involving First Church of Cannabis. The church had put in a bid attempting to allow smoking of marijuana as a religious sacrament in Indiana. The group sued the state, attorney general, and then Gov. Mike Pence in 2015. But a judge out of Marion County Superior Court recently ruled against the church, according to RTV6.

Indiana currently has extremely limited medical marijuana provisions and relatively strict laws against recreational use. Attempts to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana were thwarted in 2013, and instead an amendment to IC 35-48-4-11 was added to HB 1006 to increase penalties of certain types of possession to felonies rather than misdemeanors. Some attempts to legalize medical marijuana also failed a few years ago, but last year the legislature was able to push through a bill allowing CBD oil specifically for seizures. Considering all of the people nationwide who have found relief from cannabis for a wide variety of ailments, this seems to be the absolute least they could do.First Church of Cannabis was attempting to appeal to the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is intended to protect religious groups from government interference. The act stirred up controversy from people concerned the law could lead to discrimination against certain residents, particularly LGBTQ individuals, with business owners citing religion as a shield for their discrimination. It is clear, though, given the reaction to the First Church of Cannabis that the law was never intended to protect all religions. When it comes to discrimination under the guise of religion, state leaders shrug. When a church suggests cannabis be used, however, suddenly there is much concern over churches abusing the law and using the cover of religion for illegal practices.

On the surface, the concern of state officials is not invalid. If marijuana were to be considered a dangerous drug, allowing this church to use it in religious practices would be unfathomable. It could set a precedent for drug rings to use religions as a front for illicit sales and smuggling. Our Orange County cannabis lawyers must ask, though, why is it considered a dangerous drug at all? Marijuana is legal in 30 states for medical use, nine of those states also allowing recreational use. By pushing against this issue so fervently, state leaders have actually exposed a nerve. If marijuana is not allowed to be used in religious ceremonies because it could pave the way for harder drugs to do the same, we must have the conversation about why it is lumped in with other Schedule I narcotics, like heroin or LSD, at all.

The state of Indiana made it clear where its priorities are: to further outdated propaganda about marijuana, and protect its anti-cannabis agenda even above religious liberties. We’ve come a long way in the fight for cannabis rights, but this goes to show there is much work to still be done on the national stage. Considering Pence, now vice president of the United States, had a large part to play in both the religious liberties law and the harsh marijuana punishments in Indiana, it’s no wonder there is still such confused messaging from our top leaders in regards to marijuana.

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:

Judge Dismisses Cannabis Church Case Defending Weed as Religious Sacrament, July 8, 2018, By Morgan Gstalter, The Hil

More Blog Entries:

International Church of Cannabis Draws Mixed Feelings, April 17, 2018, Cannabis Law Group

was the first country to fully legalize marijuana, and the South American country has learned much as a result of trial-by-error. Cannabis was legalized there five years ago, but it wasn’t until last year that legal sales began. Since then, Uruguay has experienced a number of supply problems. Residents report having to travel long distances to licensed pharmacies, and sometimes once they arrive, the supply is dry.

According to a report from High Times, the issues are two-fold. First an excess in government oversight is creating supply chain issues. Only registered pharmacies can sell cannabis, and there have only been 14 licenses issued out of the 1,200 pharmacies in Uruguay. The government is also in charge of cultivation of marijuana, but only two cultivators have received licenses. Much like in California, when too many restrictions come between buyers and their marijuana, many consumers will choose black market options, even though there are legal options.

Second, the head of the Uruguay National Drug Council said there is an issue of farming capacity. Farming cannabis on such a large scale was not common, and there certainly was not a guidebook available. This led to a learning curve for cultivators to catch up on technology and processing on a mass scale. The two cultivators have just recently reached the allowed capacity of 4 metric tons per year.Meanwhile, demand for cannabis reaches an estimated 25 tons of marijuana in Uruguay annually. Government officials have discussed increasing the amount of cultivators. They are going to have to if they plan to encourage people to stick with legal purchasing options and keep the black market at bay. In fact, the black market was a huge motivator in legalizing cannabis in the first place. Violence related to gangs involved in drug trafficking contributed to a significant percentage of the murders in the country, but because the black market has been able to keep such a stronghold, the violence has only increased.

Advocates still attest that the plan could work; it just takes time. California has also had its fair share of experience with the cannabis black market, though top concerns generally revolve around damage unlicensed growers are causing to the environment and public lands, making deliveries to states where marijuana is illegal, and creating unfair competition for marijuana businesses who are playing by the rules.

Our Orange County cannabis lawyers know plenty of challenges in California are certainly different. Uruguay, for example, is not still battling their federal government on the basic issue of marijuana’s safety, while the U.S. Controlled Substances Act still classifies cannabis as a Schedule I narcotic. In many ways, however, despite this, marijuana is more accessible in California, particularly if you live in a city that permits sales. Our state has managed to thrive and build a budding marketplace in spite of challenges we have faced. This level of success doesn’t come easily. It takes hard work, dedication, and a foundational understanding of creating a solid business plan amidst cannabis regulations and laws. Our attorneys can help you set that foundation with consultations and business plans and guide you toward a thriving future.

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: Uruguay Struggling to Meet Demand for Legal Marijuana, June 13, 2018, By Leonardo Haberkorn, Associated Press

More Blog Entries:

Uruguay Lifts Prohibition of Marijuana – Joins Colorado and Washington State, Dec. 25, 2013, Orange County Marijuana Attorney Blog

That’s because federal law – specifically 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which is part of the Gun Control Act – criminalizes the possession or receipt of a firearm by an unlawful drug user or person addicted to a controlled substance. Of course, many states have now legalized the drug, but it still remains outlawed by federal statute. Those purchasing a new firearm are asked to fill out federal background check forms that specifically ask whether the purchaser uses marijuana for recreational or medicinal purposes. If they do, they are not allowed to purchase the gun.

This conflict was recently questioned by Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican who says she didn’t vote in favor of marijuana, but now she is worried about its impact on the Second Amendment rights of citizens. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Wilson v. Lynch that the Second Amendment rights of a Nevada woman were not infringed by the federal government’s ban on sales of guns to medical marijuana card holders. The ruling is applicable to nine other states, including California.

Plaintiff in that case sought to purchase a firearm for self protection after obtaining a medical marijuana card. However, the gun dealer declined, citing U.S. law prohibiting sales of firearms to drug users. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has instructed gun stores and sellers that they can safely assume a person who has a medical marijuana card uses the drug.

The appellate panel ruled that Congress made a reasonable conclusion in finding that use of marijuana and other drugs increases the risk of behavior that is both unpredictable and irrational, with which guns should not be associated. The courts also held that it was reasonable for the ATF to instruct sellers that medical marijuana cardholders use the drug.

Plaintiff’s attorney in that case said he plans to appeal.

Although both marijuana consumers and gun owners don’t always find themselves on the same side of the cultural divide, they can be one-in-the-same and many are troubled.

As noted by the founder of NORML, a marijuana advocacy group, the fact that users of marijuana are essentially being forced to forfeit their Second Amendment rights is unfair. Further, those who use the drug as medicine are being asked to decide between their health and their Second Amendment rights, which is nothing short of offensive.

The form gun buyers fill out when they visit a licensed firearm dealer is called an ATF Form 4473. In that form, Question 11(e) asks whether the person purchasing the weapon is an unlawful user or addict of marijuana. Anyone who answers “yes” cannot buy the gun. There aren’t exceptions for those who lawfully use the drug under state law.

The issue can be a tricky one. For example, even the National Rifle Association didn’t respond to requests for comment by the Wall Street Journal.

Murkowski sent a letter several months ago to the Attorney General, asking for a reconsideration of this policy. Murkowski said she does understand the concerns about marijuana and firearms, but said the same could be argued with regard to alcohol.

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 Poses a Problem for Gun Buyers, Nov. 14, 2016, By Gary Fields and Kristina Peterson, The Wall Street Journal

More Blog Entries:

San Jose, Other Communities, Ban Marijuana Before Vote, Nov. 12, 2016, Orange County Cannabis Lawyer Blog

But for a long time, the industry didn’t weigh in much on individual candidates because frankly, no one was seeking their support. It was seen as risky and potentially political suicide.

Today, attitudes have shifted. The majority of Californians – and now even Americans – support safe access to medical marijuana. Most people are even beginning to warm to the idea of recreational marijuana, an issue slated to be before voters once again this November. With all that, the industry has grown – as has its voice and political clout.

Recently, the Orange County Register reported California Rep. Loretta Sanchez, vying for the seat of outgoing U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, was proud to receive a “glowing endorsement” from the legal marijuana industry.

Specifically, the top brass at the first medical marijuana dispensary in Orange County penned a missive that was sent to more than 800,000 customers in the region, encouraging them to vote for Sanchez, a Democrat. She is competing against Attorney General Kamala Harris for the seat. It’s a heated competition, so every bit of support helps.

In the letter, the CEO of the dispensary wrote that Sanchez’s history was one of unwavering support for medical marijuana in California. Specifically, she fought to stop the federal raids on dispensaries throughout the state and also championed the state’s right to regulate cultivation, distribution and use. He wrote that she did all of this “before it was a popular thing to do.”

An adviser for Sanchez’s campaign conceded later to a reporter that the endorsement was unconventional, but she welcomed it nonetheless.

On the other hand, Harris may be receiving her own political endorsements from top pot leaders. She has reportedly been a longtime supporter of medical marijuana and has petitioned the federal government to reclassify marijuana on its schedule of controlled substances. She also generally supports recreational legalization – with proper regulation.

Again, industry insiders have been advocating for legal marijuana in the political sector for years. But this type of campaigning – weighing in on individual candidates and taking on an active and influential role – that’s not something we have historically seen. Fred Smoller, a political science professor at Chapman University, told the Register that we can expect to see more of this, as marijuana is now recognized as a fully legitimate industry. In this country, industries get involved in the political process.

Will it make much of a difference in the Harris v. Sanchez race? It remains to be seen. However, it’s not likely to hurt the candidates the way an endorsement from, say, the tobacco or oil industry would. It also will not help them as much as an endorsement from a police union.

Nonetheless, we are likely to see an uptick in marijuana advocates weighing in on political races, bills and more.

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

Additional Resources:

Pot gets political: Santa Ana marijuana dispensary endorses Loretta Sanchez, June 1, 2016, The Orange County Register

More Blog Entries:

City of Los Angeles Targets Another Marijuana Delivery Service, May 21, 2016, Orange County Marijuana Lawyer Blog