The American military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have created a mental health crisis of unprecedented proportions within the veterans’ community. Post traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injuries, night terrors, depression, suicide, opioid addictions and other symptoms are increasingly prevalent. According to the National Alliance for Mental Health, nearly one in four active service members shows signs of a mental health condition. The Veterans Administration reports that, in 2014, an average of twenty veterans died every day from suicide. Six out of these twenty daily deaths were veterans who had accessed VA services in an attempt to get help.

Why the Veterans Administration is Exacerbating the Problem It is a bizarre and unfortunate fact that the veterans’ mental health crises has spread unabated, in spite of the existence of a Veterans Administration with the mandate to help veterans. Systemic problems within the Administration caused a tragic scandal at the Phoenix VA in 2014. Secret waiting lists were found to contribute to the deaths of many veterans, who died simply waiting for basic treatment. In 2016, the Washington Times reported that the Phoenix VA was still improperly canceling appointments. This created a new backlog which resulted in the death of at least one veteran. The Veterans Administration has also taken a vehement stance against medical marijuana, and this, too, exacerbates the suffering of those who need help the most. The LA Times reports that VA doctors not only refuse to provide any advice pertaining to medical marijuana, but they also record which veterans are using medical marijuana. This left vulnerable veterans fearing that they would be disciplined by the military or lose life-sustaining benefits. In response to these critical problems, the marijuana legalization movement has found a powerful new ally. The American Legion – a large, historically conservative association of military veterans – is now supporting legislation that would reclassify marijuana under federal law. According to the LA Times, the proposed legislation would remove marijuana from the class of drugs without a medical benefit (such as heroin) and place it in the class of drugs with medical benefit (such as prescription painkillers). The shifting policy of such a conservative organization demonstrates the scale of the mental health crises. The Legion has recognized the desperate needs of its new members from the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has also recognized the tragedy of veterans who are prescribed vast amounts of medication instead of accessing the simple benefits of organic marijuana. Many of these veterans develop addictions to opioid painkillers. Military veterans face a wide variety of symptoms and life changes which civilians may never fully appreciate. An experienced marijuana lawyer can help veterans protect their right to use recreational and medicinal marijuana in the state of California. The Los Angeles Cannabis Law Group represents growers, dispensaries, collectives, patients and those facing marijuana charges. Call us at 949-375-4734. Additional Resources: As Trump wages war on legal marijuana, military veterans side with pot , July 21, 2017 by Evan Halper and Lauren Rosenblatt, The LA Times More Blog Entries: Marijuana for PTSD Still Controversial in Colorado, February 11, 2017, California Marijuana Lawyer Blog

As it now stands, there are a number of billboards that promote a variety of substances, from liquor to prescription medications – and yes, marijuana. But the marijuana industry is the only one being targeted by this effort.

According to the Sacramento Bee, Assembly Bill 64 would result in an amendment to the recently-passed Proposition 64, the state’s recreational marijuana bill, by implementing tighter restrictions for advertising of marijuana and related products. Proposition 64 allows anyone over the age of 21 to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and it also creates a framework for sales of recreational weed that will go into effect the first of 2018. The measure also prohibited advertisements of recreational marijuana along the interstate highways that cross the border into California. However, what it did not do was ban advertising of marijuana on any interstate or state highway. That’s what Assembly Bill 64 would do.

In the last 12 months, there have been pot billboards cropping up all over the state. There is one on Interstate 880, which advertises marijuana chocolates. here in South California, there is the “Buy Marijuana Legally” billboard in Santa Ana on the 55 freeway, ushering passersby to a cannabis club in Orange County.

The new bill is supported by lawmakers on both sides who say it’s important to shield minors from pro-marijuana messages. They maintain this position even though the target audience here is comprised of people with a doctor’s recommendation for medicinal cannabis or adults seeking marijuana for recreation. Proponents of the bill say those audiences can be reached without the use of billboards, which are seen by occupants in passing school buses, family vehicles and carpools.

Another concern cited was that some businesses were posting these large, highly visible ads when they weren’t even yet licensed by the state to operate under the provisions of Prop. 64. Rather, these messages are being used as a means to “build the brand,” but the state rules aren’t in place yet.

In order to pass as an amendment to Proposition 64, AB 64 will need two-thirds favorable vote. Also contained in the proposal are guidelines that would help kick-start the process of licensing legal marijuana delivery, which as of right now is almost completely unregulated. Although the statute doesn’t explicitly refer to marijuana deliveries, it does allow for two different types of licenses for distributors of marijuana: One for storefront operations and one for nonstorefront operations. The first would involve retail providers who sell to customers who walk into a brick-and-mortar establishment. The second would involve those locations that have a fixed premises, but don’t welcome direct access by the public (in other words, a delivery service).

These nonstorefront marijuana dispensaries may operate in packing centers or warehouses and be allowed to apply for status as a “dispensary,” and from there could operate a delivery system that would adhere to the track-and-trace model that would be overseen by state regulators. Delivery services, though, would additionally need to obtain licenses from the cities where their facilities were located.

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 bill could ban marijuana advertising on freeway billboards, Dec. 20, 2016, By Peter Hecht, The Sacramento Bee

More Blog Entries:

Marijuana is Legal in California, But Employers Can Still Use it Against You, Jan. 2, 2017, L.A. Marijuana Lawyer Blog

Voters in nine states – including California, Florida and Massachusetts – will vote on Nov. 8th ballot proposals that permit recreational and/or medical use of marijuana. These initiatives are likely to create a huge push toward legalization. In all likelihood, whoever is elected to the president’s office and Congress will be under pressure to overhaul the failed drug laws of this country.

This is a big deal because even just a few years ago, marijuana legalization was seen as something of a fringe movement. Today, the latest Gallup poll revealed 6 in 10 Americans are in favor of legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes. That’s huge, particularly when we consider than in 2000, only 31 percent supported legalization. Take it back to 1969, and only 12 percent of voters were in favor of it.

The push to end marijuana prohibition is driven in no small part to the fact that over the course of the last few decades, the government has arrested many millions of people. Tens of thousands more have been sentenced to excessive imprisonment for marijuana crimes – despite the fact that their alleged offenses were not violent in nature. It’s also no secret that these policies have hit minority communities the hardest, as they are more likely to be targeted by police and less likely to be able to afford a good marijuana attorney to aid in their defense.

Meanwhile, state and federal governments have spent many billions of dollars on drug enforcement initiatives – money we now know for a fact could have been spent more effectively on services like substance abuse and mental health treatment.

Among the states that are weighing marijuana initiatives:

• Maine – Voting for recreational use, currently allows medical use only;
• Massachusetts – Voting for recreational use, currently allows medical use only;
• Florida – Voting for medical use, currently allows no legal use;
• Arkansas – Voting for medical use, currently allows no legal use;
• North Dakota – Voting for medical use, currently allows no legal use;
• Montana – Voting for expanded medical use, currently allows limited medical use only;
• Arizona – Voting for recreational use, currently allows medical use only;
• Nevada – Voting for recreational use, currently allows medical use only;
• California – Voting for recreational use, currently allows medical use only.

As it now stands, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and the District of Columbia are the only areas where recreational marijuana is legal in the U.S. There are also 25 states that allow medical use to some extent. A few states not included in these figures allow limited access to certain marijuana products.

The passage of these measures – and the likely passage of those measures pending – will in all likelihood put increased pressure on federal authorities to alter how it treats marijuana. President Obama’s administration has issued a directive not to enforce federal anti-marijuana laws. But this arrangement is not only bizarre, it’s unsustainable. Marijuana businesses in these states may not need to worry about federal prosecution, but this conflicted legal status still poses a lot of trouble – from inability to maintain a company bank account to security.

Clinton has vowed to change marijuana from a Schedule I narcotic to a Schedule II. This would undoubtedly be an improvement, though it won’t solve all the contradictions between state and federal statutes on recreational marijuana. Trump, meanwhile, has indicated that while he supports access to medicinal marijuana, he opposes legalization for recreational purposes.

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 Lights Up State Ballots, Oct. 19, 2016, Editorial Board, The New York Times

More Blog Entries:

Justin Beiber Speaks out Against Pharmaceutical Industry for Opposing Medical Marijuana, Oct. 20, 2016, Los Angeles Marijuana Lawyer 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

In Vasquez v. Lewis, the Denver-based justices ruled it’s unconstitutional to pull over a driver simply because they have out-of-state plates. The civil lawsuit was against two highway patrol officers form Kansas who conceded they stopped a driver at least partially because his license plates were from a state “known to be home to medical marijuana dispenaries.” Officers characterized the entire state of Colorado as a “known drug source area” and the highway on which the driver traveled is a “known corridor.” Mind you, the highway to which the officers were referring is Interstate 70, which is 2,000 miles long and spans all the way from the East Coast to Utah. The driver also had a blanket in his vehicle, which officers asserted, “Might have obscured something.”

The officers also asserted the driver was “acting suspiciously” and was “nervous.” He also reportedly had a temporary tag taped to the inside of his tinted rear window, which officers said they were unable to see. However, the court rejected these other arguments. Justice Carlos Lucero, writing for the majority, wrote that police have to abandon this pretense that citizenship in certain states justifies traffic stops, particularly given that medical marijuana is now legal in 25 states, plus Washington D.C. If such practice was allowed, that would mean police would have reasonable grounds to justify the search and seizure of citizens in more than half the states in the U.S.

When Colorado voted to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes back in 2012, police in neighboring states started to complain that marijuana was making its way illegally across the borders, where the drug is banned. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined review of litigation filed against Colorado by Oklahoma and Nebraska, arguing this fact has resulted in law enforcement being overburdened.

In Kansas, where the Vasquez case originated, authorities with the state highway patrol could not say definitively how much the state was affected by this alleged spillover, though the Associated Press reported three years ago that almost 80 of the 130-plus felony marijuana trafficking cases filed in Kansas in the first five months of the year stemmed from marijuana and/or motorists from Colorado.

Drivers from Colorado in particular have complained about “license plate profiling” in Kansas and in other states. Rental vehicles with Colorado plates are deemed especially suspicious. The state highway patrol, however, denied that it targets people solely based on their license plate and a spokesman said the Vasquez ruling isn’t going to alter the way its troopers do their jobs.

In this case, the driver was pulled over when officers were unable to see his temporary tag. He was given a warning for that infraction, and that should have been the end of the encounter. However, officers asked to search the man’s vehicle. When he declined, they held him for 15 minutes until a canine unit could make it (a tactic the U.S. Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional in the spring of 2015). The drug dog didn’t find anything and the driver was released.

The driver sued the officers in federal district court, alleging they violated his 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The federal district court had tossed the case, but the appellate court decision revives it. This legal precedent is now applicable throughout the 10th Circuit, meaning it applies in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming Oklahoma and Kansas.

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

Additional Resources:

Vasquez v. Lewis, Aug. 23, 2016, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit

More Blog Entries:

Maine Doctor Reprimanded for Marijuana Permission Slip to Patient Employer, Aug. 28, 2016, Colorado Marijuana Lawyer Blog