-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Calif. pot dispensaries told by feds to shut down
- Thread starter vta
- Start date
I was down in San Diego this weekend and all the clubs are shut down. Maybe a small handful still open, and they will close soon. I had to call up a delivery service, and they had some nice meds. Some oil they said was 94%, lol. Sucks everybody is closed, I hope next time I go down the clubs are open again.
Is this the same as in the bay area? I never go to clubs anymore.
Is this the same as in the bay area? I never go to clubs anymore.
There are no disp in SD, all delivery and before they were all gone the cap went from 60 to 75 with the quickness...45 cap must be nice...there is always a market somewhere...if you don't like the price a D gives you, then don't sell it to them, it's a free market...
Hey thanks Sticks...No matter what it brings, Spring is always good! LOL
S
SeaMaiden
In my usual field(s) a vendor is a supplier, of anything. They are not a broker, a broker is something/someone different, they are a middleman. These are the accepted definitions of these types of roles in the businesses I've worked/run.Whats your definition of a vendor? To me that is someone who sells other peoples herb, we usually call them brokers. I am a grower who only sells my product that is all. Its personal bullshit for me to state my opinion, that buying/consigning my herb at a very low pricing acting as if its not top shelf to then indeed sell at top shelf prices? Whatever, I have nothing to prove to you.one love
So, if I were a dispensary owner and you came in to sell me some of your goods, I would use the term "vendor" for you. Your profession would be "grower". If you either came in selling product others made or grew or I contacted you as a central locator for grouped product, you'd be a broker. Make sense?
To further derail the thread (because folks don't seem to be paying attention to that court ruling stating explicitly that dispensaries are indeed legal, but they must grow all product on site), did you know that less than 1% of the US population at this time are farmers, according to the US Census Bureau?
In the meantime! Folks in Amador County have ourselves a Board of Supervisors meeting to attend tomorrow morning. What do you folks think they're going to say when we let them know they're going to have to let us have at least one dispensary? <insert knowing grin here>
All storefronts, dispensaries, and if they could collectives/cooperatives, are illegal in my county. Most patients who can't grow for themselves were heading to Sacramento, but now most if not all the dispensaries out there have closed shop.
Interesting landscape, don't you folks think?
Oh yeah! The 3 person "requirement" for non-profit status... is this true? It's something I've never once come across before in any of my own work with non-profs (true and able 501(c)3). Apparently not, at least not in my experience or reading of, about, and for non-profits and how that status is gained. I'm assuming federal filing of non-profit status here, which has very specific requirements. Are we on the same page, or have I found myself in the wrong chapter?
LOL...So there's that!
Look folks, some of us are working in earnest, via this thread, to bring RELATIVE news in the form of articles, opinions and insights regarding the dispensary closures. How dispensaries operate in an overall business model is neither relative or important here. All that becomes academic, especially if the dispensary or dispensaries have been or may be shuttered due to outright illegal or at best questionable tactics by the Feds, State or both. You can debate fair and ethical business practices - if the dispensaries are allowed to legally remain open. Until then, we have other bridges to cross first...CC
SeaMaiden I too look at vendors/brokers as you do. Above.. I ^ think ^ they are going to fight tooth and nail. They want complete elimination of growing cannabis from their, not your county, despite the State law approved by your county voters. Compromise is not in their vocabulary. Good luck buddy, I look forward to hearing back about the meeting..DD
in part due to the endless new names hating on dispensaries in this thread every other week because of their own personal agenda, nothing to do with the movement or legal issues surrounding the MMJ scene right now. Just tired of having this crap on repeat. Partially why the thread has gone to shit.
any news of feds actually seizing property? Its been past the 45 days for lots of places.
I honestly dont even know of any more storefront co ops that are even open anymore. Granted I dont go looking on every corner.... Have they made any statements regarding delivery type services? Seems they want to take the indirect route and make the landlords evict the shops because they know wrangling it out in court with each dispo would take forever.
any news of feds actually seizing property? Its been past the 45 days for lots of places.
I honestly dont even know of any more storefront co ops that are even open anymore. Granted I dont go looking on every corner.... Have they made any statements regarding delivery type services? Seems they want to take the indirect route and make the landlords evict the shops because they know wrangling it out in court with each dispo would take forever.
Im also very interested. Please let us know how that goes
S
SeaMaiden
It will be my pleasure!
We had the first meeting yesterday afternoon of Amador County patients. More folks showed up than I expected, which was fantastic to see. They're threatening to bring more people with them to the BoS meeting this morning, too, even better.
I was hoping that the Fourth Appellate Court's ruling on the City of Lake Forest vs Evergreen Holistic Collective might give me/us better leverage regarding all these cities and counties declaring cannabis cultivation a nuisance per se, but I'm not sure how I can turn a ruling on storefronts (and the associated collectives/cooperatives in that scenario) into something pertinent for individual patients. The reasoning behind my idea is that our BoS is declaring cultivation a public nuisance, as a per se public nuisance, and on page 20 of the ruling it appeared as though the jurists challenged, and allow (for) the legal notion of challenging per se nuisance declarations of cannabis cultivation, as being against the spirit and intent of the CUA (Compassionate Use Act) as well as that of the subsequent MMPA (Medical Marijuana Program Act). However, again, this ruling was based on the zoning, or lack thereof, licensing and other issues that 'caused' Lake Forest to declare Evergreen to be a per se public nuisance.
In any event, I think this is pertinent in this thread because the feds are using threat of defunding to force municipalities into conformity. Unfortunately for them, we still have the initiative process (here in California). <insert devilish grin here>
This legalese stuff warps my brain.
Well gro-boys and girls, here we are, here they are and now all we need to know is: Who the hec is driving the grow-bus now...?? CC
California Supreme Court's daunting task: Unite pot-dispensary rulings
Published: Tuesday, Mar. 13, 2012 - 12:00 am
When it comes to rulings on medical marijuana, California courts have a case of multiple personality disorder.
A flurry of recent, conflicting decisions by state appellate courts on whether cities can ban marijuana stores or be forced to allow them is setting up a landmark review by the California Supreme Court.
The state's high court recently agreed to accept four cases involving marijuana dispensaries. Two more cases may be on the way, including the appeal of a Feb. 29 ruling in Orange County that said cities can't ban cannabis stores but that such stores have to grow all of their pot on site – a requirement dispensaries say is impossible to satisfy.
"It's chaos," said Dale Gieringer, California director for the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws. "We're going to have to wait for the Supreme Court to sort this out."
The legal confusion is growing as the federal government cracks down on marijuana providers. The enforcement actions by the U.S. attorneys won't be affected by the state court cases.
State appeals courts have differed on how the federal ban on marijuana should affect cities and counties in a state that permits medical use. One key ruling said federal law prevents cities from allowing dispensaries; another said it can't be used as an excuse to ban them.
"I've never seen anything like this," said Joe Elford, legal counsel for Americans for Safe Access, a group advocating for medical marijuana users.
It could be a year or two before the state Supreme Court can clarify the legal haze. In the meantime, some advocates and lawyers say it may be up to the Legislature to pass new laws to deal with the conflicting rulings.
The outcome of all the legal wrangling could have a big impact on places such as Sacramento County, which closed nearly 100 dispensaries under its zoning law, and the city of Sacramento, which has allowed marijuana stores under a set of regulations that includes taxes and strict operating rules.
Seemingly conflicting opinions from a single venue – the 2nd District Court of Appeal – illustrate why lawyers and activists on opposing sides wonder how, or if, the state Supreme Court can provide a lasting answer.
In October, the 2nd District's three-judge panel seemed to deal a devastating blow to medical marijuana advocates when it ruled that the city of Long Beach couldn't issue permits to dispensaries because marijuana is illegal under federal law.
The court said the city couldn't set rules, including requiring dispensaries to send pot samples for lab testing for molds or pesticides, because of the federal Controlled Substances Act's "prohibition on distributing marijuana."
Last month, the same court – and two of the same judges – handed marijuana advocates a stunning victory. The panel threw out criminal convictions against a Hollywood cannabis club operator, William Colvin, ruling that he was legally transporting more than a pound of pot between two dispensaries under state medical marijuana law.
The Supreme Court has granted review in the Long Beach ruling, which came 14 months after the state's 4th District Court of Appeal ruled the city of Anaheim couldn't ban dispensaries simply because of federal law.
Legal observers say Attorney General Kamala Harris, on the losing side in the Colvin case, could appeal to the state Supreme Court on grounds that shuttling pot between retail-style establishments doesn't fit the legal definition of collective cultivation under state law.
Sometimes, the contradictions have been contained in a single case. A Feb. 29 ruling, also from the 4th District Court, both elated and infuriated medical marijuana supporters and puzzled attorneys for cities.
The panel ruled in favor of one of 28 dispensaries closed under a ban in the Orange County city of Lake Forest. It declared that "local governments may not prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries altogether" under state law. In an unexpected twist, the court also ruled that marijuana stores must grow all pot on site.
Justice Richard M. Aronson acknowledged that the decision might leave nobody happy. "We recognize our conclusions today may disappoint … the opposing sides in California's ongoing debate concerning medical marijuana," he wrote.
The ruling left both sides flummoxed.
Elford, the lawyer for medical marijuana users, said the court "got it right" in rejecting dispensary bans but disagreed with the pot-cultivation interpretation.
"I just don't see that in California law," he said.
In California, most dispensaries buy marijuana from vast networks of "patient" growers. Many cities that allow dispensaries ban the stores from growing on site.
Both Elford and Jeffrey Dunn, Lake Forest's attorney, questioned whether dispensaries can grow enough for their thousands of clients.
And the decision sent tremors through groups representing pot cultivators.
Dunn said the ruling undercut cities trying to use zoning laws to stem the "uncontrolled, explosive growth" of medical marijuana outlets. He said Lake Forest plans to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Another case accepted by the high court centers on whether a Dana Point medical marijuana user, Malinda Traudt, can sue over a dispensary ban in the small coastal Orange County city. The 4th District Court ruled that Traudt, who is blind and suffers from cerebral palsy, couldn't bring the case because she wasn't a dispensary operator.
Rounding out the Supreme Court's pot docket are rulings that upheld dispensary bans in Riverside and San Bernardino.
Dunn said he's counting on the Supreme Court to make sense of it all.
"I don't think the Legislature can do it," he said.
Elford is less sure the court will deliver.
"If the Supreme Court issues a decision we don't agree with, we're going to the Legislature to clarify it," he said. "I don't think the California Supreme Court will be the last word on these issues."
California Supreme Court's daunting task: Unite pot-dispensary rulings
Published: Tuesday, Mar. 13, 2012 - 12:00 am
When it comes to rulings on medical marijuana, California courts have a case of multiple personality disorder.
A flurry of recent, conflicting decisions by state appellate courts on whether cities can ban marijuana stores or be forced to allow them is setting up a landmark review by the California Supreme Court.
The state's high court recently agreed to accept four cases involving marijuana dispensaries. Two more cases may be on the way, including the appeal of a Feb. 29 ruling in Orange County that said cities can't ban cannabis stores but that such stores have to grow all of their pot on site – a requirement dispensaries say is impossible to satisfy.
"It's chaos," said Dale Gieringer, California director for the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws. "We're going to have to wait for the Supreme Court to sort this out."
The legal confusion is growing as the federal government cracks down on marijuana providers. The enforcement actions by the U.S. attorneys won't be affected by the state court cases.
State appeals courts have differed on how the federal ban on marijuana should affect cities and counties in a state that permits medical use. One key ruling said federal law prevents cities from allowing dispensaries; another said it can't be used as an excuse to ban them.
"I've never seen anything like this," said Joe Elford, legal counsel for Americans for Safe Access, a group advocating for medical marijuana users.
It could be a year or two before the state Supreme Court can clarify the legal haze. In the meantime, some advocates and lawyers say it may be up to the Legislature to pass new laws to deal with the conflicting rulings.
The outcome of all the legal wrangling could have a big impact on places such as Sacramento County, which closed nearly 100 dispensaries under its zoning law, and the city of Sacramento, which has allowed marijuana stores under a set of regulations that includes taxes and strict operating rules.
Seemingly conflicting opinions from a single venue – the 2nd District Court of Appeal – illustrate why lawyers and activists on opposing sides wonder how, or if, the state Supreme Court can provide a lasting answer.
In October, the 2nd District's three-judge panel seemed to deal a devastating blow to medical marijuana advocates when it ruled that the city of Long Beach couldn't issue permits to dispensaries because marijuana is illegal under federal law.
The court said the city couldn't set rules, including requiring dispensaries to send pot samples for lab testing for molds or pesticides, because of the federal Controlled Substances Act's "prohibition on distributing marijuana."
Last month, the same court – and two of the same judges – handed marijuana advocates a stunning victory. The panel threw out criminal convictions against a Hollywood cannabis club operator, William Colvin, ruling that he was legally transporting more than a pound of pot between two dispensaries under state medical marijuana law.
The Supreme Court has granted review in the Long Beach ruling, which came 14 months after the state's 4th District Court of Appeal ruled the city of Anaheim couldn't ban dispensaries simply because of federal law.
Legal observers say Attorney General Kamala Harris, on the losing side in the Colvin case, could appeal to the state Supreme Court on grounds that shuttling pot between retail-style establishments doesn't fit the legal definition of collective cultivation under state law.
Sometimes, the contradictions have been contained in a single case. A Feb. 29 ruling, also from the 4th District Court, both elated and infuriated medical marijuana supporters and puzzled attorneys for cities.
The panel ruled in favor of one of 28 dispensaries closed under a ban in the Orange County city of Lake Forest. It declared that "local governments may not prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries altogether" under state law. In an unexpected twist, the court also ruled that marijuana stores must grow all pot on site.
Justice Richard M. Aronson acknowledged that the decision might leave nobody happy. "We recognize our conclusions today may disappoint … the opposing sides in California's ongoing debate concerning medical marijuana," he wrote.
The ruling left both sides flummoxed.
Elford, the lawyer for medical marijuana users, said the court "got it right" in rejecting dispensary bans but disagreed with the pot-cultivation interpretation.
"I just don't see that in California law," he said.
In California, most dispensaries buy marijuana from vast networks of "patient" growers. Many cities that allow dispensaries ban the stores from growing on site.
Both Elford and Jeffrey Dunn, Lake Forest's attorney, questioned whether dispensaries can grow enough for their thousands of clients.
And the decision sent tremors through groups representing pot cultivators.
Dunn said the ruling undercut cities trying to use zoning laws to stem the "uncontrolled, explosive growth" of medical marijuana outlets. He said Lake Forest plans to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Another case accepted by the high court centers on whether a Dana Point medical marijuana user, Malinda Traudt, can sue over a dispensary ban in the small coastal Orange County city. The 4th District Court ruled that Traudt, who is blind and suffers from cerebral palsy, couldn't bring the case because she wasn't a dispensary operator.
Rounding out the Supreme Court's pot docket are rulings that upheld dispensary bans in Riverside and San Bernardino.
Dunn said he's counting on the Supreme Court to make sense of it all.
"I don't think the Legislature can do it," he said.
Elford is less sure the court will deliver.
"If the Supreme Court issues a decision we don't agree with, we're going to the Legislature to clarify it," he said. "I don't think the California Supreme Court will be the last word on these issues."
Millions in profits my ass!
HarborSide stated that they top lined 28mm. With that 28mm they have to pay for all their inventory (7mm?) They have to pay 100+ employees (5mm?) Huge amount of city taxes (2mm?) Huge amount of state tax and sales tax (4mm?) Huge amount of federal tax (4mm?) Huge amount of rent / property tax (1mm?). Even these clowns aren't big balling.
Now to look at any little store front in Sac of San Diego that has to face letters from US attorneys and raids from the Feds, ain't none of them making millions in profits.
There are a few D owners here on ICmag, don't think any of them are living on Easy St. with all the pig activity that is going on.
I don't begrudge any making a living and I certainly don't hate on anyone who makes a living by working with cannabis.
I'm not saying that "right now" they are making that kind of money, although I imagine any still open at this point should be doing very well with so much of the competition gone. Nor am I saying all these places make that kind of money. I imagine ultimately it's alot like the street and the ones who do the best volume are the ones with the best stuff with reasonable and/or best prices. Also like I said before profit is after overhead so talk of taxes and employee salaries and the like are irrelevent as they aren't part of profit they're part of operating costs. I base the raking in millions comment on having seen people in documentaries and news reports that were dispensary owners and they said they make several million per year in profit. Also regarding taxes, one of the big things that played a role in the dispensary boom were many of the dispensary owners saying they wanted to do thier part and pay taxes. Which of course they did as it helps legitimize it if the government also profits from it.
Also I never said that I hate on these people. The way I see it is if people want to give them more money then they should that's on those people. If I sold something to someone for $20 and they knowingly handed me $40 I'd gladly take the additional money. What I did say however was that I dislike the dishonesty in broadcasting a place is all about compassion when they're charging more then they should. To say that you are all about compassion implies the company puts affordability ahead of profit if one does that then they usually operate as a non profit and only take for themselves a modest salary not much more then any of thier employees. I doubt any of these dispensaries do that and so I find it dishonest of them to play the compassion card. I feel the same way about any business that operates dishonestly which unfortunately is the vast majority of them and I try to avoid patronizing the ones that do whenever possible. If these clubs want to promote themselves more along the lines of a pharmacy I have no problem with that. Pharmacies provide medicine that helps people which could be described as a compassionate service yet they don't go around promoting themselves as such. Besides if MMJ is to be seen and treated as medicine then it just makes sense that the dispensaries should operate like pharmacies.
The whole compassion angle played better when people were first working at getting the medical industry to recognize marijuana as medicine. Now that it is more accepted it just doesn't come across the same and at least in my opinion hurts the image of medical marijuana. MMJ isn't fully accepted yet. At best you can say that whats been going on in places like California, Colorado, Michigan and other places has been more of a grand experiment. People who truely are focused on compassion should be more willing to build it into a more secure reality rather then cashing in on it as much as humanly possible for fear it might not last. At least that's what I'd be doing, secure things first, build your name and brand recognition and reputation, then cash in.
We seem to be more in agreement then disagreement that being that it's fine to make profits but if you're going to focus on that then don't represent yourself as not being focused on that. Sure insurance companies are guilty of this actually more so because they actually spend quite a bit of thier profits on keeping from having to provide the coverage promised should a customer make a claim rather then just pay premiums. Just look at how badly the home owner insurance companies screwed over people after Katrina. Like I said though I don't patronize unethical companies when I don't have to and when I do I try to find the least offensive. Sorry to hear what's happening with you and your health insurance but that a classic example of the company looking for ways to not do what you pay the premiums for.
As for why dispensary owners shouldn't do the same things others do? Well first of when you do something that you might agree is less then ethical just because others do it, it makes you a hypocrit so for one reason integrity. Another reason is the industry is not really on solid ground yet and so who knows how it will go in the future? Doing things with the intent of making as much as you can as fast as you can could potentially cause problems for the industry (which it apparently has because it seems the trigger for all of the problems dispensaries face, were some of them working more as fronts and doing interstate business. In other words trying to cash in on the relaxed federal position of the past 3 years or so.) Likewise if things go favorably and the industry becomes more solid those places providing the consumers with the best bang for the buck will likely end up becoming the leaders as is usually the case in emerging industries. Really though doing things just because others do it or get away with it, by itself is not really a good business or life model to operate by.
As for the liquor industry mark up I imagine it's the much same as dry goods the key ingredients are pretty basic and the process is tried true and been perfected over centuries. Also in most cases, alcoholic beverages get better with age and can actually increase in value and or status as in the case of fine wines or certain aged liquors.
The Feds throw a roundhouse haymaker outta nowhere:
(THIS IS HUGE FOLKS!)
Noah Berger / Associated Press
With marijuana proponents chanting behind them, U.S. marshals raid Oaksterdam University in Oakland, Calif., on Monday, April 2, 2012. The facility, one of several that federal agents raided on Monday, teaches people how to grow marijuana.
Dozens of federal agents on Monday raided the Oakland businesses and apartment of Richard Lee, the state's most prominent advocate for the legalization and regulation of marijuana, carting away loads of pot and belongings but not revealing the purpose of their investigation.
The agents targeted Oaksterdam University, the internationally famous school that Lee established to train people in the marijuana industry, a medical cannabis dispensary called Coffeeshop Blue Sky, and three properties being rented by Lee, including his apartment near Lake Merritt.
The armed and sometimes masked agents from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and the U.S. Marshals Service came with a battering ram, a sledgehammer, power saws and a locksmith.
They left Oaksterdam University carrying numerous file boxes, a safe and black trash bags. From other downtown properties, agents carried away sacks with dozens of marijuana plants.
"This is really an attack on regulation," said Dale Sky Jones, executive chancellor of Oaksterdam University. Without regulation, she said, "what's going to change is who is selling it, the good guys or the bad guys."
Lee and four employees were temporarily detained, according to Oaksterdam officials.
Little explanation
Arlette Lee, an IRS spokeswoman, said she could not say why the agents were there other than to confirm that they were serving a federal search warrant.
Messages left late Monday for the DEA and the Marshals Service were not returned.
Supporters of the Oaksterdam founder said they believe he is being targeted because of his high profile in California's medical marijuana industry. He has advocated taxing and regulating medical cannabis for years, and his efforts have helped make Oakland the industry's statewide political seat of power.
In 2003, the city became the first in the nation to regulate dispensaries, and Lee obtained one of the initial four dispensary permits for Coffeeshop Blue Sky. The next year, Oakland voters passed Measure Z, making possession of small amounts of pot the lowest priority for police, and in 2009 Oakland voters passed a measure to tax and regulate cannabis businesses - the first such tax in the country. Lee helped push for both measures.
Lee's operations may not be the biggest in Oakland - that would be Harborside Health Center, which took in $21 million in sales in 2009 and had triple the income of the city's other three dispensaries combined that year.
Political motive?
Lee supporters said they see a political motive in Monday's crackdown.
It was Lee, after all, who in 2010 bankrolled Proposition 19, a statewide measure which would have legalized adult use of marijuana, regardless of medical necessity. Some 46 percent voted for the measure, the highest ever for any general pot legalization proposal in the country.
"They want to make sure he never again has the resources to do that," said Stephen DeAngelo, Harborside's co-founder and executive director. "Rich is not a profiteer. He is not a renegade ... Richard Lee is the most legitimate and real person in this industry."
Harborside, which DeAngelo said paid more than $3 million in local, state and federal taxes last year, is in litigation with the IRS about whether it should pay an additional $2.5 million for 2007 and 2008.
"They want to tax us out of existence," DeAngelo said. Monday's raids, he said, would not change Harborside's commitment to providing medical marijuana to its patients.
All of Monday's raid locations were at or near 17th and Broadway, and hundreds of Oaksterdam supporters swarmed there in protest over the course of the day. The demonstrators openly smoked joints and bongs in defiance, shut down streets, pounded on unmarked police vehicles and heckled agents.
Protesters arrested
One agent who shoved several protesters got shoved back by a protester on 17th street near Franklin Street. Several agents then tackled the protester and arrested him. At least one other demonstrator was also arrested.
Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan came to watch the raids and called them a waste of resources. Oakland's dispensaries, which have a bevy of regulations, have not had the crime or nuisance problems of other cities, and bring in needed revenue, she said.
"Strong oversight and strong rules can succeed," she said. "Maybe the feds can go to other cities that do have problems."
The U.S. attorney in San Francisco, Melinda Haag, and her three counterparts in the state said in October that they would aggressively prosecute many marijuana dispensaries as profit-making criminal enterprises. Since then, three dispensaries in San Francisco, one in Marin County and 50 in the city of Sacramento have closed under pressure, along with about 150 others throughout California.
Haag has said her concern is pot stores that go beyond medical use or operate near schools or playgrounds.
"People are using the cover of medical marijuana to make extraordinary amounts of money," Haag said in October. "None is immune from action by the federal government.
(THIS IS HUGE FOLKS!)
Noah Berger / Associated Press
With marijuana proponents chanting behind them, U.S. marshals raid Oaksterdam University in Oakland, Calif., on Monday, April 2, 2012. The facility, one of several that federal agents raided on Monday, teaches people how to grow marijuana.
Dozens of federal agents on Monday raided the Oakland businesses and apartment of Richard Lee, the state's most prominent advocate for the legalization and regulation of marijuana, carting away loads of pot and belongings but not revealing the purpose of their investigation.
The agents targeted Oaksterdam University, the internationally famous school that Lee established to train people in the marijuana industry, a medical cannabis dispensary called Coffeeshop Blue Sky, and three properties being rented by Lee, including his apartment near Lake Merritt.
The armed and sometimes masked agents from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and the U.S. Marshals Service came with a battering ram, a sledgehammer, power saws and a locksmith.
They left Oaksterdam University carrying numerous file boxes, a safe and black trash bags. From other downtown properties, agents carried away sacks with dozens of marijuana plants.
"This is really an attack on regulation," said Dale Sky Jones, executive chancellor of Oaksterdam University. Without regulation, she said, "what's going to change is who is selling it, the good guys or the bad guys."
Lee and four employees were temporarily detained, according to Oaksterdam officials.
Little explanation
Arlette Lee, an IRS spokeswoman, said she could not say why the agents were there other than to confirm that they were serving a federal search warrant.
Messages left late Monday for the DEA and the Marshals Service were not returned.
Supporters of the Oaksterdam founder said they believe he is being targeted because of his high profile in California's medical marijuana industry. He has advocated taxing and regulating medical cannabis for years, and his efforts have helped make Oakland the industry's statewide political seat of power.
In 2003, the city became the first in the nation to regulate dispensaries, and Lee obtained one of the initial four dispensary permits for Coffeeshop Blue Sky. The next year, Oakland voters passed Measure Z, making possession of small amounts of pot the lowest priority for police, and in 2009 Oakland voters passed a measure to tax and regulate cannabis businesses - the first such tax in the country. Lee helped push for both measures.
Lee's operations may not be the biggest in Oakland - that would be Harborside Health Center, which took in $21 million in sales in 2009 and had triple the income of the city's other three dispensaries combined that year.
Political motive?
Lee supporters said they see a political motive in Monday's crackdown.
It was Lee, after all, who in 2010 bankrolled Proposition 19, a statewide measure which would have legalized adult use of marijuana, regardless of medical necessity. Some 46 percent voted for the measure, the highest ever for any general pot legalization proposal in the country.
"They want to make sure he never again has the resources to do that," said Stephen DeAngelo, Harborside's co-founder and executive director. "Rich is not a profiteer. He is not a renegade ... Richard Lee is the most legitimate and real person in this industry."
Harborside, which DeAngelo said paid more than $3 million in local, state and federal taxes last year, is in litigation with the IRS about whether it should pay an additional $2.5 million for 2007 and 2008.
"They want to tax us out of existence," DeAngelo said. Monday's raids, he said, would not change Harborside's commitment to providing medical marijuana to its patients.
All of Monday's raid locations were at or near 17th and Broadway, and hundreds of Oaksterdam supporters swarmed there in protest over the course of the day. The demonstrators openly smoked joints and bongs in defiance, shut down streets, pounded on unmarked police vehicles and heckled agents.
Protesters arrested
One agent who shoved several protesters got shoved back by a protester on 17th street near Franklin Street. Several agents then tackled the protester and arrested him. At least one other demonstrator was also arrested.
Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan came to watch the raids and called them a waste of resources. Oakland's dispensaries, which have a bevy of regulations, have not had the crime or nuisance problems of other cities, and bring in needed revenue, she said.
"Strong oversight and strong rules can succeed," she said. "Maybe the feds can go to other cities that do have problems."
The U.S. attorney in San Francisco, Melinda Haag, and her three counterparts in the state said in October that they would aggressively prosecute many marijuana dispensaries as profit-making criminal enterprises. Since then, three dispensaries in San Francisco, one in Marin County and 50 in the city of Sacramento have closed under pressure, along with about 150 others throughout California.
Haag has said her concern is pot stores that go beyond medical use or operate near schools or playgrounds.
"People are using the cover of medical marijuana to make extraordinary amounts of money," Haag said in October. "None is immune from action by the federal government.
Apparently, the IRS didnt think much of the following letter, judging by events happening at Oak U. :
Lawmakers In 5 States Tell Feds To Back Off Medical Marijuana
WASHINGTON -- Elected lawmakers in five states have a message for the federal government: Don't interfere with state medical marijuana laws.
In an open letter to the federal government, lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle called on the government to stop using scarce law enforcement resources on taking pot away from medical marijuana patients.
"States with medical marijuana laws have chosen to embrace an approach that is based on science, reason, and compassion. We are lawmakers from these states," the lawmakers explained in their letter.
"Our state medical marijuana laws differ from one another in their details, such as which patients qualify for medical use; how much marijuana patients may possess; whether patients and caregivers may grow marijuana; and whether regulated entities may grow and sell marijuana to patients. Each of our laws, however, is motivated by a desire to protect seriously ill patients from criminal penalties under state law."
The letter -- signed by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-Calif.), Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-Wash.), Rep. Antonio Maestas (D-N.M.), Sen. Cisco McSorley (D-N.M.), Assemblyman Chris Norby (R-Calif.), Rep. Deborah Sanderson (R-Maine) and Sen. Pat Steadman (D-Colo.) -- comes directly on the heels of a federal raid in the heart of California's pot legalization movement: medical marijuana training school Oaksterdam University in downtown Oakland, where U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration officials on Monday blocked off doors with yellow tape and carried off trash bags full of unknown substances to a nearby van. An IRS spokeswoman could not comment on the raid except to say the agents had a federal search warrant.
The lawmakers called on President Obama to live up to his campaign promise to leave the regulation of medical marijuana to the states, adding raids would only "force patients underground" into the illegal drug market.
The president as a candidate promised to maintain a hands-off approach toward pot clinics that adhere to state law. At a 2007 town hall meeting in Manchester, N.H., Obama said raiding patients who use marijuana for medicinal purposes "makes no sense." At another town hall in Nashua, N.H., he said the Justice Department's prosecution of medical marijuana users was "not a good use of our resources." Yet the number of Justice Department raids on marijuana dispensaries has continued to rise.
Read the full letter here:
Over the last two decades, 16 states and the District of Columbia have chosen to depart from federal policy and chart their own course on the issue of medical marijuana, as states are entitled to do under our federalist system of government. These states have rejected the fallacy long promoted by the federal government -- that marijuana has absolutely no accepted medical use and that seriously ill people must choose between ignoring their doctors' medical advice or risking arrest and prosecution. They have stopped using their scarce law enforcement resources to punish patients and those who care for them and have instead spent considerable resources and time crafting programs that will provide patients with safe and regulated access to medical marijuana.
States with medical marijuana laws have chosen to embrace an approach that is based on science, reason, and compassion. We are lawmakers from these states.
Our state medical marijuana laws differ from one another in their details, such as which patients qualify for medical use; how much marijuana patients may possess; whether patients and caregivers may grow marijuana; and whether regulated entities may grow and sell marijuana to patients. Each of our laws, however, is motivated by a desire to protect seriously ill patients from criminal penalties under state law; to provide a safe and reliable source of medical marijuana; and to balance and protect the needs of local communities and other residents in the state. The laws were drafted with considered thoughtfulness and care, and are thoroughly consistent with the American tradition of using the states as laboratories for public policy innovation and experimentation.
Unfortunately, these laws face a mounting level of federal hostility and confusing mixed messages from the Obama Administration, the Department of Justice, and the various United States Attorneys. In 2008, then candidate Obama stated that as President, he would not use the federal government to circumvent state laws on the issue of medical marijuana. This promise was followed up in 2009 by President Obama with a Department of Justice memo from former Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden stating that federal resources should not generally be focused "on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana." This provided welcome guidance for state legislators and administrators and encouraged us to move forward with drafting and passing responsible regulatory legislation.
Nonetheless, the United States Attorneys in several states with medical marijuana laws have chosen a different course. They have explicitly threatened that federal investigative and prosecutorial resources "will continue to be directed" towards the manufacture and distribution of medical marijuana, even if such activities are permitted under state law. These threats have generally been timed to influence pending legislation or encourage the abandonment of state and local regulatory programs. They contradict President Obama's campaign promise and policy his first year in office and serve to push medical marijuana activity back into the illicit market.
Most disturbing is that a few United States Attorneys warn that state employees who implement the laws and regulations of our states are not immune from criminal prosecution under the federal Controlled Substances Act. They do so notwithstanding the fact that no provision exists within the Controlled Substances Act that makes it a crime for a state employee to enforce regulations that help a state define conduct that is legal under its own state laws.
Hundreds of state and municipal employees are currently involved in the licensing and regulation of medical marijuana producers and providers in New Mexico, Colorado, Maine, and California, and have been for years. The federal government has never threatened, much less prosecuted, any of these employees. Indeed, the federal government has not, to our knowledge, prosecuted state employees for performing their ministerial duties under state law in modern history. It defies logic and precedent that the federal government would start prosecuting state employees now.
Recognizing the lack of any real harm to state employees, a number of states have moved forward. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie drew on his own experience as a former United States Attorney in deciding that New Jersey state workers were not realistically at risk of federal prosecution in his decision to move forward implementing New Jersey’s medical marijuana program. Rhode Island, Vermont, Arizona, and the District of Columbia are also in the process of implementing their state laws.
Nonetheless, the suggestion that state employees are at risk is have a destructive and chilling impact. Washington Governor Christine Gregoire vetoed legislation to regulate medical marijuana in her state and Delaware Governor Jack Markell suspended implementation of his state's regulatory program after receiving warnings from the United States Attorneys in their states about state employees. Additionally, a number of localities in California ended or suspended regulatory programs after receiving similar threats to their workers.
We, the undersigned state legislators, call on state and local officials to not be intimidated by these empty federal threats. Our state medical marijuana programs should be implemented and move forward. Our work, and the will of our voters, should see the light of day.
We call on the federal government not to interfere with our ability to control and regulate how medical marijuana is grown and distributed. Let us seek clarity rather than chaos. Don’t force patients underground, to fuel the illegal drug market.
And finally, we call on President Obama to recommit to the principles and policy on which he campaigned and asserted his first year in office. Please respect our state laws. And don't use our employees as pawns in your zealous and misguided war on medical marijuana.
Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-CA)
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-WA)
Representative Antonio Maestas (D-NM)
Senator Cisco McSorley (D-NM)
Assemblymember Chris Norby (R-CA)
Representative Deborah Sanderson (R-ME)
Senator Pat Steadman (D-CO)
Lawmakers In 5 States Tell Feds To Back Off Medical Marijuana
WASHINGTON -- Elected lawmakers in five states have a message for the federal government: Don't interfere with state medical marijuana laws.
In an open letter to the federal government, lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle called on the government to stop using scarce law enforcement resources on taking pot away from medical marijuana patients.
"States with medical marijuana laws have chosen to embrace an approach that is based on science, reason, and compassion. We are lawmakers from these states," the lawmakers explained in their letter.
"Our state medical marijuana laws differ from one another in their details, such as which patients qualify for medical use; how much marijuana patients may possess; whether patients and caregivers may grow marijuana; and whether regulated entities may grow and sell marijuana to patients. Each of our laws, however, is motivated by a desire to protect seriously ill patients from criminal penalties under state law."
The letter -- signed by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-Calif.), Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-Wash.), Rep. Antonio Maestas (D-N.M.), Sen. Cisco McSorley (D-N.M.), Assemblyman Chris Norby (R-Calif.), Rep. Deborah Sanderson (R-Maine) and Sen. Pat Steadman (D-Colo.) -- comes directly on the heels of a federal raid in the heart of California's pot legalization movement: medical marijuana training school Oaksterdam University in downtown Oakland, where U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration officials on Monday blocked off doors with yellow tape and carried off trash bags full of unknown substances to a nearby van. An IRS spokeswoman could not comment on the raid except to say the agents had a federal search warrant.
The lawmakers called on President Obama to live up to his campaign promise to leave the regulation of medical marijuana to the states, adding raids would only "force patients underground" into the illegal drug market.
The president as a candidate promised to maintain a hands-off approach toward pot clinics that adhere to state law. At a 2007 town hall meeting in Manchester, N.H., Obama said raiding patients who use marijuana for medicinal purposes "makes no sense." At another town hall in Nashua, N.H., he said the Justice Department's prosecution of medical marijuana users was "not a good use of our resources." Yet the number of Justice Department raids on marijuana dispensaries has continued to rise.
Read the full letter here:
Over the last two decades, 16 states and the District of Columbia have chosen to depart from federal policy and chart their own course on the issue of medical marijuana, as states are entitled to do under our federalist system of government. These states have rejected the fallacy long promoted by the federal government -- that marijuana has absolutely no accepted medical use and that seriously ill people must choose between ignoring their doctors' medical advice or risking arrest and prosecution. They have stopped using their scarce law enforcement resources to punish patients and those who care for them and have instead spent considerable resources and time crafting programs that will provide patients with safe and regulated access to medical marijuana.
States with medical marijuana laws have chosen to embrace an approach that is based on science, reason, and compassion. We are lawmakers from these states.
Our state medical marijuana laws differ from one another in their details, such as which patients qualify for medical use; how much marijuana patients may possess; whether patients and caregivers may grow marijuana; and whether regulated entities may grow and sell marijuana to patients. Each of our laws, however, is motivated by a desire to protect seriously ill patients from criminal penalties under state law; to provide a safe and reliable source of medical marijuana; and to balance and protect the needs of local communities and other residents in the state. The laws were drafted with considered thoughtfulness and care, and are thoroughly consistent with the American tradition of using the states as laboratories for public policy innovation and experimentation.
Unfortunately, these laws face a mounting level of federal hostility and confusing mixed messages from the Obama Administration, the Department of Justice, and the various United States Attorneys. In 2008, then candidate Obama stated that as President, he would not use the federal government to circumvent state laws on the issue of medical marijuana. This promise was followed up in 2009 by President Obama with a Department of Justice memo from former Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden stating that federal resources should not generally be focused "on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana." This provided welcome guidance for state legislators and administrators and encouraged us to move forward with drafting and passing responsible regulatory legislation.
Nonetheless, the United States Attorneys in several states with medical marijuana laws have chosen a different course. They have explicitly threatened that federal investigative and prosecutorial resources "will continue to be directed" towards the manufacture and distribution of medical marijuana, even if such activities are permitted under state law. These threats have generally been timed to influence pending legislation or encourage the abandonment of state and local regulatory programs. They contradict President Obama's campaign promise and policy his first year in office and serve to push medical marijuana activity back into the illicit market.
Most disturbing is that a few United States Attorneys warn that state employees who implement the laws and regulations of our states are not immune from criminal prosecution under the federal Controlled Substances Act. They do so notwithstanding the fact that no provision exists within the Controlled Substances Act that makes it a crime for a state employee to enforce regulations that help a state define conduct that is legal under its own state laws.
Hundreds of state and municipal employees are currently involved in the licensing and regulation of medical marijuana producers and providers in New Mexico, Colorado, Maine, and California, and have been for years. The federal government has never threatened, much less prosecuted, any of these employees. Indeed, the federal government has not, to our knowledge, prosecuted state employees for performing their ministerial duties under state law in modern history. It defies logic and precedent that the federal government would start prosecuting state employees now.
Recognizing the lack of any real harm to state employees, a number of states have moved forward. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie drew on his own experience as a former United States Attorney in deciding that New Jersey state workers were not realistically at risk of federal prosecution in his decision to move forward implementing New Jersey’s medical marijuana program. Rhode Island, Vermont, Arizona, and the District of Columbia are also in the process of implementing their state laws.
Nonetheless, the suggestion that state employees are at risk is have a destructive and chilling impact. Washington Governor Christine Gregoire vetoed legislation to regulate medical marijuana in her state and Delaware Governor Jack Markell suspended implementation of his state's regulatory program after receiving warnings from the United States Attorneys in their states about state employees. Additionally, a number of localities in California ended or suspended regulatory programs after receiving similar threats to their workers.
We, the undersigned state legislators, call on state and local officials to not be intimidated by these empty federal threats. Our state medical marijuana programs should be implemented and move forward. Our work, and the will of our voters, should see the light of day.
We call on the federal government not to interfere with our ability to control and regulate how medical marijuana is grown and distributed. Let us seek clarity rather than chaos. Don’t force patients underground, to fuel the illegal drug market.
And finally, we call on President Obama to recommit to the principles and policy on which he campaigned and asserted his first year in office. Please respect our state laws. And don't use our employees as pawns in your zealous and misguided war on medical marijuana.
Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-CA)
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-WA)
Representative Antonio Maestas (D-NM)
Senator Cisco McSorley (D-NM)
Assemblymember Chris Norby (R-CA)
Representative Deborah Sanderson (R-ME)
Senator Pat Steadman (D-CO)
Thank you for posting that important letter CanniDo. I hope it gets more attention in the media. DD
S
SeaMaiden
So far it seems to have zero attention in the media outside the Huffington Post and some cannabis sites.
Doobie, you're ten posts away from a post count of true evil!
Doobie, you're ten posts away from a post count of true evil!
Hey DD...This is a major coop by the Feds (IRS)or at least I'm sure they think it is. The story is on ALL the med feed outlets from San Diego to San Francisco.. The ASA has already scrambled their top people from all over California to Oakland to monitor and report as well as urging any and all med patients to descend on Oak U in a show of solidarity. They are calling it an "emergency situation". Taking down Oak U is pretty much like breaching the med movement castle and throwing the flag in the mud...Unbelievable IMO...CC
*Links to NBCBayArea News coverage:
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Oaksterdam-University-Raided-by-Feds-145765015.html
http://www.baycitizen.org/marijuana/story/feds-raid-oaksterdam-university/
Meanwhile, the fight goes on:
Dispensary threatened with closure plans to challenge feds
By: Chris Roberts | 04/01/12 4:44 PM
Special To The SF Examiner
CHRIS ROBERTS/SPECIAL TO THE S.F. EXAMINER
Catherine and Steve Smith are fighting a federal order to shut down San Francisco's oldest continuously operating medical marijuana dispensary, HopeNet Cooperative.
A San Francisco medical marijuana collective plans to fight the law after receiving a shutdown notice from the U.S. Department of Justice.
HopeNet Cooperative, The City’s oldest continuously operating storefront dispensary, has occupied ground-floor commercial space at 223 Ninth St. in South of Market since 2004, city records show. On Feb. 21, Northern California U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag sent HopeNet’s landlords a warning that the dispensary must close within 45 days or the property could be seized and the owners sentenced to prison time.
Similar letters from Haag have led five other San Francisco dispensaries to shut down since Oct. 7. The letters warn of 40-year prison terms and asset forfeitures if the “marijuana distribution” is not stopped.
But HopeNet plans to remain open past the Friday deadline, operator Catherine Smith said.
“We’re staying,” said Smith, whose dispensary received a similar letter from Joe Russoniello, Haag’s predecessor, in 2007. HopeNet also was raided by the Drug Enforcement Administration in 2005.
Property records indicate Clay Investments LLC is the owner of HopeNet’s property, which is a tenancy-in-common building. Clay Investments is connected to a realty firm operated by Ben Hom. Neither Hom nor his partners responded to requests for comment.
HopeNet appears to be the first San Francisco dispensary to challenge the federal government.
Smith, along with husband Steve, faxed a stack of 1,200-odd petitions, along with protest letters, from cooperative members and neighborhood supporters to Haag’s office, Catherine Smith said.
The dispensary asked city leaders to sign the petition. They declined, but plan to speak in support of dispensaries at a City Hall news conference Tuesday, Catherine Smith said.
Jack Gillund, a spokesman for Haag, said the U.S. Attorney’s Office had no comment on HopeNet.
Haag’s office began forfeiture proceedings against a Marin County dispensary that had not left its property by the 45-day deadline. That dispensary ended up leaving willfully after its landlord began eviction proceedings. Eviction proceedings, however, are performed in state court, where medical marijuana law is valid. A to-be-evicted tenant also can request a jury trial, real estate attorney Dave Crow said.
This theory -- that a federally threatened dispensary could win during the eviction proceedings, prompting federal prosecutors to take further action -- has yet to be tested.
Also, there’s another legal wrinkle.
“We’re a cooperative,” said Catherine Smith. “Even if I wanted to shut down, there are 1,200 votes saying we should stay open.”
Story Link:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/04/dispensary-threatened-closure-plans-challenge-feds#ixzz1qqa1SE00
Dispensary threatened with closure plans to challenge feds
By: Chris Roberts | 04/01/12 4:44 PM
Special To The SF Examiner
CHRIS ROBERTS/SPECIAL TO THE S.F. EXAMINER
Catherine and Steve Smith are fighting a federal order to shut down San Francisco's oldest continuously operating medical marijuana dispensary, HopeNet Cooperative.
A San Francisco medical marijuana collective plans to fight the law after receiving a shutdown notice from the U.S. Department of Justice.
HopeNet Cooperative, The City’s oldest continuously operating storefront dispensary, has occupied ground-floor commercial space at 223 Ninth St. in South of Market since 2004, city records show. On Feb. 21, Northern California U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag sent HopeNet’s landlords a warning that the dispensary must close within 45 days or the property could be seized and the owners sentenced to prison time.
Similar letters from Haag have led five other San Francisco dispensaries to shut down since Oct. 7. The letters warn of 40-year prison terms and asset forfeitures if the “marijuana distribution” is not stopped.
But HopeNet plans to remain open past the Friday deadline, operator Catherine Smith said.
“We’re staying,” said Smith, whose dispensary received a similar letter from Joe Russoniello, Haag’s predecessor, in 2007. HopeNet also was raided by the Drug Enforcement Administration in 2005.
Property records indicate Clay Investments LLC is the owner of HopeNet’s property, which is a tenancy-in-common building. Clay Investments is connected to a realty firm operated by Ben Hom. Neither Hom nor his partners responded to requests for comment.
HopeNet appears to be the first San Francisco dispensary to challenge the federal government.
Smith, along with husband Steve, faxed a stack of 1,200-odd petitions, along with protest letters, from cooperative members and neighborhood supporters to Haag’s office, Catherine Smith said.
The dispensary asked city leaders to sign the petition. They declined, but plan to speak in support of dispensaries at a City Hall news conference Tuesday, Catherine Smith said.
Jack Gillund, a spokesman for Haag, said the U.S. Attorney’s Office had no comment on HopeNet.
Haag’s office began forfeiture proceedings against a Marin County dispensary that had not left its property by the 45-day deadline. That dispensary ended up leaving willfully after its landlord began eviction proceedings. Eviction proceedings, however, are performed in state court, where medical marijuana law is valid. A to-be-evicted tenant also can request a jury trial, real estate attorney Dave Crow said.
This theory -- that a federally threatened dispensary could win during the eviction proceedings, prompting federal prosecutors to take further action -- has yet to be tested.
Also, there’s another legal wrinkle.
“We’re a cooperative,” said Catherine Smith. “Even if I wanted to shut down, there are 1,200 votes saying we should stay open.”
Story Link:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/04/dispensary-threatened-closure-plans-challenge-feds#ixzz1qqa1SE00
Wow! "It was Lee, after all, who in 2010 bankrolled Proposition 19, a statewide measure which would have legalized adult use of marijuana, regardless of medical necessity. Some 46 percent voted for the measure, the highest ever for any general pot legalization proposal in the country.
"They want to make sure he never again has the resources to do that," said Stephen DeAngelo, Harborside's co-founder and executive director. "Rich is not a profiteer. He is not a renegade ... Richard Lee is the most legitimate and real person in this industry." ~~There is a true statement..to be sure! monkey5
"They want to make sure he never again has the resources to do that," said Stephen DeAngelo, Harborside's co-founder and executive director. "Rich is not a profiteer. He is not a renegade ... Richard Lee is the most legitimate and real person in this industry." ~~There is a true statement..to be sure! monkey5
