The state allows regulated dispensaries to distribute medical edibles and liquids to be sold for medical use. The 2010 Arizona Medical Marijuana Act allowing one to obtain up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana twice a month, something more than 174,000 people qualify. Defendant’s attorneys are arguing that the active medicinal ingredient in the plant is the resin, and that the law doesn’t expressly exclude certain parts of the plant. There is no provision that says only the flower or only the leaves are allowed. The law defines marijuana broadly to include all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis, whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plants.

In State v. Jones, both sides disagreed as to whether hashish was included within the immunities of AMMA. Citing a previous state supreme court case from the late 1970s, the appeals court noted the legislature recognizes marijuana and hashish as two distinct forms of cannabis, and that the differing forms of treatment between marijuana and hashish have to do with its potency and rendering it susceptible to “serious and extensive abuse.” The state’s medical marijuana law makes no mention of hashish one way or another.

The court found that while the AMMA immunizes medicinal use of a mixture or preparation of marijuana (i.e., edibles), it doesn’t immunize hashish, which is processed from the separated or extracted resin. Appellate court justices said they couldn’t speculate if voters intended to immunize the use of hashish and if so whether they intended to decriminalize the drug in the same amounts as the far less potent (and even benign) marijuana flowers. The state law shields qualified, registered marijuana patients from arrest, prosecution or penalty that would arise from the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. However, because criminal law treats the resin and leaves differently, the state argued the same should be applied where the AMMA is concerned. The majority appellate court agreed.

One justice dissented, arguing that adherence to the law and not speculation should govern the resolution of this matter, and further that defendant, as a registered qualifying patient subject to AMMA protections and possessing a quantity of the drug less than the allowable amount of “marijuana,” he should be immune from prosecution on these charges, his convictions and sentences reversed.

That is precisely what defendant’s marijuana criminal defense attorneys will be arguing before the state supreme court.

Our L.A. marijuana defense attorneys recognize that there are many patients or even recreational users of marijuana in California who cannot smoke marijuana and they also can’t eat raw plant material. Instead, they benefit from the various preparations and mixtures – including hashish.

If you are arrested on marijuana charges in L.A., our experienced, knowledgeable defense attorneys can help you fight the charges.

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

Additional Resources:

Attorneys Seek To Overturn Arizona Edible Marijuana Ruling, Sept. 12, 2018, By Claire Caulfield, KJZZ.org

More Blog Entries:

Technology Helping to Clear Past Marijuana Arrest Records, May 17, 2018, L.A. Marijuana Lawyer Blog

The case, U.S. v. McIntosh, is a consolidated appeal involving 10 different cases of interlocutory appeals and petitions for writs of mandamus that arose from three district courts in two states (California and Washington). All defendants in these cases were facing federal charges for violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Each sought dismissal of their indictments or else alternatively to enjoin their cases on a Congressional appropriations rider that would bar the Department of Justice from spending taxpayer money to prevent states from implementing their medical marijuana laws. You may recall that in the last two years, Congress prohibited the federal government from spending money in a way that would block or thwart state medical marijuana laws.

It was the position of federal prosecutors that this ban didn’t undercut their right to go after those who cultivate and distribute the drug under federal law – even in states where marijuana was legal. But now, the 9th Circuit has clearly issued a response to that, which is a resounding: No.

Of course, it doesn’t mean these defendants are entirely off-the-hook because the judicial panel did not outright dismiss the cases. What it did was remand the cases back to the lower courts with the order to give defendants a chance to prove their actions were in line with state law.

Now this ruling only affects those cases that have been filed in the Western states and territories that are covered by the 9th Circuit. However, it is likely that other circuits are going to take note of this ruling, and it’s probable they will follow suit, if and when they are faced with the same issue.

Justices also noted that the law remains subject to change by Congress, which could decide to appropriate funds for such prosecutions – potentially immediately. On the other hand, wrote Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, the temporary lack of funding might become a permanent lack of funds for these actions if Congress keeps this rider in the upcoming appropriations bills.

If prosecutors choose to appeal – and they haven’t said they will – they could do so before a larger panel of the 9th Circuit, or else before the U.S. Supreme Court. L.A. marijuana attorneys have said they hope this marks the beginning of the end for federal prosecutions of medical marijuana operators, cultivators and patients who are following state guidelines.

In a recent high-profile case, federal prosecutors did choose to drop a civil forfeiture action against one of the biggest medical marijuana dispensaries in the country. However, the Department of Justice has continued to fight hard to be allowed to press forward with its criminal prosecutions.

One of the cases involved in the review involves five defendants from Los Angeles County accused of operating four marijuana dispensaries and growing plants at indoor grow facilities in both Los Angeles and San Francisco. In another case, four defendants were accused of marijuana manufacturing after authorities said they discovered 30,000 plants on 60 acres of land in Fresno County.

This is not to say prosecutors aren’t allowed to continue with these prosecutions. Rather, they aren’t being given the funds to do so.

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

Additional Resources:

Feds can’t spend money to prosecute people who comply with state medical pot laws, court rules, Aug. 16, 2016, By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times

More Blog Entries:

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

That’s according to the latest from The Coloradoan, which also noted the district court judge tacked on two years of probation as well.

Defendant had pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge of providing marijuana to a person who was younger than 21. However, she was deemed not guilty of the felony charge of witness tampering.

Our L.A. marijuana defense lawyers know that had this case unfolded in California, this mother would likely be looking at a more serious charge. That’s because marijuana is only legal via medical prescription from a doctor. Distributing a Schedule I narcotic to someone without a prescription is a crime that becomes much more serious when the person receiving the drug is a minor. She likely would have been looking at felony charges had the case been filed here in Orange County.

But in Colorado, where this case occurred, marijuana is legal for recreational use. But just like alcohol, marijuana is regulated to prevent minors from having ready access – unless there is a medical reason for it and they have a doctor’s prescription.

The incident in question occurred in April 2015. It was then the 39-year-old defendant’s 19-year-old son threw himself out of a third-story window. It occurred shortly after 9 p.m. He suffered serious but non-life-threatening injuries as a result of his fall.

The teen reportedly admitted to investigators that he had consumed edible marijuana. Investigators already knew that he had consumed it at some point because a drug test completed at the hospital revealed it was the only drug in his system. However, it was only later that he conceded he had consumed the drug that night and in edible form. At the time, he had refused to say who supplied him with the pot brownie.

The case was reminiscent of a 2014 case in which a 19-year-old college student from Wyoming plummeted to his death in Denver after jumping from his hotel room window while under the influence of a cannabis-infused cookie. His autopsy indicated intoxication by marijuana was a significant contributing factor.

Now this case – and another in which a Colorado man accused of murdering his wife blames a marijuana-infused candy he consumed – are raising questions about if and how states and the federal government should regulate edible marijuana products.

According to the news report, the teen’s mother purchased the marijuana for his roommate, who was also then just 19.

The witness tampering charge stemmed from a statement by the roommate to police in which he said the injured teen urged him to lie about where he’d gotten the brownie.

At her sentencing hearing, defendant insisted she thought that a marijuana edible she purchased from a dispensary would be safe and she would never have purchased it if she had known this type of reaction was possible.

The judge indicated that while he believed defendant to be “a good person,” as noted by the numerous individuals who testified on her behalf as to her character, he noted that in a pre-sentencing self-evaluation, she indicated there was “no victim” for her alleged crime. The judge was quick to say this was not a victimless crime.

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

Additional Resources:

30 days in jail for mom in marijuana window-jumper case, June 1, 2016, By Jacy Marmaduke, The Coloradoan

More Blog Entries:

LA County Democratic Party Endorses Adult Use of Marijuana Act, May 23, 2016, Orange County Marijuana Lawyer Blog

In a wrongful death lawsuit, a guardian for the children alleges the recreational marijuana manufacturer produced a dangerous product that triggered a violent reaction.

According to a recent update on the story in the L.A. Times, the 44-year-old victim, Kristin Kirk, dialed 911 shortly after her husband came bursting through the door, gesturing wildly as he started ranting about the end of the world. He then climbed out of a first-floor window. Then he climbed back in. Then he lay for a while on the bedroom floor, asking for someone to kill him. But then suddenly, he got a gun out of the safe.

Her three young children nearby, hovered together in a corner, listed as their mother told the 911 dispatcher her husband was taking out a gun. They heard her beg him to stop. She told the dispatcher she had nowhere to go.

Her 49-year-old husband pulled the trigger on the pistol. With that one single gunshot, she was killed instantly. Her 49-year-old husband was arrested on a charge of first-degree murder.

Prosecutors say the two had been wrestling with marital problems, and that was the real reason Richard Kirk shot his wife.

But now, in this civil lawsuit, the children (plaintiffs in the case) assert the maker and distributor of the recreational marijuana-infused candy are to blame for what happened that day. The lawsuit contends the defendants failed to warn customers that consuming these products could lead to psychosis, paranoia and hallucinations. These potent candies, the lawsuit contends, were packaged with no instruction, directions or recommendations regarding proper use or consumption. Failure to reveal the dosing information from buyers was a reckless and negligent act, plaintiffs allege, that was intended to boost profits while putting users like Richard Kirk at risk.

The lawsuit made it a point to assert that even manufacturers of dog foods make sure to list out all the ingredients, recommended portions and any relevant warnings.

Legal analysts are looking at this marijuana lawsuit as a growing pain of a burgeoning industry. To start, marijuana companies are really now for the first time seen as large enough to see – and actually recover damages. That alone can prompt litigation.

Beyond that, the labeling issue isn’t one that has been clearly sorted out. For a very long time, marijuana did not require labeling because it was sold underground. Drug dealers on the street didn’t worry about product liability lawsuits. But now that these products are sold under brand names from legitimate providers, the expectations are much higher.

Whether this particular lawsuit is viable remains to be seen, but law experts interviewed by the Times called it, “a long shot,” noting that we generally don’t hold alcohol manufacturers liable when people get drunk and driver or get drunk and are violent to someone else.

Still, there is a case to be made her for requiring greater labeling on edible marijuana products, which are known to deliver more potent doses of the drug and last substantially longer – about 8 hours – than the typical two-hour high one gets from smoking the drug. However, a defense lawyer for the marijuana collective argues the company did comply with all state labeling laws that were in place at the time the drug was sold, and any argument that someone was not aware that marijuana can cause impairment is “preposterous.”

Richard Kirk reportedly ate a candy that contained more than 100 milligrams of THC. However when he was tested the night of the homicide, he reportedly had about half the legal limit of what would qualify for marijuana impaired driving.

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

Additional Resources:

He got high and killed his wife. A lawsuit claims edible marijuana is to blame, June 1, 2016, By David Kelly, Los Angeles Times

More Blog Entries:

Los Angeles City Council Considers Expanding Marijuana Industry Through Legislation, May 29, 2016, Marijuana Civil Litigation Lawyer Blog

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is expected to rule on the case soon, and the outcome could have a significant impact on the future of federal marijuana prosecutions of medical marijuana dispensaries and users in the eight Western states that allow them. It also would overturn or stop half a dozen federal marijuana convictions/ prosecutions in both California and Washington.

Last year, a jury in a Washington state federal court convicted Rolland Gregg, his former wife and his mother for growing about 70 marijuana plants on their property in Washington. The family has insisted in the three years since their arrest that they were doing nothing wrong because that all the marijuana they grew was for the purpose of their own private medicinal use. They insist their actions 100 percent complied with state law. The problem, in the eyes of the government, is that marijuana cultivation is not legal under federal law. So according to prosecutors, it didn’t matter that the actions of Gregg and the others met state law standards.

The 9th Circuit is not only the biggest federal appeals court in the country, it is also the one that contains the most pro-marijuana states. Our Los Angeles marijuana defense lawyers know a ruling from those justices saying federal prosecutors are barred from enforcing medical marijuana law would be significant. Will it be the absolute last word on the issue? Probably not. But it would be a powerful weapon for defendants facing federal criminal marijuana charges.

The crux of defendant Gregg’s argument is a bipartisan amendment passed by Congress that instructed the Department of Justice not to use money allocated from the federal government in 2015 and 2016 to stop medical marijuana states from implementing laws that allow the drug’s use, possession and distribution.

The sponsors of the bill – a California Republican and Democrat – have said explicitly the intent of the bill was to prevent the DOJ from initiating prosecutions against people who are in compliance with state medical marijuana laws. California and Washington are two of among 20 states that have legalized the drug for medicinal purposes.

Not so fast, says the DOJ. They have interpreted this measure to mean prosecutors are prevented from trying to block state medical marijuana laws or from taking action against state officials who try to put them in place. However, there is nothing in the language of the law, they say, that prevents them from pursuing criminal charges against marijuana growers and dispensaries.

And that’s where Gregg and his family are in trouble.

The 9th Circuit is being asked to clarify the law, and Gregg is among three defendants seeking review, arguing the Congressional action should result in a dismissal of their marijuana charges.

Another defendant is Steve McIntosh, a marijuana dispensary owner from Los Angeles. His permits showed he was in compliance with state law. The most the feds should have been able to do was hand him over to state-level prosecutors. And yet, he was convicted of federal marijuana crimes.

Essentially, federal prosecutors are seeking to override the will of the voters in Washington, California and even Congress. At some point, the courts will need to step in and stop these wasteful and unnecessary actions. We hope that time is now.

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

Additional Resources:

Looming Marijuana Ruling Could Limit Federal Prosecutions, May 2016, By Sudhin Thanawala, Associated Press

More Blog Entries:

Rescheduling Marijuana Could Help Researchers, April 22, 2016, Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer Blog