Calif. pot dispensaries told by feds to shut down

[weeddaddy50]

Wow.....great news on the court case

Wow.....great news on the court case

Your right....this has not been reported in the main stream news.

Dude, by no means is ANY of this going to get "my panties in a bunch..." And yea, it's a given that grow forums should be taken with a grain of gro-salt. LOL We're good bro. Meanwhile, in an attempt to drag this thread back on point:

Landmark Court Decision Affirms Legality of Storefront Dispensaries in California

February 28th, 2012
Posted by Kris Hermes

http://safeaccessnow.org/blog/?p=2366
Second District Court of Appeal rejects Attorney General’s argument that all collective members must participate in cultivation
The California Court of Appeal issued a landmark published decision last week affirming the legality of storefront dispensaries and rejecting the argument that every member of a collective or cooperative must participate in the cultivation. Didn’t hear about the ruling? Maybe because the decision came from the Second Appellate District in Los Angeles, the domain of District Attorney Steve Cooley and City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, famously intolerant to medical marijuana dispensaries. It would be an understatement to say that the ruling jabs a large thorn into both of their sides. You’ll certainly see no publicity from their corner.
The case People v. Colvin involves William Frank Colvin, the operator of Hollywood Holistic Inc., who was arrested while lawfully transporting a pound of medical marijuana from one collective he operates to another. Even while acknowledging that Colvin was operating a legitimate dispensary, the trial court denied him a defense on the grounds that transportation of medical marijuana was illegal under state law. After being denied a defense, Colvin was convicted.
On appeal, California Attorney General Kamala Harris advanced the view that under state law all members of a collective must somehow participate in the cultivation process and “come together” in “some way” for this purpose. In characterizing Attorney General Harris’s argument, the Court said:
The Attorney General does not specify how many members must participate or in what way or ways they must do so, except to imply that Holistic, with its 5,000 members and 14 growers, is simply too big to allow any ‘meaningful’ participation in the cooperative process; hence, it cannot be a ‘cooperative’ or a ‘collective’ [in compliance with state law].
The Court then compared medical marijuana cooperatives with food cooperatives:
[The Attorney General’s interpretation of state law] would impose on medical marijuana cooperatives requirements not imposed on other cooperatives. A grocery cooperative, for example, may have members who grow and sell the food and run a store out of which the cooperative’s products are sold. But not everyone who pays a fee to become a member participates in the cooperative other than to shop at it.
However, the Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the stringent requirement that an “unspecified number of members to engage in unspecified ‘united action or participation’ to qualify for the protection of [state law].” Perhaps most importantly, the Court said that the “logical conclusion” of such requirements would likely “limit drastically the size of medical marijuana establishments.” Furthermore, the Court said that:
[T]he Attorney General’s vague qualifier provides little direction or guidance to, among others, qualified patients, primary caregivers, law enforcement, and trial courts. Rather, imposing the Attorney General’s requirement would, it seems to us, contravene the intent of [state law] by limiting patients’ access to medical marijuana and leading to inconsistent applications of the law.
It should be no surprise why Cooley, Trutanich and the other opponents of medical marijuana would want to downplay such a landmark decision. However, at a time when trial courts are denying a defense to medical marijuana dispensary operators, the Court’s decision is a welcome one that is long overdue.

 

[weeddaddy50]

thanks for the Info

thanks for the Info

Just printed the decision...and inserting a new tab in my collective book.....thanks again.

Dude, by no means is ANY of this going to get "my panties in a bunch..." And yea, it's a given that grow forums should be taken with a grain of gro-salt. LOL We're good bro. Meanwhile, in an attempt to drag this thread back on point:

Landmark Court Decision Affirms Legality of Storefront Dispensaries in California

February 28th, 2012
Posted by Kris Hermes

http://safeaccessnow.org/blog/?p=2366
Second District Court of Appeal rejects Attorney General’s argument that all collective members must participate in cultivation
The California Court of Appeal issued a landmark published decision last week affirming the legality of storefront dispensaries and rejecting the argument that every member of a collective or cooperative must participate in the cultivation. Didn’t hear about the ruling? Maybe because the decision came from the Second Appellate District in Los Angeles, the domain of District Attorney Steve Cooley and City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, famously intolerant to medical marijuana dispensaries. It would be an understatement to say that the ruling jabs a large thorn into both of their sides. You’ll certainly see no publicity from their corner.
The case People v. Colvin involves William Frank Colvin, the operator of Hollywood Holistic Inc., who was arrested while lawfully transporting a pound of medical marijuana from one collective he operates to another. Even while acknowledging that Colvin was operating a legitimate dispensary, the trial court denied him a defense on the grounds that transportation of medical marijuana was illegal under state law. After being denied a defense, Colvin was convicted.
On appeal, California Attorney General Kamala Harris advanced the view that under state law all members of a collective must somehow participate in the cultivation process and “come together” in “some way” for this purpose. In characterizing Attorney General Harris’s argument, the Court said:
The Attorney General does not specify how many members must participate or in what way or ways they must do so, except to imply that Holistic, with its 5,000 members and 14 growers, is simply too big to allow any ‘meaningful’ participation in the cooperative process; hence, it cannot be a ‘cooperative’ or a ‘collective’ [in compliance with state law].
The Court then compared medical marijuana cooperatives with food cooperatives:
[The Attorney General’s interpretation of state law] would impose on medical marijuana cooperatives requirements not imposed on other cooperatives. A grocery cooperative, for example, may have members who grow and sell the food and run a store out of which the cooperative’s products are sold. But not everyone who pays a fee to become a member participates in the cooperative other than to shop at it.
However, the Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the stringent requirement that an “unspecified number of members to engage in unspecified ‘united action or participation’ to qualify for the protection of [state law].” Perhaps most importantly, the Court said that the “logical conclusion” of such requirements would likely “limit drastically the size of medical marijuana establishments.” Furthermore, the Court said that:
[T]he Attorney General’s vague qualifier provides little direction or guidance to, among others, qualified patients, primary caregivers, law enforcement, and trial courts. Rather, imposing the Attorney General’s requirement would, it seems to us, contravene the intent of [state law] by limiting patients’ access to medical marijuana and leading to inconsistent applications of the law.
It should be no surprise why Cooley, Trutanich and the other opponents of medical marijuana would want to downplay such a landmark decision. However, at a time when trial courts are denying a defense to medical marijuana dispensary operators, the Court’s decision is a welcome one that is long overdue.

 

[CanniDo Cowboy]

Turn on your radios folks...! It's the heavyweight fight of the century. In the far corner, the challenger, the Medical Marijuana Community. And in the other corner, the mostly undefeated, uncrowned and unrecognized so called champion, from parts unknown and uncared about, the big bad Feds.


The Medical Marijuana Community wins Round 1, leaving the Feds dazed and confused:

Landmark Court Decision Affirms Legality of Storefront Dispensaries in California

February 28th, 2012
Posted by Kris Hermes

http://safeaccessnow.org/blog/?p=2366
Second District Court of Appeal rejects Attorney General’s argument that all collective members must participate in cultivation
The California Court of Appeal issued a landmark published decision last week affirming the legality of storefront dispensaries and rejecting the argument that every member of a collective or cooperative must participate in the cultivation. Didn’t hear about the ruling? Maybe because the decision came from the Second Appellate District in Los Angeles, the domain of District Attorney Steve Cooley and City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, famously intolerant to medical marijuana dispensaries. It would be an understatement to say that the ruling jabs a large thorn into both of their sides. You’ll certainly see no publicity from their corner.
The case People v. Colvin involves William Frank Colvin, the operator of Hollywood Holistic Inc., who was arrested while lawfully transporting a pound of medical marijuana from one collective he operates to another. Even while acknowledging that Colvin was operating a legitimate dispensary, the trial court denied him a defense on the grounds that transportation of medical marijuana was illegal under state law. After being denied a defense, Colvin was convicted.
On appeal, California Attorney General Kamala Harris advanced the view that under state law all members of a collective must somehow participate in the cultivation process and “come together” in “some way” for this purpose. In characterizing Attorney General Harris’s argument, the Court said:
The Attorney General does not specify how many members must participate or in what way or ways they must do so, except to imply that Holistic, with its 5,000 members and 14 growers, is simply too big to allow any ‘meaningful’ participation in the cooperative process; hence, it cannot be a ‘cooperative’ or a ‘collective’ [in compliance with state law].
The Court then compared medical marijuana cooperatives with food cooperatives:
[The Attorney General’s interpretation of state law] would impose on medical marijuana cooperatives requirements not imposed on other cooperatives. A grocery cooperative, for example, may have members who grow and sell the food and run a store out of which the cooperative’s products are sold. But not everyone who pays a fee to become a member participates in the cooperative other than to shop at it.
However, the Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the stringent requirement that an “unspecified number of members to engage in unspecified ‘united action or participation’ to qualify for the protection of [state law].” Perhaps most importantly, the Court said that the “logical conclusion” of such requirements would likely “limit drastically the size of medical marijuana establishments.” Furthermore, the Court said that:
[T]he Attorney General’s vague qualifier provides little direction or guidance to, among others, qualified patients, primary caregivers, law enforcement, and trial courts. Rather, imposing the Attorney General’s requirement would, it seems to us, contravene the intent of [state law] by limiting patients’ access to medical marijuana and leading to inconsistent applications of the law.
It should be no surprise why Cooley, Trutanich and the other opponents of medical marijuana would want to downplay such a landmark decision. However, at a time when trial courts are denying a defense to medical marijuana dispensary operators, the Court’s decision is a welcome one that is long overdue.[/QUOTE [/B]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Medical Marijuana Community also wins Round 2, putting the Feds on the canvas with a solid knockdown:

CA APPEALS COURT STRIKES DOWN LAKE FOREST BAN ON DISPENSARIES - PROVIDED THEY CULTIVATE ON SITE

ORANGE Co: In a significant but strange medical marijuana ruling, the 4th District Court of Appeals, 3rd Division struck down Lake Forest's ban on dispensaries. The court ruled that local governments may not prohibit dispensaries as a per se nuisance, provided the dispensary is located where cultivation takes place. In practice, of course, hardly any dispensaries cultivate on site due to the obvious security problems. Nonetheless, the court concluded that SB 420 authorizes only "grow-site dispensaries." It will be interesting to see how this plays out. This not unfavorable yet cockamamie ruling cries out for a legislative fix.

D. G.


CITY OF LAKE FOREST v EVERGREEN HOLISTIC COLLECTIVE #G043909

Text of decision:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G043909.PDF

(EXCERPT)

> The trial court granted the City of Lake Forest‟s (the City‟s) request in this
> nuisance abatement proceeding for a preliminary injunction shutting down Evergreen
> Holistic Collective‟s (Evergreen‟s) medical marijuana dispensary based on a citywide
> ban against dispensaries. The trial court determined the City‟s decision not to recognize
> dispensaries as a permitted property use, and to prohibit unpermitted uses, established a
> complete ban against the activity. Evergreen contends dispensaries are authorized by
> Health and Safety Code section 11362.775‟s endorsement of “collective[]” and
> “cooperative[]” medical marijuana activities, and, therefore, what the Legislature has
> authorized, the City may not ban.1
> We conclude local governments may not prohibit medical marijuana
> dispensaries altogether, with the caveat that the Legislature authorized dispensaries only
> at sites where medical marijuana is “collectively or cooperatively . . . cultivate[d].”
> (§ 11362.775.) Section 11362.775 exempts qualified medical marijuana patients and
> their primary caregivers not only from criminal prosecution for authorized collective or
> cooperative activities, but also from nuisance abatement proceedings. Thus, the
> Legislature has determined the activities it authorized at collective or cooperative
> cultivation sites, including a dispensary function, do not constitute a nuisance.
> Under the City‟s municipal code, in contrast, violation of its zoning
> ordinances constitutes a per se, categorical nuisance. Under the City‟s ban, a medical
> marijuana dispensary always constitutes a nuisance, though the Legislature has concluded
> otherwise. Because the City‟s ban directly contradicts state law, it is preempted and
> furnishes no valid basis for a preliminary injunction in the City‟s favor. Rather, the City
> must show Evergreen did not grow its marijuana on-site or otherwise failed to comply
> with applicable state medical marijuana law or permissible local regulations. Because the
> trial court granted the City‟s injunction request solely on the basis of the City‟s total ban,
> we must reverse the preliminary injunction and remand the matter for further
> proceedings.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh oh, the Feds counter in Round 3:



> Judge throws out medical pot suit against the feds
> Wednesday, February 29, 2012
>
> (02-29) 16:51 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- When federal prosecutors in California
> announced a crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries last fall, pot
> suppliers and their advocates claimed in a series of lawsuits that the
> Obama administration was breaking a promise to leave them alone if they
> complied with state law.
>
> The suits have gotten a chilly reception in court, and now a federal judge
> in Sacramento has become the first to dismiss one of them, saying the
> Justice Department remains free to enforce federal drug laws.
>
> Tuesday's ruling allows federal prosecutors to continue a campaign that has
> shut down a number of dispensaries in California, including the Marin
> Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Fairfax and several in San Francisco. A
> lawyer for a Sacramento collective and one of its patients said they would
> appeal.
>
> The suits were filed in November by marijuana suppliers and patients in
> each of the state's four federal judicial districts. They relied on the
> Justice Department's October 2009 memo to federal prosecutors that said
> they should concentrate on drug trafficking networks, and "should not focus
> federal resources" on individuals who followed their state's medical
> marijuana law.
>
> The memo followed President Obama's 2008 campaign pledge to let states set
> their own medical marijuana policies. Shortly after the department released
> the document, Santa Cruz County agreed to dismiss a suit challenging the
> government's authority to raid locally approved pot collectives like one
> that federal agents had invaded in the city of Santa Cruz.
>
> But U.S. District Judge Garland Burrell of Sacramento said Tuesday the
> Justice Department memo was a statement of priorities, not a binding
> commitment, and did not exempt any dispensaries from the federal laws
> against marijuana cultivation and distribution.
>
> The memo "does not contain a promise not to enforce" federal law, and the
> department made no such pledges in the Santa Cruz case, Burrell said. He
> also said the Supreme Court and a federal appeals court have rejected
> arguments that seriously ill patients have a constitutional right to use
> marijuana with a doctor's approval.
>
> Federal judges in Oakland and San Diego have reached similar conclusions in
> refusing to block federal enforcement actions, although they have not
> dismissed the lawsuits. The fourth suit is pending before a judge in Los
> Angeles.
>
> Also pending, before a federal judge in San Francisco, is a lawsuit filed
> in October by the advocacy group Americans for Safe Access claiming that
> the prosecutors' actions against dispensaries and their landlords violated
> the state's constitutional authority to set its own health policies.
>
> Matthew Kumin, a lawyer for the dispensary in the Sacramento case,
> expressed frustration today that Burrell and the Oakland and San Diego
> judges issued their rulings without holding hearings.
>
> One argument Kumin said he would present to the appeals court is that the
> government is acting arbitrarily by blocking research proposals on medical
> marijuana, then asserting that it has no medical value.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Round 4- the Feds come out bobbin n weavin,, jabbing away with small body shots, trying to slow down the advancing and stronger Medical MJ apponent:

Judge Cancels Oral Arguments in Case involving Briana Bilbray, Dispensaries Seeking Injunction to Stop Federal Crackdown

By: Eugene Davidovich

SAN DIEGO – In October of last year several U.S. Attorneys from the Department of Justice (DOJ) held a press conference in Sacramento announcing a new Federal crackdown on medical marijuana patients and providers across California .

Days after the announcement, hundreds of letters from the DOJ were sent to landlords renting commercial spaces to dispensaries threatening criminal prosecution and property forfeiture, unless their dispensary tenants were immediately evicted. Similar letters were sent to patients threatening federal criminal indictments.

In San Diego , the attacks involved both the DOJ and local officials. Jan Goldsmith, the San Diego City Attorney with support from City Council also wrote landlords and patients, making similar threats. In addition, his office filed almost one hundred lawsuits against the facilities claiming they were in violation of local zoning ordinances.

The letters were followed by several swat-style raids on a handful of dispensaries that remained open. In less then five months the attack from both Federal and local officials, the lawsuits, and raids, caused over 150 legitimate, tax paying, businesses, to shutter their doors in San Diego alone.

The community however, did not remain quiet. Massive outcries and opposition came from patients and advocates across the state. Protests were quickly organized, new legislative efforts started, and lawsuits filed against the DOJ in every district of the State.

Once such lawsuit jointly filed by patients and collectives in San Diego , involves republican Congressman Brian Bilbray’s daughter, Brianna Bilbray. A cancer survivor and medical marijuana patient herself Ms. Bilbray, joined the suit in November.

“My cancer has a 40 percent chance of reoccurrence and I'm really nervous I'm not going to be able to get it [marijuana] cause, the nausea's just unbearable." Ms. Bilbray was quoted as saying in an article by the Imperial Beach Patch.

In an attempt to stop the issue from being heard by the courts, the DOJ filed a motion demanding the case be thrown out. Oral arguments for the ‘motion to dismiss’ were scheduled to be heard this Friday, March 3, in Judge Sabraw’s courtroom.

Days before the hearing, on Wednesday, attorney’s representing the patients in the case learned the hearing was cancelled.

"Judge Sabraw has decided again to cancel oral arguments and decide the Government's ‘Motion to Dismiss’ based solely on the pleadings. Accordingly, there will be no court appearance on Friday. In the event the Court grants the Government's motion, this case will be ripe for appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which is what we intend to do." Lance Rogers, one of the attorney representing patients and collectives said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Feds get a boost of confidence which may help in the later rounds:


> Top federal prosecutor vows new crackdown on pot farms
>
> February 28, 2012
>
> By Sam Stanton
> [email protected]
>
Warning that there is a new "green rush" of people flocking to California
> to exploit the market for marijuana, the top federal prosecutor in the
> Sacramento region promised a crackdown today on huge pot farms on
> agricultural land in the Central Valley.
>
> Benjamin Wagner, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, said
> his office is not interested in prosecuting sick people using medical
> marijuana. But he warned that the "unregulated free for all" that has
> allowed marijuana growers and merchants to make fortunes must come to an
> end, and he said in the coming months a new focus will be made on pot farms
> in the valley.
>
> "There's been a proliferation of these large commercial grows on farmland,
> especially in the southern part of the valley from Stanislaus County down
> to Kern County," Wagner said at an appearance before the Sacramento Press
> Club. "And these grows are often tens of thousands of marijuana plants.
>
> "They're often guarded by armed men and they are a hazard to people in
> those farming communities who live in or around them."
>
> Wagner is one of four U.S. attorneys statewide who began a concerted effort
> last year to crack down on large-scale marijuana operations that they
> believe are in the business to make huge profits rather than to aid ill
> citizens who use marijuana for medical purposes.
>
> The effort has come under fierce criticism from medical marijuana
> advocates, who believe their access to pot from dispensaries is being
> curtailed.
>
> Most of the questions Wagner received today during his lunch speech came
> from marijuana advocates questioning how far the federal government plans
> to go in stopping marijuana operations.
>
> But Wagner defended his office's actions, saying prosecutions have been
> focused on large-scale profiteers rather than individuals.
>
> "As we have said from the beginning, our efforts have not been directed at
> sick people whom are using marijuana as part of a medical treatment plan or
> those who are genuinely providing care to them," he said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In between rounds, let's take a look back to see just when, where, how and why, this slugfest got started:

SAN FRANCISCO -- Residents of Mendocino County, the redwood and marijuana-rich territory in California's fabled Emerald Triangle, thought they had reached detente in the decades-old clash between pot growers and local law enforcement two years ago when the sheriff agreed to stop raiding medical cannabis producers who paid to have their crops inspected.

For a $1,500 fee and adherence to rules over water usage, odor control and distance from neighbors, marijuana farmers working for groups of patients could grow up to 99 plants on five acres of land. Numbered red zip ties had be affixed to each plant, confirming the county's seal of approval and giving a visiting deputy proof the pot was legally grown.

The one-of-a-kind program generated $663,230 for the sheriff's department - and prompted inquiries from other jurisdictions interested in creating their own.

But this month, the permitting system became the most striking casualty of the crackdown on medical marijuana cultivation and distribution by California's federal prosecutors. The board of supervisors ended the experiment after the U.S. attorney for Northern California threatened take the county to court for helping produce an illegal drug.

"We thought we had something that was working and was making our life easier so we could turn our attention to other pressing matters," Supervisor John McCowen said. "We were creating an above-ground regulatory framework that protected public safety and protected the environment. It was truly a landmark program."

After four-and-a-half months, the federal government's highly publicized offensive has reverberated unevenly throughout California. It has resulted in a near-total shutdown of storefront pot dispensaries in some cities that welcomed federal intervention. It has upset officials in pot-friendly places, who thought they had found the right formula for facilitating legal use. And it has created uncertainty in localities still struggling to curtail their pot outlets.

Medical pot is legal to varying degrees in 16 states and the District of Columbia. And officials in more than half of them have been told government workers implementing medical marijuana laws could face criminal charges.

But California, which in 1996 became the first state to legalize marijuana for medical use, has come under special scrutiny. Its laws remain the nation's most liberal, allowing doctors to issue pot recommendations for almost any ailment and giving local authorities broad discretion, but little guidance, in how to implement them.

The state's laws stand in conflict with federal law, which holds marijuana is illegal substance with no recognized health benefits. And the current offensive is designed to make dispensaries and local government officials comply with it.

The primary tool the U.S. attorneys have used is threatening to seize the properties of landlords who knowingly leased farms or retail spaces to the commercial medical marijuana trade. But they also have filed criminal and civil charges against owners of nonprofit dispensaries they say were pocketing tons of money and furnishing pot to people who had no medical need for it. And in some cases, such as Mendocino's, they have warned government officials.

"These licensing schemes are inconsistent with federal law," Melinda Haag, Northern California's U.S. attorney, said in October. "We are simply reminding local officials the ordinances are illegal."

As part of the statewide crackdown, about 90 dispensaries in 19 Southern California cities were sent letters telling them to close or face possible criminal charges and fines. More than a dozen building owners where marijuana clinics were once located have been subjected to federal forfeiture lawsuits.

In Orange County, the city of Lake Forest had a dozen dispensaries operating a year ago. After officials sought help from federal prosecutors, only one pot shop remains.

In San Diego, the vast majority of the 180 or so pot shops whose landlords were sent warning letters have closed. And in unincorporated parts of Sacramento County, where the Board of Supervisors cited the federal crackdown when outlawing dispensaries, all 97 pot shops are gone.

"What the feds bring to the party is they can do things under their federal law that cities and counties and even the state of California cannot do," said Jeffrey Dunn, an attorney who has helped Lake Forest and other Southern California cities shutter dispensaries. "There are no disputes about medicinal use because it doesn't matter. If you are distributing marijuana, end of discussion."

Federal authorities have not yet weighed into Los Angeles, where city officials tried to limit the number of pot shops two years ago and are now considering a total ban.

City officials believe there still may be hundreds of shops doing business right now. "As of today, we don't know how many exist," said special assistant city attorney Jane Usher. "The last thing they are inclined to do is to tell us they are open."

Until Mendocino County officials bowed to pressure, the federal offensive was not very visible in pot-tolerant places either. In San Francisco, only five of the city's 26 dispensaries have closed, with federal prosecutors saying they were targeted because of their proximity to places such as schools and playgrounds. Only one of neighboring Marin County's six clinics closed, and Fairfax town officials appealed to keep it and its tax revenue.

Advocates and experts say Justice Department directives have sent mixed signals since the election of President Barack Obama -first saying that prosecutors would no longer pursue dispensaries following state law, then stating that cultivating, selling and distributing marijuana was still against the law.

The pressure by California's federal prosecutors came in response to the second directive and the unsuccessful efforts by local governments to keep dispensaries in check, said McGregor Scott, a former U.S. attorney in Sacramento.

"The perception by proponents of medical marijuana was that, if they... were complying with state law, the feds were going to leave them alone," Scott said. "I think what happened is, the administration realized they had made a mistake by taking the lid off."

Supporters of medical marijuana have questioned why the federal government is derailing attempts to create legal frameworks for getting pot to people authorized to use it.

"They claim they don't have any problem with individual medical marijuana patients accessing their medicine, but then go out of their way to prevent the creation of any kind of responsible system from being developed," said Stephen Gutwillig, the Drug Policy Alliance's director in California. "It's basically a form of sabre rattling."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Round 5- The Fed Boys flail away with more of the same weak tactics:

> The US attorneys have sent landlord letters to over 50 more
> dispensaries in the Inland Empire area, where local officials have
> been pressing to close them. In addition, Cal NORML has learned of
> new landlord letters in Mendocino, apparently targeted at facilities
> within 1,000 feet of schools or playgrounds.
> - D. Gieringer, Cal NORML
>
Marijuana dispensaries warned of federal charges
>
U.S. attorneys sent letters Tuesday to more than 50 marijuana
> dispensaries in San Bernardino, Fontana, Colton and Bloomington
> threatening criminal or legal action in federal court if the
> dispensaries stay open.
>
> This is the latest stage in a statewide crackdown that began in
> October, said Thom Mrozek, a public affairs officer for the U.S.
> Attorney's Office.
>
> "We've gone after different geographic areas, and this enforcement
> action is the latest phase," Mrozek said.
>
> The letters give the dispensaries 14 days to stop distributing
> marijuana.
>
> "This letter serves as formal notice to you that the marijuana
> dispensary's operations violate United States law and that the
> violations of United States law relating to the marijuana dispensary's
> operations on your property may result in criminal prosecution,
> imprisonment, fines and forfeiture of assets, including the real
> property on which the dispensary is operating and any money you
> receive (or have received) from the dispensary operator," reads a
> sample version of the letter.
>
> Federal law prohibits possessing or distributing marijuana for any
> reason, including medical use, but those who run or use dispensaries
> argue it's legal in California. They cite Proposition 215, the 1996
> law that approved medical cannabis in the state, and Senate Bill 420,
> passed in 2003, which details the amount of marijuana a person can
> possess for medical purposes and sets guidelines for identification
> card programs.
>
> "The law says we need (medical marijuana), and there is a need for
> us," said Dewayne "Dewbie" O'Brien, a budtender at Arrow Alternative
> Remedies in San Bernardino. "We're very busy with new patients and
> returning patients, staples of the community. The community needs us."
>
> O'Brien said he had not yet received a copy of the letter but said
> Arrow Alternative Remedies is careful to operate safely and according
> to state law.
>
> Aaron Sandusky, who ran G3 Holistic in Colton until a city raid forced
> him to shut down, said it's undemocratic and harmful to public health
> to shut down well-run collectives like his.
>
> "God help us all," he said. "It's the will of the people."
>
> Sandusky also operates a dispensary in Upland, outside the area
> contacted Tuesday, that was shut down but reopened Dec. 30 as it
> appeals its closure.
>
> The partnership with U.S. Attorney's Office and the Drug Enforcement
> Agency is the latest stage in what already was an aggressive approach
> in San Bernardino, said Jolena Grider, assistant city attorney.
>
> Opening a dispensary has been illegal in San Bernardino since July
> 2010 and for most of the period stretching back to 2007, but in the
> past year the city attorney's office began imposing $1,000-per-day
> fines known as Administrative Civil Penalties or ACPs.
>
> "For the past year we've been issuing ACPs, which are penalties of
> $1,000 a day from the time we went out and verified that they were
> dispensing marijuana," Grider said. "Now, we'll be coordinating with
> the U.S. attorneys to do more."


Meanwhile the Med MJ camp throws down with more creative and hopefully successful tactics of their own:

Medical marijuana advocates drop initiative drive, turn to media campaign
Share

Published: Thursday, Mar. 8, 2012 - 1:27 pm
Medical marijuana advocates are dropping efforts to qualify a November ballot initiative to regulate California's dispensary industry and instead plan a media campaign to lobby the Legislature to tackle the issue.

Cannabis industry groups including dispensaries, medical marijuana growers and a powerful union drafted the proposed measure in the face of an ongoing federal crackdown on California's $1.5 billion medicinal pot trade.

But a top campaign director said today initiative planners instead have decided to run television and radio ads to urge lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown to enact rules governing how medical marijuana outlets operate in the state.

"We're not doing the initiative. We're pulling the plug on it," said Dan Rush, director of the Medical Cannabis and Hemp Division for the United Food and Commercial Workers, which has been organizing California pot workers for the past two years.

Rush said today that he had secured $1.2 million in pledges, mostly from the dispensary industry, toward $2 million to gather signatures for a November initiative.

But with time running out and other major contributors undecided over whether to pursue a ballot or legislative strategy, Rush said initiative backers decided to take their case to the Capitol instead. He said the money pledged to date will be used for "a full-on media campaign," including lobbying and likely television and radio spots this summer.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, has introduced legislation seeking to accomplish many aims of the ballot initiative, the proposed "Medical Marijuana Regulation,Control and Taxation Act."


Stay tuned folks...Right now, it's anyone's fight...CC

 

[SeaMaiden]

Yet their efforts, whether intentionally directed or not, are indeed affecting exactly the people they say they're not.

I expect federal judges to rule on the side of federal law, but it chaps my hide that they won't allow a constitutional right to medicate as one sees fit. How about a right as declared in our Bill of Rights, then? The Declaration of Independence? Since WHEN was the government afforded the right to dictate medical treatment to people?

Talk about a huge disconnect between the language of the laws and their intent.

 

[Hydrosun]

Since WHEN was the government afforded the right to dictate medical treatment to people?

Never. That power is reserved to the individual and specifically NOT granted to the federal government.

All laws to the contrary (Obhama care and the like) are all unconstitutional.

Just because they say we are inferior and a slave to them and their system, does not make it so.

 

[guest8905]

good info cc, thanks

 

[Grass Lands]

just seen on the news, its not just the clubs they are going after. Here in the Central Valley the feds are coming in and going after land owners even if they have no idea a crop is/was being grown on their land...

now lets see, where is there a lot of prime ass land to pop in a bunch of fucking greenhouses to grow cannabis...WOW, right here in the central valley and the feds are coming in to seize property from land owners who have no clue as to what may or may not be growing on their land.

 

[Hydrosun]

The US Federal government makes the Nazi's look like pikers.

 

[CanniDo Cowboy]

It seems we as medical marijuana patients/advocates may have been hornswoggled by the State of California head legal honchos, depending on who you choose to believe. Is the State 4 really to blame? Or is it the Feds as was originally "assumed" or is it the Feds now telling the State 4 to take the fall? Wherever the true answer lies, it smacks of the old shell game to me, only with the med patient being used as the pea...CC



U.S. ATTORNEY BREAKS SILENCE ON MEDICAL-MARIJUANA BATTLE!!
Details from last week’s Benjamin Wagner chat with press and pot advocate

This article was published on 03.08.12.

Medical-cannabis patients and providers should expect ongoing persecution in California. However, media backlash due to the nearly half-year-old federal crackdown is affecting at least one prominent drug warrior: United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California Benjamin Wagner.

Wagner broke the Department of Justice’s near silence with regard to the crackdown during a candid, hour-long talk and question-and-answer session last Tuesday at a Sacramento Press Club luncheon. The $30-a-plate affair took place on the 15th floor of 1201 K Street, and inside, Wagner admitted that the cannabis cleanup was the idea of the four U.S. Attorneys in California, not Washington, D.C.

The four were upset because of what Wagner called “flagrant” marijuana sales in the state. So they declared war on medical marijuana last October, sending out hundreds of forfeiture-warning letters to dispensaries across California. His office is in the process of seizing at least one dispensary in Sacramento, while officials have closed more or less every dispensary in Sacramento County.

He reiterated that they’re not going after patients and caregivers, rather interstate transporters, huge pot farmers and illicit dispensaries grossing tens of thousands of dollars per day in cash.

But the media critique of the war is wearing on Wagner, it seems. He said he counts on good press to create a “deterrent effect” in regard to cases of mortgage fraud, child exploitation, human trafficking and major gang violence. But he’s not getting any of that.

“I think that the members of the press would be forgiven for thinking that marijuana enforcement is all that we do,” he said. “It is far from the most important thing that we do. I have many other higher priorities that have a much bigger impact on public safety. I did not seek the position of U.S. attorney in order to launch a campaign against medical marijuana.”

Wagner was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009 and has been with the DOJ since 1992, primarily in the Eastern District. When he and the other three U.S. attorneys took office at the end of 2009, “We found that we were in the middle of an explosion of marijuana cultivation and sales,” he said.

Federal policy didn’t change, rather “what we saw … was an unregulated free-for-all in California in which huge amounts of money was being made selling marijuana … to virtually anybody who wanted to get stoned.”

Wagner said that’s not what California voters approved. Stores marking up pot 200 percent is “not about sick people. That’s about money.”

His reaction has been “quite measured,” he said. Most dispensaries just got warning letters.

“In a few instances, after ample warnings, we’ve brought civil-enforcement actions while reserving criminal prosecution for the most flagrant violators of not only federal law but state law,” he said.

He referred to cases such as one where seven Roseville and Fresno suspects were indicted in February for growing pot with doctor’s recommendations and running a dispensary as a front to traffic it to seven states in the Midwest and South.

Wagner also warned that a season of raids in the Central Valley is coming in 2012, and that mega pot farmers are on notice that if they plant again this year, their land could be seized.

He tried to make the case that pot is just a fraction of what his office does, referring to 61 indictments on mortgage fraud last fiscal year.

During audience questions, activists asked why the federal government says marijuana has “no medical use,” yet the United States has patented its ingredient, cannabidiol, for treating strokes.

“What I know about marijuana as medicine you can probably put in a thimble,” he said.

But health policy is not his job, he said. “My advice to you is to write your congressman.”

Sacramento lawyer Alan Donato asked for guidelines for local dispensaries to avoid federal attention.

“I’m not in a position to be of much comfort,” Wagner said. “You don’t ask the CHP, ‘How many miles over the speed limit can I go before you pull me over?'”

Stephen Downing, a retired Los Angeles Police Department deputy chief and member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, asked if the failed drug war would ever make Wagner say “Enough is enough” to his boss, Attorney General Eric Holder.

“That’s hard to say,” Wagner said. “I totally understand the debate over legalization as opposed to criminalizing narcotics.

“It really depends on what the cost-benefits are. Marijuana is obviously not nearly as destructive as [methamphetamine]. The risks in legalizing marijuana may be significantly less that meth.”

But prescription drugs “are the biggest, worst drug problem in terms of trends … [and] that’s a legal drug.”

SN&R news intern Matthew W. Urner got the biggest attention of the lunch, asking Wagner if he ever tried the second-most-commonly used mind-altering substance in America, and if so, what he thought."

 

[guest8905]

good read CC thanks again....hope the spring is good to ya

 

[vta]

“What I know about marijuana as medicine you can probably put in a thimble,”

And there we have it

 

[monkey5]

Hydrosun..excellent post!!

Hydrosun..excellent post!!

Never. That power is reserved to the individual and specifically NOT granted to the federal government.

All laws to the contrary (Obhama care and the like) are all unconstitutional.

Just because they say we are inferior and a slave to them and their system, does not make it so.

~~~ Hydrosun, Excellent Post!! You have that 100% correct!! TRUTH SPOKEN!! Thank you sir! monkey5

 

[maxmurder]

Stores marking up pot 200 percent is “not about sick people. That’s about money.”[/B]"

200%???

 

[abellguy]

 

[maxmurder]

^ ^ most everything in dispensaries is sold in grams, so 200% and more is what some clubs are making. When they get it from a vendor though they usually only want to pay enough so they can make a 100% profit if it is sold in 8th's. Some truly compassionate club owners have shared the real truth and I appreciate them very much for doing so.
.

got out the old calculator heheheh

2500. for 1# to vendor.
2500. divided by 454= $5.50 per gram
X 3.5= $19.27 wholesale 1/8th
x 2 (100% markup) = $38.55 retail
x 3 (200% markup) = $57.81 retail

damn maybe i should open a club- that's good money.

oh and i'm pretty sure hydro stores when they buy pallets of nutrients double the wholesale price for retail. i should open one of those too hahahhahh.

that cookiemonster avatar cracks me up everytime i see it!

 

[SeaMaiden]

^ ^ most everything in dispensaries is sold in grams, so 200% and more is what some clubs are making. When they get it from a vendor though they usually only want to pay enough so they can make a 100% profit if it is sold in 8th's. Some truly compassionate club owners have shared the real truth and I appreciate them very much for doing so.

I know of no other business that has a 100% mark-up on the products they offer, if that is normal that is news to me. I always thought it was around 30-35%.

Then perhaps you haven't worked much retail. In many cases the average mark-up is 300%-400%. I don't see 200% as such a bad mark-up in the retail scheme of things. Honestly, I don't see it as such a bad thing for clubs/coops/dispensaries--how are they going to pay for overhead, permits, licensing, fees, power, rent, utilities, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera? Those costs must be paid, so where would the money come from?

You can be compassionate, and also be able to support yourself at the same time.

 

[Goodkarma]

Wagner was a smoker.

Wagner was a smoker.

Canna Cowboy. YOU LEFT OUT THE PUNCH LINE

At the end when asked by Sacramento News and Review....if he ever tried ....

Wagner answered "Uh, I'll just say that I went to college"

So the Guy going after the plant as an evil entity was a smoker.

Hypocrisy.

 

[abellguy]

 

[HempKat]

Then perhaps you haven't worked much retail. In many cases the average mark-up is 300%-400%. I don't see 200% as such a bad mark-up in the retail scheme of things. Honestly, I don't see it as such a bad thing for clubs/coops/dispensaries--how are they going to pay for overhead, permits, licensing, fees, power, rent, utilities, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera? Those costs must be paid, so where would the money come from?

You can be compassionate, and also be able to support yourself at the same time.

Come on these places are raking in millions in profit (which obviously as profit that's after overhead has been covered) and most are relatively small, there is no way their overhead is so high as to justify the prices they charge. They like most other businesses are basing prices not on what their true costs are with a reasonable markup for profit but rather they're charging based on what they see as possible from the black market. Which is fine, it's just good business sense to get as much profit as the market can bare and still allow you to be competitive but if that's the way one operates they shouldn't tout themselves as being strictly about compassion for the sick.

 

[megayields]

True story;

Friend of mine started a small dispensary in this county. When he started it with his friend they both shared a very small mobile home (renter's) they barely had enough money to pay for the first 4 months expenses, within a year and a half he bought a house (uhh all cash deal too ...eyebrows raised) in Live Oak, 2 blocks from the ocean.....I'd say their was a LOT of profit in the dispo biz....and this guy was NO flippin brain surgeon.

Just saying.....