Judge sides with SD on medical marijuana- San Diego can refuse to issue business tax certificate

Written by Christopher Cadelago

SAN DIEGO — The city of San Diego can refuse to issue a certain type of business license to medical marijuana distributors, a judge has ruled.

Superior Court Judge Randa Trapp ruled the city cannot be required to take actions that amount to an illegal act.

Wisdom Organics of Lemon Grove is allowed to deliver medical marijuana under state law, but use and distribution of the drug remains illegal under federal law, Trapp wrote in the ruling Feb. 3.

“Further, there is evidence presented that the U.S. Attorney is now putting marijuana dispensaries on notice that they are violating federal law and that federal law takes precedence over state law,” Trapp wrote. “Consequently, issuing a business tax certificate under these circumstances would tend to aid in an unlawful purpose.”

A lawyer for the nonprofit organization did not return a message left at his office. It’s unclear what affect the ruling will have on delivery services because unlike storefront dispensaries they operate largely under the radar of municipalities.

In April, Wisdom Organics sued the city after its treasurer refused to accept the nonprofit’s application for a business tax certificate. According to court records, the collective grows medical marijuana outside of San Diego and applied for the license to operate as a delivery service in the city.

City Attorney Jan Goldsmith has brought dozens of lawsuits against medical marijuana dispensaries over the last year, arguing that they violate local zoning laws because the storefront operators are not allowed to operate anywhere in the city. That coupled with federal action has prompted the closure of scores of dispensaries — including U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration raids at dispensaries in Rolando, North Park, Pacific Beach, Kearny Mesa and elsewhere.

“Marijuana distribution is a crime under federal law,” Goldsmith said Tuesday. “The city of San Diego will not enable a federal crime. Those who want to decriminalize marijuana for medicinal purposes should speak with members of Congress about changing federal law but, in the meantime, they should obey the law.”

In San Diego, judges have ruled that building owners leasing to medical marijuana dispensaries can evict their tenants because collectives are illegal under the city’s zoning laws and that the city may restrict the location of medical marijuana dispensaries based on those laws.

Collectives have been in legal limbo since officials three years ago determined that they didn’t fit within any of the existing zones and therefore would not be issued a business license. The City Council approved an ordinance that outlined where dispensaries could operate, but that was repealed last summer after a successful referendum signature drive.

Last month, the state Supreme Court voted unanimously to review how cities and counties regulate medical marijuana dispensaries. Specifically, the court agreed to address whether municipalities can ban collectives despite the 1996 passage of Proposition 215.

A Los Angeles-based appellate court last year struck down Long Beach’s attempt to license pot stores, ruling the local ordinance conflicted with federal law. Another appellate court upheld Riverside’s right to close and prohibit dispensaries despite Proposition 215.

Since then, several cities — including Long Beach — have shuttered clubs or banned them from their boundaries. Other cities, such as San Francisco, suspended issuing permits because of the rulings.

Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to review the case, those appellate rulings are no longer valid.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Medical Marijuana for AARP Bulletin

When Robert Jones, 70, was diagnosed with cancer in 2007, he found little relief for the pain that came with his intensive chemotherapy treatments. That is, until his doctor prescribed medical marijuana, which not only eased the pain, but also helped to improve his appetite and limit anxiety.

Today, though Jones’ cancer is in remission, he continues to use marijuana to stem the lingering effects of the illness. But he recently learned that the treatment could cost him his home.

In October, the Las Vegas, N.M., resident received a letter indicating that he would no longer be eligible for the federal housing voucher that helps cover his $400-a-month rent. The reason: Though Jones’ use of medical marijuana is permitted in New Mexico, the drug is not legal at the federal level, wrote Gilbert Almanza Jr., executive director of the San Miguel County Section 8 Housing Program.

Jones appealed the decision, saying he didn’t know what he would do without the voucher. He worried that he would be forced to live in a nursing facility.

And forgoing the marijuana was not an option. “This is a treatment recommended by my doctor, and it’s not completed yet,” Jones says.

But just six days before the termination was to take effect, Jones got a reprieve: The local county commission voted to rescind the notice and issue an apology.

Almanza and other county officials did not return calls requesting comment.

Michelle Diament is a frequent contributor to the AARP Bulletin.

See more amazing photos by Matt Slaby here: http://mattslaby.photoshelter.com/gallery/Archive-NM-Medical-Marijuana/G0000qH5IsmB92nE/

10 Reasons why you should grow your own medicine... Make it your New Year's Resolution!

1.) Its a great hobby. In fact, growing weed is more addictive than smoking it!

2.)  Its easy. You plant a seed and watch it grow. A few months later you have great smoke. Actually there’s a bit more to it than this, but check out number 10 to learn all the basics.

3.) Its cheap (er) .. until you get really into it and decide to invest in lots of equipment and do an all out hi-tech indoor grow with all the latest gizmos .. and if (when: like I said, growing weed is addictive) you do go down that route, make lots of lists of how x$ spent now will save y$ later and persuade the missus that its a great investment really …

4.) Its self-sufficient, .. there’s certainly something to be said for the idea of producing something yourself that will give you so much, from seed to smoke. Modern life may not enable you to grow your own veg and I wouldn’t advise you to grow weed on an allotment, but you CAN grow your own smoke. You yourself and you.White Dwarf autoflower

5.) Its organic (well it can easily be) and natural: use the power of the sun to free the weed.

6.) Its high tech and complicated: harness hi-tech to produce the biggest juiciest buds.

7.) It cuts out the dodgy middleman. After all why give your hard earned dollars to someone you’d think twice about giving the price of a cup of coffee to just because your usual guy is “out” at the moment?

8.) Join the club. You’ll probably find that once you start growing you’ll meet others who do too. Swapping stories and strains soon becomes commonplace. But WORD OF WARNING be VERY VERY CAREFUL who you talk to … Loose mouths sink ships and all that.

9.) Its an act of de-criminalization. Think about it. If every smoker grew 3 plants for their own use, and every time a policeman busted them, they had to go through the same paperwork trail and costly court costs as they do for someone growing 50 or 200 plants, do you think they would bother? Time and time again? And again? Nope. Its called normalisation, there are many examples of cities where they simply give cautions or dismiss these “small cases”: it just costs too much in time and manpower for too little a result. Let the police prosecute real criminals and leave the smoker alone. Stand up for what you believe in and grow it yourself.

10.) You can take our Personal Grow Program in one Saturday and start off the right way: informed, prepared and ready to succeed. We also offer discounted grow systems to get started with a big savings.

 Written by: Eingestellt von i_love_weed um and Nicole Scott

Prosecutors use dubious claims to attack collectives

CityBeat’s guide to cutting through the haze of medical-marijuana misinformation

By Dave Maass

There’s one question on the minds of most medical-marijuana patients and advocates right now: What the eff is Obama thinking?

In recent weeks, California’s four U.S. attorneys, under the authority of Obama’s Department of Justice, have launched a full-scale war on dispensaries in California. The attack is mostly legal in nature, starting with letters sent to dispensaries and property owners ordering them to shut down within 45 days. U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy, whose jurisdiction includes San Diego and Imperial counties, has been among the most vocal. Having previously worked with District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis to raid collectives in 2009, Duffy’s now backing San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith in his crusade to shut down San Diego’s 150-plus collectives using the city’s zoning rules.

We’ve found that prosecutors are backing up their arguments not with verifiable facts, but, rather, scaremongering propaganda and fuzzy assumptions—which we will now debunk for you.

Dispensaries are ‘prohibited’ in San Diego

Following a judge’s decision to temporarily shut down the Oasis Herbal Center in City Heights, Goldsmith’s office issued a press release claiming that the judge had made a “sweeping statement” that dispensaries are “prohibited” in San Diego. That doesn’t exactly paint a full picture of the situation.

While the judge correctly noted that the zoning code does not permit dispensaries, the code doesn’t expressly prohibit them, either. In fact, another part of the municipal code welcomes them.

San Diego’s Health and Sanitation Code states that the city’s goal is to “promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of San Diego by allowing and strictly regulating the cooperative cultivation and exchange of marijuana” and includes a long list of rules for how collectives may operate.

District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy and City Attorney Jan Goldsmith are blazing. - Photo illustration by Adam Vieyra

The problem is that the code also requires collectives to carry business permits, which they haven’t been able to do since July 2009. That’s when Development Services Director Kelly Broughton decided to stop issuing permits to dispensaries because he couldn’t find a proper category for them. The city attempted to pass a zoning law, but medical-marijuana advocates thought it was too restrictive and collected enough signatures for a referendum. The City Council then repealed the measure to avoid a costly special election.

But zoning issues aren’t what led the judge to shut down the Oasis collective. The judge said the primary reason was that Oasis was operating within 600 feet of a school, which is prohibited under state law.

‘Magnets’ for crime

Prosecutors have begun cultivating a perception that dispensaries are “magnets” for crime, often soliciting state ments from law-enforcement officers that aren’t always grounded in facts.

Take, for example, 4015-4009 Park Blvd., a building in University Heights that housed as many as seven collectives and was one of the first sued by the city attorney. A San Diego police officer gave sworn testimony that he’d observed an uptick in “calls for service” nearby and submitted seven pages of call logs to back it up. CityBeat analyzed the data and found there was no consistent trend in the calls— up, down or otherwise—and that the officer hadn’t filtered the calls for relevancy. Requests for tow trucks and routine traffic stops inflated the numbers substantially. The officer also told the court that he’d witnessed what “appeared” to be a pimp with his prostitutes outside the building, waiting to buy marijuana. His evidence: The women were “scantily dressed” and carrying their high heels.

Using official regional crime-mapping software, we found that only 11 crimes were reported within 500 feet of the building in the last six months—a number that’s unremarkable compared with levels in other areas in the community. Nine times that amount of crime has occurredwithin 500 feet of the Gila Rut Aveda Salon (run by Duffy’s wife) a half-mile away.

Maybe curlers attract crime, too. 

The big marijuana industry

At a recent press conference outlining the crackdown, Duffy described marijuana as fueling a “pervasive, for-profit” marijuana industry that’s “not about providing medicine to the sick.” She’s partially right.

If dispensaries employ at least five people each (a rough average), then it’s possible that San Diego could abruptly lose a thousand jobs overnight. The marijuana industry extends well beyond the storefronts. The market, estimated to be somewhere between $1 billion and $1.5 billion in California, has provided tenants for landlords whose properties might otherwise sit empty, and the trickle-down revenue has flowed to a variety of complementary businesses, including hydroponics supply shops, doctors, lawyers, security firms and media outlets—such asCityBeat—that accept ads for all of the above.

Several pieces of bipartisan legislation are moving through Congress to further legitimize the marijuana industry, including bills to allow collectives to make standard business deductions and work with banks.

As for the other part—it’s easy to say it’s not about providing medicine if you don’t believe it’s medicine to begin with.

‘No medicinal value’

This past June, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) rejected a request by a pro-medi-pot group to remove marijuana from the list of drugs considered to have no medicinal value. But is the DEA’s position supported by medical experts?

Created by the California Legislature in 1999 to answer the question, “Does marijuana have therapeutic value?” the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR) at UCSD has spent the last decade studying marijuana’s medicinal efficacy. In a February 2010 report to the Legislature, CMCR said that its researchers had found, after five clinical trials, there was “reasonable evidence” that cannabis can help folks suffering from pain and diseases of the nervous system, though more research is needed.

Two weeks ago, at its annual meeting, the California Medical Association released a report saying basically the same thing: Studies completed so far are promising but few, and the feds need to reschedule cannabis “to encourage research lending to responsible regulation.” In addition, the CMA report calls the criminalization of marijuana “a failed public health policy” that leads to unregulated use and diverts money away from vital health, education and transportation programs.

They’re selling to kids and junkies!

There’s a difference between “children” and “minors.” When it comes to marijuana, the feds refer to anyone younger than 21 as a minor, while the city’s collective ordinance considers minors to be younger than 18—those younger than 18 can access marijuana only with parental consent.

A CityBeat reporter has visited numerous dispensaries around town; in every case, someone at the door has checked IDs to keep minors out.CityBeat can also attest that medical-marijuana patients exist in all levels of societal strata—they include business owners, prominent attorneys, media professionals and senior staff at City Hall.

The district attorney’s most recent statistics—published in 2006 but still circulated today by anti-pot advocates—found that the under-21 demographic accounted for only 12 percent of marijuana dispensary customers. On the other hand, patients older than 30 accounted for 43 percent.

One may well ask whether the remaining 40 percent of patients who are in their 20s are using it recreationally. That’s the healthiest age group, so they can’t all be suffering from cancer, AIDS or other debilitating diseases, right? Right—it’s true that some “patients” use medical marijuana recreationally. But consider this: Young adults in their 20s are the largest uninsured population in the U.S. It stands to reason that young adults would be more likely to experiment with marijuana as a medication rather than paying out of pocket to see a doctor.

Prosecutors go after only the bad ones

Ryan Trabuco, a member of the San Diego County Alcohol and Drug Advisory Board, once asserted on Twitter that if a collective was raided, then it must’ve been doing something wrong because it wouldn’t have been raided otherwise. That’s a circular fallacy. What’s worse is that it ignores the record.

Perhaps the most prominent case in San Diego involved a Vista collective operator, James Stacy, who was doing all the right things to stay consistent with California law. He hosted farmers markets to connect growers directly to patients and allowed patients to trade labor for medicine. However, of the 14 collectives busted in 2009, his was one of the few to end up in federal court. After more than a year of pre-trial maneuvering, he was offered a plea deal in which the U.S. attorney could claim a conviction but Stacy would be essentially let off the hook, with no jail time.

Stacy’s not the only one: In the case of Eugene Davidovich, the San Diego Police Department had to return his marijuana after his acquittal for possession with intent to distribute. Jovan Jackson, who ran another collective, was also acquitted when a jury found the district attorney’s argument lacked sufficient legal clarity.

That’s not to say there aren’t bad actors raking in huge sums from collectives and laundering it through a variety of nefarious schemes. A case unsealed recently by Duffy’s office involving Club One Collective in San Marcos and Extreme Holistic Care in Wildomar shows significant evidence of the collectives’ operators moving huge sums of money among personal bank accounts. The defendant had already been busted once in 2007, according to North County Times, for being $430,000 delinquent on his state taxes.

Collectives are going to shut down

The U.S. attorney has sent hundreds of letters to collective operators and property owners (and even to people who haven’t been engaged in either for a long time) giving them 45 days to shut down.

So, will they? Many have—some calling in to report their closure as we write this. Yet, as CityBeat columnist John R. Lamb reported last week, former Medical Marijuana Task Force chair and Thomas Jefferson School of Law professor Alex Kreit believes that there’s no way Duffy’s office can follow through on her threats. Supporting that statement, attorney Lance Rogers says two of his clients have closed, but at least three plan to stay open. A large-scale lawsuit against the federal government on the behalf of collectives is expected to be filed within the next few weeks.

Nevertheless, marijuana advocates tell us that patients should begin stocking up in early November.

Patient Advocates Sue Obama Justice Department Over Medical Marijuana Crackdown

Lawsuit uses 10th amendment to challenge federal overreaching and commandeering of state law.

San Francisco, CA — Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the country’s largest medical marijuana advocacy organization, filed suit in federal court today challenging the Obama Administration’s attempt to subvert local and state medical marijuana laws in California. ASA argues in its lawsuit that the Obama Justice Department (DOJ) has “instituted a policy to dismantle the medical marijuana laws of the State of California and to coerce its municipalities to pass bans on medical marijuana dispensaries.” The DOJ policy has involved aggressive SWAT-style raids, criminal prosecutions of medical marijuana patients and providers and threats to local officials for merely implementing state law.

Americans for Safe Access protecting patient rights.“Although the Obama Administration is entitled to enforce federal marijuana laws, the Tenth Amendment forbids it from using coercive tactics to commandeer the law-making functions of the State,” said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford, who filed the lawsuit today in San Francisco’s federal District Court. “This case is aimed at restoring California’s sovereign and constitutional right to establish its own public health laws based on this country’s federalist principles.” The ASA lawsuit, which seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, was filed on behalf of its 20,000 members in California who are directly and adversely affected by the DOJ actions.

On October 7th, California’s four U.S. Attorneys announced in a highly unusual joint press conference that the DOJ would be engaging in a multi-pronged attack on the State’s medical marijuana laws involving enforcement action against State-compliant producers and distributors as well as threatening their landlords with criminal prosecution and civil asset forfeiture. In addition, the same U.S. Attorneys have been sending threatening letters to several municipalities across the state in an attempt to undermine the passage of local medical marijuana regulations.

• On July 1st, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California sent a letter to Chico Mayor Ann Schwab stating that the city’s proposed ordinance regulating medical marijuana dispensaries would violate federal law. U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner also warned Chico’s City Attorney, City Manager, and Police Chief that council members and staff could face federal prosecution for its attempts to implement such a law. As a result, the Chico City Council voted on August 2nd to rescind its medical marijuana dispensary ordinance.

• On August 15th, the Eureka City Council received a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California threatening that its regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries violates federal law. Similar to the letter sent to Chico, the Eureka letter stated that the city’s publicly vetted licensing scheme “threatens the federal government’s efforts to regulate, the possession, manufacturing, and trafficking of controlled substances.” The letter added that, “If the City of Eureka were to proceed, this office would consider injunctive actions, civil fines, criminal prosecution, and the forfeiture of any property used to facilitate a violation of [federal law].” Because of these threats, the City of Eureka has suspended implementation of its local ordinance.

ASA’s Joe Elford talks at a San Diego ASA meeting.The federal actions announced on October 7th by U.S. Attorneys have also derailed the regulatory efforts of local governments in Arcata, El Centro, Sacramento and other municipalities across the state. Less than a week after the DOJ press conference, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) conducted an early morning raid on October 13th at Northstone Organics, a fully-licensed cultivation collective in Mendocino County. The DEA handcuffed the collective’s founder and his wife and cut down all 99 plants, which were each zip-tied and registered with the Sheriff’s Department. Mendocino has one of the most tightly controlled cultivation ordinances in the state.

Several local and state officials have publicly blasted the Obama Administration’s tactics. In a recent statement, Mendocino County Supervisor John McCowen called the DEA raid on Northstone “outrageous,” and said “The elimination of dispensaries that operate legally and openly will endanger patients and the public.” Last week, the co-author of California’s Medical Marijuana Program Act, State Senator Mark Leno “urge[d] the federal government to stand down in it massive attack on medical marijuana dispensaries.” On October 21st, State Attorney General Kamala Harris issued a statement renouncing the federal government’s tactics, claiming that “an overly broad federal enforcement campaign will make it more difficult for legitimate patients to access physician-recommended medicine,” and urging “federal authorities in the state to adhere to the [DOJ’s] stated policy” of allowing California to implement its medical marijuana laws without federal interference.

Although the lawsuit accuses the Obama Administration of commandeering California’s legislative function and interfering with local laws meant to distinguish between medical and non-medical use, it does not challenge the federal government’s authority to adopt and enforce federal marijuana laws. The lawsuit states that, “It is, rather, the…misuse of the government’s Commerce Clause powers, designed to deprive the State of its sovereign ability to chart a separate course, that forms the basis of plaintiffs’ claims.”

Further information:
ASA lawsuit filed today:http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/ASA_v_Holder.pdf
U.S. Attorney letter threatening Chico officials:http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/DOJ_Threat_Letter_CA_Chico.pdf
U.S. Attorney letter threatening Eureka officials:http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/DOJ_Threat_Letter_CA_Eureka.pdf