To be blunt about it, Los Angeles marijuana lawyers would count the biggest victories as being the ballot measures in Missouri and Maryland. Legal marijuana for adult recreational use in those two locations brings the total number of states to 21 – ultimately expanding civil liberties and cannabis freedoms for some 7 million Americans.

In addition to this, voters in 10 Ohio and Texas cities (representing nearly half a million people in total) approved bills effectively eliminating penalties for adult marijuana possession.

These wins are most welcome, though not a huge surprise to legal weed advocates. According to a recent Pew Research Center Survey, the overwhelming majority of Americans (91 percent) favor decriminalization of marijuana AND legalization for adult recreational use. Prior to Nov. 8th, 2022, approximately 43 percent of U.S. adults lived in a jurisdiction with access to legal marijuana for those 21-and-over. Adult-use and medicinal marijuana sales soared to $25 billion last year. In the next 8 years, that figure could easily reach $100 billion.

Although Maryland was widely expected to pass the marijuana legalization measure (which it did 65.6% to 34.4%), Missouri was one of four other (more conservative) states with marijuana ballot measures where favorable outcomes were less likely. Legalization in Missouri with the passage of Amendment 3 (53.1 % to 46.9%) came as something of a surprise, but ballot measure failures in the three other states – Arkansas (56.3% to 43.7%), North Dakota (54.9% to 45.1%), South Dakota (52.9% to 47.1%) – were expected.

Details on the New Cannabis Legalization Laws

In Maryland, voters’ approval of Question 4 (legalization of adult use) also triggered the enactment of another piece of legislation that defines legal marijuana possession limits (up to 1.5 ounces of cannabis and/or 12 grams of cannabis concentrates, starting July 2023) and facilitates the automatic review and expungement of low-level cannabis criminal convictions. Adults are also now allowed to grow up to two marijuana plans in their home for personal use.

In Missouri, voters approved the legal possession, cultivation, and licensed retail sale of cannabis for adults, starting Dec. 8, 2022. Those over-21 will be allowed to possess up to 3 ounces of cannabis and grow up to 6 flowering plants, 6 immature plants, and 6 plants under 14 inches for personal use. That program also triggers an automatic review and expungement for non-violent, marijuana-related offenses.

(As an aside, Colorado voters passed Proposition 122, a measure that decriminalizes the possession and use of certain psychedelic plants and fungi for people 21-and-older, and creates regulation for the distribution and state oversight of these substances.)

An End to Federal Marijuana Prohibition on the Horizon?

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden reports he intended to initiate an overhaul of U.S. marijuana laws – starting with a pardon for everyone convicted of simple possession of the drug, at least at the federal level. Despite this, it’s not clear we’ll see total decriminalization or legalization of marijuana at the federal level any time soon. Marijuana retains its classification as a Schedule I narcotic under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act – which means its on part with LSD and heroin and characterized as being highly addictive and having no medicinal value. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration imposes stringent limits on the cultivation of marijuana for research – which has scientists and legal marijuana advocates frustrated, primarily because they are unable to freely explore the mountains of strong anecdotal evidence that cannabis does indeed have valuable medicinal properties.

Rescheduling marijuana and decriminalizing cannabis was one of Biden’s campaign promises. Although he has again underscored his intention, we have yet to see any real action taken at the federal level, and the White House is still screening staffers for marijuana use (at least as of last year). Some of those job candidates were dismissed for cannabis use, and the administration’s employee conduct guidelines clearly state anyone invested in cannabis companies should be denied positions requiring security clearance.

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:

Marijuana and Drug Policy on the Ballot, Nov. 10, 2022, The New York Times

More Blog Entries:

U.S. Cannabis Law Future May Rest With in the Hands of the Courts, Oct. 23, 2022, Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer

As of the beginning of this month, recreational marijuana was legal in 18 states, while medical marijuana was legal in 36. Since March of this year, five more states have enacted or introduced legislation that would legalize production, sales and use of the plant. Further, more than 9 in 10 Americans queried by the Pew Research Center believe cannabis should be legal at least for medicinal use.

Despite all this, though, marijuana continues to be classified as a Schedule I narcotic under federal law. As our Los Angeles marijuana business lawyers can explain, that’s the same category used for drugs like heroin – highly addictive and with no medicinal purpose. Obviously, the label isn’t congruent with the reality, and there is a clear disconnect between federal and state laws that has proven a fine line for cannabis companies to walk.

Last year, when House Democrats passed a marijuana legalization bill, it was ultimately stymied by Republicans in the Senate. Even Republicans who generally support legalization opposed the MORE Act, citing concerns about certain taxes intended to cover social equity programs. This year, though, Democrats control both Chambers – and the White House. All of this has risen the hopes of cannabis activists about federal legalization.

However, some are not so sure. For example, some opine the line of questioning by Thomas had less to do with the issue of marijuana legalization and more with his well-known problems with federal overreach in general. Beyond that, many lawmakers consider cannabis legalization a low priority, especially in this moment as the country is still struggling to its feet after the pandemic.

And then there is the fact that Joe Biden has stopped well short of voicing support of full legalization, though he has vocally backed medical marijuana rights and decriminalization.

As for Thomas’s line of questioning (in a case involving a challenge to tax rule 280E preventing marijuana businesses from writing off common expenses), it’s important to remember that the courts do not make the laws. They can set legal precedent, but really they’d need sort of “the perfect case,” perhaps involving an in-all-ways stand-up marijuana business owner complying with all applicable state laws and industry standards yet is still being dragged by federal repercussions. But this scenario may be unlikely considering federal authorities haven’t routinely arrested or prosecuted business owners operating under state-legal programs since the Obama years. And even small changes to 280E tax cases and banking cases don’t seem to be making the sort of sweeping changes that some activists had been hoping for. That puts the ball back in Congress’ court, which means change could be slower.

But how much does it actually matter in a state like California, where cannabis is already legal for adult recreational use? A lot, actually, particularly with regard to banking and taxation – both of which currently aren’t on the side of cannabis businesses as a direct result of marijuana prohibition.

Although some credit unions and smaller banks will take on marijuana businesses (albeit quietly), credit card corporations and major banks won’t touch the industry, for fear of being slapped with federal money laundering charges because of the drug’s continued federal classification.

Beyond that, legalization could allow cannabis companies to grow beyond state borders. A cannabis farm in California can only sell its product in our borders. If they wanted to sell to marijuana shops in Nevada or Oregon, they have to invest additional funds to also grow in that state. California is renowned for having some of the best marijuana crops in the world. Export of those products would be a huge boon for state revenue – but that can only happen if the U.S. makes it legal.

If you are operating a marijuana business and are having difficulty navigating the legal market, our Los Angeles cannabis lawyers can help.

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:

Could cannabis be made legal in U.S. under Biden? Signs are mixed. July 2, 2021, By Brooke Staggs, The Orange County Register

The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act (or MORE Act) would remove cannabis from the list of U.S. controlled substances. It would also expunge lower-level federal marijuana arrests and convictions and provide incentives for minority-owned cannabis businesses in a market that has been expanding rapidly in recent years – not just in California, but throughout the country. Additionally, it would establish an excise tax on marijuana sales, allowing that money to be funneled into areas that were particularly hard-hit by the failed war on drugs.

The measure was largely approved along party lines, though five Republican representatives and one independent joined Democrats in passing the bill. Half a dozen Democrats voted against it. NPR quoted the bill’s sponsor as saying federal action on the issue is an imperative, given that the majority of states plus Washington, D.C. have recognized medical cannabis as legal and 15 allow its sale and possession for adult recreational use. Those who voted in favor of the bill say it is long overdue, particularly as so many of the arrest and sentencing laws have placed an unfair burden on minority and low-income communities. Research conducted by the ACLU has established that people of color are four times more likely to be arrested for possession of marijuana than their White counterparts, despite evidence these groups use the substance in equal measure. Federal estimates are that some 22 million Americans regularly use marijuana.

Republicans stood sharply opposed to the measure, saying those who break the law shouldn’t be eligible for early release. They also alleged legalization would lead to a surge of road injury and deaths caused by drivers impaired by marijuana. Evidence of a correlation between legalization and impaired driving crashes is conflicting.

There is, however, hard evidence that marijuana laws are selectively enforced, a fact that is known to ruin lives. Despite this, one Republican called the marijuana bill a “silly distraction,” given that passing it is such a long shot and Congress has yet to approve another coronavirus economic relief bill. Supporters of the MORE Act say the impact of marijuana prohibition is very real, and in some communities, has led to “tragedy.”

Even so, the vote was largely seen as symbolic.

At this juncture, the patchwork of marijuana laws has led to a paradigm where marijuana is either socially acceptable or it’s criminal, depending on the state and sometimes even the neighborhood where one is located. Advocates of the measure consider it an important justice initiative.

Even if the bill doesn’t gain sufficient momentum this session, there is some hope meaningful action could take place sometime in the next four years. President-elect Joe Biden has expressly called for marijuana decriminalization and expunging marijuana possession convictions. Decisions regarding recreational use, he said, should be left to the states.

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:

House passes marijuana decriminalization bill, Dec. 5, 2020, By Grace Segers, CBS News

taking place in Nebraska. Despite efforts on two different fronts to get medical marijuana on the 2018 ballot, all efforts have been halted, at least for the time being.

A recent survey of Nebraska residents showed that 77 percent of respondents would vote yes on a ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana in the state, according to an Omaha World-Herald report. The survey was conducted as part of research one state senator was conducting to support a resolution to make way for voters to decide on medical marijuana legalization. The resolution was dropped, though, when the senator determined she did not have enough support from her fellow legislators, despite the overwhelming support from voters.

Meanwhile the Marijuana Policy Project (which offered support for Proposition 64 when it was on the ballot in California) has been trying to organize a petition drive to get an initiative on the ballot as well. However, the group determined there was not enough time to rally for 2018 and are instead focusing their efforts on a big 2020 push.This is a massive disappointment for the good people of Nebraska who clearly want access to medical marijuana. Not only will they have to wait more than two years to vote, but assuming the initiative passes, it will take time to get the proper licensing systems and regulations in place to establish a medical marijuana infrastructure. That is unless legislators can get their act together before then and properly represent the view of their constituents.

And lest anyone try to turn this into a partisan issue, it should be noted that 58 percent of those who responded to the survey identified as Republicans. Democrats made up 29 percent, and Independents 13 percent, meaning support had to come from a bi-partisan cross-section. It’s obvious to our Los Angeles marijuana legalization attorneys that those who try to pit constituents against each other often try to paint cannabis as a liberal issue, pandering to old school conservative viewpoints rooted in the failed “War on Drugs.” But both parties are seeing through those games and are moving forward, whether naysayers like it or not. The loudest opponent, of course, has been Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has been trying to use his power to roll back protections for states who have passed marijuana laws that contradict the Schedule I classification under Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. Section 812. But the country is marching forward, with 29 states already legalizing medical marijuana and more eyeing ballot initiatives.

Those who harbor a bias against marijuana legalization often use their power to try to oppress rights and target cannabis users. If you find yourself the target of such irrational and unfair attacks, our experienced legal team has the wherewithal and knowledge to stand up for your rights. Our team includes attorneys who specialize in either criminal or legal cases, unlike some firms whose attorneys switch between the two. This allows us to hone our expertise and serve the people of Southern California better.

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

Additional Resources:

Medical Marijuana Backers Say They Won’t Make a Push for 2018 Nebraska Ballot, March 18, 2018, By Joe Duggan, Omaha World-Herald

More Blog Entries:

Two States Sue Colorado for Legalization of Marijuana, Jan. 3, 2015, Cannabis Law Group

harm, and … are continually threatened with additional harm” as a result of marijuana’s Schedule I classification under Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. Section 812.

Arguments recently began in U.S. District Court Southern District of New York for the lawsuit filed against Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Department of Justice, U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and its director Chuck Rosenberg, and, to top it off, the United States of America.

Plaintiffs include a military veteran who uses cannabis for post-traumatic stress disorder, a former pro football player with a business that sells hemp-based products, representatives for two young children, each of whom suffer from severe medical issues, and Cannabis Cultural Association, a non-profit organization meant to help minorities benefit from the cannabis industry, according to an article from Associated Press. The lawsuit also outlines that, while not a class action, it would benefit tens of millions of Americans who depend on marijuana’s medical properties.The military veteran, who also operates a program with a goal of ending veteran suicide, said one of the biggest challenges is not being able to travel across state lines with medical marijuana, even if you’re going to a state where it is also legal.

The lawsuit says the Controlled Substance Act has “wrongfully and unconstitutionally criminalized” cannabis. Our experienced Orange County medical marijuana lawyers know that at the heart of this matter is the blatant fact that marijuana simply does not fit the criteria used to determine if a drug should be classified as Schedule I.

Here’s a rundown. According to DEA, Schedule I drugs are drugs with: a) no currently accepted medical use, and b) high potential for abuse. Our attorneys, as well as millions of Americans, know neither of these statements are true of marijuana. In addition, marijuana can be consumed and tested safely, another factor used to determine a drug’s standing. It’s laughable to think cannabis would have anything in common with other Schedule I drugs, like LSD or heroin. Worse yet, for years spineless government officials have hidden behind a lack of research as their excuse for the classification, even though the classification is the very thing that has prevented federally sanctioned research in the first place.

This same backward cyclical thinking continues with the current administration as Sessions insists he must enforce the law because it exists, refusing to look at modern research or the upswell of support throughout the country to consider whether the law should exist at all. Like a child with his fingers stuffed in his ears, Sessions can’t bear to hear the facts on marijuana and continues to sing the same old song about its so-called dangers, like something right out of Reefer Madness.

Our attorneys hope this case will challenge the status quo and get the ball rolling toward declassification of marijuana. While state laws and several patches at the federal level have allowed patients, recreational consumers, and businesses enjoy some freedoms, it is high time cannabis lose its Schedule I status so we can all move forward.

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

Additional Resources:

Washington et al v. Sessions et al, July 24, 2017, U.S. District Court Southern District of New York

More Blog Entries:

Science Does Not Support Jeff Sessions’ War on Marijuana, July 5, 2017, Medical Marijuana Lawyers Blog

recreational cannabis, either because residents or leaders voiced opposition or because they wanted to wait to see how it played out in other areas of the state.

Chula Vista is one such city that did not join legalization efforts right away, but is considering a ballot measure this year. This would put the final decision in the hands of the residents of the city.

According to an NBC Los Angeles report, the city is working with a private research firm to survey residents for their feedback and thoughts on whether to legalize and how best to regulate the industry.The survey asks residents about a proposed city tax of up to 15 percent on marijuana businesses’ gross receipts. It also proposes taxing up to $10 per square foot of cannabis operations designated for testing, manufacturing related products, and cultivation. The city estimates this tax structure would bring in about $6 million per year, which would be used for extra law enforcement to monitor cannabis industry activity, youth education and drug prevention programs, and substance abuse programs. Remaining funds would be used to help out Chula Vista overall.

This design is similar to that instituted at the state level. Businesses will be required to comply with both state and local laws and pay taxes to each. Some consider the state and local taxes to be burdensome to businesses and have voiced concern that such a high tax structure makes operating legally unappealing to some. This could encourage black market sales to continue to flourish, critics say, with advocacy groups already petitioning for the state to reform the marijuana business taxes.

Regardless of what happens with taxes in Chula Vista and across the state, many businesses are doing quite well for themselves meeting the high demands of California residents for safe and legal recreational cannabis. Our Orange County marijuana legalization lawyers know the smartest business strategy is a legal one. We are here to help cannabis entrepreneurs set up a business plan that will be in compliance with state and local laws now and remain agile as the industry continues to grow and change. A smart and focused plan up front could save your business in the long run from costly litigation and avoidable fines.

It is not known when the survey results in Chula Vista will be made public, but some residents shared their thoughts with NBC. Their feelings on legalization mirror that of many around the country. Some are hesitant, citing their own abuse issues and concerns over legalizing something that would require drug abuse education programs as a counterbalance. Others saw it as a practical move. If people are using marijuana anyway, the city should benefit from taxes associated with legal sales. And if those taxes cover all expenses associated with legalization, some residents see it as an obvious next step in line with the direction the rest of the country is moving.

Chula Vista City Council is discussing next steps and the possible ballot initiative this month.

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

Additional Resources:

City of Chula Vista Considering Legalizing Marijuana, Taxing Businesses, Feb. 3, 2018, By Rory Devine, NBC Los Angeles

More Blog Entries:

Despite Statewide Marijuana Legalization, Californians Must Follow Local Laws, Jan. 15, 2018, By Cannabis Law Group

(known as Proposition 64) . That measure made recreational cannabis legal in the state, but subject to a laundry list of stringent regulations businesses must abide. In addition, many local governments have set their own rules, and this is all heaped on to existing barriers under the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. Section 812.

Good marijuana business attorneys recognize that even once a client clears all those hurdles, small operations often have an even bigger mountain to climb: Competition from cannabis mega-corporations. This has spurred a number of marijuana lawsuits against the state for failure to keep these bigger firms in check with sufficient regulation.

Specifically, some farmers are taking aim at the fact the law does not fully restrict acreage permitted per grower for marijuana.

In one example, California Growers Association, a nonprofit, mutual benefit corporation, has filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court against the state’s agriculture department, challenging the lack of such a stipulation.

The farmers argue that without such a limit, they are positioned to lose their standing to large agribusinesses, which have resources to convert massive expanses of land, according to San Francisco Chronicle. This conflicts with provisions built into Proposition 64 to protect owners of small- and medium-sized marijuana cultivation operations.

California Growers Association v. California Department of Food and Agriculture states that Proposition 64 prohibits licenses for large-scale operations in the first five years of legalization and that the Food and Agriculture Department “has promulgated a regulatory loophole that eviscerates the statutory five-year prohibition overwhelmingly approved by California voters.”

Medical and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act passed in June 2017 by the California Senate was supposed to reconcile Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act with recreational legalization. But farmers say it created an inconsistency that they fear will be exploited.

According to the lawsuit, the state regulations do put a limit of one acre per license for “medium” farms, with one such license allowed per grower. A “small” license is meant for operations of up to one-quarter acre. But there is not a cap on the number of small marijuana cultivator licenses one grower can have, the lawsuit alleges. As such, larger corporations could use their extensive resources to buy as many small licenses as they want, edging out smaller farms and their ability to compete. The growers association said the counties most vulnerable are Humboldt, Trinity, and Mendocino counties in northern California, home of the Green Triangle, where it is estimated most marijuana in the United States is grown.

The lawsuit said that paving the way to agribusinesses would not only hurt local farmers, but it also could cause prices to drop so dramatically that businesses will opt to sell illegally and remove themselves from the burdensome restrictions.

Our Orange County marijuana legalization attorneys hope the state sees the potential harm lack of oversight could have to California business owners. It is our aim to make sure as many businesses as possible are compliant with local and state laws and support any measures that make that easier for entrepreneurs looking to get into the cannabis industry.

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

Additional Resources:

Marijuana Growers Sue California Over Lack of Limits on Big Farms, Jan. 24, 2108, Peter Fimrite, San Francisco Chronicle

More Blog Entries:

Small Marijuana Growers Fear Corporate Takeover in California, May 13, 2016, Orange County Marijuana Legalization Attorneys Blog

eliminate federal grasp over cannabis altogether and begin the healing process of the destruction caused by the war on drugs.

The Marijuana Justice Act of 2017 was originally introduced in the Senate by Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) in August, where it stalled. Two representatives from California — Barbara Lee (D-CA 13th District) and Ro Khanna (D-CA 17th District) — are now trying to get a companion bill before the House of Representatives. The objective of these bills is to remove marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic in the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. Section 812.

This move comes on the heels of Sessions rescinding a directive, known as the Cole Memo, issued in 2013 by the Department of Justice during the Obama administration, which indicated that federal prosecutors should not pursue charges in relation to illegal marijuana activity so long as those in question were abiding by state laws.

Our Los Angeles marijuana legalization lawyers know that declassifying marijuana is a long overdue step, one that is necessary for states to truly be able to freely monitor cannabis operations as they best see fit. While the Cole Memo acted as a bandage for a while, it never was a long-term solution. It simply protected states from punishment, but still labeled their burgeoning marijuana economies as illegal. Therefore, citizens and businesses still had to find workarounds for a litany of issues, such as not being able to use banks to conduct business and marijuana users still being vulnerable to employers and landlords who choose to adhere to federal standards.

According to an article from Forbes, the two representatives along with Sen. Booker and the Drug Policy Alliance spoke out recently about not only the need to change federal law, but also to make amends for the deep damage it has caused. They pointed to the devastation felt by people of color, who have been disproportionately targeted for crimes related to marijuana. It is now necessary for us to invest in rebuilding these communities and reuniting families torn apart by overly aggressive marijuana laws and mass incarceration.

The bill outlines a plan to spend $500 million to fund education, job training, and community development in areas most negatively impacted. It would also strike marijuana possession charges from records. Rep. Khanna pointed out that this figure is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of tax revenue cannabis sales will bring in once fully legalized.

Rep. Lee described the bill as more than just fighting back. It’s about moving forward. And she certainly has the support to move forward, even if other politicians are slow to listen to their constituents. Surveys show high approval for legalization of adult use marijuana, with a recent Gallup poll showing 64 percent support. This includes a majority of Republicans polled at 51 percent. The numbers go up even higher when surveys isolate medical marijuana usage. A CBS News poll last year clocked medical marijuana approval at 88 percent.

If you find yourself caught in the crossfire of conflicting state and federal laws regarding marijuana, our cannabis lawyers can help defend you. Our years of experience and deep knowledge of the ever changing laws are on your side.

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

Additional Resources:

House Bill Seeks to End Marijuana War, Spark Recovery Instead, Jan. 18, 2018, By Janet Burns, Forbes

More Blog Entries:

California Formally Requests That the Federal Government Reclassify Marijuana, Oct. 17, 2017, Cannabis Law Group

appointment almost a year ago, he has promised to uphold federal cannabis law, which classifies marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic under Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. Section 812. This path is in stark contrast with the narrative in the rest of the country: 30 states as well as Washington, D.C., have some form of marijuana legalization on the books. Eight of those states (including California) and the District of Columbia allow recreational marijuana sales and use, with more planning ballot initiatives and legislative votes in 2018.

Up until now, those states have been able to manage their marijuana laws as they saw fit without meddling from the federal government thanks to a directive put in place at the Department of Justice during Barack Obama’s presidency that discouraged enforcement.

However, Sessions recently rescinded that directive, opening the door for prosecutors to go after states that have established legal cannabis. It’s unclear at this point whether prosecutors will actively start enforcement. Sessions described the move as simply him doing his job and enforcing the law. He also said he would leave it up to U.S. attorneys to determine what issues should be their top priority based on their resources. But the U.S. attorney in Colorado has already stated he intends to align practices with Sessions’ latest guidance.

President Trump seems to have flipped on this issue, stating last year that he would leave the issue up to the states, but recently siding with the Attorney General that federal law should be enforced. This has added more unnecessary confusion to citizens who believed this administration would align with the conservative tendency toward states’ rights.

Sessions is already getting pushback. Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner (R) has suggested not confirming nominees to the Justice Department should Sessions continue down this path.

It’s no surprise Congress might fight back considering the growing popularity of marijuana legalization among constituents nationwide, who understand its tremendous benefits. A CBS News poll last year showed 61 percent of Americans support full marijuana legalization. That number increases dramatically to 88 percent when speaking about medical marijuana. More telling, 71 percent of those surveyed are against efforts by the federal government to interfere in states who have passed their own cannabis laws.

Besides personal opinion shifting, there are the enormous economic benefits of marijuana to take into consideration. If prosecutors start filing charges or seizing marijuana-related property, it would have devastating consequences on the local economies and state coffers in regions where the drug is legal.

Our Orange County marijuana legalization lawyers know this is a critical time in the country. While education and first-hand experience has helped most Americans dispel myths about marijuana, there are still growing pains while some hold on to outdated information. That’s why it’s more important than ever for marijuana businesses to seek guidance from lawyers knowledgeable in the continually evolving marijuana laws. We will stay informed on how changes at the local, state, and federal level could affect your business and help your business remain agile to these changes and establish a strong defense should legal issues arise.

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

Additional Resources:

Use of Legalized Marijuana Threatened as Sessions Rescinds Obama-Era Directive that Eased Federal Enforcement, Jan. 4, 2018, By Matt Zapotosky, Sari Horwitz, and Joel Achenbach, The Washington Post

More Blog Entries:

Jeff Sessions Intends to Crack Down on Medical Marijuana Where it is Legal, Dec. 10, 2017, Cannabis Law Group

They are pushing to expand access to the drug. How so? By hiring an estimated 60 lobbyists to represent their interests to state lawmakers in charge of writing the detailed provisions of the broader marijuana law, approved by state voters in November at the same time California voters approved recreational marijuana.

Patients and doctors too are pressing state officials to expand access, as well as improve the affordability of the drug and increase the diversity of available strains.

There are competing interests, to be sure. For example, doctors and patients favor a framework that is more competitive, saying the current seed-to-sale vertical integration system that only licenses seven companies creates a virtual monopoly that gives marijuana cultivators a lot of power. They say it’s a “jackpot” for a fortunate few companies, but it gives those firms the ability to hike up the prices and may stifle innovation.

Of course, those seven companies say it’s important for the state not to start out too big, with more operations than it can reasonably oversee.

One thing both the marijuana businesses and patients agree upon is the desire to initiate immediate access. Amendment 2 already expanded the number of patients who may be eligible for the drug from a few hundred to hundreds of thousands – creating an industry that could top $1.6 billion within the next few years.

The Compassionate Use registry currently has 4,000 patients and 600 doctors, but has the potential to get much bigger.

Some senators have started a plan that would pave the way for a slow growth expansion of licensed marijuana providers. However, others are advocating for a regulatory setup that would open the door to hundreds of licensees, including cultivators, producers, distributors and sellers. Although these are two very different approaches, both would technically fall in line with language of Amendment 2, but the broad language of the action allows for a fair amount of debate about what what level of access is “reasonable” and the degree of diversity to which patients should be entitled.

Florida’s framework could be telling. For one thing, it’s a southern state, with many counties tipping conservative on the political spectrum. It’s also one of the largest states in the country, so the economic impact will be huge and a lot of other states in the Southeast could be looking to follow its lead.

One of the new bills proposed would allow for up to 20 new marijuana vendors in the six months after the number of registered patients tops 500,000. That measure would also double the amount of marijuana a physician could prescribe to a patient (a 90-day supply versus a 45-day supply) and would also reduce the amount of physician training on medical marijuana from eight hours to four hours.

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

Additional Resources:

Legislature ponders expanding who can buy, sell legal cannabis, March 5, 2017, The Tallahassee Democrat

More Blog Entries:

Cannabis Businesses Confront E-Commerce Challenges, March 3, 2017, Marijuana Legalization Lawyer Blog

The two students had plans in the works to print off a series of t-shirts that showed a marijuana leaf alongside the school’s mascot. School officials claimed that the production of such material would be a violation of the university’s trademark policy.

Students sued the school in federal court, arguing that the policy on the mascot trademark was a violation of students’ free speech rights. Last year, the judge issued a ruling agreeing with the students and prohibiting the school from stopping the students from making the shirts. The judge ruled that the school’s rejection of the t-shirts with NORML’s designs were discrimination because the decision was based on the fact that administrators disagreed with the students’ political point-of-view.

On appeal, the school argued (among other things) that the U.S. Constitution and previous rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court gave the school the sole right of discretion in deciding how its trademark could be used. However, the federal appellate panel disagreed. The court held that the student organization’s use of a marijuana leaf on the shirts isn’t a violation of the school’s trademark because the organization is advocating for reformation of cannabis laws, not promoting the illegal use of cannabis.

The students filed a lawsuit against the school after administrators refused to grant permission for them to print the approved design, which included on it the phrase, “Freedom is NORML at ISU.”

One of the students commented to a reporter on her pleasure with the ruling, and in particular that the three-judge panel sided with plaintiffs unanimously.

The students’ complaint explained how the school censored the t-shirts made by the group solely on the basis of the imagery and messaging that involved marijuana. The school also removed the chapter’s staff adviser and then initiated a number of new rules for using the school’s trademark solely for the purpose of restricting the campus organization’s free speech rights.

Prior to filing the lawsuit, the students had said they were disappointed with the school’s decision, but it wasn’t until the school forbid them even from printing the name of their organization on t-shirts due to the fact that the “M” stood for marijuana that they were motivated to sue.

Now that the Eighth Circuit has decided the matter, the next step, if any, would be for the school to ask the U.S. Supreme Court for review on appeal. A school administrator said university lawyers are reviewing the ruling and no decision has been made at this point about whether to appeal the case to the next level.

Currently, marijuana is not legal in Iowa, even for medicinal purposes, putting it in a minority of states. A recent pole by the Des Moines Register revealed that 80 percent of adults in that state do want marijuana legalized for medicinal purposes. However, less than 40 percent would like to see it legalized for recreation.

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

Additional Resources:

Medical marijuana support keeps climbing, Iowa Poll shows, Feb. 15, 2017, By Tony Leys, The Des Moines Register

More Blog Entries:

Air Force Alters Marijuana Rules for New Recruits, Feb. 10, 2017, L.A. Marijuana Lawyer Blog

A new USC Dornsife/ Los Angeles Times poll reveals that California voter support for Proposition 64, the measure that would legalize recreational marijuana for personal use in this state, is at nearly 60 percent. What’s especially interesting is that support stretches across lines of race, gender, ethnicity and income. Even those from the two warring political parties generally agree on this issue.

The law would grant over-21 Californians the right to buy, keep and use a maximum of 1 ounce of cannabis for recreational purposes. It would also allow a person to grow up to six cannabis plants. The law would also require a 15 percent retail tax on the substance. Of the nearly 1,900 respondents, only a third said they outright would refuse to support the ballot measure if the election were today. Another 8 percent said they had no opinion one way or the other.

This marks a significant shift because if you’ll recall, just six years ago with Proposition 19, another measure that would have legalized pot for recreational purposes, almost 54 percent of voters said they would not support marijuana legalization in California.

That’s a dramatic and noteworthy change. As the director of the Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California said, those who oppose marijuana legalization in California are going to have to find a big funding source if they have any prayer of turning the tide on this issue in their favor come November. But of course, they may not be able to do enough to sway hearts and minds in the six weeks they have left, no matter how much money they spend.

Voters are seeing how these programs have unfolded in Washington, Colorado, Alaska and Oregon. They see the sky has not fallen. They see cost savings and even profits. Sure, there have been a few hiccups, but much of that has to do with the fact the drug is still illegal at the federal level. Many people believe that will change in the near future too.

The greatest support for Proposition 64 is with voters between the ages of 18 and 24. With that cohort, there is 67 percent support. The lowest amount of support comes from voters who are 65 and older – and even this group is torn straight down the middle about it. Although many baby boomers used the drug in the past, it was largely seen as taboo, and many still hold onto those beliefs.

Along racial lines, the measure is supported by the majority of whites, blacks and Latinos. The only group that did not show a majority support was Asian Americans, of whom only 47 percent back it. Gender disparities indicate men support it more than women, 62 percent to 55 percent. It was more greatly supported by those with incomes under $50,000 annually (63 percent) versus those who make more than $100,000 annually (57 percent).

As far as Democrats versus Republicans, the support is measured 68 percent to 56 percent, respectively.

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

Additional Resources:

Most California voters support legalizing recreational marijuana, poll finds, Sept. 13, 2016, By Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times

More Blog Entries:

Report: California Arrested 500k People in 10 Years for Marijuana, Sept. 5, 2016, L.A. Marijuana Lawyer Blog