA from a sales representative of San Diego CityBeat, who also stopped into the dispensary that day to visit their advertising client only to find out that the place is ‘under new management’.
Upon receipt of these reports, SDASA quickly activated the local Raid Response Team (RRT). The team was successfully able to verify, confirm, and notify the community of the raid within minutes of the initial reports.
San Diego CityBeat reported on the story that afternoon, quoting Matt as saying, “They kept asking how much medicine do I buy, how am I affording it, where am I getting it from, what cooperatives I’m a member of where my garden is, they just basically, in a easy sentence, they raped me for everything I had and never told me I had a right to remain silent. They made me think if I didn’t talk they would arrest me on the spot.”
The NTF detectives were operating the collective from 10am to 2pm before being forced to cease their activity by San Diego Americans for Safe Access advocates, who quickly arrived on the scene.
Aside from the quick response, members of SDASA’s RRT that day, successfully and lawfully intervened and were able to stop to the NTF from operating the collective and putting additional patients at risk of this rogue action by San Diego NTF detectives.
San Diego Americans for Safe Access – Raid Response Team Eye Witness Account:
After receiving the call from a patient on Thursday morning, I first called Helping Hands to verify the reports of a ‘take over’. A male voice in a very polite manner answered the phone saying “Helping Hands, how may I help you today?”
I asked the male, “Is the collective open today?”
My question was quickly answered with another question. “Are you a customer or a vendor?”
This immediately raised a red flag for me and added to my suspicion that the person on the other line, was not a member of the collective but was in fact an undercover police officer posing as a member. I asked myself, “has the NTF actually stooped to this level?”
I proceeded to tell the person on the line, “My name is Eugene Davidovich and I’m calling from San Diego Americans for Safe Access, can we speak to a member of this collective?”
The male answered, “Hold on let me let you speak with the manager.”
After a short delay, another male got on the phone, and this time said “Who is this, can I help you?”
The voice was very familiar and only one name came to mind; Detective Mark Andrew Carlson, San Diego NTF detective who was the lead investigator in the Jovan Jackson case.
I introduced myself to the supposed “patient” and asked to speak to a member of the collective again. This time the undercover told me “hold on” and the line went dead.
Following this conversation, I activated the SDASA RRT and headed for the facility in Hillcrest.
Before I arrived at the collective, Terrie Best, another member of the RRT was already on the scene conducting an onsite survey. By the time I arrived, Terrie reported finding no evidence of police activity in front of the collective and at first, everything appeared to be normal. No police cars, DEA trucks or any other law enforcement activity was visible. The facility appeared open, and we could see people moving inside through the windows.
As soon as Terrie and I walked up to the front entrance of the facility, the lock in the glass tinted doors clicked shut. I knocked on the door and through the tinted window could see someone wearing an orange Helping Hands T-Shirt motioning to us with a finger that he would be right with us.
After not being let in through the fount doors, we walked around the back of the building into the alley.
This is when we realized the reports were true. The NTF had taken over the collective and was operating it under the guise of “new management”.
Six large F150 trucks were parked in the alley in back of the facility. A large white trailer was pushed up to the back door of the collective and almost a dozen undercover officers were scurrying back and forth loading unmarked boxes and bags in to the trailer.
After several minutes of watching the officers pack the trailer, I saw Detective Carlson walk out from the back of the collective. The minute he saw me, he screamed “Eugene, get out of here”.
While Carlson was busy venting his anger out at me, Terrie was busy questioning the other detectives as to why they were there, what agency they were with, etc.
I could hear Terrie ask one of the undercover officers, “are you San Diego County Sheriff or DEA”?
The undercover replied, “I’m a Sheriff from one of 58 Sheriff’s Department in the State”.
“Which one”? Terrie asked.
After hesitating for a moment the detective finally caved in and admitted, “I am with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department”.
“Why did you raid this collective?” Terrie continued.
The undercover replied, “That’s a part of an ongoing investigation, and I can’t talk about it unless you are with the media, are you with the media?”
“No I am not”, Terrie replied. “But what would you tell me if I was with the media?”
The detective could not resist Terrie’s friendly demeanor and sweet personality he told Terrie “I would tell you to call the Public Information Officer”.
“Great, what’s his name and number”, Terrie replied.
“That’s not Public information” the officer hissed.
Terrie was quick to point out that “you just told me that it was the ‘Public’ information officer was it not?”
The detective frustrated, let out a groan and walked away. Clearly perturbed with the SDASA RRT presence, Carlson proceeded to hurry all the detectives along to pack the trailer faster.
By this time Dennis and Melissa, two other members of the SDASA RRT arrived on the scene and joined our efforts.
As we continued to monitor the situation, one of the officers dressed in an orange Helping Hands t-shirt walked out of the collective and began to chit chat with the others, apparently forgetting that he was still dressed up as a ‘member’ of the collective.
I walked closer to him and called out “Excuse me sir, with the Helping Hands shirt, are you a member of this collective?”
The detective at first ignored me, then quickly two others ran up to him, and began to shout at the undercover, “I told you to stay inside, you are under arrest”.
When I realized, the detectives were trying to create the appearance that the person wearing the Helping Hands shirt, was actually a member under arrest and not an undercover officer, I couldn’t help but laugh at the pathetic attempt. Minutes later, a photographer from NBC arrived to document the events.
After seeing news cameras, detectives jumped in their cars and took off with tires screeching ending their day of opening and operating a dispensary.
Following this incident, I contacted Detective Carlson’s boss with the San Diego Police Department and inquired if Carlson was authorized as part of the investigation to operate the dispensary. His boss told me that he was not aware that the NTF was actually operating the facility. He said he was under the impression that San Diego detectives were simply assisting the Santa Barbara NTF in executing a search and arrest warrant.
Source: Americans for Safe Access (San Diego)
Friday, October 15, 2010
NEWS: License or not, man busted for marijuana possession
Juan A. Santana told a police officer he had a license from California that entitled him to possess medical marijuana. Nevertheless, he was arrested by an Ocala police officer and charged with drug possession.
Late Thursday, Officer David Vale was heading south on South Pine Avenue approaching the Southwest 10th Street intersection when he saw a red Chevy pickup run the stoplight.
The officer stopped the vehicle, which Santana, 30, was driving. While approaching the vehicle, the officer noticed Santana tossing what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette out the window, according to the officer’s report.
The officer said he smelled a strong odor of marijuana inside the pickup. A K-9 unit alerted on the driver’s side door, and the officer saw a small bag of marijuana, the report said. The officer said he found several more bags of marijuana in the man’s pants pocket.
Searching the vehicle, officials found three blue bottles that contained marijuana. The label on the bottles read “Hooked on Chronic,” the report said.
Santana later told the officer he had a medical marijuana license from California, and received all his supply from a doctor. He also told the officer that he purchased the drug for personal use from the Internet.
The marijuana weighed 20.5 grams. Santana was arrested and taken to the Marion County Jail.
Source: OCALA.com
Late Thursday, Officer David Vale was heading south on South Pine Avenue approaching the Southwest 10th Street intersection when he saw a red Chevy pickup run the stoplight.
The officer stopped the vehicle, which Santana, 30, was driving. While approaching the vehicle, the officer noticed Santana tossing what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette out the window, according to the officer’s report.
The officer said he smelled a strong odor of marijuana inside the pickup. A K-9 unit alerted on the driver’s side door, and the officer saw a small bag of marijuana, the report said. The officer said he found several more bags of marijuana in the man’s pants pocket.
Searching the vehicle, officials found three blue bottles that contained marijuana. The label on the bottles read “Hooked on Chronic,” the report said.
Santana later told the officer he had a medical marijuana license from California, and received all his supply from a doctor. He also told the officer that he purchased the drug for personal use from the Internet.
The marijuana weighed 20.5 grams. Santana was arrested and taken to the Marion County Jail.
Source: OCALA.com
MERCHANT CREDIT CARD PROCESSING
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
Best Rates Available.
Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
Best Rates Available.
Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)
NEWS: Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Raided, Local Man Arrested
A San Diego man, believed to be operating three medical marijuana dispensaries, was arrested after a year-long investigation by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department.
Detectives raided a dispensary in Hillcrest Thursday morning and seized hundreds of edible marijuana items, processed pot and thousands of dollars in cash.
Investigators said they were acting on tips and complaints of drug trafficking and money laundering at the Helping Hands Wellness Center on the 3000 block of Fifth Street.
San Diego County narcotics detectives, working with Santa Barbara deputies, also raided the home of James Harder on Lake Decatur Avenue. Harder, 30, is suspected of running the Helping Hands Wellness Center in San Diego as well as two other dispensaries near Santa Barbara. He has been arrested on charges of felony drug trafficking and felony money laundering.
Harder is being held on $2 million bail and awaiting transfer to Santa Barbara County Jail.
Detectives also arrested Craig Corneal and Laura Bertucci, both of Goleta and both accused of similar charges.
Source: NBC San Diego
Detectives raided a dispensary in Hillcrest Thursday morning and seized hundreds of edible marijuana items, processed pot and thousands of dollars in cash.
Investigators said they were acting on tips and complaints of drug trafficking and money laundering at the Helping Hands Wellness Center on the 3000 block of Fifth Street.
San Diego County narcotics detectives, working with Santa Barbara deputies, also raided the home of James Harder on Lake Decatur Avenue. Harder, 30, is suspected of running the Helping Hands Wellness Center in San Diego as well as two other dispensaries near Santa Barbara. He has been arrested on charges of felony drug trafficking and felony money laundering.
Harder is being held on $2 million bail and awaiting transfer to Santa Barbara County Jail.
Detectives also arrested Craig Corneal and Laura Bertucci, both of Goleta and both accused of similar charges.
Source: NBC San Diego
Thursday, October 14, 2010
NEWS: Medical marijuana advocate sentenced to time served
SAN DIEGO — A medical marijuana advocate who pleaded guilty in May to a drug possession charges, was ordered Tuesday to pay a $100 fine and given credit for a brief stint in jail.
Donna Lambert, 48, who was part of a marijuana collective in San Diego, pleaded guilty May 27 to felony possession for sale and misdemeanor possession. She withdrew her plea on the felony Tuesday and the charge was dismissed.
As part of the plea deal, prosecutors agreed to drop the felony if Lambert remained law-abiding until her sentencing date.
In addition to seven counts of illegal drug sales, Lambert was accused of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Most of those charges were dismissed in light of the plea, said Deputy District Attorney Steven Walter.
He said Lambert had only served about a day in custody.
Lambert was accused of providing marijuana to an undercover police detective who was posing as a medical marijuana patient as part of a larger investigation dubbed Operation Green Rx. Police raided her San Diego home in February 2009 and found two guns, both of which were registered and legal.
Jovan Jackson and Eugene Davidovich, both of whom were linked to marijuana dispensaries, were acquitted of drug charges in separate trials in December 2009 and March 2010, respectively. Both said they believed their actions were legal under California law.
Jackson went to trial again last month on a separate set of charges stemming from Operation Green Rx, and was convicted. In that case, a judge ruled that Jackson could not use the state’s medical marijuana law as a defense.
Source: San Diego Union-Tribune
Donna Lambert, 48, who was part of a marijuana collective in San Diego, pleaded guilty May 27 to felony possession for sale and misdemeanor possession. She withdrew her plea on the felony Tuesday and the charge was dismissed.
As part of the plea deal, prosecutors agreed to drop the felony if Lambert remained law-abiding until her sentencing date.
In addition to seven counts of illegal drug sales, Lambert was accused of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Most of those charges were dismissed in light of the plea, said Deputy District Attorney Steven Walter.
He said Lambert had only served about a day in custody.
Lambert was accused of providing marijuana to an undercover police detective who was posing as a medical marijuana patient as part of a larger investigation dubbed Operation Green Rx. Police raided her San Diego home in February 2009 and found two guns, both of which were registered and legal.
Jovan Jackson and Eugene Davidovich, both of whom were linked to marijuana dispensaries, were acquitted of drug charges in separate trials in December 2009 and March 2010, respectively. Both said they believed their actions were legal under California law.
Jackson went to trial again last month on a separate set of charges stemming from Operation Green Rx, and was convicted. In that case, a judge ruled that Jackson could not use the state’s medical marijuana law as a defense.
Source: San Diego Union-Tribune
EVENT: Ditch to perform with Mystic Roots at Anaheim Kush Expo 2010
The expo will showcase some of the latest technology and advances in medicinal use of Marijuana. The Convention Center boasts over 11,000 square feet of expo space and will have vendors, growing technology, food and more.
This will be Orange County’s first and largest Medical Marijuana Expo right after the Legalization Vote for proposition 19 on Nov 2, 2010.
The Anaheim Convention Center is centrally located between all the major cities in Southern California, the event will also include live performances by Pink Floyd (which ones Pink) and Led Zeppelin tribute bands.
Ditch will perform on the main stage at 2:00pm with Mystic Roots inside of the main convention hall.
Ditch is hard at work on his new CD "O2BNLA" which should be released sometime in 2011.
Mystic Roots have just released their new CD "Cali Hi" which is available on iTunes now.
Ditch and Mystic Roots have performed together at: Mandalay Bay Las Vegas, Chico music festival, San Francisco, House of Blues Los Angeles, House of Blues Anaheim, and more.
Ditch speaks very highly of the band and Ditch's high powered lyrics and vocal style mix well with the solid reggae rhythms and horns of Mystic Roots. Mystic Roots was also the official band for reggae icon Pato Banton for hundreds of shows worldwide.
Mystic Roots website is www.mysticrootsband.com
Ditch's official website is www.lethaltendermusic.com
Tickets, vendor info, Parking information and more for the 2010 Kush Expo at Anaheim Convention Center are available at www.kushexpo.com. Doors open at 11am. The event is open to anyone 18 and over.
Source: PR Web
MERCHANT CREDIT CARD PROCESSING
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
Best Rates Available.
Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
Best Rates Available.
Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)
Carmen Trutanich: "They're Frightened That I'm Strong"
There’s a wooden sign on one of his bookshelves that reads, “The strong do as they will, the weak do as they must.” That pretty much describes how he sees himself--strong, effective and someone who does what he will.
I read something about you recently describing you as an outsider in City Hall. Do you see yourself that way?
Well… I think that in the group of insiders…I’m on the outside.
And how do you experience that?
Look, it's hard to say that once you’re elected and you’re working at City Hall in this closed environment that you’re an outsider, I mean… I guess if you were unsure of your ability, you could be somewhat intimidated by the structure and the size of all the "insiders."
I talked to a couple of medical marijuana dispensary owners who are upset that what date they filed the paperwork affects if they qualified or not.
You know what, I don’t make the rules. I’m the enforcer. We don’t do policy. I think I weighed in on that provision, I didn’t think it was necessary. The issue is…you can’t sell it. A dispensary is not the law. A collective is the law. You have to be a primary health giver or a group of users growing your own and sharing the cost. And that’s not what’s happening. You have the retail model going on, and people are getting rich. How much does it cost to grow marijuana?
I’ve never tried it.
Have you ever grown tomatoes?
I’ve never grown anything.
Is it any harder to grow tomatoes than it is marijuana?
Probably a little harder, cause don’t they grow it inside?
Can’t you grow it outside? It’s called a weed. So the cost of growing it is minimal. A friend of mine was telling me that an eighth of an ounce is selling for like $270. I mean, come on.
It sounds to me like you don’t think there should be any dispensaries.
You’re right. Dispensaries are illegal under the law. Collectives are legal. I don’t think there should be any bank robbers either.
What’s so bad about supergraphics?
Suppose you wanted to be a gardener. What’s the first thing you’d do?
Do you want me to be a gardener? Because I’m starting to consider it.
You’d have to get a license. You’d have to get a permit. Ninety percent of them didn’t have permits to them up there. You gotta make sure that it’s secure enough so it doesn’t blow off in a wind storm. A supergraphic weighs about 3 pounds per square foot. So if you’ve got a 10,000 square foot supergraphic, how much does that thing weigh?
I was told there would be no math.
You were told wrong. It’s very heavy, 30,000 pounds. That’s 15 tons. Hanging from the side of a wall. If one of those things should come loose, it could kill somebody. Yet they go up without any kind of inspection.
You’re trying to get your own grand jury.
Well I wouldn’t say I’m trying to get my own grand jury. I’m trying to authorize the state to form grand juries for misdemeanor crimes. Since 1994-95, very few felony crimes have been enacted. Most of the crimes passed by the Legislature in the last 10 to 15 years have been misdemeanors. Some very, very, very complicated crimes. Mortgage fraud is a wobbler. How many mortgage fraud criminal prosecutions have you seen in the last five years?
Uh… I don't really keep track...
Not many. Cause they’re misdemeanors, and they’re very complicated. We don’t have a bureau of investigation, we have lawyers. So we can either hire investigators to investigate mortgage fraud allegations or we can send a letter out from a grand jury saying send us these documents. The most efficient way is the letter. Patient dumping. How many of those hospitals or any of those individuals in those hospitals have ever been prosecuted for any of those acts?
I’m guessing not many.
If you guessed zero, you’d be right. Because we don’t have the ability to prove who was responsible. And so we could send a subpoena to the corporation, ask them, give me all your records on this. I can bring people in front of the grand jury and take their testimony. Now you have to file a criminal case first to get discovery. Well, if I don’t have the facts for a criminal case, or if I file it without being sure it’s a crime, that’s a violation of ethics. So the grand jury is there to help us solve some very difficult cases that are constantly reoccurring that we don’t have the power to investigate.
Why do you think there’s so much resistance to this idea of a grand jury on the City Council?
I don’t know, to be honest with you. There shouldn’t be any resistance. I am their lawyer. I cannot investigate my own client. I don’t know if they get that, I don’t know if they understand that.
They think that you’re going to investigate them?
Yeah. They’re afraid. Accountability must be…I tell you, you want to investigate me? Have at it. I hope that we hold each other and ourselves accountable for everything we do in public life. That’s what transparency’s all about. And if you’ve been transparent in how you’ve conducted your public life, even if I could investigate you, why would it matter? But I can’t. I can’t. So whatever blowback I’m getting is from lack of understanding or just, I don’t care and I don’t want to run the risk.
Do you think you’ve done anything to encourage this view that you would investigate them?
No. I think they’re frightened that I’m strong. I’m not a weeping willow. I’m smart in terms of how I run this office. We’re effective. We’re thorough. When you have someone who’s competent and in a position of authority, it tends to frighten some people.
Would you say that you have sort of an adversarial relationship with the City Council?
No. Not at all. A couple of members of the City Council perhaps.
Jan Perry?
You can form your own opinion. They know who they are. (Laughs.)
Source: Neon Tommy
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
NEWS: HortiPharm pot case heats up
With marijuana-related matters making local headlines this week, defendants in one of the most high-profile cases of dispensaries allegedly operating outside the auspices of the compassionate use act were in court on Tuesday.
The case against Joshua and Dayli Braun, owners of the HortiPharm dispensary on upper State Street, and nine co-defendants will next come before Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Frank Ochoa on Nov. 30, when a date is expected to be selected for a preliminary hearing to determine if there is enough evidence to order the suspects to stand trial.
Suspect Nicole McKernan, 24, described by a friend as a low-level employee, has filed a motion to have the charges against her dismissed. A hearing on the motion will be heard by Judge Ochoa on Nov. 30 and should McKernan’s request be denied, her own preliminary hearing would be set within two weeks of that date, Judge Ochoa ordered on Tuesday.
Joshua Lynn, the former acting county district attorney and now the defense counsel for Joshua Braun, 33, said the issue of what constitutes operating legally under California medical marijuana laws is fraught with gray areas and inconsistent enforcement.
Why, for instance, does the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department allow such businesses to operate for years before cracking down, he asked outside the courtroom.
Within the last week, the Sheriff’s Department has trumpeted the seizure of millions of dollars worth of allegedly illegal pot growing within the county and an anti-marijuana activist in the San Roque area said signs posted at her residence supporting a local dispensary ban initiative, Measure T, were torched by arsonists, sparking an outcry from Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara and Santa Barbara City Councilman Dale Francisco.
Against that backdrop is ballot measure Proposition 19, which would authorize the state to regulate and tax marijuana for adult recreational use.
The other defendants in the case are Carl Quinn, Tiffany Shinn, George Wardlaw, Benjamin Wilmore, Gustavo Lizarraga, Briana Powell, Michael Shane and Andrew Edison, 35. All face drug-related charges except for Edison, who was charged with resisting arrest.
HortiPharm, 3516 State St., was raided by the Sheriff’s Department on June 11. In addition to being suspected of illegal operation of the dispensary, the Brauns, are alleged to have laundered illegal dispensary profits through an upper State Street eatery they own called Pizza Guru, located nearby at 3534 State Street.
At the time of the raid, authorities served search warrants at three addresses in Goleta - including a storage facility, a home on Almond Avenue in Santa Barbara that was allegedly being used as an indoor grow-house, and at 5423 Santa Rita Rd. in Lompoc.
During the raids, which were executed by the Santa Barbara Police Department and the sheriff’s department, detectives seized a large amount of marijuana, hashish and other marijuana products and paraphernalia, they said. Police also seized “sophisticated equipment used to grow large quantities of marijuana,” according to a news release issued by the sheriff’s department at the time.
The Brauns were arrested at a hotel in Goleta several hours after the initial wave of raids and were booked into the Santa Barbara County Jail with bail set at $1 million apiece. Within two weeks, they were released on their own recognizance, but required to check in telephonically with authorities. They had been ordered to make weekly in-person appearances, but Mr. Lynn requested that the requirement be lifted and Judge Ochoa on Tuesday acceded.
Deputy District Attorney Lee Carter, the lead prosecutor in the case, did not return calls seeking comment.
Source: The Daily Sound
The case against Joshua and Dayli Braun, owners of the HortiPharm dispensary on upper State Street, and nine co-defendants will next come before Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Frank Ochoa on Nov. 30, when a date is expected to be selected for a preliminary hearing to determine if there is enough evidence to order the suspects to stand trial.
Suspect Nicole McKernan, 24, described by a friend as a low-level employee, has filed a motion to have the charges against her dismissed. A hearing on the motion will be heard by Judge Ochoa on Nov. 30 and should McKernan’s request be denied, her own preliminary hearing would be set within two weeks of that date, Judge Ochoa ordered on Tuesday.
Joshua Lynn, the former acting county district attorney and now the defense counsel for Joshua Braun, 33, said the issue of what constitutes operating legally under California medical marijuana laws is fraught with gray areas and inconsistent enforcement.
Why, for instance, does the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department allow such businesses to operate for years before cracking down, he asked outside the courtroom.
Within the last week, the Sheriff’s Department has trumpeted the seizure of millions of dollars worth of allegedly illegal pot growing within the county and an anti-marijuana activist in the San Roque area said signs posted at her residence supporting a local dispensary ban initiative, Measure T, were torched by arsonists, sparking an outcry from Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara and Santa Barbara City Councilman Dale Francisco.
Against that backdrop is ballot measure Proposition 19, which would authorize the state to regulate and tax marijuana for adult recreational use.
The other defendants in the case are Carl Quinn, Tiffany Shinn, George Wardlaw, Benjamin Wilmore, Gustavo Lizarraga, Briana Powell, Michael Shane and Andrew Edison, 35. All face drug-related charges except for Edison, who was charged with resisting arrest.
HortiPharm, 3516 State St., was raided by the Sheriff’s Department on June 11. In addition to being suspected of illegal operation of the dispensary, the Brauns, are alleged to have laundered illegal dispensary profits through an upper State Street eatery they own called Pizza Guru, located nearby at 3534 State Street.
At the time of the raid, authorities served search warrants at three addresses in Goleta - including a storage facility, a home on Almond Avenue in Santa Barbara that was allegedly being used as an indoor grow-house, and at 5423 Santa Rita Rd. in Lompoc.
During the raids, which were executed by the Santa Barbara Police Department and the sheriff’s department, detectives seized a large amount of marijuana, hashish and other marijuana products and paraphernalia, they said. Police also seized “sophisticated equipment used to grow large quantities of marijuana,” according to a news release issued by the sheriff’s department at the time.
The Brauns were arrested at a hotel in Goleta several hours after the initial wave of raids and were booked into the Santa Barbara County Jail with bail set at $1 million apiece. Within two weeks, they were released on their own recognizance, but required to check in telephonically with authorities. They had been ordered to make weekly in-person appearances, but Mr. Lynn requested that the requirement be lifted and Judge Ochoa on Tuesday acceded.
Deputy District Attorney Lee Carter, the lead prosecutor in the case, did not return calls seeking comment.
Source: The Daily Sound
MERCHANT CREDIT CARD PROCESSING
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
Best Rates Available.
Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
Best Rates Available.
Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)
NEWS: California's next attorney general can't punt on marijuana
Steve Cooley and Kamala Harris appear reluctant to fully enforce Proposition 19 if it passes. No matter what happens on election day, drug policy is an issue California's next top law enforcement official must be ready to deal with.
Regardless of which candidate wins the race for California attorney general, voters expect that San Francisco Dist. Atty. Kamala Harris or Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley will respect the outcome of the election gracefully.
But they appear reluctant to extend that respect to Proposition 19, which would legalize the private, adult use of limited amounts of marijuana statewide and allow local governments to regulate commercial production and retail distribution. At their debate last week at UC Davis, neither Harris nor Cooley would state whether they would, as attorney general, enforce and defend Proposition 19.
Democrat Harris was ambiguous regarding what her actions as attorney general might be: "I believe that if it were to pass, it would be incumbent on the attorney general to convene her top lawyers and the experts on constitutional law to do a full analysis of the constitutionality of that measure ... and what action, if any, should follow."
Get the best in Southern California opinion journalism delivered to your inbox with our Opinion L.A. newsletter. Sign up »
Republican Cooley was more blunt: "I really am strongly opposed to Proposition 19 for many reasons. I would be inclined to advise that it is unconstitutional and preempted by federal law."
Given that the attorney general is sworn to uphold all of the laws of the state, not just the ones he or she supports, the candidates' responses were disconcerting. In both cases it appears that their personal biases against marijuana legalization could compromise their ability to objectively carry out their duties as attorney general.
Further, both candidates' statements exhibit extreme arrogance. On the one hand, both Harris and Cooley believe that voters should be empowered to choose the state's top law enforcement officer; but when it comes to amending the state's marijuana laws, Harris isn't sure that voters have the final word, and Cooley disregards them outright. Both candidates ought to know better; after all, voters pay for enforcing these criminal policies with their tax dollars.
Of course, such disregard for voter sentiment is nothing new. Former state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren vehemently opposed Proposition 215, the 1996 initiative that legalized the physician-authorized use of marijuana, and he threatened to use the power of his office to oppose it. Fourteen years after Lungren's bluster, it is apparent that the law is here to stay irrespective of the verbal threats uttered by the state's former attorney general. One can expect history to repeat itself if voters endorse Proposition 19 on Nov. 2.
But even if the measure fails, there is a strong likelihood that California's next attorney general is going to have to face this issue head on. National surveys on marijuana laws show steadily increasing public support for legalization — from less than 20% in the late 1980s to just under half today. Support is even stronger on the West Coast, with nearly 60% of voters in this part of the country responding in a 2009 Zogby International poll that marijuana should be "taxed and legally regulated like alcohol." In other words, even if voters reject legalization this time around, they are more likely to support a similar measure in a future election.
Which ultimately brings up the question: If a government's legitimate use of state power is based on the consent of the governed, then at what point does marijuana prohibition — in particular the federal enforcement of prohibition — become illegitimate public policy? Ready or not, California's next attorney general needs to be able to answer that question objectively and definitively.
Source: Los Angeles Times
Regardless of which candidate wins the race for California attorney general, voters expect that San Francisco Dist. Atty. Kamala Harris or Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley will respect the outcome of the election gracefully.
But they appear reluctant to extend that respect to Proposition 19, which would legalize the private, adult use of limited amounts of marijuana statewide and allow local governments to regulate commercial production and retail distribution. At their debate last week at UC Davis, neither Harris nor Cooley would state whether they would, as attorney general, enforce and defend Proposition 19.
Democrat Harris was ambiguous regarding what her actions as attorney general might be: "I believe that if it were to pass, it would be incumbent on the attorney general to convene her top lawyers and the experts on constitutional law to do a full analysis of the constitutionality of that measure ... and what action, if any, should follow."
Get the best in Southern California opinion journalism delivered to your inbox with our Opinion L.A. newsletter. Sign up »
Republican Cooley was more blunt: "I really am strongly opposed to Proposition 19 for many reasons. I would be inclined to advise that it is unconstitutional and preempted by federal law."
Given that the attorney general is sworn to uphold all of the laws of the state, not just the ones he or she supports, the candidates' responses were disconcerting. In both cases it appears that their personal biases against marijuana legalization could compromise their ability to objectively carry out their duties as attorney general.
Further, both candidates' statements exhibit extreme arrogance. On the one hand, both Harris and Cooley believe that voters should be empowered to choose the state's top law enforcement officer; but when it comes to amending the state's marijuana laws, Harris isn't sure that voters have the final word, and Cooley disregards them outright. Both candidates ought to know better; after all, voters pay for enforcing these criminal policies with their tax dollars.
Of course, such disregard for voter sentiment is nothing new. Former state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren vehemently opposed Proposition 215, the 1996 initiative that legalized the physician-authorized use of marijuana, and he threatened to use the power of his office to oppose it. Fourteen years after Lungren's bluster, it is apparent that the law is here to stay irrespective of the verbal threats uttered by the state's former attorney general. One can expect history to repeat itself if voters endorse Proposition 19 on Nov. 2.
But even if the measure fails, there is a strong likelihood that California's next attorney general is going to have to face this issue head on. National surveys on marijuana laws show steadily increasing public support for legalization — from less than 20% in the late 1980s to just under half today. Support is even stronger on the West Coast, with nearly 60% of voters in this part of the country responding in a 2009 Zogby International poll that marijuana should be "taxed and legally regulated like alcohol." In other words, even if voters reject legalization this time around, they are more likely to support a similar measure in a future election.
Which ultimately brings up the question: If a government's legitimate use of state power is based on the consent of the governed, then at what point does marijuana prohibition — in particular the federal enforcement of prohibition — become illegitimate public policy? Ready or not, California's next attorney general needs to be able to answer that question objectively and definitively.
Source: Los Angeles Times
NEWS: Pot ruling prompts revision of dispensary ban
COSTA MESA – A recent appeals court decision that cities should not invoke federal law as grounds for banning medical marijuana dispensaries has prompted Costa Mesa to revise its ban on the facilities.
The Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend a revision of the ban to the City Council.
The new ordinance would state that the city has never sought prosecution of medical marijuana dispensaries and "does not intend to do so in the future." However, it would leave misdemeanor and infraction penalties in place, even though the Fourth District Court of Appeal frowned on criminalizing dispensaries "solely on the basis" of medical marijuana activities.
The city's move came in response to the appeals court's decision Aug. 18 in Qualified Patients Association vs. City of Anaheim.
The court declined to decide the legality of dispensary bans for procedural reasons, and returned the case to trial court with instructions. Its ruling is not binding on cities.
The ruling does provide a view on the court's thinking on some aspects of the issue, such as federal drug law, criminal penalties, and what sort of regulations might be allowed.
The court rejected the idea of a conflict between state and federal laws on marijuana. Such a conflict would exist if the state required people to possess marijuana, but permission is not the same as a requirement, the court said.
Citing the decision in Felix Kha's lawsuit against the Garden Grove Police Department, the court ruled that no conflict arises "based on the fact that Congress has chosen to prohibit the possession of medical marijuana, while California has chosen not to."
It concluded, "the city may not justify its ordinance solely under federal law, nor in doing so invoke federal preemption of state law that may invalidate the city's ordinance."
Although state law prohibits criminal prosecution of medical marijuana groups under drug laws, the court said that it remains to be determined whether local governments may use nuisance abatement laws to ban dispensaries.
It suggested that some restrictions could be allowed, such as one on dispensaries that do not grow marijuana on-site.
The Costa Mesa ordinance, in response, would specifically ban dispensaries using off-site growers.
Current city law defines a dispensary as any one person involved with medical marijuana; the revision would change that to three people.
Commissioner Colin McCarthy was the lone no vote. He said the city was getting ahead of itself by aligning with the court's interpretation rather than waiting for binding orders.
Sue Lester, a council candidate who runs a dispensary, praised the commission for "taking the high road."
Source: OC Register
The Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend a revision of the ban to the City Council.
The new ordinance would state that the city has never sought prosecution of medical marijuana dispensaries and "does not intend to do so in the future." However, it would leave misdemeanor and infraction penalties in place, even though the Fourth District Court of Appeal frowned on criminalizing dispensaries "solely on the basis" of medical marijuana activities.
The city's move came in response to the appeals court's decision Aug. 18 in Qualified Patients Association vs. City of Anaheim.
The court declined to decide the legality of dispensary bans for procedural reasons, and returned the case to trial court with instructions. Its ruling is not binding on cities.
The ruling does provide a view on the court's thinking on some aspects of the issue, such as federal drug law, criminal penalties, and what sort of regulations might be allowed.
The court rejected the idea of a conflict between state and federal laws on marijuana. Such a conflict would exist if the state required people to possess marijuana, but permission is not the same as a requirement, the court said.
Citing the decision in Felix Kha's lawsuit against the Garden Grove Police Department, the court ruled that no conflict arises "based on the fact that Congress has chosen to prohibit the possession of medical marijuana, while California has chosen not to."
It concluded, "the city may not justify its ordinance solely under federal law, nor in doing so invoke federal preemption of state law that may invalidate the city's ordinance."
Although state law prohibits criminal prosecution of medical marijuana groups under drug laws, the court said that it remains to be determined whether local governments may use nuisance abatement laws to ban dispensaries.
It suggested that some restrictions could be allowed, such as one on dispensaries that do not grow marijuana on-site.
The Costa Mesa ordinance, in response, would specifically ban dispensaries using off-site growers.
Current city law defines a dispensary as any one person involved with medical marijuana; the revision would change that to three people.
Commissioner Colin McCarthy was the lone no vote. He said the city was getting ahead of itself by aligning with the court's interpretation rather than waiting for binding orders.
Sue Lester, a council candidate who runs a dispensary, praised the commission for "taking the high road."
Source: OC Register
Fact: If California Legalizes Marijuana, the Feds Can't Overturn It
Arguably the most plainly false argument to emerge in the debate over Prop 19 is that the new law could be "challenged in court" by the federal government if it passes. Obviously, opponents of marijuana legalization would like its supporters to believe their vote is pointless, but the truth is that Prop 19 would be just as legally binding as the medical marijuana law that came before it.
The latest example of this false claim comes from Bill Whitaker at CBS News:
This just isn't true. There is literally nothing the feds can do to change California law. If state laws had to be the same as federal laws, then the term "state law" wouldn't even be familiar to us. Each state has its own unique set of laws that are enforced by police and courts in that state. Federal laws are completely different and they only apply when you're dealing with federal police and federal courts.
Of course, it's also true that federal law can be enforced anywhere in the country, and that seems to be what's confusing people here. If Prop 19 passes, the closest the federal government can come to interfering with it is to make their own arrests and carry out prosecutions in federal court. This works fine for making an example out of someone they don't like, but it hardly lessens the impact of a major change in state law. Marijuana would remain legal in the eyes of California police, and that's what counts. Just look at the medical marijuana situation, where the feds made some busts, but still failed to prevent a massive industry from forming, because the feds can't realistically take over the role of local law enforcement.
It's critically important that voters (as well as journalists) understand how this works so that everyone knows the facts before the vote on November 2nd. If Prop 19 passes, the issue cannot and will not "just go up in smoke," no matter how badly the drug warriors in Washington, D.C. wish that such a possibility existed. Please consider contacting CBS to suggest a correction to their coverage.
Source: StopTheDrugWar.org
The latest example of this false claim comes from Bill Whitaker at CBS News:
Even if it passes, pot would still be illegal under federal drug laws, so it's likely Prop 19 will be challenged in court. That means the whole controversial issue could just go up in smoke.
This just isn't true. There is literally nothing the feds can do to change California law. If state laws had to be the same as federal laws, then the term "state law" wouldn't even be familiar to us. Each state has its own unique set of laws that are enforced by police and courts in that state. Federal laws are completely different and they only apply when you're dealing with federal police and federal courts.
Of course, it's also true that federal law can be enforced anywhere in the country, and that seems to be what's confusing people here. If Prop 19 passes, the closest the federal government can come to interfering with it is to make their own arrests and carry out prosecutions in federal court. This works fine for making an example out of someone they don't like, but it hardly lessens the impact of a major change in state law. Marijuana would remain legal in the eyes of California police, and that's what counts. Just look at the medical marijuana situation, where the feds made some busts, but still failed to prevent a massive industry from forming, because the feds can't realistically take over the role of local law enforcement.
It's critically important that voters (as well as journalists) understand how this works so that everyone knows the facts before the vote on November 2nd. If Prop 19 passes, the issue cannot and will not "just go up in smoke," no matter how badly the drug warriors in Washington, D.C. wish that such a possibility existed. Please consider contacting CBS to suggest a correction to their coverage.
Source: StopTheDrugWar.org
MERCHANT CREDIT CARD PROCESSING
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
Best Rates Available.
Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)
New or Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
Best Rates Available.
Contact Tony Mosqueda
anthonymosqueda@sbcglobal.net
818.397.1078 (24 hours a day)
Sunday, October 10, 2010
NEWS: Measure B would tax marijuana if voters approve Proposition 19
LONG BEACH — If California voters approve Proposition 19 on Nov. 2 to legalize recreational marijuana, Long Beach officials want to be ready to capitalize on it.
Long Beach's Measure B would create a new category of "marijuana business" and would tax the drug.
The measure would impose a tax of $150 per $1,000 of gross receipts for marijuana sales, and a tax of $25 per square foot on all improvements to a site used by a marijuana business to cultivate or grow marijuana.
Marijuana businesses that qualify as nonprofits under state law would pay $10 per square foot of improvements instead of paying a tax based on gross receipts.
The tax would be adjusted each year for inflation.
However, the tax wouldn't affect any marijuana facility that has a valid medical marijuana permit.
Medical marijuana is already legal in California, and Long Beach has created new regulations for medical marijuana collectives. City officials are in the process of granting permits to collectives that meet all of the qualifications, although some collectives have filed lawsuits challenging Long Beach's law.
Long Beach Director of Finance Lori Ann Farrell says that Measure C has the potential to produce millions of dollars in revenue for Long Beach, which has faced years of budget deficits and has more to come.
The revenue from the marijuana tax could be used to pay for police, firefighters, libraries, parks and other services, Farrell says.
The measure has no official opposition, though it is dependent on Proposition 19 passing. That state measure has plenty of advocates and opponents.
See the full text of the measure at the Long Beach City Clerk's website.
Source: Contra Costa Times
Long Beach's Measure B would create a new category of "marijuana business" and would tax the drug.
The measure would impose a tax of $150 per $1,000 of gross receipts for marijuana sales, and a tax of $25 per square foot on all improvements to a site used by a marijuana business to cultivate or grow marijuana.
Marijuana businesses that qualify as nonprofits under state law would pay $10 per square foot of improvements instead of paying a tax based on gross receipts.
The tax would be adjusted each year for inflation.
However, the tax wouldn't affect any marijuana facility that has a valid medical marijuana permit.
Medical marijuana is already legal in California, and Long Beach has created new regulations for medical marijuana collectives. City officials are in the process of granting permits to collectives that meet all of the qualifications, although some collectives have filed lawsuits challenging Long Beach's law.
Long Beach Director of Finance Lori Ann Farrell says that Measure C has the potential to produce millions of dollars in revenue for Long Beach, which has faced years of budget deficits and has more to come.
The revenue from the marijuana tax could be used to pay for police, firefighters, libraries, parks and other services, Farrell says.
The measure has no official opposition, though it is dependent on Proposition 19 passing. That state measure has plenty of advocates and opponents.
See the full text of the measure at the Long Beach City Clerk's website.
Source: Contra Costa Times
Friday, October 8, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
NEWS: Raided medical marijuana dispensaries targeted due to alleged profits
A group of five medical marijuana dispensaries, including one in Covina, raided by authorities Wednesday were targeted because the operators were allegedly turning a profit from the establishments in violation of state medical marijuana laws.
Eleven people were arrested in connection with the operation, which took place Wednesday morning in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Diego counties.
The Alternative Medicine Collective of Covina, 20050 E. Arrow Highway, Suite B, was forced to close its doors after a multi-agency task force seized its products, along with four other dispensaries in the four-county operation, Los Angeles County sheriff's officials said. No one at the Covina dispensary was arrested.
Under California's Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, medical marijuana dispensaries are only allowed to operate as non-profits, Capt. Ralph Ornelas of the Sheriff's Narcotics Bureau said.
"This organization was definitely working outside the law," he said.
"Our investigation proved they were charging people and making a profit out of it," Ornelas said. "You're not supposed to make a profit."
Authorities also searched an Alhambra home in the 1600 block of Curtis Avenue, though no evidence was seized, the captain said.
Erik Andresen, 35, of Seal Beach was arrested as the "primary suspect" in the case against the five dispensaries, Ornelas said.
He was booked on suspicion of cultivation of marijuana and another marijuana-related offense at the sheriff's Norwalk Station, according to a jailer. He was released Thursday after posting $100,000 bail.
Andresen said he serves as an advisor for the organization of patients involved and denied any wrongdoing.
"We are a group of patients who are together, collectively, to provide medicine for sick people," he said.
Andresen said the dispensaries did not make a profit.
"You're allowed to be reimbursed for your time," he said. He declined to say how much money he has received in compensation, but described it as "piddly."
"I don't own a home," he said.
Andresen added that the collectives generally give excess marijuana free of charge to their sickest patients.
"We don't turn a profit because be give away any extra proceeds," he said.
The names of the other 10 people arrested on drug related charges were not available Thursday, Ornelas said.
In all, the multi-agency task force searched five marijuana dispensaries, one cultivation site, two processing sites, seven homes and a sailboat, sheriff's officials said in a written statement.
Ornelas said they were located in Covina, Alhambra, Long Beach, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Fullerton, Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside and Palm Springs, Ornelas said.
In addition to the Covina establishment, the medical marijuana dispensaries raided Wednesday included the Palm Springs Holistic Collective, the Riverside Compassionate Wellness Center, the San Diego Holistic Collective, and the Compassionate Medical Collective in San Diego, Ornelas said.
Andresen said that as far as he knows, only one dispensary in San Diego is affiliated with his patient group.
Officials seized 35 marijuana plants, valued at $70,000; 78 pounds of processed pot, valued at $234,000; seven gallons of concentrated cannabis oils, valued at $44,800; about 4,000 pre-packaged, marijuana-laced edible products; hydroponic growing equipment and chemicals; and about $20,000 in cash, according to the sheriff's statement.
The edible products included, "Lolly pops, ice pops, candy bars, brownies - all that stuff," Ornelas said.
He said sheriff's narcotics officials are looking into requesting agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration get involved.
Andresen said he would have no problem cooperating with health regulations governing edible marijuana products.
Source: San Gabriel Valley Tribune
Eleven people were arrested in connection with the operation, which took place Wednesday morning in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Diego counties.
The Alternative Medicine Collective of Covina, 20050 E. Arrow Highway, Suite B, was forced to close its doors after a multi-agency task force seized its products, along with four other dispensaries in the four-county operation, Los Angeles County sheriff's officials said. No one at the Covina dispensary was arrested.
Under California's Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, medical marijuana dispensaries are only allowed to operate as non-profits, Capt. Ralph Ornelas of the Sheriff's Narcotics Bureau said.
"This organization was definitely working outside the law," he said.
"Our investigation proved they were charging people and making a profit out of it," Ornelas said. "You're not supposed to make a profit."
Authorities also searched an Alhambra home in the 1600 block of Curtis Avenue, though no evidence was seized, the captain said.
Erik Andresen, 35, of Seal Beach was arrested as the "primary suspect" in the case against the five dispensaries, Ornelas said.
He was booked on suspicion of cultivation of marijuana and another marijuana-related offense at the sheriff's Norwalk Station, according to a jailer. He was released Thursday after posting $100,000 bail.
Andresen said he serves as an advisor for the organization of patients involved and denied any wrongdoing.
"We are a group of patients who are together, collectively, to provide medicine for sick people," he said.
Andresen said the dispensaries did not make a profit.
"You're allowed to be reimbursed for your time," he said. He declined to say how much money he has received in compensation, but described it as "piddly."
"I don't own a home," he said.
Andresen added that the collectives generally give excess marijuana free of charge to their sickest patients.
"We don't turn a profit because be give away any extra proceeds," he said.
The names of the other 10 people arrested on drug related charges were not available Thursday, Ornelas said.
In all, the multi-agency task force searched five marijuana dispensaries, one cultivation site, two processing sites, seven homes and a sailboat, sheriff's officials said in a written statement.
Ornelas said they were located in Covina, Alhambra, Long Beach, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Fullerton, Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside and Palm Springs, Ornelas said.
In addition to the Covina establishment, the medical marijuana dispensaries raided Wednesday included the Palm Springs Holistic Collective, the Riverside Compassionate Wellness Center, the San Diego Holistic Collective, and the Compassionate Medical Collective in San Diego, Ornelas said.
Andresen said that as far as he knows, only one dispensary in San Diego is affiliated with his patient group.
Officials seized 35 marijuana plants, valued at $70,000; 78 pounds of processed pot, valued at $234,000; seven gallons of concentrated cannabis oils, valued at $44,800; about 4,000 pre-packaged, marijuana-laced edible products; hydroponic growing equipment and chemicals; and about $20,000 in cash, according to the sheriff's statement.
The edible products included, "Lolly pops, ice pops, candy bars, brownies - all that stuff," Ornelas said.
He said sheriff's narcotics officials are looking into requesting agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration get involved.
Andresen said he would have no problem cooperating with health regulations governing edible marijuana products.
Source: San Gabriel Valley Tribune
NEWS: L.A. County Deputies Branch Out in Fight Against Pot Shops
Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies Wednesday seized marijuana from a Palm Springs outlet, as part of a four-county crack down on an organization accused of selling the drug for profit.
Deputies seized several products at Holistic Collective of Palm Springs at 2235 N. Palm Canyon Drive, starting about 11 a.m., sheriff's Capt. Ralph Ornelas of the Narcotics Bureau said.
"This organization is running it outside legal ramifications of what the law is meant to be with medical marijuana," he said.
Deputies with the Sheriff's Marijuana Dispensary Task Force raided collectives simultaneously in Riverside, Orange, San Diego and Los Angeles counties, Ornelas said.
The Riverside County District Attorney's Office assisted with the operation, but no arrests were made at the Palm Springs shop, Ornelas said.
Proposition 19, which on the Nov. 2 statewide ballot, would essentially legalize the sale of pot to anyone 21 or older and provide for its taxation, but Ornelas said that was not a consideration.
"I didn't take that into account. This investigation has been going on for some time. I'm not worried about politics. We're worried about doing the right thing," he said.
Source: NBC LA
Deputies seized several products at Holistic Collective of Palm Springs at 2235 N. Palm Canyon Drive, starting about 11 a.m., sheriff's Capt. Ralph Ornelas of the Narcotics Bureau said.
"This organization is running it outside legal ramifications of what the law is meant to be with medical marijuana," he said.
Deputies with the Sheriff's Marijuana Dispensary Task Force raided collectives simultaneously in Riverside, Orange, San Diego and Los Angeles counties, Ornelas said.
The Riverside County District Attorney's Office assisted with the operation, but no arrests were made at the Palm Springs shop, Ornelas said.
Proposition 19, which on the Nov. 2 statewide ballot, would essentially legalize the sale of pot to anyone 21 or older and provide for its taxation, but Ornelas said that was not a consideration.
"I didn't take that into account. This investigation has been going on for some time. I'm not worried about politics. We're worried about doing the right thing," he said.
Source: NBC LA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
