VIDEO: Medical Cannabis and the California Crisis (Ahimsa International)

AHIMSA INTERNATIONAL Presents: Medical Cannabis and the California Crisis. A medical marijuana documentary from Northern California.

Ahimsa International: http://ahimsainternational.org/

Proposal for a Medical Cannabis Safety Program: http://ahimsainternational.org/programs/mcsp/about/index.php

NEWS: California Medical Marijuana Industry Seeks to Operate "FOR PROFIT"

by W. E. Messamore

In California, medical marijuana dispensaries are required by state law to operate as non-profit "collectives" of legal medical marijuana patients who simply cover the costs of distributing the plant or edible products made from it. In the aftermath of dozens of raids on dispensaries that were illegally profiting from the sale of marijuana over the last year, the medicinal marijuana industry is calling for new laws that would allow dispensaries to operate as for-profit enterprises.

Many industry advocates are saying the raids happened as a result of vague California laws that do not clearly define proper accounting procedures for dispensaries, allowable salary levels, or illegal profiting. The Sacramento Bee reports the opinion of one Hollywood attorney specializing in marijuana cases who said: "Unfortunately 'profit' isn't defined, and there is no definition of 'nonprofit.'" And Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) says that the radically different approaches to dispensaries- which are allowed to operate in some cities, but are raided in others- shows the need for clear, statewide regulations to create a more "cohesive response."

In addition to clearer statutes, lawmakers, advocates, and industry leaders are calling for the creation of some kind of statewide oversight panel to regulate marijuana dispensaries. Sacramento lawyer, George Mull is lobbying the State Legislature to create what he's calling a "California cannabis commission" to oversee all of California's dispensaries. If the state adopts some of these measures, especially permitting California dispensaries to operate as for-profit businesses, it will end up creating rules similar to those in Colorado, another state notorious for its booming medical cannabis industry.

I actually spent the month of January in Colorado, using some of my time there to investigate its medical marijuana laws and policies. I found the medicinal marijuana industry booming in the sleepy city of Boulder, Colorado, nestled among the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. I saw many (often creatively-decorated) dispensaries nearly everywhere I travelled. My good friend and host for the month, a graduate student at the University of Colorado, even showed me a campus coupon book, which contained coupons from a local dispensary for a "FREE JOINT" with any purchase, and "$10 OFF YOUR NEXT QUARTER OUNCE." I laughed and said:

"So this is what we can look forward to if marijuana becomes legal for recreational use everywhere else over the next few years."

Despite marijuana's strictly medicinal use as far as the law is concerned, the for-profit status of Colorado dispensaries is apparent in the conspicuous commercialization of the plant there. Suppliers and licensed physicians who can charge for clinic visits also seem all-too-eager to cash in on the profits by making it easy to get a physician's recommendation for a medical marijuana card. But is commercializing the drug no better than street "drug-dealing" as one California state official commented? Big pharmaceutical companies make enormous profits from an assortment of legitimate medicines every year.

The question is: why should cannabis be any different? And if it shouldn't be, is a whole new regulatory agency the best way for California to address the problem of raids on marijuana profits, especially as it works to streamline government to address a budget in severe crisis?

Source: California Independent Voter Network

NEWS: California Medical Marijuana Advocates Call for Statewide Regulation

Alarmed by a police backlash against pot dispensaries in some California cities, lawmakers and advocates for medical marijuana are calling for statewide regulation of medical cannabis stores and new laws to clarify rules under which they operate.

Additionally, some medical marijuana advocates are pushing lawmakers to consider regulations – similar to those in Colorado – that would permit medical marijuana providers to operate as for-profit businesses.

Currently, under California law, dispensaries providing medical marijuana must operate as nonprofit "collectives" of registered medical marijuana patients who reimburse dispensaries for the costs of providing medicinal pot.

But medical cannabis in California has boomed into an industry generating an estimated $1.3 billion in transactions and paying hundreds of millions of dollars in salaries, rent and overhead costs.

Authorities, looking for illicit profiteering, last year raided scores of dispensaries in San Jose and Chico and prosecuted medical marijuana providers in San Diego County. The district attorney in Los Angeles, Steve Cooley, branded a local boom in medical marijuana outlets as "storefronts illegally pushing pot."

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, said he intends to introduce an "omnibus cannabis bill" to create a state oversight program to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries and all aspects of delivering marijuana to legal medicinal users.

Ammiano said the Legislature needs to clarify the rules due to the wildly divergent approaches towards dispensaries. They are embraced in some California cities and raided in others.

"In the context of suspicion by law enforcement, I think we need a cohesive response," Ammiano said.

Some medical pot advocates blame the raids on vague state laws that fail to define how dispensaries should account for cash flow, what they may pay in salaries and what constitutes illegal profits.

"Unfortunately 'profit' isn't defined," said Allison Margolin, a West Hollywood attorney specializing in marijuana cases. "And there is no definition of nonprofit."

The issue has played out dramatically in San Jose, where Santa Clara County arrested dozens of dispensary operators in raids seeking evidence of illegal profiteering.

One pot store operator was charged with felony money-laundering and possession of marijuana for sale. While no others have been charged, the raids stirred widespread protests among medical marijuana advocates.

"You can't just go in with guns and arrest people," said Lauren Vasquez, Silicon Valley director for Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy group.

New Santa Clara District Attorney Jeffrey Rosen, who took over last month, appears to be putting the brakes on the police crackdown. Rosen said he is awaiting updated guidelines from Attorney General Kamala Harris on state laws governing medical marijuana dispensaries.

Meanwhile, Rosen said, pot stores generally should be regulated through land use ordinances, not police actions.

"The voters of California have said they want sick people with documented medical conditions to be able to use marijuana to alleviate their symptoms," Rosen said. "The second thing is that the voters said that we don't want to legalize marijuana."

Sacramento attorney George Mull, who represents medical marijuana dispensaries in several California cities, is lobbying lawmakers to create a "California cannabis commission" to oversee marijuana stores statewide.

Marijuana outlets are treated as part of the urban fabric in Oakland and San Francisco.

Sacramento police consider them a low priority, but last week Sacramento County sheriff's narcotics officers raided a local dispensary, the Horizon Collective, alleging the operator illegally sold marijuana to people without medical recommendations. The Sheriff's Department also was investigating alleged profiteering at the dispensary. The dispensary claimed it was operating legally.

Mull said police raids will continue elsewhere as long as operators of some dispensaries are earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in pay and there are no state rules for bookkeeping or salaries.

"Should you make more money running a medical marijuana establishment than the governor of California?" he asked.

Mull is also advocating that California sanction a for-profit medical marijuana industry, arguing that a for-profit model will drive prices down and end confusion that can trigger police raids.

In Colorado, for-profit medical marijuana dispensaries pay licensing fees and are regulated by the state, with strict requirements for marijuana cultivation and security.

Cindy Besemer, the chief deputy district attorney in Sacramento County, said a for-profit distribution program is unlikely to be embraced by law enforcement.

"I certainly would say we don't believe in retail sales," she said. "That's drug dealing. I don't care how it comes down to it. That's what it is."

Source: The Sacramento Bee

Make marijuana ordinance clear: Letters for Tuesday, Jan. 18

Re "City Council to tweak medical marijuana ordinance" (Jan. 15):

The City Council needs to provide the public with clear and specific guidelines for the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries. Woodland Hills, at one time, had 40 dispensaries. While many have been closed, some may reopen under the city's new rules. Woodland Hills is attractive to dispensaries because of its relaxed suburban character and because it's adjacent to unincorporated L.A. County, which does not permit medicinal marijuana sales.

When many of the now-closed stores opened, all they needed was a resale license. I ask the City Council to come up with rules, like those used to permit the sale of alcohol and the revocation of sales permits, for marijuana dispensaries. Without these tools we will be unable to moderate or prohibit the actions of the stores and their customers anywhere in L.A. We need these rules now.

- SEAN MCCARTHY

Encino

Libraries vital in crime prevention

Re "Safety First" (Editorial, Jan. 9):

Police officers, public safety experts and district attorneys understand that a high literacy rate and the availability of after-school activities are among the most important factors in creating a safe city.

While the Daily News is right to place a high priority on funding for our vital police and fire services, this simply is not and cannot be the only solution. City of Los Angeles

libraries operate the largest after-school program in the city and are responsible for providing literacy programs for toddlers, children, teens and adults. Libraries are crime preventers. When neighborhood libraries close or reduce their hours significantly, there are few alternatives for the 90,000 children who visit our 73 branches weekly.
In the 2010-2011 budget cycle, the Police and Fire departments received nearly 70 percent of the city's budget. The Library Department on the other hand received approximately 3 percent! I authored and continue to support Measure L because as someone with 38 years on the Police Department, including five years as chief, I know it will reverse the current trend of cuts that have devastated our libraries and compromised our public safety, prevention and intervention efforts. In these tough economic and budget times we must not be penny-wise and pound-foolish.

- BERNARD C. PARKS

Los Angeles

The writer represents the L.A. City Council's

Eighth District and is a former LAPD police chief

Human nature holds U.S. back

America the beautiful, minus human nature, would be near perfection.

- LLORENS PEMBROOK

Studio City

AT&T phone outages to be fixed

AT&T is solid in its commitment to its customers in Los Angeles, and recovery efforts from the recent historically devastating storms are no exception. AT&T is continuing to do all it can to ensure every resident resumes service. I know AT&T is working with many VICA members to achieve this goal. Technicians were brought from Northern California to work around the clock until every phone outage is fixed. As Southern California residents, we are all too familiar with natural disasters and have witnessed AT&T's commitment to its customers under these circumstances.

- STUART WALDMAN

Van Nuys

The writer is president of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA)

Unlikely to meet energy goals

Re "DWP leaps ahead of clean energy goals"

(Jan. 14):

To begin to meet mandated renewable energy levels, the Department of Water and Power constructed the Pine Tree Wind Farm at a cost of more than $425 million, consisting of 80 wind towers on 2,000 acres. While rated at 120 megawatts, wind pattern studies, part of the Integrated Resources Plan, indicates that during the windy month of August 2009, the farm actually provided 13 to 48 megawatts on an average day minus conversion and line losses.

The installation will provide, on average, 0.42 percent of the electrical energy needed by the city of Los Angeles and will require hot backup from gas turbine plants when the wind does not blow. While DWP predicts a 5 percent increase per year in costs, I believe the prediction of Jack Humphreville - who serves on the neighborhood council panel working with the DWP - of increases of 8 percent and more. Reality sets in.

- GORDON OSBORNE

Woodland Hills

Source: Los Angeles Daily News

NEWS: More Scrutiny for California's Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

California medical marijuana dispensaries are facing raids and tax audits from local and federal officials skeptical about their finances and their legitimacy, The New York Times reported Jan. 8.

Frank Carrubba, a Santa Clara County deputy district attorney, said, "We're trying to get to a point where we get we can weed out - for lack of a better word - to filter out the people that are really perverting this law just to sell drugs,"

Although a state initiative to legalize marijuana was unsuccessful at the polls in November, medical marijuana dispensaries continue to pull in cash. Officials in Oakland estimate that dispensaries there brought in between $35 million and $38 million last year.

San Jose, The New York Times wrote, "now boasts 98 dispensaries - four times the number of 7-Eleven convenience stories in the city."

Recent raids on the New Age Healing Collective in San Jose, and the home of its owners, turned up two sets of books. The store ledger showed the dispensary was $123,128 in the red. The ledger found in the owners' home showed a profit of $222,238 for the same time period. The owners denied wrongdoing.

The chief executive of Harborside Health Center, a large Oakland dispensary, said his business was being audited by the Internal Revenue Service. Though the I.R.S. did not confirm whether it was performing such an audit, company representatives said the I.R.S. was focused on a part of the tax code that says companies cannot deduct expenses when they are "trafficking in controlled substances."

Harborside said it was operating legally. It has appealed to Senator Barbara Boxer for help, stating in a letter to her that about 80 jobs are at stake.

The state law allowing medical dispensaries is unambiguous that collectives may grow marijuana for medical purposes, but hazy when it comes to selling it, said the author of the law, William Panzer. He argued that state lawmakers should act to create clearer guidelines.

"Let's come out from under the shadows and say, 'Here are the rules,'" he said. "The law around distribution is very hazy, and we need the Legislature to do something. We've fallen behind other states on regulations for medical marijuana sales."

In the absence of regulatory guidance, dispensaries operate both as large businesses and as nonprofit health centers.

"It's kind of difficult line to straddle for them, but a lot of them are doing it," said Betty Yee, who sits on the board that oversees state taxes.

Yee added that dispensaries don't necessarily have large profit margins. "The cost of their product is so huge that there is sometimes a perception that they're making a lot of money when in fact their margins are pretty thin," she said.

Representatives for marijuana dispensaries objected to the police raids. Paul Stewart, who directs the Medicinal Cannabis Collective Coalition, said, "They are acting on what could be considered a specious legal finding by the D.A.; their finding is that all collectives are operating illegally because they are making a profit."

Geoffrey Rawlings, lawyer for one of the owners of the New Age Healing Collective where the duplicate books were found, said, "When you're dealing with medical cannabis and you see these blond, dreadlocked corporate officers coming and going, it kind of agitates law enforcement and raises their hackles a little more than the pizza shop owner down the street."

He added, "They are convinced that these people are breaking the laws without any evidence in advance that they're breaking the law."

Source: JoinTogether.org

NEWS: California Medical Board Tries to Revoke Pro-Pot Doctor's License

Going After Dr. Frankel
By FRED GARDNER

The Medical Board of California is trying to revoke the license of a pro-cannabis doctor —for using cannabis. A hearing held in Los Angeles this week is supposed to determine whether or not Allan Frankel, MD, is fit to practice medicine.

Frankel is 59, barrel-chested, curly-haired, and jolly —amazingly so, given that his parents were Holocaust survivors. His looks and something about his manner remind me of the comedian Albert Brooks. He is divorced with three grown children -two who are practicing MDs and one with a business degree. (The businessman, Josh Frankel, was the place-kicker for the University of Oregon Ducks. In 1999 he booted the winning field goal against USC in triple-overtime.)

Most of Frankel's career was spent practicing internal medicine. "I had a hotsy-totsy office on Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monica," he says, and an affiliation with UCLA. In 34 years of practice Frankel never had a problem with the medical board. He used marijuana on rare social occasions, and knew nothing about its medical aspect. In 2001 Frankel underwent disk surgery for intractable back pain. In 2002 a viral infection of the heart almost killed him (he was given a prognosis of one year to live) and left him "in general, permanent discomfort."

He was disabled —bedridden for most of the ensuing three years. Relief came when some of the cancer and AIDS patients for whom he had written recommendations urged him to try cannabis. "My patients did a reverse intervention on me," Frankel recalls. "Cannabis helped me get better. A part of me thinks it saved my life."

During his prolonged recovery, Frankel designed software that is still used to run the Bowyer Cancer Center at UCLA Hospital. He describes it as "a specialized medical language that enables them to build very complex what-if scenarios involving drug interactions, allergies, insurance, all the factors that have to be taken into account in a treatment plan."

In March, 2006, Frankel opened a new office in Marina Del Rey dedicated to cannabis consultations. "I really didn't know anything about cannabis except what I learned from my patients," he reflects. He joined the Society of Cannabis Clinicians, read the relevant medical and scientific literature, attended conferences, and did everything he could to educate himself about the body's cannabinoid signaling system. He began tracking strain differences and encouraged patients to find the type of cannabis and the delivery system best suited to alleviating their symptoms. In other words, Allan Frankel was serious about mastering his new specialty.

Early on, Frankel says, "I realized that my patients were lying about how much they used —as if they feared my disapproval. Finally I would tell them, 'I use an ounce a month. How much do you really use?' And then they would level with me -about dosage, about everything."

In June 2007 two agents from the medical board's enforcement division "walked into the office and announced that I was under investigation," says Frankel. "They showed their badges in front of all the patients —it was terrible." A vindictive ex had filed a complaint against him. In addition to several false charges, he says, was a true one. As he would eventually acknowledge when he agreed to accept probation from the medical board, he had prescribed Vicodin for himself, "less than one pill a day on average," while recovering from back surgery.

Although the self-prescribing had occurred years before Frankel become a cannabis specialist, the terms of his probation included a punishment never before imposed on a California MD: for one year "Respondent shall not issue an oral or written recommendation or approval to a patient or a patient's primary caregiver for the possession or cultivation of marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient."

Friends and colleagues urged Frankel not to accept this punishment, which the med board had recently added to its arsenal. He says he didn't have money to fight it (having just put two kids through med school) and he felt truly foolish and embarrassed about his self-prescribing. Cannabis had politicized him and he had become self-critical. When he accepted probation it was partly by way of penance.

As of April 22, 2010, Allan Frankel, MD, stopped issuing approvals for patients to use cannabis. Other terms of his probation, which have been met, included taking courses in "prescribing practices," "medical record keeping," "ethics," and "professional boundaries;" undergoing a psychiatric evaluation by a psychiatrist chosen by the board; seeing a psychotherapist on a regular basis; abstaining totally from alcohol (which had never been a problem for him); and submitting to random "biological fluid testing."

The probation requirement that Frankel has allegedly violated reads, "Respondent shall abstain completely from the personal use or possession of controlled substances... and any drugs requiring a prescription. This prohibition does not apply to medications lawfully prescribed to Respondent by another practitioner for a bona fide illness or condition."

Frankel was and is using cannabis with the approval of Christine Paoletti, MD, and Cymbalta and Dalmane prescribed by Robert Gerner, MD, for anxiety and insomnia. He was first prescribed Dalmane when he was in his twenties to quell "recurrent nightmares I'd been having since I was a kid in which the Nazis were coming to get me."

The case developed by med board investigators against Frankel is being prosecuted by lawyers from the state attorney general's office. (His name is Jerry Brown and he approved this prosecution.) The key witness against Frankel has been Daniel Fast, a psychiatrist chosen by the board for this purpose. Fast is a member of numerous establishment and gay psychiatric associations. On his resume he lists participation in "National Depression Screen Day," an Eli Lilly scam intended to boost the number of Americans getting Prozac prescriptions.

"I actually knew him slightly when I was at UCLA," says Frankel of Fast. "Like I'd nod to him in the cafeteria." On April 28 Frankel went to Fast's Beverly Hills office for "a 70-minute talk session." Fast subsequently reported to the board that Allan Frankel was unable to practice medicine safely because of impaired cognitive function and "chronic marijuana usage."

Frankel's lawyer, John Fleer, has been handling cases before the med board for more than 20 years and says he has rarely seen an accusation as "desperately flawed" as the one the med board is pressing against Frankel. "The board is ignoring its own prior Decision and Order," says Fleer, "by overruling Dr. Frankel's personal physicians" in regard to appropriate treatment for his condition.

The hearing before Administrative Law Judge Susan Formaker began Monday with opening statements, followed by Daniel Fast's testimony. Cross-examination began in the late afternoon and resumed Tuesday (see below). Frankel's expert witnesses are set for Wednesday: Robert Gerner, MD, a psychiatrist who sees Frankel regularly and does not discern cognitive impairment, and Christine Paoletti, MD, who approved his cannabis use and will testify that it does not render him unsafe to practice medicine. Then the ALJ will recommend to the board whether they should or shouldn't revoke Frankel's license. The board, which consists mainly of ambitious MDs appointed by the governor, can accept, reject or modify an ALJ's recommendation.

"The irony is," says Frankel, "that all my work is directed towards safety. Finding the right strain, the right delivery method, the right dosage ... Working with an analytic chemist so that potencies can be known and consistent... Promoting cannabidiol in hopes of developing less psychoactive strains... Always issuing warnings and reminders to patients... It's just ironic."



HUMAN SMOKE: Some might call it coincidence but in fact it's a politically consistent pattern: Frankel is the second member of the Society of Cannabis Clinicians (1) whose parents were Holocaust survivors, (2) who practiced medicine for decades without running afoul of the medical board, (3) who got investigated and charged soon after becoming a Cannabis specialist, and (4) against whom the board deployed a veteran of Eli Lilly's National Depression Screening Day. The other was Hanya Barth, MD, whose cruel ordeal was reported in O'Shaughnessy's, Spring 2007... Frankel says that the "Nazi dreams," which he hasn't had since he was 30-something, are waking him up again. You don't have to be a psychiatrist to figure out why.

Fred Gardner is a co-founder of ProjectCBD.org. He can be reached at fred@plebesite.com.

Source: CounterPunch.org

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

NEWS: Medical-marijuana delivery services complicate legal picture in California

From his apartment building in San Francisco’s bustling Fisherman’s Wharf neighborhood, Kevin Reed, owner of The Green Cross, goes about the daily business of running a medical-marijuana delivery service. Reed, an Alabama native with a warm Southern accent, oversees the baking of pot brownies and cookies, prepares bags for delivery, and, beginning at 8 a.m., takes phone orders from registered members of his collective. According to Reed, his enterprise isn't so different from any other operation. “It really is just like running a pizza service.”

The emergence of door-to-door pot delivery services is at least one unintended consequence of the cat-and-mouse game between law enforcement and suppliers that's been going on in California in recent years, in the wake of a boom in the industry — particularly since 2009, when the Obama administration announced a shift in federal policy, saying it would no longer target operators or customers of medical marijuana dispensaries who abide by state laws.

As officials have tried to get a handle on the proliferation with stricter regulations and forced closures, many dispensaries have found a way to remain in operation by replacing their traditional storefront with a courier service. Uniting under the slogan “We Deliver,” hundreds of mobile dispensaries now advertise their services on the Internet, offering a variety of strains of cannabis and cannabis-based products, such as brownies and cookies, to legally certified patients. These outfits may or may not be legal — since few current laws directly address their existence — but they are almost as common as dry cleaners in California now, with customer reviews available on popular Websites like Yelp.com. ("Best service ever," says one Green Cross patron. "Seriously, so amazing. Great staff. Great people. Very knowledgeable. Gotta love the specials too!")

The rapid growth of California’s pot industry into uncharted legal territory has only heightened the stakes for Proposition 19, a monumental initiative on the November ballot that could make California the first state in the nation to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes. Thirteen other states followed suit after Californians passed Proposition 215 in 1996, enabling patients with a valid doctor's recommendation to possess and cultivate marijuana for personal medical use, so activists on both sides of the issue will be watching closely, looking to gauge the national mood.

While advocates have mounted a strong push for legalization (a June survey by Public Policy Polling showed 52 percent support for Prop. 19), elected officials have been just as committed in their attempts to crack down on the so-called Green Rush in the state. According to Americans for Safe Access, a total of 129 cities and nine counties across California have banned medical marijuana dispensaries. However, as more dispensaries are forced to shut down, a growing number of pot delivery services are avoiding such restrictions and thriving as a result.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Southern California, where estimates on the number of dispensaries in Los Angeles have ranged from 500 to 1,000. In an attempt to control the marijuana industry in the area, the L.A. City Council passed an ordinance in January of this year requiring all marijuana dispensaries that violated the city's 2007 moratorium on new collectives to shut down their physical locations. As a result, the 439 dispensaries that ignored the initial moratorium were forced to close, and even tighter restrictions were placed on the remaining dispensaries. Under the ordinance, which went into effect June 7, only 41 are now technically eligible to stay open.

Kevin Reed's Green Cross was the first medical marijuana dispensary to obtain a permit for delivery in San Francisco four years ago, after being forced by the city council there to shut down and move locations. Since then, he has run a successful medical-marijuana delivery service that is in compliance with all city regulations.

"There is a Wild West atmosphere right now in California and especially in L.A.," Reed says. Reed relates the situation to his own experience with San Francisco’s city council. “I think the rise of delivery services in L.A. has a tremendous amount to do with the ordinance and forced closures. It was big news when San Francisco closed us down, and I think a lot of dispensaries in L.A. saw the success we had, and are now trying to emulate our delivery business model.”

City officials in Los Angeles are struggling to contain the growth of such delivery services, and maintain that their existence is in violation of the ordinance passed in January. According to Monica Valencia, press deputy for L.A. city councilman Ed Reyes, “[the medical-marijuana delivery services] are prohibited per our city ordinance. Unless the collectives are registered, they are in violation of the city’s ordinance.”

A real estate developer who uses the name Matt Lawrence for his business is the director of C420, an online medical-marijuana dispensary service that ships to more than 1,000 legal customers across the state. The nonprofit collective, which opened in April 2010, has hubs in both Northern and Southern California, and uses an unnamed third-party carrier to deliver the product. Lawrence emphasized the importance of following state and national guidelines, saying, “All of our customers are pre-verified with the appropriate documents and doctor’s notes. Additionally, all of our products are produced within the state. We also do not ship marijuana products out of the state, because that is against federal law.”

A longtime advocate of medical cannabis, Lawrence says, “I am actually in favor of the L.A. ordinance. The situation is out of control in California, and without proper regulation, there is a lot of opportunity for fraud and unhealthy, low-grade marijuana to be sold.”

On the other hand, Dann Halem, owner of Artists Collective, has a less favorable opinion of the crackdown in L.A. Prior to the city council vote in January, Halem moved his base of operations out of Los Angeles to West Hollywood, and set up a mobile dispensary that is now doing quite well.

“The L.A. City Council has consistently been behind on this issue. I think they are making a big mistake by forcing over 400 dispensaries to close down. Rather than regulating it and seeing the positive outcomes, they have taken the approach of containment and control. This really doesn’t benefit anyone. This industry has the potential to raise a huge amount of money for good initiatives through proper regulation.”

Councilman Reyes, who has overseen most of the consideration of the medical-marijuana-dispensaries issue, claims that the city council “has implemented a medical-marijuana ordinance that we believe is both prudent and fair. My goal has been and continues to be, implementing an ordinance that secures access for those who need access to dispensaries for medical purposes, while at the same time protecting the health and safety of our communities.”

Among other attempts to control the growth of the industry overall, the state passed a law in 2003 authorizing marijuana collectives to operate strictly on a nonprofit basis. Halem, the owner of what he calls a “social business,” has capitalized on the booming medical-marijuana industry to do public good, by using medical marijuana profits to fund a social initiative. Halem accomplished this by donating his profits toward funding grants for emerging artists, writers, performers, and musicians. Halem said this is one of the most rewarding aspects of his job, as he has been able to inspire people in the art world, an industry that is consistently underfunded.

“I think marijuana should be legalized, but in a way that requires the company’s association with a federal nonprofit organization. I am against Proposition 19, because it appears to eliminate the nonprofit factor. It is hard enough to be a medical marijuana nonprofit dispensary, and Proposition 19 would make it even more difficult because we’d have to compete with big corporations. In short, we are in favor of legalization, but not corporatization.”

Reed feels differently about the proposition, fearing that full legalization of marijuana would benefit only recreational users, and not his patients. He adds that since becoming a delivery service, he has come to greatly appreciate the direct contact with his customers and the more welcoming response from the surrounding San Francisco neighborhood, claiming, “When we switched to delivery, suddenly people loved us because we were no longer a visible presence in the neighborhood.”

But a substantial number remain opposed to legalization under any scenario, delivery service or not. Roger Morgan, for instance, executive director of the spearheading anti-drug organization Coalition for a Drug-Free California, voices the group's outrage in no uncertain terms: “We are against Proposition 19. It would be a legal nightmare. The proposition itself is so ridiculous; I think whoever wrote it must have been smoking pot at the time. Marijuana is a dangerous substance that causes irreversible harm to developing brains, and if it is legalized, there is no way to guarantee it wouldn’t get into the hands of kids who would be severely hurt by the drug.”

Halem acknowledged that while many people can get a recommendation for medical marijuana today and his customers certainly “run the gamut,” many of his patients are clearly physically ill and need their medication delivered.

“The most rewarding part of the job is to have the ability to help someone who is really sick. When you help someone who is in a lot of pain, it is a great feeling. Frankly, it is these moments that keep us going, and I hope we will continue to be successful.”

Source: Yahoo News

Dennis Peron ends his campaign against Prop. 19

Steve Kubby reports that Dennis Peron has decided to end his campaign against Proposition 19. Does that means he is on board? Change of heart? Will be teaching at Oaksterdam again? All or any of these would be great news. It is time to join together and push 19 over the edge to victory in November.

A message from Steve Kubby:

Friends,

I’ve asked Dennis Peron to cease his criticism of Prop. 19 and he has agreed. Dennis gave me permission to make a public announcement, but I have also asked him to draft his own announcement as well.

This should not minimize the validity and importance of the issues raised by Dennis, but should be viewed as a recognition by Dennis that it is time to build unity within our cannabis community. I respect Dennis even more than ever, for taking the high road, as we go into the final three months of this campaign.

Finally, I would like to again acknowledge Dennis Peron for his extraordinary leadership and vision. Indeed, I do not believemedical marijuana would be legal in any state, if it were not for his leadership and courage.

Those who might want to personally thank Dennis can reach him at .

Let freedom grow,

Steve Kubby

We await an official response from Dennis and will update the story as we get it…

UPDATE: KC Kimber reports he just got off the phone with Dennis who said he was not ending his crusade. We still await confirmation from Peron…

UPDATE cont: What exactly was said by Dennis to KC Kimber: ”Dennis said to me, and I suggest you call and verify for yourself. He doesn’t want 19 to lose by too much so he is done actively campaigning against it. Campaigning being the keyword.” via Facebook.

CW has not been able to reach Peron for a direct statement…

Source: Cannabis Warrior

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: CNBC

NEWS: Upland medical marijuana cases may hinge on Anaheim case

UPLAND - Lawyers on both sides of the city's case against two medical marijuana cooperatives are holding their breath for a potentially game-changing ruling in an Anaheim case.
A three-year-long case against Anaheim by Qualified Patients Association could come to an end by Monday, setting a precedent by which judges may follow in future cases in the state.

Qualified Patients, an Anaheim-based medical marijuana dispensary sued the city in 2007, when the city was attempting to implement an ordinance banning all medical marijuana dispensaries.

Upland city officials are attempting to shut down G3 Holistic in the 1700 block of West Foothill Boulevard and Upland Herbal Patient Co-op in the 900 block of North Central Avenue.

City zoning rules prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries.

"There doesn't really appear to be any legal reason the city shouldn't continue to win and since Upland's formal ordinance is very similar to Anaheim's - if they win, we win," said Upland City Attorney William Curley.

Upland has filed an injunction against the cooperatives aiming to shut them down before the trial. A hearing was held Tuesday for one of the cooperatives. Roger Jon Diamond, an attorney representing G3 and UHPC, requested the hearing be pushed until after the Anaheim ruling.

The hearing for the second cooperative was to be held Wednesday, but both judges agreed to wait until Aug. 13.

"I believe the cases are basically the same or at least similar enough that judge in Rancho would want to hear what the state appellate court has to say," said Diamond.
After Qualified Patients filed its lawsuit, the city was granted a demur, terminating the lawsuit. Qualified Patients appealed the decision in the Court of Appeals in Santa Ana.

The case was argued in the Court of Appeals in September and a ruling would have come 90 days later, but the court required further time to look over the case. A ruling is expected by Monday, which will be 90 days after the continuance.

"If the appellate court strikes down the Anaheim ordinance it will create a whole new playing field. It will change the medical marijuana landscape," said Anthony Curiale, the lawyer representing Qualified Patients in Anaheim.

Should Anaheim prevail, Curiale believes it will void the state's compassionate use act, which was approved by voters in 1996 to de-criminalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

"That essentially means cities regardless of what state law says, will be able to completely ban medical marijuana in their cities," he said.

State law permits the operation of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, which are required to follow a set of guidelines by the Attorney General's Office.

The use of medical marijuana is still prohibited under federal law, and some cities chose to side with the feds by banning dispensaries.

The outcome of the case could determine if the state's law could pre-empt all cities' bans on medical marijuana dispensaries, said Moses Johnson, Anaheim city attorney.

"It could be far reaching, but we're not going to know until we see it. It's a very complicated issue," Johnson said. The Court of Appeal had it for a long time and everybody's just anxiously awaiting for a ruling."

Medical marijuana patients filled the Upland City Hall council chambers Monday in support of the cooperatives.

Several members shared their personal stories and expressed their concerns over the possibly of their clubs being shut down.

Aaron Sandusky, president of G3 Holistic also spoke. He said 690 of his members live in Upland and that the cooperative has paid more than $80,000 in taxes since they opened in November.

"We've done a really good job," Sandusky said. "We've taken the Attorney General's guidelines and tightened them up even more. We make great strides in making sure that what we're doing is above board."

However, the council does not believe the majority of Upland residents would support the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the city.

"It's kind of difficult because on one hand you feel for them and want to see them helped, on the other hand is helping them going to create a situation for people in our community which would not be a benefit to our children and would not be a benefit in other ways?" said Councilman Ken Willis.

Several Inland Empire cities - including Fontana, Claremont, Pomona, Rancho Cucamonga, Chino, Chino Hills, Ontario, Montclair, San Bernardino, Yucaipa, Rialto and Redlands - also prohibit dispensaries as a possible land use.

Jan Werner, an operator of the Inland Empire Patients Group in Bloomington, hit several road blocks before opening a year ago.

Warner settled on the unincorporated town because so many cities had bans on dispensaries.

"It's really unfortunate that through the whole state, very few counties and very few cities have authorized the operation of the facilities," he said.

Source: Inland Valley Daily Bulletin