The civil rights litigation filed by the Zide Door Church of Entheogenic Plants explains that worshippers at the congregation gather and consume the mind-altering plants as a means of having a direct experience with God. The church is interfaith, non-denominational, and openly supports the safe access and use of all entheogenic plants, though its particular focus is on cannabis and so-called “magic mushrooms.”

Approximately 60,000 members of the church pay $5 each month, as well as give donations, in exchange for participation in the sacraments. The church grows its own cannabis and mushrooms. The founder of the church explained to Vice Magazine that consuming these substances allows parishioners to experience spiritual visions, interact with powerful spiritual entities with lessons to teach, and sometimes even engage in a direct experience with God.

But none of that seemed to matter to the Oakland Police when they launched a raid of the facility back in 2020, seizing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of mushrooms and cannabis. No arrests were made and no charges were filed, but the substances were never returned and the church was not provided any compensation for its value.

As our Los Angeles cannabis lawyers can explain, the actions of police may run afoul of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This, along with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, are federal laws that serve as a shield against improper government actions against certain church groups and religious services. It may well provide protections for churches who use religious services.

The RFRA of 1993 bars the federal government from applying/enforcing laws and rules that may burden a person’s exercise of religion – even if the burden results from laws/rules of general applicability. It requires strict scrutiny – the highest level of review – of any federal law that may burden the religious exercises of organizations/groups/individuals.

These laws extend beyond federal government intervention, and assert that local and state government agencies can’t discriminate against religious groups either in areas of zoning and land use restrictions.

It’s our belief at the Cannabis Law Group that churches that treat cannabis as a sacrament are improperly and illegally targeted by government agencies taking action against them for this reason. That said, the law on this front is still unsettled, so it may still be possible for cannabis churches to be shut down, cannabis seized, fines imposed, evictions upheld and criminal charges filed. For those fighting back and taking civil action, it’s imperative to work with a law firm with extensive experience in California cannabis law and a track record of success on behalf of cannabis churches and other organizations.

In the present case, the lawsuit stems from an August 2020 raid, which the police characterized as a crackdown on an illegal dispensary. The church had been listed as one on Weedmaps, an open-source site. There had also been anonymous complaints about the church, alleging it was serving as a de-facto marijuana dispensary.

The church now says that when police raided, the 1st and 14th amendment rights of the church and its congregants were violated. Plaintiffs also say the city’s land use code barring any religious ceremonies and sacraments using cannabis or psychedelics is unconstitutional.

Church leaders note that it does not advertise itself as a dispensary. Its address is not publicly listed on the site, and the specifics of its religious practices aren’t detailed there either. The only way people can learn more about the church’s practices – or even where it is – is through word-of-mouth. They allege an Oakland officer used fraudulent information to apply for church membership, putting forth a fake name and presenting a phony driver’s license. The officer also reportedly signed a membership agreement acknowledging that the church wasn’t operating as a dispensary. When church members purchase small amounts of substances, they are meant to be consumed on-site – not taken off church property for consumption off-site. (The exception is for mushrooms, which are meant to be taken in a place where members would not be driving for at least eight hours after they’ve been consumed.) The church explicitly rejects non-religious use of drugs and alcohol.

The lawsuit also made reference to Resolution 87721, passed by the local city council in 2019, and bars the city (including the police department) from using taxpayer money to enforce laws that criminalize the possession and use of entheogenic plants.

Any church or other religious organization that uses plants or other substances with psychedelic properties should be working closely with a local cannabis attorney to ensure they have all the

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, ancillary companies, patients, doctors and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

Church where cannabis and magic mushrooms are ‘sacrament’ claims discrimination in permit fight, Aug. 25, 2022, By Jenna Greene, Reuters

In California, despite having some of the most liberal cannabis laws in the country, delta-8 is still regulated and restricted. State law regulates using, possessing, selling, distributing, or producing hemp and marijuana-derived delta-8 products – similar to the way it regulates high-THC marijuana. Unlicensed distributors (either online or with brick-and-mortar stores) aren’t allowed to sell any hemp-derived products (including Delta-8) with more than 0.3 percent THC. Licensed dispensaries, on the other hand, can. They can also sell delta-8 that is derived from marijuana. State law also regulates and restricts delta-10, THC-O and HHC products that contain more than 0.3% THC.

That said, back in may a federal appellate court in California held that delta-8 THC and other hemp-derived substances are legal under the 2018 Farm Bill. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled this was true even if the products contained properties that were psychoactive.

The three justices unanimously held that goods made with delta-8 THC are legal under U.S. law. The Farm Bill establishes hemp as any part of the cannabis plant – including all cannibinoids, extracts, and derivatives – that contain less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC by weight. However, the federal law says nothing about delta-8. The court said that while the wisdom of legalizing delta-8 products could be up for debate, it would not substitute its own policy judgment for that of the United States Congress.

As our Los Angeles cannabis lawyers can explain, delta-8 THC has psychoactive properties, though typically not as intense as what one might get from marijuana. But that is what draws a lot of people to it. One of its main selling points is that it can get a user high without the same sort of anxiety that some users feel when they consume delta-9 and other high-THC products. It’s these psychoactive properties, however, that have made delta-8 the subject of great controversy concerning the drug’s safety. At a recent federal hemp roundtable, the former federal attorney for the Western District of Kentucky (also former legal counsel and advisor to Sen. Mitch McConnell), stated that the sale of hemp-derived products with marked psychoactive properties (like delta-8, specifically) isn’t consistent with the intent of Congress when it passed the 2018 Farm Bill. He argued that not only did products like delta-8 potentially put kids at risk, but they undermined legal hemp industry integrity. He said that the legalization of hemp to begin with was only possible with a broad coalition of stakeholders who based their argument on the idea that non-intoxicating hemp was a prime agricultural opportunity. The 9th Circuit’s ruling stemmed from a trademark lawsuit filed by an e-cigarette/vaping manufacturer alleging that a Los Angeles company was selling counterfeit versions of its delta-8 products. The defendant, however, says that the trademark infringement claim doesn’t hold weight because delta-8 isn’t legal under federal law. The effect of the 9th Circuit’s ruling is that a lower court’s injunction against the accused counterfeiter was upheld. In its opinion, the 9th Circuit ruled that delta-8 products are legal under the Farm Bill. Therefore, companies that make those products have a right to trademark protection. Justices held that if it wasn’t the intention of Congress to give a legal pass to delta-8 and other psychoactive cannabinoids in the Farm Bill, then the impetus is on Congress to correct – not the courts. But will Congress step in to do anything about it? That’s unclear.Some say that the American people would be better served if Congress went ahead and simply imparted full federal legalization of cannabis – with regulation. It clearly wasn’t the intention of federal lawmakers to legalize intoxicating marijuana consumer products when it decided to legalize hemp. But they tasked the U.S. Food & Drug Administration with completing the product regulation aspect of that law. The FDA has not stepped in to do that, which has allowed hemp businesses the freedom to innovate novel cannibinoid products – some of which have arguably been very beneficial to consumers. Some of those include hemp-derived cannabinoids with psychoactive properties. In effect, the argument stands, the government has already de facto legalized marijuana. If they want to truly get a handle on this, the argument goes, Congress should step in and legalize and regulate all types of cannabis, rather than piecemeal an ongoing degree of prohibition.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, ancillary companies, patients, doctors and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

Federal Appeals Court Rules That Delta-8 THC Is Legal, May 23, 2022, By A.J. Herrington, Forbes.com

More Blog Entries:

California Cannabis “Laboratory Shopping” Target of Proposed State Law, July 15, 2022, Los Angeles Cannabis Lawyer Blog

This is excellent news because one of the core points of opposition to legalization of recreational marijuana sales in California was the potential for rampant youth access. This analysis shows that California cannabis companies are doing more than paying lip service to the promise of avoiding this outcome. They are – both in policy and in practice – keeping minors away.

As our Los Angeles marijuana business lawyers can explain, being lax with policies and protocol intended to block those under 21 from accessing cannabis can result in major legal headaches for pot shops. Adults over 21 can purchase, possess, and use small amounts of marijuana legally in this state. But California Health & Safety Code 11361 prohibits adults from selling, giving, or offering marijuana to a minor, inducing a minor to use marijuana, or employing a minor to transport, sell, or give away marijuana. To do so is a felony punishable by between 3-5 years in prison. The exact penalty depends on the age of the minor, the circumstances of the case, and the criminal history of the person accused.

According to the report, the researchers sought to analyze the industry’s compliance with state-level personal identification requirements in California. So they chose 50 randomly-selected retail outlets to determine if one could get in without presenting ID. But 100 percent of the time, the shop required ID be shown, and refused entry to anyone without identification showing they were older than 21.

The consistency of this compliance was something researchers noted with surprise – but it’s not all that shocking to our marijuana business lawyers, considering the penalties lawful operations face if they break the law. Retailers face being shut down completely for illegal activity if they allow access to youth. Police are allowed (and have been known to) use underage decoys to test cannabis business compliance with these rules. That’s why most often, licensed shops require identification upfront, before a person is even allowed into the main portion of the store.

For this reason, teens are unlikely to obtain marijuana directly from dispensaries. Most likely, those who are obtaining the drug are asking an adult to get it for them. These individuals should know that anyone who provides cannabis to a person underage is going to be facing 6 months in jail and a $500 fine.

The study authors say the next step in assessing youth access to cannabis under state-legal laws should involve a closer look at how often youth are able to obtain marijuana using realistic-looking, fake IDs. It should be noted, however, that youth marijuana use reportedly “decreased significantly” last year. That’s according to the annual Monitoring the Future Survey, which has been tracking adolescent drug behavior since the mid-70s. Those researchers found it wasn’t just a decrease in marijuana use, but a decline of illicit substance abuse overall. This trend of declining teen marijuana use has been ongoing for years and is true across the board – including in the 19 states and the District of Columbia, which have legalized marijuana for recreational use since 2012.

This aligns with research from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, a federally-funded survey released late last year, which revealed youth use of cannabis dropped substantially in 2020. Another analysis released by the U.S. Department of Education showed that from 2009 to 2019, there was no statistical difference in the percentage of high-schoolers who self-reported using marijuana at some point in the previous 30 days.

If you are a marijuana shop retailer in Southern California, working with an experienced marijuana law attorney can help you identify and patch potential weaknesses in your policy and protocol, ensuring you are compliant with state laws and local ordinances.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, ancillary companies, patients, doctors and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

What is the likelihood that underage youth can obtain marijuana from licensed recreational marijuana outlets in California, a state where recreational marijuana is legal? May 2022, Journal of Safety Research

More Blog Entries:

Off-the-Clock Cannabis Use Employment Bill Nears Passage in California ,June 8, 2022, Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer Blog

The Los Angeles Times reports City Council President Herb Wesson wants the city to temporarily suspend the approval process until these concerns can be rectified.

As our Los Angeles cannabis business attorneys can explain, the current system only allows for review of a limited number of applications, so it’s done on a first-come, first-serve basis. The concern with this approach is that some applicants had an edge when it came to faster submission.Would-be cannabis entrepreneurs in economically-disadvantaged areas (coincidentally those hit hardest by the decades-long war on drugs before marijuana became legal) struggled to keep pace with those in wealthier communities with widespread access to high-speed internet.

Wesson submitted a letter to the Department of Cannabis Regulation asking the state regulator to intervene with a plan to do one or all of the following:

• Process each and every application.
• Stop processing new applications and refund applicants’ money until an independent audit is completed that would identify and root out potential favoritism and assure the process is fair.

Transparency and integrity of the process, Wesson said, is key.

A spokeswoman for the DCR told the Times that regulators are committed to transparency and fairness of pot shop licensing throughout California, and plan to meet with the Wesson’s office in the near future to discuss the recommendations submitted.

L.A. Cannabis Licensing & “The Fastest Computer Contest”

As of right now, more than 300 existing cannabis companies – suppliers and retailers – have been granted licensing approval to operate.

The edge afforded by high-speed internet becomes apparent when you consider that in the latest round of pot shop application reviews, where 100 new licenses were to be issued, the city received 300 applications in just three minutes. Some critics argue that this in effect became “the fastest computer contest.”

In all, 800 applications were submitted, competing for 100 slots.

Another fact that raised concerns was that an unusually large number of those granted application review had Armenian surnames. This, critics say, isn’t reflective of a community that was hard-hit by the war on drugs – something Los Angeles leadership had specifically promised to prioritize in cannabis licensing.

The executive director of the DCR insisted only two applicants had early access to the system – and only then because of the agency’s own error in resetting their passwords. This was rectified, the director said, by pushing those applications back into line where they would have ended up had the error not occurred. There are no indications, she said, that bots or other nefarious influences were being used to churn out faster approval of applications.

Delays Could Cost Some Cannabis Entrepreneurs

While many support a “re-do” effort, others say further delays in approving applications could mean financial ruin to applicants who have already signed storefront leases.

They encouraged review of all applications, knowing that it’s not likely all will be eligible due to some deficiency in the application process.

Whatever is decided, there will be at least one more bulk application review that could allow for an additional 150 marijuana retail licenses issued. After that, applicants may be approved on an individual basis in neighborhoods that have already reached their cap if city council approves.

If you are trying to secure a Los Angeles cannabis retail license, consider working with an experienced marijuana lawyer who can help you navigate the process from application to business plan to ongoing legal oversight. The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, ancillary companies, patients, doctors and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734. Additional Resources: L.A. should suspend vetting applications for pot shops amid concerns, Wesson urges, Oct. 29, 2019, By Emily Alpert Reyes, The Los Angeles Times

One of the main problems is the lack of a reliable quantifiable standard to gauge intoxication. With alcohol, adults over 21 in all 50 states are considered impaired by alcohol if their blood concentration of the substance is 0.08 percent or higher. This is called the per se limit.

As our marijuana DUI defense lawyers can explain, there is no per se limit for marijuana in California or in most other states, whether the drug is legal or not. Even in states where there is a per se limit, such evidence can be vexing for prosecutors because it’s undeniably inaccurate when it comes to actually proving intoxication. Unlike alcohol, which dissipates very quickly from the bloodstream, THC (the intoxicating element in marijuana) is processed much slower by the body. A person may have used the drug the day before – or use it regularly – and no longer be intoxicated, but still meet the per se threshold.

The other issue is that because marijuana is legal, the mere smell of it is no longer enough to form the basis of reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct a search of a vehicle and/or person.

Bruce Landsberg, vice chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, stated these aspects of marijuana legalization has raised the concern that our roads may no longer be as safe. The fact is, he said, we understand less about cannabis’ intoxicating properties – and how to accurately measure it biologically – than we do alcohol. This has resulted in practical concerns in terms of enforcement.

Enforcing California Marijuana DUI Law

In California, Vehicle Code 23152f prohibits anyone from driving under the influence of drugs. Proving it in court, however, can be another matter altogether.

Police agencies have expressed worry that absent any quantifiable standard to measure cannabis intoxication, those arrested for driving under the influence of it will be rejected by the courts. In fact, as our Los Angeles marijuana DUI lawyers can explain, this has happened in a number of cases throughout the country where police officers weren’t experts on assessing the effects of marijuana use.

There are ways to ascertain whether a motorist is impaired by marijuana, including Standardized Field Sobriety Testing. Additionally, officers can be trained as Drug Recognition Experts. But both of these are non-chemical and, in truth, somewhat subjective and open to interpretation in court. Plus, DRE training can be costly and not every agency can afford it. Ultimately, the science has not been developed yet to determine what THC level in a person’s body can definitively tell us whether someone is intoxicated – and we may never have it, given that one’s body chemistry and personal tolerance vary so significantly.

Even if an accurate per se limit could be identified, the reality is there is no accurate roadside test to detect it. There are some devices on the market, but they have been successfully challenged in court cases. A California company does plan to release a THC-detecting breathalyzer on the market sometime next year, but again, the presence of the drug alone isn’t proof positive of impairment.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, ancillary companies, patients, doctors and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

Feds worry about catching those driving while high in states that legalize weed, By Jonathan D. Salant, NJ.com

The case, Washington v. Barr (previously Washington v. Sessions), challenges marijuana’s status as on of the most dangerous narcotics listed in the U.S. Controlled Substance Act, on par with heroin and LSD.

Such challenges aren’t new, and it appeared initially as if this case might go the way of all the others. But what our cannabis lawyers noted as unique – and possibly groundbreaking – in the recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s ruling wasn’t only that justices denied the government’s motion to dismiss and allowed the case to proceed, but that the court:

Took the rare step of asserting it would retain jurisdiction of the case, holding it in abeyance, citing the dire medical needs of children involved;

Effectively put the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration on notice of the expectation that reclassification needs to happen soon – within a matter of months.

Why Schedule I Classification of Cannabis Could Soon Change

What it boils down to is the fact that marijuana clearly doesn’t fit the definition of a Schedule I narcotic. As noted by the DEA’s Drug Scheduling Guide, substances are classified I-V, based on severity, Schedule I being the most heavily restricted. Schedule I narcotics are those that have a high potential for abuse as well as “no currently accepted medical use.” Clearly, Marijuana doesn’t fall into this category – and never did. Prohibition and subsequent classification was predicated on politics more than anything else.

Today, 33 states have legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, and it’s legal for recreational users in sales in 10 states plus the District of Columbia.

Yet the federal prohibition has created confusion, uncertainty and caused major headaches for cannabis businesses, consumers, physicians, patients and all ancillary businesses. Marijuana companies struggle to obtain loans, banking services, insurance and security.

In the 31-page opinion, Circuit Judge Guido Calebersi writing for the two-judge majority on the three-justice panel stated flatly, “It is possible that the current law, thought rational once, is now heading towards irrationality, it may even conceivably be that it has already gotten there.”

Notably, even though the lower district court judge ruled against the plaintiffs in granting the government’s motion to dismiss, he agreed on record with plaintiffs that medical cannabis had helped improve their children’s health in meaningful ways.

Given the appellate court’s reversal and unequivocal commentary on this, Los Angeles cannabis lawyers see this could well become a precedent-setting case.

Washinton v. Barr Case History

Plaintiffs from the Atlanta area first filed this federal lawsuit in 2017, naming then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions (now U.S. Attorney General William Barr) as lead defendant. They have testified in court that medical cannabis products markedly helped treat their children’s conditions, which included which include post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and epilepsy.

The lower court had dismissed plaintiff’s claims at the government’s request, finding they had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies in filing the lawsuit to begin with because they hadn’t directly petitioned the DEA for action prior.

Yet even in so doing, the judge stated the children were “living proof of the medical appropriateness of marijuana,” adding he took plaintiffs’ plausible allegations to be true and expressing disbelief that anyone might disagree these children’s lives had been not only improved through alleviated pain and suffering, but in fact saved.

Further bolstering plaintiff’s stance is the fact that the DOJ has held both the U.S. and international patents for medicinal marijuana for almost two decades.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, ancillary companies, patients, doctors and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

FAMILY IN DEKALB SUES SESSIONS OVER CANNABIS CLASSIFICATION July 13, 2019, Associated Press

Cannabis stocks have risen sharply in recent years, and despite hesitation given that it remains a Schedule I narcotic, the trend is expected to continue through the Q3 and Q4 of 2019.

But cannabis business attorneys urge entrepreneurs to carefully consider the full picture before taking their stock public. The process is complex and expensive – and risky. That risk can pay off, but it’s imperative to first discuss your marijuana business plan with a qualified lawyer because surging forward without careful deliberation and sound reasoning.

There are some innate challenges to taking a company public, but there can be some big rewards too.

Accessing Capital is Prime Motivation for Cannabis Companies Going Public

In almost any other industry with high demand, secure product flow and high returns on investment, banks and investors would be falling over themselves to lend funds to new ventures. But then, cannabis has never been any other industry.

Unless the owner of a cannabis company is independently very wealthy, going public can sometimes be the only way to access the additional capital necessary to:

• Grow current operations
• Expand into new markets
• Reduce debt to ultimately boost performance
• Launch new lines of products
• Initiate a merger or acquisition.

Although some banks are growing more comfortable with the budding industry, cannabis companies have more options in terms of acquiring capital, but still not as many as would be ideal. If you’re looking to acquire more capital to take on one or more of these goals, a dedicated cannabis attorney can help review your legal options and map out your business plan.

What You’ll Need to Go Public

Companies that launch themselves into the public stock market without putting their ducks in a row first may soon find themselves drowning. There is a lot of responsibility that comes with the territory. Some things you’ll want to align first:

• Management and operation strategies that are strong and streamlined. Cannabis entrepreneurs aren’t selling joints out of your uncle’s basement anymore. They’re sophisticated machines, and they need the right people in place to make sure they run well and are poised for growth.
• Accountability and messaging. When you go public, the business no longer belongs to you, and all operations will need to be above-board and transparent.
• Corporate structuring. You need a board of directors with various committees for auditing, etc. If you’re a smaller firm, the whole process can take you away from day-to-day operations, and you need to be sure you’re willing to do that.
• Find a solid cannabis business lawyer with savvy on anti-cannabis taxing laws – or who partners with accountants that do. Tax obligations get trickier when you go public, and it’s all going to be more closely scrutinized.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, ancillary companies, patients, doctors and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.Additional Resources:3 U.S. Pot Stocks Wall Street Expects Will Double, June 10, 2019, By Sean Williams, The Motley Fool

Cannabis will be legal in Canada officially on Oct. 17. In the U.S., however, federal law prohibits the drug’s use or sale for any purpose, but the law is not evenly enforced given the fact that 30 states plus Washington, D.C. have approved it for some level of use, a handful of those – including California – allowing recreational use with restrictions.

The research was released in this moment where big-name brand corporations are toying with the notion – some seriously – of investing in legal marijuana businesses in California and beyond. L.A. marijuana investor attorneys know any firms examining marijuana sales as an investment option need to consult with lawyers who have extensive experience in navigating marijuana regulation. Failure to do so could result in significant losses if the operation is abruptly halted and fines issued. Many aren’t letting the legalities deter them. For example, the parent company of Corona beer, Constellation Brands, invested more than $4 billion in a marijuana company called Canopy Growth. Executives meeting conferencing with industry analysts called the move “offensive,” noting that while the initial market would be marijuana-infused beverages, the potential to capitalize on the entire market was anticipated to be “explosive,” according to CNN Business. This is not to say marijuana investment is simple or easy. As our L.A. marijuana investor attorneys can advise, there are many things companies need to consider carefully if they hope to turn a profit. As it stands, 29 states in the U.S. allow medicinal use of marijuana, 9 plus Washington, D.C. allow recreational use and Canada will legalize the drug for recreational use and sales later this month. You need to know that financing is going to be a challenge because many financial institutions are wary of potential violations of criminal money laundering statutes. This ties to concerns about stock dilution, a major concern of marijuana investors stemming from the two most common methods of getting access to capital for investment – common stock offerings (in the U.S.) and bought-deal offerings (in Canada). Both of these methods boost the outstanding share count for publicly-traded firms, in turn diluting the value of each existing stock. Another issue is that in the U.S., the tax rate on marijuana businesses is astronomical. Another wild card in all this is U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. While President Donald Trump supports states’ rights on this and other issues, Sessions has said he would be setting aside the Cole Memo (which essentially allowed marijuana operations legal under state law to evade federal prosecution). Sessions has said he intends to slow, reverse or halt the sale of marijuana throughout the U.S. This has a number of large corporations wary. Pepsi, for example, has said it is closely following the cannabis beverage industry, but likely won’t enter the fray so long as marijuana is still illegal under federal law. Still, there is a great deal of market potential. Consider that of those surveyed in the aforementioned poll, nearly 80 percent said they would use cannabis-infused products if legal for therapeutic reasons, 40 percent said they’d use it in skincare products and 40 percent said they’d be more likely to try recreational marijuana through food (slightly more than said they’d be willing to smoke it). The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, collectives, patients and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734. Additional Resources: Corporate America is investing in pot because people want to eat and drink it, CNN Business More Blog Entries: New L.A. Bud Businesses Can’t Ignore Legal Snares Sept. 28, 2018, L.A. Marijuana Investor Attorney Blog

Crafting smart policies in connection with drugs is vital. The agency in Washington that plays a major role in crafting drug policy is called the White House Office of National Drug Control policy. According to the Washington Post, this Office is currently facing substantial cuts. If budget cuts which are currently being discussed occur, the cuts could undermine the ability of the federal government to create and enforce the nation’s drug laws.

Will the Office of Drug Control Policy Have Its Budget Cut?

The Washington Post reports a leaked memo reveals the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy could lose as much as 95 percent of the funding the Office has under the current budget. The cuts would save the federal government $364 million.

A man who served in the Office during both the Bush and Obama administrations has discussed with Washington Post the implications of budget cuts to this office. He explained three key ways in which the Office of Drug Control policy shapes federal drug policies.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy is described as “the only repository of detailed knowledge on the country’s drug problems.” The Office provides key details about addiction treatment, the number of people requiring treatments, and the costs and benefits of different kinds of addiction programs. Because it is a vast repository of knowledge, the Office helps the federal government to make policies.

The Office is also able to make it faster for programs which are effective to be expanded so the programs can be utilized on a national scale. Finally, the Office is able to coordinate all drug policies across the federal government. If different agencies have conflicting, overlapping programs, for example, the Office will choose which should be eliminated. As a central repository of knowledge, the Office is also able to monitor progress on goals so the federal government can be held accountable. It would be more difficult to measure the effectiveness of different initiatives if there is no central office responsible for drug policy.

Regardless of what occurs with the White House Office of National Drug Control policy, our marijuana defense lawyers believe efforts to reform marijuana laws on the federal level should continue. The fact the federal government is still classifying marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance is bad public policy and, if the federal government is going to reduce efforts made to address drug issues, putting an end to federal investigations or prosecutions of legal marijuana businesses would be the best first step to take.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, collectives, patients and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

I worked with the drug policy office Trump wants to gut. Here’s why it matters for the opioid epidemic., May 8, 2017, By Keith Humphreys, The Washington Post

More Blog Entries: Marijuana Sobriety Tests Still Elusive, Feb. 28, 2017, Marijuana Attorney Blog

Under the laws in the state of California, knowingly providing an edible cannabis product to another person without first informing the recipient that the food contains cannabis can be considered a form of unlawful poisoning. This can result in legal charges and criminal prosecution. If you are arrested for this type of crime or if you are arrested for any offense related to cannabis, it is important you contact a marijuana criminal defense lawyer for help responding to serious charges.

You could potentially face substantial penalties for the crime of poisoning or other marijuana crimes, and you should work with your attorney to develop a sound legal defense strategy aimed at securing an acquittal or aimed at reducing possible penalties through the effective negotiation of a reasonable plea bargain.

Failing to Disclose Cannabis in Food May be Considered a Form of Poisoning

According to KEYT, the arrest in connection with the cannabis candy bar occurred after the Thousand Oaks Police Department made contact with a woman who was working at a restaurant on Moorpark Road. The woman indicated her 36-year-old male co-worker had offered her a portion of a chocolate bar he had with him while he was at work. The man allegedly did not tell the woman the chocolate bar was a cannabis edible and thus contained a dosage of THC.

After consuming the chocolate bar with THC, the woman began to experience difficulty breathing. She also indicated she became disoriented and confused. Her condition caused allegedly her to become unable to continue working. A family member escorted her from the restaurant to her vehicle, and later a family member helped the woman to visit a medical facility to receive treatment for the symptoms she claimed to be experiencing.

When the police were contacted about the possible poisoning, they conducted an investigation and obtained a search warrant for the co-worker who had given the woman the candy bar with the THC. The police allegedly found a chocolate bar which contained THC among the man’s possessions. The cannabis edible discovered by police was similar to the one which the man had provided to the woman who claimed she’d been poisoned by the candy.

The police also discovered more than $600 in cash as well as 70 pills that appeared to be ecstasy. Because of the cash and the number of ecstasy pills which police discovered when conducting the investigation, the man was arrested on suspicion of possession with intent to sell a controlled substance. Police, under the law, are able to assume possession due to larger volumes of controlled substances even if there is not actually any proof an individual who had these substances in his or her possession was actually selling them to others. This can lead to much more serious charges and harsher penalties than a simple possession charge.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, collectives, patients and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

Man arrested after giving coworker cannabis edible in Thousand Oaks, April 16, 2017, Staff Report, KEYT

More Blog Entries: Marijuana Sobriety Tests Still Elusive, Feb. 28, 2017, Marijuana Attorney Blog

It’s happening at a new gym in San Francisco, founded by a former professional football star who has been a staunch advocate for marijuana use. Ricky Williams, a former running back who scored the Heisman Trophy in college and played in the National Football League for the Saints, Ravens and Dolphins, teamed up with snowboard company executive Jim McAlpine. The company, Power Plant Fitness, allows members to smoke marijuana before or after working out, and also has edibles and topical gels for those who want to avoid actual smoke. It will officially open in May.

Many users say marijuana helps them to focus during or relax after workout sessions. The goal, according to the company’s website, is to promote “optimal states of wellness and peak performance.” As Alpine told Outside magazine last year, cannabis brings you in the “eye of the tiger mode.”

Although founders said last year members would need a medical marijuana prescription to join, that’s no longer likely to be the case given that California became the fifth state to legalize recreational marijuana in November with Proposition 64.

Other states that now allow recreational marijuana include:

• Colorado
• Washington state
• Oregon
• Alaska
• Nevada
• Massachusetts
• Maine
• Washington, D.C.

Still, as our cannabis business lawyers know, it’s not as simple as opening up a company and welcoming users to imbibe on site. One must consider not only the legalities of state law, but also local permitting, particularly when allowing users to smoke or consume cannabis on site.

Plans are underway for this company to expand. Once the San Francisco site is up-and-running, there are plans in the works for locations in Los Angeles, San Jose, Seattle, Denver and Portland.

McAlpine noted this was not an opportunity for people to simply “get high and just screw around.” He said the focus of the gym is on the athleticism. He was a founder of the series 420 Games, which hosts a series of sporting and athletic events for those who use marijuana. Those events are not for the faint of heart – or lungs or legs. They include triathlons, obstacle courses, mountain bike races, golf courses and a 4.20-mile run. That event has been held annually in San Francisco since 2014.

Part of the gym’s purpose is to reverse the stereotypes about “lazy stoners” or those who are only gravely ill. In fact, people who are physically fit and prioritize optimal health routinely use the drug as part of their fitness routine. When cannabis is used as a tool for focus and recovery, it can help to bolster workout performance.

New members will begin with a cannabis performance assessment by staffers, who will help determine and supervise the best way for a person to consume marijuana while training.

This level of supervision may also lend itself to a degree of liability, and marijuana businesses like this need to take these factors seriously. Consider that marijuana use can be dehydrating and may also lead novices to symptoms ranging from mild dizziness to panic. Physical exercise could exacerbate these symptoms, so careful structuring of the monitoring process will be important.

The Los Angeles CANNABIS LAW Group represents growers, dispensaries, collectives, patients and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734.

Additional Resources:

A “cannabis gym” is opening in San Francisco, March 2, 2017, By William Hughes, A.V. Club

More Blog Entries:

Marijuana Legalization Should Be Accompanied by Justice System Reforms, March 23, 2017, L.A. Marijuana Lawyer Blog