As the Los Angeles Times reports, the latest round of cannabis retail business licensing took place in December, with the goal of issuing a total of 100 new licenses to social equity applicants.

The problem, according to the plaintiffs in this case, was that some applicants were given early access to the online application form, effectively pushing the rest of the applicants to the back of the line. Upon investigation, it appears internet speed was a factor in how quickly some applicants were able to submit their requests for consideration. The most disproportionately affected neighborhoods and individuals would be more prone to have slower internet speeds.

As our L.A. cannabis retail attorneys can explain, a social equity applicant is a person who have been disproportionately impacted by the failed War on Drugs. In California, the Social Equity Program is broken down into three tiers, each with varying benefits and requirements. These include criteria such as being low income, having a prior marijuana criminal conviction, having lived 5 years or more in an area designated to be disproportionately impacted and must own a certain portion of the business for which they are seeking licensing.

The city called for an audit on the Social Equity Program licensing, which the Los Angeles Department of Cannabis Regulation says concluded the city responded appropriately to complaints and that there was no evidence of unfairness.

However, the audit also noted that the DCR also told numerous applicants that they would not be able to sign into the platform prior to 10 a.m. on the designated day – something that had to be done before the application process could start. However, this was not true, as more than 220 applicants were able to log on to the system prior to that. A couple dozen of those were able to begin the application process prior to 10 a.m., but Auditors found this was enough to put the marijuana company start-ups who listened tot he DCR and waited at a distinct disadvantage.

The city did push those early applications to the “back of the line,” where they would have been had they started the process at 10 a.m.

Representatives with the SEOWA argued that in any competition, participants have to start at the same time or at least have correct information on when it will start. That didn’t happen in this case, they say. Further, despite a meticulous effort, the group says it hasn’t been able to find any applicants who started the application process at the pre-designated start time who were then selected to move on to the next phase.

As our L.A. marijuana retail lawyers understand it, internal recommendations for improving the roll out of the next phase of the social equity program include:

• Tightening criteria for qualification.
• Giving priority processing to applicants previously unable to snag a license for a new shop for other kinds of businesses, such as manufacturing or delivery.

These haven’t yet been approved, but it seems likely some changes will be made to the process. Whatever is decided, our cannabis lawyers

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:

Los Angeles Department of Cannabis Regulation Sends New Licensing Process Recommendations to City Council, April 16, 2020, By Patrick Williams, Cannabis Business Times

When California voters legalized recreational marijuana for adults in 2016, suddenly there were people getting rich doing the same thing that led to arrests, prosecution and harsh minimum mandatory prison term for tens of thousands. Even after their release from incarceration, the government’s civil seizure of all assets even tenuously connected to drugs, plus the stigma of a permanent “felon” label blocked access to student loans (sometimes any loans), job opportunities and housing options. The racial disparity of the impact stunning. The ACLU reporting blacks were arrested at a rate of four-fold higher than whites, despite basically the same usage rates. It was way worse in some communities, like Oakland, where black residents accounted for 27 percent of the population but 77 percent of those arrested for marijuana.

The concept of “cannabis equity” is that those hit much harder by harsher marijuana laws should now be extended lower entry barriers into the legal California cannabis market. California earned a fair amount of applause for the initiative, one no other legal marijuana state has launched. Funded by $10 million in loans, grants and support services, there are currently just four local branches operating – Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento and San Francisco. But some report it’s not going so smoothly. As reported by Pew Charitable Trusts, a number of local equity offices (funded by the state’s Department of Cannabis Control and Regulation) have had trouble with launch – potentially delivering yet another blow to applicants, giving other non-equity program cannabis companies a head start into those markets.

Los Angeles marijuana business attorneys have seen issues with some of the following:

• Funding and staffing shortfalls in social equity programs;
• Extended wait times for business license processing – even once it’s established the applicant does qualify.
• Lax oversight in arrangements made through the program connecting social equity businesses and outside investors, leading many to point out the financial risk this places on the social equity candidate, up to and including loss of his or her fair share in the company. Investors are almost always necessary because social equity applicants aren’t wealthy and may not even have access to typical bank loans. Investors apply through the local agency to partner with a social equity applicant, and the idea is it will ultimately be successful for everyone. But some say it’s turned predatory, with investors targeting social equity applicants for fraud while the state offers little oversight. The most common complaint is an investor using the social equity marijuana applicant to get a foot in the door, then leaving the fledgling business owner without a fair stake in the company.

There is a belief shared among minority community advocates that the social equity system in Los Angeles especially was “set up to fail.”

There is talk more money could be allocated to the programs, which could possibly be used to extend 4-to-5-year no-interest loans to social equity marijuana business owners – so they wouldn’t have to rely as much or at all on private, potentially unscrupulous investors.

Those interested in applying for the cannabis social equity program in Los Angeles would be wise to work with an attorney experienced in marijuana law. You cannot necessarily count on the state to look out for your interests, properly vet investors or protect against fraud. Your attorney can often fill that role and help you navigate this frustrating and slow-moving bureaucracy.

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

Additional Resources:

Challenges – and controversy – swirl around marijuana social equity programs in California, Nov. 29, 2018, Marijuana Business Daily

More Blog Entries:

More California Marijuana Products Passing Stringent Safety Tests, Dec. 16, 2018, Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer Blog

Last month, authorities announced a 39-county marijuana grow sting, busting 250 unlawful cannabis cultivation sites, resulting in the arrest of more than 50 people and seizure of some 614,000 plants. State and local law enforcement said such action was necessary to halt the (apparently) still booming black market. These sites are arguably a threat to registered, licensed operators, who are required to pay hefty taxes and undergo stringent product testing to ensure safety.

Los Angeles marijuana defense attorneys recognize that legalization of marijuana in California has made the drug far more accessible, and the hope was always that black market sales would halt or at least dwindle. However, there have been an increasing number of grow house busts across the state in recent weeks.

California Law Enforcement Cracks Down on Illegal Cannabis

Among the marijuana cultivation raids in recent weeks:

• In Santa Barbara County, authorities seized some 400,000 marijuana plants allegedly being grown illegally, spread among traditional crops. The county sheriff said it was the largest grow house bust in the county since the launch of the state’s new regulated market. Also in Santa Barbara County, five other allegedly illegal cultivation sites were discovered with a combined total of 14,000 plants. At the largest site, one of the two growers arrested reportedly attempted to get a marijuana cultivation license, but authorities said the application was denied due to applicant providing false information. Now, he and his co-defendant are facing hefty fines and may be barred from ever opening an illegal shop.
• Investigators in Kern County, where recreational marijuana is illegal by ordinance despite state law, raided three cannabis dispensaries, arresting five men and confiscating plants, flower, edibles packages and concentrates. Two other dispensaries in the same county were raided, resulting in seen arrests and seizure of marijuana, concentrates, edibles and plants.
• In Humboldt County, nearly 2,140 marijuana plants were seized at a grow site, and the two accused in the case are facing fines of $121,000 per day it was in operation.
• Troopers with the California Highway Patrol arrested an alleged black market runner after stopping him on the highway and discovering 850 pounds of marijuana, headed for illicit retail sales.
• In Sacramento County, four were arrested and nearly 530 plants seized in late August.

California Health and Safety Code 11359 is the provision of state law that covers criminal penalties for possession of marijuana with intent to sell. Anyone NOT licensed by the state and/ or county as a dispensary as required can face arrest. In most cases now, this is a misdemeanor, punished by up to six months in jail and a $500 fine. However, note that if you are a repeat offender, have a record with serious/ violent crimes or intend to unlawfully sell marijuana to minors, it’s boosted to a felony.

Working early on with an experienced Los Angeles marijuana defense attorney is your best chance at a favorable criminal case outcome.

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

Additional Resources:

California county seizes 400,000 cannabis plants at one unlicensed grow, Nov. 2, 2018, Marijuana Business Daily

More Blog Entries:

California Cannabis Intellectual Property Licensing Just Got More Complicated, Oct. 31, 2018, Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

If you’re going to purchase, use or possess legal marijuana in Los Angeles, it’s a good idea to get educated on the provisions of state law that specifically pertain to marijuana DUI and possession of marijuana in a vehicle. And if you run afoul of the law for any reason, your first phone call should be to a long-time Southern California criminal defense attorney committed to bolstering the rights of marijuana users, retailers and growers.

California Vehicle Code 23222(b) VC Driving in Possession of Marijuana

California law now allows individuals to possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana or 8 grams of concentrated cannabis (also known as hashish) so long as they are over the age of 21. However, as our Los Angeles marijuana DUI defense attorneys can explain, there are some stringent rules for both possession of marijuana in a vehicle and driving under the influence of marijuana.

is the provision of state law that makes it illegal drive OR ride with marijuana that is either not in a container or in a container wherein the seal is broken. Violation of this provision can be penalized by a maximum fine of up to $100. For the most part, however, most police agencies as well as deputies with the California Highway Patrol don’t enforce this much, assuming the driver is in compliance with either the state’s recreational marijuana law or medical marijuana law.

As our L.A. marijuana defense attorneys have had to explain, however, if you possess more than the minimum amount of legal marijuana. The most you can possess is 28.5 grams of marijuana OR 4 grams of concentrated cannabis. Anything i excess of that, and police will not consider you to be in possession of the drug, “as authorized by law.”

Penalty for driving in possession of more than a legal amount of marijuana under state vehicle code is a fine. However, you could also be charged with a misdemeanor, under provisions of HS 11357, which could mean fine of up to $500 and up to six months in jail.

You could also face misdemeanor penalties for driving in excess of the maximum amount in a school or on school grounds – $250 for a first-time offense and $500 plus up to 10 days in jail for a second offense.

Driving in Possession of Marijuana While Under 21

California law prohibits possession of any marijuana for persons under the age 21, and if you’re driving while doing so, you could face additional punishment. The only exception is if the reason you have the drug is you are using it for medicinal purposes and have a prescription.

For example, if you’re under 18 and don’t have a medical marijuana card, the penalty is 10 hours of community service and 4 hours of drug abuse counseling. A second offense will garner 20 hours of community service and 8 hours of drug abuse counseling. If you’re at least 18 but under the age of 21, you’ll also be charged $100 fine.

Now, let’s say you’re under 18, don’t have a medical marijuana prescription and have more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. In that case, penalty is 40 hours of community service and 8 hours of drug abuse counseling. A second offense will be 60 hours of community service, plus 6 hours of drug counseling.

Marijuana DUI

Marijuana DUI is one of the more complicated situations because – how does a police officer determine when you’ve consumed more marijuana than you should? There is no per se limit, like with alcohol. Blood tests will only tell you whether you have consumed the drug, but don’t give an accurate reading of your intoxication level. That means police have to try to read you – your eye contact, your speech, your body language – to determine whether you are impaired. It’s awfully subjective – which means these cases are often highly defensible.

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

Additional Resources:

The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training

More Blog Entries:

Marijuana Lawyers Seek Reversal of Arizona Cannabis Conviction, Sept. 20, 2018, Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer Blog

Published in the American Journal of Public Health, the research examined the link between the legalization of recreational use cannabis in Colorado and the number of opioid-related deaths. What study authors discovered was one of the only places in the nation so far to have experienced a reversal in the upward trend of opioid deaths. Following the opening of the first shops selling recreational use marijuana in 2014, Colorado’s opioid deaths dropped by 6 percent over the course of two years.

Researchers were careful to say these findings are preliminary, and examine the just two years of data in a single state. However, those results are promising, and echo the voices of support have been saying from the beginning: Marijuana – which has far fewer risks compared to opiates – can be used as a substitute for those who might otherwise turn to more powerful (and dangerous) prescription drugs.

The findings aren’t a total surprise. A number of previous studies revealed a causal connection between the legalization of medical marijuana and a reduction in fatal opioid overdoses. This study, however, is the first to examine the impact of recreational use marijuana laws and their effect on drug overdoses.

Opiates are often prescribed for chronic pain, but we know marijuana is also a highly effective means of treating that same kind of pain – and with far less risk. In fact, the chances of dying of a marijuana overdose are about zero. Meanwhile, the National Institute on Drug Abuse reports that from 2002 to 2015, the number of opioid deaths nearly tripled. The number attributed to prescription opioid pain relievers during that same time nearly doubled.

Researchers here examined monthly trends in opiate overdose deaths in Colorado both before and after recreational marijuana hit the market. In order to control for the effect medical use may have had on the numbers, study authors compared Colorado to Nevada, a nearby state that during that period allowed medicinal use but not recreational use. Even when controlling for this, researchers still noted a 6.5 percent decline in prescription opioid deaths.

It will be important to determine whether the trend is going to continue – and also whether similar trends will be noted in other states like California, where voters approved a measure for recreational marijuana last year. The first California marijuana businesses selling recreational marijuana are expected to open in early 2018.

It’s also important to take into account the potential for other risks marijuana could pose, primarily being on the roads. Drugged driving is a serious issue and there is evidence to suggest it’s on the rise. However, the actual extent is unknown because all that’s really been gleaned is that more drivers involved in fatal crashes have marijuana in their system. That doesn’t necessarily mean they were impaired at the time of the collision or that marijuana intoxication played any causal role in the crash.

Meanwhile, we can see the concrete evidence that marijuana is saving lives when people turn to pot over pills.

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

Additional Resources:

Legal marijuana is saving lives in Colorado, study finds, Oct. 16, 2017, By Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post

More Blog Entries:

California Department of Public Health Launches Education Campaign Ahead of Recreational Marijuana Sales, Oct. 19, 2017, L.A. Marijuana Business Lawyer Blog

These two rules were both part of Proposition 64, the state’s new legalized marijuana law. However, they conflict with each other and have become something of a battleground in some cities. In the three months since the law took effect, a number of cities home implemented rules for residential growing of the plant. But these rules are testing the boundaries of what may be deemed “reasonable” in terms of regulations.

Cities are citing concerns about safety in their provisions that prohibit marijuana gardens outdoors. Others require costly permits if people want to grow the plant. There are even a few cities that have outright banned the practice.

In the city of Montebello, just outside L.A., those who want to cultivate cannabis for personal use are only allowed to do so if they don’t owe any taxes. They also must agree to allow workers from the city to occasionally inspect their property.

In the city of Indian Wells, which is just outside Palm Springs, those who want to grow the drug at home have to pay for – and pass – a background check that proves they haven’t been convicted of any felony drug-related offense (including one that involves marijuana) at any point in the last five years. In addition to this, the city has crafted a series of guidelines on which specific rooms can be used – and which cannot – for growing the marijuana.

In Fontana, located in the Inland Empire, renters must obtain approval from their landlord – and this approval has to be notarized – before they are allowed to begin growing the plant inside their rental unit. On top of that, they’re going to have to pay a permit fee of over $400.

Many marijuana users are arguing this kind of regulation is clearly an overreach. Of course, our L.A. marijuana lawyers know part of the problem is that Prop. 64 is very vague. But this was done intentionally, with the express purpose of giving local governments the right to dictate what’s acceptable in their community. This was partially a compromise to keep the support of those who supported marijuana legal reform, while also quelling the opposition of cities and other government agencies that were staunchly opposed to legalizing the drug. The only cut-and-dried rule in the law is that cities can’t outright ban the provision that allows residents to grow the drug on their own. But apparently what they can do – or at least, are trying to do – is to make it so cumbersome for individuals to do so (huge fees, excessive regulation, etc.) that it in effect becomes a “de facto ban.”

There is concern about the fact that engaging in a privilege offered by the state comes with the cost of personal privacy.

The strong likelihood is that these questions of “reasonableness” will be weighed by courts across the state for many years to come.

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

Additional Resources:

Are cities’ new marijuana laws about safety, or blocking Proposition 64? Feb. 11, 2017, By Brooke Edwards Staggs, Orange County Register

More Blog Entries:

Report: Colorado Marijuana Laws May Not be Safe, Feb. 5, 2017, L.A. Marijuana Lawyer Blog

There are a lot of different ways couples are incorporating this.

For some, as Fox News noted, it involves “the first toke,” using a “unit bowl” that represents the blending of their two budding lives together – similar to what we see with the older traditions of the “unity candle’ or the “sand ceremony.” In other cases, as CNBC reports, there is at least one florist in Denver who at her “Buds & Blossoms” shop specializes solely on marijuana-infused weddings. She affixes floral wedding bouquets and centerpieces with buds of cannabis tucked among the hydrangeas and roses. And there are other couples who are inviting their guests to imbibe with “cannabis bars.” One company that caters to newlyweds in Seattle and Portland specializes in setting up outdoor cannabis bars (as many venues shy away from having the substance smoked or on display inside).

Although the federal government continues to consider marijuana an illegal Schedule I substance, “weed weddings” are becoming increasingly popular. In November, California joined the ranks of states where marijuana is legal for recreational use for those over the age of 21. That list in total now includes Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Alaska, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada and also Washington D.C.

This has allowed for expansive opportunities for specialty businesses hoping to break into the marijuana industry. There have been yoga studios, restaurants, spas, direct sales vendors and more who have hosted events or centered their entire business model on being marijuana-friendly.

As the market becomes more highly regulated and higher taxes are imposed, it’s estimated the legal cannabis industry is going to balloon from about $8 billion to about $20 billion over the course of the next five years.

As far as weddings go, some are referring to cannabis as “the new champagne.” Couples want to be able to consume and serve marijuana just like other couples do at these events with alcohol. Still, while the perception of pot users is that they are very laid back, the reality is they can’t be when it comes to planning an event that involves cannabis. Of course, all weddings require some attention to detail, but there are a lot of questions that arise when you want to have pot party favors or share a celebratory toke at the reception.

First, the venue and the vendors have to be pot-friendly. Some couples have been left high-and-dry when certain vendors (i.e., photographers, caterers, etc.) took issue with the free and open use of the drug. Some venues will refuse to allow it anywhere on site. Aside from that, for those who are sharing weed with the wedding guests, it’s usually wise to have a budtender on site who can roll joints, load up pipes and give advice on edibles to those who may not have imbibed before. They can also make sure the drug doesn’t get slipped to a guest who is underage, and help make sure guests aren’t over-served.

Our marijuana lawyers would also advise couples to make sure safe transportation is pre-arranged – for themselves and for guests. Having a guest suffer a marijuana DUI arrest or an impaired driving crash is not a stain you want to have on what should be one of the happiest days of your life.

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

Additional Resources:

Weed weddings no longer a pipe dream for cannabis connoisseurs, Jan. 26, 2017, By Lindsay Minerva, Fox News Travel

More Blog Entries:

Marijuana Tourism May Become Increasingly Common in California, Jan. 29, 2017, L.A. Marijuana Lawyer Blog

However, there is some evidence Sessions may be softening somewhat on his position, and there could be new reason to be hopeful about the Trump-era as far as legal cannabis is concerned. In a recent confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill, Sessions, although shying away from a definitive plan for how to treat states’ legalization of the drug, did concede during questioning that to disrupt the legal marijuana markets by enforcing federal cannabis laws could result in an unnecessary strain on federal resources.

Beyond this revelation came the recommendation of Jim O’Neill for the appointment to lead the U.S. Food & Drug Enforcement Administration (FDA). According to Bloomberg News, O’Neill is managing director at Mithril Capital Management and a Silicon Valley investor. He previously served as the principal associated deputy secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services. Although he doesn’t have a medical background (and the head of the FDA has been for the lats 50 years either a medical doctor or prominent scientific researcher), he is believed to be a supporter of medical marijuana. He has strong ties with billionaire Peter Thiel, a Trump transition team member who co-founded the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform.

Having an advocate for marijuana legalization could be a game-changer for the industry. The FDA has long been unwilling to budge on its current stance in refusing to consider that marijuana is medicine. This is true even though the FDA has approved three medicines that are marijuana-based.

The hope is that if confirmed, O’Neill would be a catalyst for dramatic change on the issue. Specifically, that he may be able to open the doors blocked by regulations that currently prevent medical research of marijuana. These kind of reforms could, in the long-run, result in marijuana being taken off the Schedule I position of the Controlled Substances Act. The hope is that these efforts would coincide with the Justice Department’s decision to refrain from re-initiating federal policy that targeted marijuana businesses for federal civil forfeiture action. Such actions were common under President Obama’s term until the so-called “Cole Memo” issued by Deputy Attorney General James Cole in August 2013.

The FDA has some of the broadest regulatory authority in the government. It’s responsible for overseeing drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, tobacco, dietary supplements and food that reaches American consumers. It’s also central to pharmaceutical research, and is the agency that oversees clinical trials. O’Neill has previously advocated for freer markets in a wide range of health care services and goods, which he opined would drive down costs and expand innovation.

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

Additional Resources:

Trump Team Said to Consider Thiel Associate O’Neill for FDA, Dec. 7, 2017, By Drew Armstrong, Bloomberg

More Blog Entries:

California Weighs Marijuana Billboard Ban, Jan. 30, 2017, L.A. Marijuana Lawyer Blog

The story, chronicled in The Orange County Register, details the ordeal of a new father fighting for custody of his infant son, currently in foster care, because the courts refused to grant him custody due to his status as a medical marijuana patient.

The 31-year-old reportedly did not find out about his son until the day a woman he’d dated nine moths earlier contacted him from a hospital bed to tell him she was giving birth. He drove to the hospital the following day and met his son. A social worker told him the baby’s mother would not be allowed to leave with the child. He immediately started to petition for custody of the boy. In order to do so, however, he had to take a drug test. Prior to undergoing the test, he revealed to the social worker that he used marijuana with a doctor’s prescription to treat for pain he suffered due to a car accident years earlier. The test results were inconclusive. However, his admission of his status as a medical marijuana patient was enough, the court held, to deny his request to bring his son home with him.

The child was put into foster care last September. His father has been fighting ever since to bring him home.

He and his fiancee are just a couple of the hundreds of families who are battling California child custody issues due to their status as medical marijuana patients. As our L.A. marijuana lawyers know, these individuals now have renewed hope with the passage of Proposition 64. That’s because in addition to the legalization of recreational marijuana, the law offered additional protections for medical marijuana patients. Among those: State courts can’t restrict or rescind a parent’s right to custody just because they have a recommendation for marijuana.

However, state officials say this isn’t new, and the only reason they would remove a child from a parent’s custody or restrict a parent’s visitation with a child is if there was some clear evidence of harm due to the parent’s use of marijuana. They say there has to be some nexus between the drug activity and the parent’s ability to care for the child or the child being placed in some form of jeopardy.

But many patients, like this one, disagree. He says the only reason he’s been denied custody is is because of his status as a marijuana patient. There are many family law attorneys who will back that assertion.

One of the biggest issues is that social workers and family law judges have a significant amount of discretion in these cases. Although some recognize that marijuana is legitimate medicine – certainly no worse than prescription painkillers – there are some who treat it according to its federal schedule, making it no better than heroin.

The question is often whether the parent is under the influence when caring for the child, as the child must be kept safe at all times. But too often, marijuana is used as a wedge issue between warring parents in child custody cases.

There was one case in which a father, a medical marijuana patient taking the drug for arthritis, was required to undergo drug tests and complete drug abuse treatment and parenting courses in order to keep his son. This was despite the fact that there was no evidence of abuse or neglect, he had help caring for his son when he was medicated and he kept the drug in a locked box. In 2012, the California Court of Appeals overturned these requirements, finding them to be an abuse of discretion by the lower court. In that case, justices held the social workers did not show a link between the father’s use of marijuana and the risk of physical illness or harm to the child.

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

Additional Resources:

Can marijuana break up a family? Parents face custody issues over legal cannabis use, Dec. 13, 2016, By Brook Edwards Staggs, The Orange County Register

More Blog Entries:

Social Marijuana: Coming to Denver in Bars, Restaurants, Yoga Studios, Nov. 25, 2016, L.A. Marijuana Lawyer Blog

Some of the questions being raised include:

• Where can I buy recreational marijuana?
• Where can I smoke it?
• Are there going to be tougher penalties for driving while stoned, especially now that it’s become more common?
• Can those serving jail or prison time for marijuana-related crimes seek commutation?

Marijuana businesses, cultivation farms, dispensaries, landlords, doctors and collectives would do well to consult with an experienced marijuana lawyer when formulating a business plan. Those who are facing criminal penalties should do the same, as well as those who are serving time and weighing the possibility of an appeal or request to have their sentences commuted.

However, there are some questions that don’t necessarily require a one-on-one with an L.A. marijuana lawyer. We tackle some of those issues here.

Where can people buy marijuana now in California? Your legal options at this juncture are still fairly limited. You can guy medicinal marijuana with the recommendation of a doctor. You can also grow up to six plants on your property, and that harvest can be utilized for personal use. However, buying recreational marijuana in California is likely not to happen on any broad scale until 2018. It will take at least that long for cities and states to hammer out licensing and regulation for cultivation and sales.

Where is it legal to smoke marijuana in California now? You certainly can’t do it in public. In your car is probably not a wise place, as you could potentially get slapped with a DUI, even if the car isn’t moving. Beyond that, the general rule is that if you can’t smoke cigarettes there, you probably are not going to be able to smoke marijuana.

Will medical marijuana shops still stick around? At least for the moment, they aren’t going anywhere. We’ll see them continuing on for at least the next year. It’s tougher to say what will happen beyond that. Those with medical conditions may have specific needs and considerations that are still better served by a medical marijuana dispensary, as opposed to a shop primarily for those buying the drug for recreation. Plus, there is the consideration that the next presidential administration may crack down on recreational marijuana. That doesn’t mean medical marijuana is safe, but politicians would be risking public outrage to do so.

Are there going to be different penalties for driving stoned? Driving under the influence of any intoxicant is illegal under California law, and that won’t change. At this point, there has been no bill introduced that would result in any change in penalties for the offense. What makes these cases trickier for prosecutors is proving the person who tested positive for marijuana was indeed under the influence, as marijuana isn’t processed by the body as quickly as alcohol. Other states have introduced legislation that quantifies how much marijuana can be in a person’s system before they are deemed legally impaired, but scientists have largely agreed this approach is inaccurate and results in unjust outcomes. It remains to be seen whether California lawmakers will initiate this kind of statute.

Can those who are serving sentences for marijuana possession crimes have their sentences commuted now? It’s certainly worth exploring. It may not be an option in every single case, but a criminal record can have profoundly negative consequences for individuals, so there is incentive to look into whether the sentence can be commuted or the permanent record expunged or sealed.

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

Additional Resources:

Where can I buy weed and where can I smoke it in California? Nov. 18, 2016, By Jacob Margolis, SCPR.org

More Blog Entries:

Economy of Cannabis: Buying vs. Growing, Nov. 14, 2016, L.A. Marijuana Lawyer Blog

As legal access to marijuana has expanded in recent years, with 28 states now allowing medicinal marijuana and more than a handful allowing recreational use, there are still questions (at least where the federal government is concerned) about whether the drug has legitimate medicinal benefits. Although study of the drug has been impeded by harsh marijuana laws, it’s this same lack of research that has been cited by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for its hesitancy to recommend marijuana be rescheduled from a Schedule I narcotic (meaning it has no recognized medical purpose).

Marijuana is prescribed for a variety of physical illnesses and conditions, from cancer to arthritis. It contains more than 100 compounds, which are known as cannabinoids, that we know have some type of effect on the human biological system. In addition to physical troubles, marijuana has also been recommended by some doctors for help in easing certain mental conditions – namely, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Now, a new study, published in the journal Clinical Psychology Review, suggests additional evidence exists that marijuana can help people dealing with mental illness.

Researchers from both the U.S. and Canada conducted the review, and reported back that marijuana does have promising potential for those grappling with a myriad of mental illnesses. It could, however, not be a great treatment for those with bipolar disorder, as there was some suggestion that there are more negative side effects than positive ones. Study authors say we need to be considering it in the same way and by the same standards as many other drugs.

Although they concur more study is necessary, they say there is also some evidence that marijuana could play some role in helping people grappling with a major drug addiction to powerful painkillers or amphetamines. This potential “substitution effect” is something the researchers said they were “excited about.” If people can use marijuana as a means of replacing dangerous and incredibly addictive substances like opioids, the public health benefits could be dramatic.

The American Society of Addiction Medicine reports that of the 21.5 million Americans over the age of 12 struggling with substance abuse, 1.9 million were addicted to prescription pain relievers and approximately 590,000 were addicted to heroin. It’s believed that about a quarter of those who are heroin-addicted will ultimately develop an opioid addiction. Drug overdose is the No. 1 cause of accidental death in the U.S., killing more than 47,000 people in 2014. Opioid addiction in particular drives this, accounting for 19,0000 overdose deaths.

Other studies have supported the notion that marijuana could help wean other drug users off more dangerous substances. For example, a recent report published in the journal Health Affairs showed that in states where medical marijuana is legal, prescriptions for certain painkillers has dropped. In one medical marijuana state, there were an average of 1,826 fewer painkiller prescriptions written.

The researchers say that more evaluation is needed to further parse out the potential merits – and downsides – of the drug. They acknowledge that much of the research that is taking place is funded by medical cannabis producers, but they note this could change if marijuana-related research was better supported by the government.

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

Additional Resources:

Marijuana Appears to Benefit Mental Health: Study, Nov. 16, 2016, By Alexandra Sifferlin, Time.com

More Blog Entries:

Marijuana Investors Seek High Returns, Nov. 6, 2016, L.A. Marijuana Attorney Blog

He’s a legal medical marijuana patient in Canada. In 2014, he was driving from Vancouver to Seattle, WA, where marijuana is legal both for recreational and medicinal purposes. He had been stopped and questioned by federal border patrol agents for six hours after they spotted a marijuana magazine in his car. During his detention, he was repeatedly questioned about his marijuana use. He did not think to lie, considering Washington state’s policy on the drug and the fact that he legally uses the drug in his home country. He conceded that for a time before he became a legal medical marijuana patient, he’d smoked the drug on occasion recreationally – before Canada had a legal marijuana program. This apparently was enough to trigger the ban.

And of course, while Washington state allows visitors and residents alike to purchase, possess and privately use the drug (with some restrictions), marijuana is still illegal under federal law. And federal law is what governs the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. Although he wasn’t carrying any marijuana with him when he tried to cross the border, he can still be denied access because, U.S. law states that any foreign national who admits to violating his or her country’s own controlled substance laws at some point previously can be deemed ineligible for admission into the U.S.

Harvey now says he wished he simply would have lied and avoided the trouble. And in all likelihood, that’s what’s going to happen in the future for others.

In Canada, marijuana has been legal as medicine since 2001, following a Canadian Court of Appeal ruling that declared medical marijuana prohibition unconstitutional. In recent years, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party have pledged support to legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes, arguing criminal drug sanctions are ineffective and it will be easier to keep the drug out of children’s hands if it’s tightly regulated by the government.

Unfortunately, Harvey isn’t the only Canadian citizen who has had to grapple with U.S. entry issues after admitting marijuana use. Immigration lawyers say dozens of cases crop up every month. Generally, those crossing the U.S./ Canada border aren’t questioned about their prior drug use, but border patrol officers can use their discretion. Those who have been denied access to the U.S. based on past criminal conduct can still in some cases enter, but they have to apply for an advanced permission permit, which costs $585 and has to be renewed every few years. Interestingly, other types of criminal actions – such as a DUI conviction – won’t prohibit entry. Meanwhile, people can be denied entry not for current use of the drug, but for years-ago unlawful use.

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

Additional Resources:

Canadian official slams marijuana policy on U.S. border as ‘ludicrous’, Sept. 12, 2016, By Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post

More Blog Entries: Will Marijuana Help Elect Clinton? Sept. 9, 2016, L.A. Marijuana Lawyer Blog

A Schedule I drug is one that is considered so dangerous, it has no medically-accepted purpose. It’s in the same category as bath salts and heroin. Says Morris, “I can’t make much sense of this.”

Daily, he speaks with his mental health patients about substance abuse. In his training and experience, he has learned there are some abuses that are extremely concerning, and others much less so. The very first substance he inquires about in evaluations? Alcohol. It’s effects are seen daily by emergency room doctors after drinkers crash their cars, fall into an alcohol-induced coma or inhale their own vomit. Alcohol leads to some 1.2 million emergency room visits annually, and excess alcohol consumption accounts for nearly 90,000 deaths in the U.S., according to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It causes significant problems for fetuses when their mothers drink. Then there is cocaine, also a concern for pregnant women, and also the source of heart attacks and kidney failure. Methamphetamine causes rapid heart palpitations, violent agitation and hyperthermia. Opioids – including heroin and morphine – often kill patients with sudden respiratory failure. The effects are worse when the drug is used intravenously.

But marijuana? Morris says it’s an “afterthought.”

Health care providers simply don’t see overdoses on marijuana. They aren’t concern with marijuana-related abscesses on the brain. Cannabis isn’t associated with heart attacks. As far as medical providers are concerned, marijuana consumption is something that is seen as being in the same category as perhaps caffeine or tobacco. It isn’t necessarily great (although some have noted significant benefits, particularly when it isn’t smoked) and it’s something providers seek to help the patient limit, but it’s not urgent. It isn’t life-threatening. It doesn’t usually require treatment right away.

Research and medical communities have long viewed marijuana as benign. For example, one recent study conducted over the course of decades revealed that long-term use of marijuana is about as bad for one’s health physically as not flossing. It’s almost impossible to overdose solely on marijuana (unlike alcohol).

These kinds of facts are the main reason why most doctors support the availability of medical marijuana. Of course, there are still some large institutional hold-outs, like the American Medical Association. However, others, like the California Medical Association, not only back medical marijuana, but are now calling for full legalization. There is even now a group called Doctors for Cannabis Regulation that sees the issue of cannabis legalization as a public health issue. Although they do not claim the drug is totally harm-free, they do argue the federal government’s stance is harmful.

This isn’t even a new thing. An expert report commissioned by Richard Nixon in the 1970s recommended U.S. lawmakers decriminalize the drug. Nixon ignored those findings – as did most of his predecessors since then.

We’ve seen hundreds of thousands of marijuana-related arrests every year, which has resulted not only in prison for those individuals, but lost productivity to society, families ripped apart, opportunities lost – and minorities were targeted far more aggressively. All of these, of course, are detrimental to the health of our communities.

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

Additional Resources:

The stark difference in how doctors and the government view marijuana, Aug. 29, 2016, by Chirstopher Ingraham, The Washington Post

More Blog Entries:

Police: Tainted “Candy” That Sickened 19 at Party Likely Marijuana, Aug. 12, 2016, Marijuana Attorney L.A.

The argument: That if you vote for legalization of recreational marijuana, the television and radio airwaves are going to be flooded with marijuana advertising.

For 45 years, there has been a ban on the advertisement of tobacco and smoke-related products. Now, some lawmakers are arguing that Prop. 64, the marijuana legislation, is going to undo all that. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.) argued that if California voters approve Prop. 64, they’ll be opening the door to marijuana smoking advertisements during prime time, when millions of teens and children will be tuning in.

The claim is rather alarming, and it stems from a provision of the new proposal that stipulates any marketing or advertising of the drug that appears in digital, print, radio, broadcast or cable outlets can only occur where at least 72 percent of the audience can be reasonably expected to be over the age of 21. The “No on 64” campaign called this figure “a joke” because virtually every show on television has an adult audience, which would mean almost every show is going to have advertisements that promote consumption of marijuana smoking.

This assertion has resulted in a notable dip in support for Prop. 64. The opposition group’s recent survey on the issue indicated there was a 13 percent drop in support after voters were told of this argument about promoting smoking marijuana on prime-time television.

But is that actually true?

Well first of all, the ban on smoking advertisements – that’s a federal law. It isn’t going to change no matter what people in California decide to do. Plus, marijuana is still not legal under federal law. Sure, the federal government has eased its prosecution of marijuana sales in states that have legalized the drug, but it still keeps tabs – and enforces certain restrictions – on elements of marijuana business operations. That includes advertising on radio and television stations that are federal licensed (which is pretty much all of them). The U.S. Controlled Substances Act, which remains in effect, states it is unlawful to advertise Schedule I narcotics – which is exactly what marijuana is.

Broadcasters that are licensed by the federal government aren’t going to risk suspension or revocation of that federal license just to run a marijuana ad. The head of the California Broadcasters Association told The Washington Post that even if Prop. 64 passes, it isn’t going to change anything in the advertising industry because the rule is federal and the drug is still illegal at the federal level.

Opponents say they aren’t convinced. After all, marijuana is illegal at the federal level too, but states have been allowed to circumvent those laws. Why not restrictions on advertising?

It’s not that it’s impossible, but realistically, television stations aren’t going to take the risk of being taken off the air just to run a few local marijuana advertisements. Politifact rated the opposition’s argument, “Mostly False.”

Proponents of the law say the reason for the provision had nothing to do with promoting marijuana, but rather creating some specific guidelines because as it now stands, there are no regulations on advertising.

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

Additional Resources:

The ‘mostly false’ argument that could derail legal weed in California, Aug. 24, 2016, By Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post

More Blog Entries:

DEA: Marijuana to Remain on List of Dangerous Drugs, Advocates Frustrated, Aug. 17, 2016, L.A. Marijuana Lawyer Blog

Reclassifying the drug from a Schedule I to a Schedule II would have a profound impact on restrictions and federal penalties. For example, Schedule II drugs have an easier time obtaining federal approval for studies, which ultimately pave the way for doctors to write prescriptions for marijuana and derivative products. It would also allow those drugs to be filled at pharmacies, alongside other Schedule II drugs, such as Adderall.

The DEA’s decision was derided by the eight Democratic legislators who called for federal regulators to reclassify the drug. One of those, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), expressed her disappointment, as did Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York), for “antiquated ideology.”

The one bit of good news that was noted by the DEA was that it removed a major roadblock to medical research of the drug by indicating it would allow higher education institutions and some private companies to apply for cultivation rights for scientific research purposes. For years, the University of Mississippi has been the only school with rights to provide the drug for research and scientists have for a long time voiced discontent over the fact the supply of the drug for studies was “grossly inadequate.” That meant research on whether marijuana can be used to effectively treat certain diseases has largely been on hold.

DEA leadership insists marijuana has to stay a Schedule I narcotic because it “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S.,” use is not safe and there is a high potential for the drug to be abused. Although there is in fact substantial evidence to refute these statements, there was a silver lining in the DEA’s note that because research is the bedrock of science, it will support and promote legitimate marijuana research. It seems as if from the DEA’s standpoint, that is going to be the key to unlocking the doors to reclassification.

As it now stands, D.C. and 25 other states allow marijuana to be used to treat a wide range of medical conditions. Unfortunately for a lot of these conditions, the scientific proof of its actual efficacy remains either thin or doesn’t exist – not because it doesn’t work, but because researchers haven’t had the opportunity to adequately study it due to federal government restrictions. There are, however, some reputable studies that do show the drug can be used to address the symptoms of nausea, poor appetite and painful muscle spasms. Despite this, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) doesn’t approve of marijuana or any derivative drug to treat these conditions.

The new rule will allow marijuana that is cultivated at pre-approved schools and companies will qualify for clinical trial use that will seek approval from federal regulatory agencies.

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

Additional Resources:

D.E.A. Keeps Marijuana on List of Dangerous Drugs, Frustrating Advocates, Aug. 11, 2016, By Catherine Saint Louis, The New York Times

More Blog Entries:

Milk, Bread and Marijuana: Pot May Soon Be Sold in Grocery Stores, Aug. 14, 2016, L.A. Marijuana Attorney Blog

It used to be that Republicans, particularly those that leaned more conservative, were staunchly opposed to legalizing marijuana in any capacity, even for medicinal purposes. But those attitudes are clearly changing, as evidenced by a recent poll conducted by YouGov.com.

The poll measured attitudes toward the legalization of marijuana and then compared the answers given by gender, age, race, family income, U.S. Census region and political party, in mid-July 2016. It also asked respondents about their beliefs regarding whether marijuana use is a gateway to other drugs, whether government marijuana enforcement efforts cost more than they are worth and whether the federal government should abandon enforcement of marijuana drug laws in states where the plant is legal.

The inquiry was sent out as four states – Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington – now have laws that fully allow the recreational use of marijuana. Still, the drug remains strictly prohibited under federal law, still classified as a Schedule I narcotic, meaning it’s considered to be highly addictive and possessing no beneficial medicinal quality. Clearly, respondents – even those who tended to be older and more conservative – largely believed that classification was outdated.

Indeed, overall support for full legalization for both medicinal and recreational use of the drug increased from 52 percent in December 2015 to 55 percent in July 2016. Accounting for the majority of this change? Republican attitudes.

As our L.A. marijuana lawyers understand it, the majority of Republicans now support legalization of marijuana – albeit narrowly – 45 percent to 42 percent.

Just as recently as December 2015, Republicans had opposed the legalization of marijuana – 50 percent to 36 percent. Prior to that in January 2014, the difference was even more stark – with 60 percent opposing the legalization of marijuana and only 28 percent supporting.

More broadly, attitudes toward marijuana haven’t changed all that much, which is how we know the shift in overall attitudes in recent months has been largely driven by a change in Republican views.

When asked whether they agreed that government efforts to enforce marijuana laws cost more than they are worth, 54 percent of Republicans agreed with this statement. Another 24 percent disagreed and 22 percent said they weren’t sure. This is compared to 71 percent of Democrats who agreed with the statement and 66 percent of Independents.

Older populations were slightly less likely to agree – 56 percent to 24 percent. But they still indicated that by-and-large, the tax dollars spent on marijuana prohibition efforts simply isn’t worth it, particularly in light of growing evidence of the many positive attributes and societal benefits of marijuana.

When asked specifically whether the federal government should continue to enforce federal laws in states that allow marijuana use, 48 percent of Republican respondents said it should not. Thirty-one percent said it should, but 22 percent weren’t sure. By comparison, 61 percent of Democrats said the government should forego its enforcement actions, 25 percent said officials should still enforce federal laws and 15 percent said they weren’t sure.

Republicans were only slightly less likely to have tried marijuana at some point in their past – 40 percent to Democrats’ 50 percent and Independents’ 47 percent.

Those selected for the survey were U.S. citizens over the age of 18.

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

Additional Resources:

Republican support for legal marijuana hits a new high, July 21, 2016, YouGov.com

More Blog Entries:

Marijuana Legalization and Employer Drug-Testing Policies, August 4, 2016, L.A. Marijuana Lawyer Blog

To this day, despite the increasing research findings proving the medicinal and societal benefits of the drug, it remains under a Schedule I narcotic designation by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). This is true even as lawmakers in four states plus Washington, D.C. have approved the cultivation, sale and possession of recreational use. This prohibition is what has forced marijuana dispensaries to operate in cash, because banks won’t handle their money. It’s the reason marijuana cultivators and distributors have faced criminal prosecution, even when carefully following state laws.

The good news is that there are many signs this could be on the verge of changing. For one thing, national polls show 89 percent of Americans support medical cannabis – and that includes 81 percent of Republicans.

It seems discouraging that some in power – including Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Senate Judiciary leader and a staunch opponent to legal marijuana – denied a hearing on the pro-medical marijuana Compassionate Access, Research Expansion (CARERS) Act last year.

But there is evidence to suggest the tide is turning – and quickly.

Let’s start with the fact that while Grassley and other powerful lawmakers have worked hard to block even a frank discussion of the issue, other members – including conservative North Carolina Republican Lindsay Graham – are acting as co-sponsors on CARERS. Graham even held a Senate hearing to weigh research on the potential medical benefits and risks of the drug.

There is also the fact that national organizations that advocate for patient rights are calling for a change of federal law. In fact, a letter recently signed by 13 patient organizations was submitted to Senate Judiciary Committee members as well as the DEA, urging action to change the designation from a Schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act to something lesser. This would ultimately remove federal barriers and allow for new treatments and research that would allow patients to make informed choices.

On top of that, our California marijuana lawyers have kept our readers well-informed of the changing landscape with regard to medical cannabis laws. The fact that even typically conservative states are making moves on this – most recently Arkansas and Missouri – speaks volumes about the traction of movement.

Further, many states with existing marijuana laws are going back to improve or expand them. Take California, for example. This was the very first state to pass medical marijuana laws. Now, this November, voters will be deciding on a measure that would open the doors to the legalization of recreational marijuana cultivation, distribution and possession. Other states, like Maryland, are expanding the types of providers who are allowed to write prescriptions for the drug.

Earlier this year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an updated guideline to pain clinic doctors, urging them not to treat for marijuana usage if it was going to be used as grounds to deny treatment. The center noted that barring patients who use marijuana from receiving pain medication could be considered a form of patient abandonment, which could have adverse consequences to patient health.

This is just the start. Still, the drug remains illegal at the federal level and patients, caregivers and dispensaries would do well to consult with a marijuana attorney on any lingering questions or ongoing issues.

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

Additional Resources:

10 smoke signals heralding the end of marijuana prohibition, July 14, 2016, By Steph Sherer, Americans for Safe Access

More Blog Entries:

New Yorkers Priced Out of Medical Marijuana? July 2, 2016, L.A. Marijuana Lawyer Blog

Part of the problem is the fact that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has contended for years that the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs treaty allowed only a single license to grow marijuana for research purposes. That license has only ever been given to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

That could now change now that the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement has clarified: Numerous licenses for marijuana cultivation for medical and scientific research purposes could be issued without violation of the international treaty. That blows a huge hole in the DEA’s position.

The statement by the bureau was given in response to a direct question from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).

Gillibrand spoke to SafeAccessNow.org after the response was issued, and stated point-blank that the DEA’s reasoning was under direct fire. She said this treaty has been cited time and again by top brass at the DEA as the reason why only NIDA was given a license to grow the drug for research. Now, there should be no problem with issuing more cultivation licenses to research outfits.

Although marijuana research is conducted by a select few other outfits, the drug is only legally grown for this purpose at the University of Mississippi. This might not be a huge problem, except for the fact that the university has shown it can produce neither the quality nor the quality of the strains other researchers are seeking.

As one researcher put it: Cannabis is the only schedule I narcotic that enforces a monopoly on study access – and the university holding all the cards has shown again and again they are “incompetent and incapable of providing the various strains that are requested by other scientists in a timely manner.”

As our L.A. marijuana lawyers know, Congress has already recommended the monopoly be discontinued. And yet, the DEA has remained firm in this.

The state department’s response was clear on the fact that the existence of a marijuana monopoly did not violate the international treaty. However, there was nothing in the treaty that made it a requirement.

Now, marijuana activists are urging President Barack Obama to order the DEA to begin the process of issuing more research licenses. Ultimately, they conclude, this will significantly benefit researchers but more importantly, patients. The DEA could actually issue 50 – one to each state.

This is something that advocates have been pressuring the agency to do for decades. This clarification could finally force their hand. However, absent executive or court action, that may be unlikely. The DEA has shown little initiative in altering its stance.

Numerous other countries – including Canada and Holland – have issued numerous marijuana research licenses, with no ill effects to report.

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

Additional Resources:

State Department States NIDA Monopoly on Research Marijuana Unnecessary, May 6, 2016, Beth Collins, Americans for Safe Access

More Blog Entries:

NAACP Seeks More Diversity in Medical Cannabis Industry, April 19, 2016, California Marijuana Lawyer Blog