ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford traveled to Los Angeles last week to give a landmark testimony in the sentencing of Charles C. Lynch, the medical cannabis dispensing collective operator who’s federal case has received national media attention, and may be the first to be sentenced under President Obama. Elford’s testimony marked the first time that California’s medical cannabis state law was allowed in federal court.  Although not allowed in the trial itself, US Federal Judge George Wu requested briefs after conviction that would assert Lynch’s compliance with state law as a licensed dispensing collective operator who was well-known and a valued member of his community.  After the testimony Judge Wu continued sentencing for a second time, until June 11.

Elford explained precisely how Lynch’s collective was legal under state law. The issue of whether or not Lynch believed his conduct was legal under state law will influence Judge Wu’s decision regarding the applicability of five-year mandatory minimum sentence. The judge promised to review the precedent cited by Elford, and the guidelines for medical cannabis he helped to craft with the California Attorney General last year.

The courtroom was filled to capacity and had extra federal marshals on hand to monitor the unusually large crowd. Observers listened to more than two hours of testimony from key players in the case. Owen Beck, the eighteen-year-old amputee and legal patient to whom Lynch provided cannabis, asked the judge for leniency in a heartfelt statement. The judge also heard from Lynch’s brother and the Mayor and City Attorney for Morro Bay, where Lynch operated Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers with the city’s blessing until March of 2007.

At the sentencing hearing on March 23, Judge Wu asked prosecutors to provide a statement from Washington, DC, regarding the evolving federal policy on medical cannabis in light of comments made by the White House and US Attorney General Erik Holder earlier this year. Unfortunately, the statement  came back indicating that Lynch’s prosecution and sentencing were consistent with current policy. The incongruity between Holder¹s comments and the facts of Lynch¹s case, especially regarding compliance with state law, indicate that there is much work to be done with the Obama Administration in realizing the promise of the  new American policy.

Judge Wu seemed committed to the two additional one-year mandatory minimum sentences Lynch faces, but asked both sides to brief him on what options he has besides jail if he decides to sentence Lynch to only one year and a day. This led many observers to speculate that a much lighter sentence may be possible. One of the most telling moments in the hearing was when Judge Wu conceded that "most people in this room" do not believe someone like Lynch belongs in jail.

The community support throughout the Lynch trial has been remarkable and has almost certainly influenced the sentencing. Supporters in the crowd sometimes reacted with gasps and unsatisfied murmurs to comments in the courtroom today. However, the most poignant message from the crowd was silent. When Federal Public Defender Reuven Cohen stepped up to the podium for the last time, the entire crowd stood in solidarity for the rest of the hearing.

2, Oakland City Council Places Medical Cannabis Tax on July Ballot

The Oakland City Council is asking municipal voters to increase the business tax on city-licensed medical cannabis dispensaries during the city’s July 21st election.  At a council meeting last week, the city officials unanimously voted that the citizens should vote on the tax as an additional source of income during dire economic times. Oakland has long had a positive relationship with dispensing collectives, as the regulations instituted by the city for over 5 years have led to the model examples enjoyed by Bay Area qualified patients today.

The tax paid by Oakland’s four licensed dispensary operators would increase from $1.20 to $18 for every $1,000 in gross receipts. The new tax is estimated to increase city revenue more than $400,000 per year, and made national press, being featured in an article by the Wall Street Journal.

3. California Activists Converge in Berkeley

Activists traveled from throughout California to Berkeley last weekend to participate in ASA’s Strategy Session , held in conjunction with the Students for Sensible Drug Policy’s West Coast Regional Conference.  There was great energy, enthusiasm, and input on what we need to do to impact California from here on out, and many thanks to SSDP for bringing together so many great young activists dedicated to pushing for justice in medical cannabis policies.

Over the weekend many ASA leaders and activists met face-to- face for the first time.  They shared stories about different communities around California and gave input on the diverse strategies that ASA chapters use to fight for justice in patient civil rights, safe access to medical cannabis, law enforcement policies, and of course federal law.  It was an incredible learning experience and those who attended left inspired and ready to go back and get to work!

The primary focus points were law enforcement education and federal law.  Police around California often act outside of the word or spirit of the law, largely due to being mis-educated about the law and about medical cannabis.   Activists also agreed that there are some injustices, including civil rights violations, that will never change until the federal government acts. Those who represent California in Congress need to speak with one voice in SUPPORT of medical cannabis.  They do not currently, and that needs to change.

Each and every person left the last day committed to meeting with all three legislators: Senators Boxer and Feinstein, as well as their Representative!  And we expressed the need for all those who could not attend the meeting to demonstrate the same commitment.   Those who couldn’t come should find your legislator and set up those meetings immediately.  It just takes 10 minutes to go in and to deliver ASA’s policy agenda .  And the impact it will have on federal law may be immeasurable.

ASA is growing like never before. Now is the time to get involved as an ASA Ambassador , to start a chapter, and to tap into the statewide strategy for medical cannabis justice in California.

4. San Mateo Passes Uncertain Ordinance

Supervisors in San Mateo passed an ordinance regulating medical cannabis dispensing collectives this week that has some worried that the regulation goes so far as to make the safe access model unworkable.

Though supervisors seemed to be generally supportive of medical cannabis in their intent, unfounded concerns led to provisions in the ordinance that ban edible cannabis products and even ban sales of cultivated cannabis in dispensing collectives.

Because state law allows for reimbursement for medical cannabis, its not certain that the law will hold up in court; nor is it certain what the definition the county will use to describe what constitutes "sales."  What is certain, however, is that Supervisors didn’t take a practical approach to looking at dispensing collective operation, how safe access works, and the fact that at some point reimbursement does need to change hands.

Other provisions of the ordinance forbid cooperatives from advertising, dictates they must have an alarm system, bars on windows, and exterior lighting, and cannot employ individuals convicted of a felony. Responsibility falls to the county licensing board for issuing the licenses.   Activists in the area are challenging the problematic provisions at the Council level, though a date has not yet been set for the city to once again review the ordinance.

5. Galt, Temple City Councils Approve Moratoriums

The Galt City Council passed a moratorium on medical cananbis dispensing collectives last week, prompted by a citizen request for a permit.  The 45 day permit was passed, according to county staff persons, to give the county time to look into drafting a regulatory ordinance.  Though the city seemed intent to draft an ordinance, it is by no means a sure thing.  Many cities have passed moratoria that have lasted years, and have used the action as a way to avoid addressing the problem of dispensing collective regulations .  Galt citizens now have time to contact the staff and, more importantly, the City Council to weigh in with their concerns about the need for safe access in their community.

In addition, also prompted by a recent application to open a medical cannabis dispensing collective within city limits, Temple City officials have adopted a temporary moratorium.  Officials say they need time to study the issue and "consider their longer-term options."    Citizens in Temple City should be wary that those "longer-term options" do not quietly turn into bans on safe access to medical cannabis in the community.

ShareThis

The courtroom was filled to capacity for today’s proceedings – including extra federal marshals on hand to monitor the unusually large crowd. Observers listened to more than two hours of testimony from key players in the case. Owen Beck, the eighteen-year-old amputee and legal patient to whom Lynch provided cannabis, asked the judge for leniency in a heartfelt statement. The judge also heard from Lynch’s brother and the Mayor and City Attorney for Morro Bay, where Lynch operated Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers with the city’s blessing until March of 2007.

ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford testified at the sentencing to explain how Lynch’s collective was legal under state law. His testimony was significant, because Judge Wu is still not persuaded that provisions of California law that allow a legal patients’ collective to maintain a storefront like the one in Morro Bay apply in Lynch’s case. The issue of whether or not Lynch believed his conduct was legal under state law will influence Judge Wu’s decision regarding the applicability of five-year mandatory minimum sentence. The judge promised to review the precedent cited by Joe Elford and the guidelines for medical cannabis he helped to craft with the California Attorney General last year.

At the sentencing hearing on March 23, Judge Wu asked prosecutors to provide a statement from Washington, DC, regarding the evolving federal policy on medical cannabis in light of comments made by the White House and US Attorney General Erik Holder earlier this year. Unfortunately, the statement disappointed advocates by indicating that Lynch’s prosecution and sentencing were consistent with current policy. The incongruity between Holder’s comments and the facts of Lynch’s case, especially regarding compliance with state law, indicate that there is much work to be done with the Obama Administration in realizing the promise of the  new “American policy.”

Judge Wu seemed committed to the two additional one-year mandatory minimum sentences Lynch faces, but asked both sides to brief him on what options he has besides jail if he decides to sentence Lynch to only one year and a day. This led many observers to speculate about a much lighter sentence. One of the most telling moments in the hearing was when Judge Wu conceded that “most people in this room” do not believe someone like Lynch belongs in jail.

The community support throughout the Lynch trial has been remarkable and has almost certainly influenced the sentencing. Supporters in the crowd sometimes reacted with gasps and unsatisfied murmurs to comments in the courtroom today. However, the most poignant message from the crowd was silent. When Federal Public Defender Reuven Cohen stepped up to the podium for the last time, the entire crowd stood in solidarity for the rest of the hearing. Let’s hope that simple gesture is not lost on Judge Wu when he considers Lynch’s fate.

ShareThis

Last week, DEA raided a San Francisco medical cannabis dispensing collective, prompting a backlash from advocates urging the Obama Administration to implement its policy change aimed at ending the raids that were a signature of the Bush Administration. DEA stormed Emmalyn’s, a dispensary licensed by the City of San Francisco, seizing medical cannabis, money and other property, but making no arrests. The raid came only one week after U.S. Attorney Eric Holder clarified the Obama Administration “new American policy” on medical cannabis, claiming the raids were at an end, and that DEA would only raid those establishments that were outside state law.

After the raid, DEA made public statements claimign the dispensary was violating state laws, but they refused to provide any evidence to the public. In addition, neither San Francisco police, the District Attorney, nor any other state law enforcement bodies were notified by DEA of the raid or of any complaints of state law violation. Speculation circulated that a lag in sales tax payments may have prompted the raid, but the Board of Equalization confirmed that there were no complaints against Emmalyn’s, and that even if there had been discrepancies, BOE Director Betty Yee said they certainly would not have involved the DEA. Emmalyn’s attorney, Terence Hallinan, who is also the former District Attorney of San Francisco, said his clients were operating in strict accordance to state law, and called the DEA raid a “slap to President Obama’s face” in light of his very public statements on an end to these Bush Administration tactics.

“Any violations of California’s medical marijuana law should be the purview of local and state officials,” said Kris Hermes, spokesperson with Americans for Safe Access (ASA). “Medical marijuana patients and providers deserve a chance to defend themselves under state and local law, which is not possible once the federal government gets involved.”

In response, public officials decried the DEA raid on Emmalyn’s. California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-SF) was among them. And San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly, in whose district Emmalyn’s operated, responded by stating, “I support safe and adequate access for all patients in the city… As such, I condemn any force which is used to disrupt or prevent patients from accessing their medicine.”

In 2008, the California Attorney General Jerry Brown issued guidelines recognizing the legality of medical cannabis dispensaries under state law, and providing recommendation for their compliance with those laws. However, in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in /Gonzales v. Raich/, that the government had the /discretion/ to enforce federal marijuana laws even in medical cannabis states. “Of course the federal government has the authority to raid dispensaries in California,” said Caren Woodson, ASA’s Government Affairs Director in Washington, D.C. “The question is why does it have to exercise that discretion, especially in light of the Obama Administration’s commitment to reverse that practice.” Since the /Raich/ decision, more than 150 raids have occurred in California, mostly during the Bush Administration.

*For further information:
*Video footage of the DEA raid:
http://cbs5.com/local/medical.marijuana.raid.2.968019.html
White House statement on ending federal enforcement:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/05/dea-led-by-bush-continues-pot-raids/
CA Attorney General Guidelines issued in August 2008:
http://www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/AG_Guidelines.pdf

————————————————————————

Charles C. Lynch Sentencing Postponed

Charles C. Lynch, <http://www.friendsofccl.com/news.htm>the medical cannabis dispensary operator who’s DEA raid and trial has created a national media storm, was unexpectedly not sentenced last week after the Los Angeles federal judge assigned to his case refused to do so until the government clarifies its newly revised position on medical cannabis.

Lynch, who operated his dispensing collective under permit from the City of Morro Bay and with the explicit support of the Mayor, City Council members, and the Chamber of Commerce, was convicted last August of five federal counts, including distributing marijuana, conspiring to distribute marijuana and providing the drug to people under the age of 21. He was unable to present any evidence of his this support, or his compliance with California medical cannabis laws in the federal trial. The courtroom was crowded with Lynch’s supporters, many of whom wore green ribbons to show their support.

U.S. District Judge George H. Wu postponed the sentencing until prosecutors could provide a written clarification from the Justice Department about the government’s position on medical cannabis prosecutions. President Barack Obama and the United States Attorney General have both said that the Justice Department has no plans to prosecute dispensary owners who comply with their state law. Prosecuting U.S. Attorney David P. Kowal tried to claim that there was no change in policy, and that Judge Wu should move forward with sentencing. However, Wu referred to the massive media around the change in policy, saying “I read and heard that something has changed and I want to know what it was… I want it in writing.” An April 30 date was tentatively set to sentence Lynch, though even that date is up in the air depending on when Holder’s office responds.

In an astounding attempt to misrepresent the words of President Barack Obama and the Attorney General in order to continue with the Bush raids, U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien,. whose office prosecuted Lynch, said that “In every single (medical case) case we have prosecuted over the past several years, the defendants violated state law as well as federal

law.” How that can be the case when these collectives, including Lynch, were regulated and issued permits by local governments, is inconceivable. Truly the lies from DEA have gotten so absurd, they’ve lost all credibility and are in need of a massive overhaul. In postponing sentence, JudgeWu said the Justice Department’s clarification would likely not change Lynch’s conviction, but it could affect his sentence. Here is some of the media that picked up on the story of Charles C. Lynch:

Time Magazine story <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1888172,00.html>
CNNs Larry King Live <http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=1062626464>
Al Roker for MSNBC <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Cist_J_KoI&feature=channel>
ABC’s 20/20 with John Stossel
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9-09sWCdlY&feature=channel>
The New York Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/us/24marijuana.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=charles%20lynch&st=cse>
The LA Times
<http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-medpot24-2009mar24,0,1972907.story>
The Associated Press
<http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iHs5ki4JKUS8Q5APCcU3bAjKv5TgD970QM080>
Drew Carey’s Reason TV
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD3kFms2eNU&feature=channel_page>

————————————————————————

Cannabis Chemical Kills Brain Cancer, Says Study The April issue of the /Journal of Clinical Investigation/ reports new research out of Spain that suggests THC, the active ingredient in cannabis, appears to prompt the death of brain cancer cells.

Researchers worked with mice and analyzed THC’s impact on tumor cells extracted from two patients who were diagnosed with a highly aggressive form of brain cancer, finding that THC introduced into the brain triggered a cellular self-digestion process known as “autophagy,” Guillermo Velasco, from the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology in the School of Biology at Complutense University in Madrid, who co-authored the study, said that his team had investigated and isolated the specific pathway by which this process unfolds, and noted that THC appears “to kill cancer cells, while it does not affect normal cells.”

The Spanish researchers analyzed brain tissue in the two cancer patients, taken both before and after a 26- to 30-day THC treatment regimen, and found that THC eliminated cancer cells while it left healthy cells intact. They also identified and tracked the signaling route by which the process was activated, and the findings were then replicated in mice. “These results may help to design new cancer therapies based on the use of medicines containing the active principle of marijuana and/or in the activation of autophagy,” Velasco said. Dr. John S. Yu, co-director of the Comprehensive Brain Tumor Program in the Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, called the findings “not surprising,” and noted that this study is just the most recent of a number of previous studies which indicated that THC has an anti-cancer effect.

Dr. Yu said that the study does not suggest that one should expect smoking cannabis to cure their cancer, but rather that THC is a significance source of further study in anti-cancer therapy and treatment.

————————————————————————

Laguna Beachs Stall on Dispensing Collectives, Kern County May Repeal

In Laguna Beach, there is some indication that City Council wants to create regulations for dispensing collectives, though it also appears to be actively stalling the progress. This doesn’t bode well for Sheridan Linehan, who gave public comments at a recent council meeting. Linehan uses medical cannabis in a battle with bone cancer, and wants to form a dispensing collective with permission from the city.

In February, Laguna Beach enacted a moratorium on dispensaries, though Linehan already has spent thousands of dollars over several months attempting to satisfy 12 pages of city-required permit stipulations. The council had considered having regulations drafted by February 2010, which elicited frustrations from residents for being a stall tactic. However, the Council’s sympathies seemed to shift in response to the recount of personal experience with medical cannabis from Council member Verna Rollinger, who asked city staff to speed the measure along so that a final version was reached by mid summer. In Kern County, the County Counsel is recommending that the ordinance which regulates and issues permits to medical cannabis dispensing collectives be repealed, claiming city officials may be at risk from federal agents for implementing the state’s medical cannabis laws. The argument, which is unfortunately still all too common, has already been defeated by both state and federal courts in /Garden Grove/ <http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/GardenGroveDecision.pdf> and /San Diego / <http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/SDvNORML08-050333.pdf>cases.

It is uncertain if Supervisors will back County Counsel’s recommendations without a better knowledgeable of the law. It’s a common theme with local action on medical cannabis by cities and counties; the local government’s attorney brings to Supervisors or Council Members a list of unwarranted concerns based on an incomplete understanding of California’s law and why it does not conflict with federal law. Council members then become scared and pass ordinances to the detriment of the community and the patients they represent. It’s absolutely critical that Kern County residents communicate with Supervisors to ensure the regulations are kept intact, and they understand the true need for patient access.

ShareThis

This week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder once again made public statements regarding the Obama Administration’s plans to re-prioritize U.S. policy on enforcement in states with medical cannabis laws.  In a question and answer session with reporters at the Justice Department, Holder announced that the new policy would focus DEA resources on intervening only in cases where dispensing collectives run afoul of both local and federal laws.  Its a statement that has very positive implications, but also opens the door for some concerns.

Both the U.S. Attorney General and the White House have been issuing similar statements since early February, when White House spokesperson Nick Shapiro first responded to DEA raids carried out by Bush Administration holdovers after President Obama’s January 20 inauguration.  The raids defied Obama’s campaign promises and prompted wide scale backlash from advocates and communities in California.  Shapiro said that the President expected the new DEA Administrator, when chosen, would review the policy with Obama’s positions and campaign promises in mind.

The most recent statements provide some indication that the administration has begun shaping the policy, and come alongside a national spotlight on the federal conflict that has arisen out of the high profile case of the 2007 raid and recent prosecution of former Morro Bay dispensary owner Charles C. Lynch, who will be sentenced on Monday morning in a federal court, and may see a minimum of 5 years in federal prison.  Just in the past week, Lynch was featured on ABC’s 20/20 with John Stossel, on a special segment on MSNBC with Al Roker, in a major article run by the Associated Presss, and a full page story in the New York Times.

While the President’s shift in policy will be the most significant progress from the Executive Branch on medical cannabis in at least 4 Presidential Administrations, there is still cause for some concern, mostly related to local enforcement.  Some DEA raids, including that of Lynch, were initiated by local law enforcement intent on circumventing state law.  For instance, San Luis Obispo County Sheriff Patrick Hedges investigated Charles C. Lynch for over a year, sending undercover agents to prompt Lynch’s employees to violate California law, which they never did.  After unsuccessfully encouraging Lynch to break the law, Sheriff Hedges then contacted DEA to come in and raid, despite the facility’s full support from the Morro Bay Mayor,  Chamber of Commerce, and other local officials.  ASA has documented similar enforcement tactics from law enforcement in Alameda County, San Diego, Riverside County, and other areas.  In the end, however, the continued public statements by top officials in the Obama Administration seem to signal a new and refreshing approach to public discourse over medical cannabis. They are speaking about it confidently, as if it is no longer an issue that federal politicians, especially U.S. Presidents, should be scared to address publicly.

2. American Canyon Reiterates Moratorium, Prepares for a Permanent Dispensary Ban

When a citizen approached City Hall for the proper permits to open a medical cannabis dispensing collective this week, the City of American Canyon not only denied the permit, but used it as an opportunity to extend its moratorium on dispensaries for up to another year.   The City Council has long been opposed to allowing dispensaries within city limits, and in the debate that ensued at this week’s meeting, there was present a good deal of inaccurate information being cited by City Council members and staff.

Many municipalities that address dispensary regulations sometimes find it difficult to separate fact from fiction.  For instance, though the potential applicant for city permits to open the facility was a respected mortgage broker, City Council member Cindy Coffey said she was opposed to the dispensary because she claimed that they are "notorious for not paying sales tax."  Aside from the fact that in 2007 medical cannabis dispensaries paid the State of California over $100 million in sales tax, because she based her opinion on rumors and unfounded assumptions, Councilwoman Coffey essentially accused the applicant of being an underhanded criminal and of trying to scam the state out of money, simply out of the applicants desire to open a legal collective and provide medical cannabis to those who need it in her community.

In addition, the City Attorney along with the Community Development Director co-wrote a memorandum to the city in which they claim that state and federal laws are in conflict with one another.  This is contrary to published dispensing collective guidelines from the California Attorney General, which affirmed their legality, and despite multiple rulings both in the U.S. Supreme Court and the California courts which affirm that no such conflict exists.  The city is preparing to draft a permanent ban on dispensaries, and community members in American Canyon should be aware that opportunities to fight the potential ban in the City Council will be here.

3. San Mateo, Sonoma Move to Regulate Access

At the Sonoma Planning Commission meeting this week, city planners presented a report on regulating medical cannabis dispensaries.  The document highlighted possible regulations that would limit the THC content in concentrates, restrict the number of patients allowed for a dispensary, and determine the municipal structure for reviewing applications and granting permits, among other restrictions.

At the meeting John Sugg, who has operated a medical cannabis dispensing collective in Santa Rosa for four years, voiced his concern about placing the Sheriff in charge of the program. "Most of the ordinance is strong and necessary," he said. "But I have a concern with putting the police chief in charge of managing applications and granting permits. It makes more sense to have that be the city manager."

Sugg’s collective, the Sonoma Patient Group, organized last summer as an unincorporated non-profit collective. Jewel Mathieson, wife of Sonoma Mayor Ken Brown, is an employee and member.  She addressed the commission, saying, "Members must be able to get their medication. We should stop the regulations on medicine and stop ignoring the desperate alcohol problem in the valley."

Sugg submitted his own ordinance recommendations to the Commission, prompting them to table the issue to their next regular meeting on April 9, at which they are expected to submit final recommendations to the city council.

Also – on Monday, the San Mateo City Council unanimously voted to introduce an ordinance that would regulate medical cannabis collectives.  The council will vote on the ordinance again at its next meeting, and if approved, it will go into effect 30 days later.

Under the proposed ordinance, collectives must register with the city and obtain a license from the police department, with all members providing their names, addresses and phone numbers.  The ordinance allows for indoor growth only, and requires that adequate security be provided. San Mateo residents who grow medical cannabis at home for their own use, or for other people living at the house, would not be subject to the rules.

Kris Hermes of Americans for Safe Access noted that registration requirements could be problematic.  "It is a function of self-incrimination to offer up your details pertaining to cultivation since it’s still illegal under federal law and local law enforcement has used information on patients to go to the federal government," he said. "They’re setting up, unfortunately, a situation where people will refuse to register and automatically become illegal as a result."

San Mateo residents are encouraged to contact City Council members to request the proposed ordinance, and weigh in with their thoughts before the next meeting.

ShareThis

This is more good news for patients in the thirteen states where medical cannabis is already legal, and patients and staff at California’s legal patients’ associations are certainly breathing easier this week. It remains to be seen, however, how adept federal and state law enforcement will be in distinguishing compliant organizations from those operating outside state law. Despite guidelines published by California Attorney General Jerry Brown last year, there is still a great deal of confusion among law enforcement and elected officials about the state of the law in California.

Video: ASA Media Specialist Kris Hermes speaking in San Francisco

Advocates will have their hands full educating officials like Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, whose insistence that medical cannabis can not be acquired in storefront collectives flies in the face of the Attorney General’s position – and is hindering the city’s three-year effort to regulate hundreds of medical cannabis facilities already operating in Los Angeles. It will also be an uphill battle persuading California law enforcement officers, who have never supported medical cannabis rights, that some cannabis-related conduct is legal under state law. This misunderstanding led San Lois Obispo County Sheriff Pat Hedges to call in the DEA to bust Morro Bay collective operator Charles C. Lynch. Lynch is facing 5 to 20 years in federal prison, despite the fact that he scrupulously obeyed state and local law.

Patients and providers should temper their enthusiasm about Holder’s comments with caution about what may come next. We have to work hard to be sure that the “new American policy” works for patients and providers in the states. It is likely we will see less federal interference and intimidation, but more local scrutiny by police officers and Sheriffs with little understanding of the intricacies of our evolving state laws.

ShareThis

This story has become all too common for medical cannabis patients and providers in California. Charles is one of approximately one hundred people waiting for trial, sentencing, or serving time for medical cannabis “crimes.” But last night, the entire nation heard a report of what is about to happen to Charles C. Lynch, when ABC aired a segment on their popular news magazine, 20/20. John Stossel explained to viewers that Charles C. Lynch is a victim caught in the crossfire of a conflict between state and federal law – something most Americans have never considered.

Charles’ story illustrates that, until federal law is harmonized with the laws of the thirteen states that have already legalized medical cannabis, doing things by the book can land you in jail. That is an important message to send to Congress, since there are early signs of a developing policy in Washington, DC, which points towards tolerating state medical cannabis programs. The new President and Congress should be mindful of Charles and the other victims when codifying that policy. In is unconscionable to leave the victims of the failed policy in jail once the Federal Government comes to its senses on medical cannabis – especially not those who scrupulously obeyed the letter and spirit of the law.

Charles C. Lynch will be sentenced at the federal courthouse in Los Angeles on Monday, March 23, at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 10. I urge everyone in the Los Angeles area who sympathizes with his position to be there in court to support Charles and his family in the difficult time. I hope you will also keep working with Americans for Safe Access (ASA) to be sure no one has to follow in Charles’ footsteps.

ShareThis

The crowd and a dozen journalists heard emotional words from Lynch’s mother, Bodine Jones. “I already lost one son to diabetes,” Jones said in a broken voice. “I’m not going to stand by while they take another from me.” At age 46, Lynch faces decades in prison if he receives the harsh mandatory minimum sentences the US Attorney is seeking. Ms. Jones said she will hold San Luis Obispo County Sheriff Hedges responsible for turning her son’s case over to the DEA, and she is reaching out to state and federal officials – including President Obama – on her son’s behalf.

<Pictured above: Lynch’s sister, Amanda Garcia (left), Charles C. Lynch (center), and his mother Bodine Jones (right)>

LA County Public Defender Guy Iverson told the crowd that Lynch was the most decent man ever convicted in the courthouse. Iverson told the crowd that one of his own son’s told him that he wanted to be a public defender so he could help people like Lynch, too. Iverson and his colleagues mounted a robust and innovative defense, but as in all federal medical cannabis cases, testimony about medical cannabis was excluded and jury instructions left no option for discretion.

Lynch spoke to the crowd dressed in a satirical orange jump suit with a string of silk hemp leaves tied around his head. He thanked the crowd and event organizer Cheryl Aichele for her tireless support on his behalf. Cheryl adopted Lynch’s cases as a personal crusade after responding to a call for court support from ASA.

Grassroots support for Lynch has been strong, and a Reason.TV documentary by Drew Carey about the trial has drawn national media attention. The Los Angeles medical cannabis community has embraced Lynch as a kind of medical cannabis Everyman, and sees him as a victim caught between state and federal law. It is unclear whether this tremendous grassroots support will result in leniency or intervention by the President,  but Lynch’s case has galvanized the community and put a very human face on the medical cannabis issue.

ShareThis

Americans for Safe Access filed suit against Solano County Monday for failing to implement the state-mandated program ID card program that would protect patients using medical cannabis from arrest and prosecution.

The county’s refusal to issue state ID cards, even after California Fourth District Court of Appeals ruled they must, comes after ASA sent Solano two letters last fall demanding they comply with state law or face litigation. Their refusal puts individuals living with illness at serious risk and makes it more difficult for law enforcement to adhere to California law.

“Solano County cannot simply flaunt its obligation under the law,” said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford. “This lawsuit is aimed at forcing counties like Solano to fully implement state law and to stop denying medical marijuana patients their legal rights and protections.”

Solano County is one of a handful of California counties without ID card programs despite state legislation adopted in 2003 under SB 420, and upheld in July 2008 by the courts. The Solano County Board of Supervisors in 2006 voted 3-2 against implementing the program, and has not discussed the issue since.  A closed session discussion with the supervisors is expected to be held on Jan. 13.

Coincidentally, San Bernardino County resident Scott Bledsoe, represented by Attorney David Nick,  filed a similar suit against San Bernardino with the help of ASA Affiliate Lanny Swerdlow, of the Marijuana Anti Prohibition Project.  San Bernardino was a plaintiff on the original lawsuit against the State of California asserting they did not have to implement the ID cards.  They lost the suit, and still refused to implement, spurring legal action.

http://www.timesheraldonline.com/ci_11384345?source=rss

2. ASA Files Contempt Briefs Against Montebello for Refusing to Uphold Medical Cannabis Law

Americans for Safe Access (ASA) filed legal briefs last week accusing the City of Montebello of contempt of court for refusing to return medical cannabis and other property wrongfully seized by its local police department.

In 2004, local police seized plants, growing equipment, and personal correspondence from the home of Terry Walker, who was legally qualified to use medical cannabis under California law. Walker’s criminal case was quickly dismissed and a court order issued for the return of his property, which the City of Montebello has refused to do.

“Given recent case law requiring police and local officials to respect state law and return any wrongfully seized medical marijuana, the City of Montebello has a clear obligation to adhere,” said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with ASA. “This blatant contempt for the rule of law is unacceptable and cities like Montebello will be called out if such conduct continues.”

In November 2007, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a decision in City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court rejecting the argument that the state’s medical cannabis law is preempted by federal marijuana laws. The court  ruled that “it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws.” The case involved Garden Grove resident Felix Kha who was charged after a routine traffic stop and 1/3 of an ounce of cannabis was seized, despite the fact that Kha was legally allowed to possess it. As a result of the appellate court decision, all localities in California are obligated to return wrongfully seized medical cannabis. And in December of 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review Garden Grove’s appeal, making the decision final.

“We are going to file contempt charges against cities and counties that run afoul of their obligation under the state’s medical marijuana law,” said Elford. “The indiscretion of city’s like Montebello will not be tolerated, especially more than twelve years after the passage of Proposition 215.”

The brief points to the California Code of Civil Procedure, which makes punishable by contempt of court “disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court.” In addition, the brief states “courts have the inherent power to punish acts that interfere with the orderly conduct of proceedings,” such as those in Walker’s case.

3. Charles Lynch Denied New Trial

On Monday, a Los Angeles judge denied Charles Lynch’s request for a new trial.  Lynch was arrested in 2007 and later convicted on federal charges related to operating the Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers facility in a case that received national prominence and highlighted the aggressive conflict between state and federal medical cannabis laws.  It brought wide attention to the citizens caught in the middle and turned victims of a ideological and political crusade being carried out by federal prosecutors and the Drug Enforcement Agency.

Lynch’s sentencing is scheduled for February 23, when there is expected to be a major protest in support of his case. A large protest which took place on October 6th demonstrated the community support behind Lynch who, partly because of the absurd details of his arrest and conviction, and partly because his case was picked up by Drew Carey’s Reason.tv and made national headlines, has become a figurehead in the national medical cannabis movement.  Lynch has said he plans to do everything he can to continue to fight the charges.  DEA was called in to raid Lynch by the San Luis Obispo Sheriff, who’s office is currently the focus of numerous scandals.  His arrest put the city in an uproar, as Lynch was operating in complete compliance with all California laws, was a prominent and well liked member the of the community, had the blessing of city council members and the mayor, none of whom Lynch’s judge allowed to testify in his defense.

Lynch even called the DEA prior to opening the dispensing collective in order to get their approval and to learn if they would interfere.  DEA told Lynch that his ability to legally open a medical cannabis dispensary was up to the City of Morro Bay to decide.  DEA then raided and prosecuted Lynch little over a year later, and he now stands to serve up to 100 years in federal prison.

Put February 23rd on your calendar if you live in the greater LA area.  A broad show of community support can help Lynch receive a light sentence.

4. Medical Cannabis Dispensaries to be Allowed in Palm Springs

The city of Palm Springs voted 3-2 on Wednesday night to create a draft ordinance that would make it the first and only place in Riverside County to allow medical cannabis collectives and cooperatives.  However, there are a number of currently operating dispensaries that, according to the city attorney and the Mayor, Palm Springs may take action against, having opened before the actual passage of the ordinance.

The draft ordinance will allow only two dispensing collectives to be zoned in the city’s industrial areas. City Manager David Ready suggested a lottery to choose which two collectives will be allowed to operate in the city.

Much credit should be given to ASA Affiliates Marijuana Anti Prohibition Project, and to Lanny Swerdlow for his hard work and leadership in organizing patients and pushing for access in Palm Springs.

ShareThis

Tom served 37 months for cultivation following a DEA raid at his city-sanctioned medical cannabis garden in San Francisco in 2002.  He was arrested again in 2007 in connection with a garden in the San Fernando Valley. That arrest violated his probation and sent him back to federal prison until last night. Sadly, Tom is not off the hook yet. He still faces charges for the garden in the Valley, and there is a real chance that the 60+ year old patient may go back to jail in 2009.

We hope Tom is home for good, and will celebrate New Year’s next year with Stephanie. But prosecutors are going to do their best to punish him – no matter how absurd that seems at this point. Perhaps District Attorneys and US Attorneys all over the country should use the holiday as a chance to reconsider the wisdom of sending legal patients to jail at a time in history in which safe access to medical cannabis is more widespread and secure than ever before. No ones interest was served by incarcerating Tom twice already. Why do it again?

Tom’s warm homecoming and ongoing plight should also remind us that there are still many decent patients facing prosecution or already in prison. Morro Bay collective operator Charles C. Lynch will have a hearing for a new trial and may face sentencing in January. Virgil Grant and Steel Smith will start their trials soon after. Stephanie Landa, Dustin Costa, Luke Scrarmazzo, and Ricardo Montes are sitting in prison cells this New Year’s Day. And these are just a few of the Americans who are facing criminal charges or serving time because of medical cannabis. Let’s make a New Year’s resolution to redouble our support for those we hope are the last victims of state and federal laws against medical cannabis.

Be sure you are signed up on ASA’s announcement lists and keep an eye on our discussion forums to find out when you can show up in court or write a letter to support patients on trial. Community support meant the world to Tom at the bus station… and you can help make that difference for others victims, too.

ShareThis

A case is being considered by the California 4th Appeals District that will decide whether or not it is illegal for cities to ban medical cannabis dispensaries.  Until we get a ruling in Qualified Patients Association v. Anaheim, and until and unless communities members stand up for their right to access medicine without resorting to the illicit market, moratoriums and bans on dispensaries will continue throughout California.  These restrictions are very often based on baseless information, faulty claims of community nuisance, and a “not in my backyard” attitude which hurts both patients and communities

• Without Deliberation, Oakley City Council Bans Dispensaries – After a year long moratorium, the Oakley City Council banned medical cannabis dispensaries this week, without deliberation and without opposition from the public.  City Attorney Allison Barrett-Green claimed that dispensaries had a negative impact on communities, bringing crime and increasing recreational marijuana use.   Reports have shown that, in many cases dispensaries decrease crime in an area due to personal security of the establishments, and no data of any kind has ever demonstrated an increase in recreational use due to dispensaries.

• Desert Hot Springs Planning Commission Recommends Banning Dispensaries – The Planning Commission voted 3-2 on Tuesday to ban medical cannabis dispensaries.  The City Council is expected to take the issue up itself in the near future.  Those in Desert Hot Springs who may be impacted by such a ban should keep close watch on upcoming city council agendas, at www.desert-hot-springs.us

• Yucca Valley Town Council Passes 45-Day Dispensary Moratorium – The moratorium on medical cannabis dispensing collectives was enacted to prohibit dispensaries from opening while the city looks into the matter.  After 45 days, the city can extend the moratorium for 10 months, and after that for 1 year.  For the foreseeable future the, moratorium is expected to be in place.  Community members should begin organizing now to assert the need for dispensaries in Yucca Valley, the lack of evidence demonstrating harms to communities, and the available evidence demonstrating benefits.

• Morro Bay City Council Puts off Moratorium Decision – At the site of national media story of Charles Lynch, who’s dispensary was raided by DEA last year, even though it had the blessing of local officials – the city council is considering a moratorium  on the facilities.  Though the city directed staff to compile a report on the dispensaries, it looks as though the Sheriff who, out of an inexplicable personal vendetta against an unsuspecting Charles Lynch, called in DEA to shut down the legal, well-run, and model dispensing collective, may get his way by the City’s action.  It is absolutely imperative that Morro Bay citizens contact their city council members to weigh in on the potential moratorium.

Vallejo Raids, DEA Aggression Continues Despite Executive Change

On Wednesday, the Vallejo Patients Cooperative at 320 Mini Dr. was raided by a coalition of DEA agents, Vallejo police and Solano County Sheriff’s deputies.  No arrests were made in the raid of the facility, a likely indicator that the dispensing collective itself was engaged in no illegal activity, but was rather the target of bullying, intimidation, and abuse by local and federal authorities.

Often, arrests occur at dispensaries in cases that the federal government wants to pursue.  The vast majority of these turn out to be individuals operating in complete compliance with California law.  The fact that there are no arrests in a raid means that it is likely that no charges against dispensary operators would hold up in court.
A recent article in the District Weekly, out of Long Beach, demonstrated how DEA and local police actively seek out complaints from dispensaries, don’t verify the validity or sources of those complaints, yet break into dispensaries to destroy personal property, seize medicine, point assault rifles at innocent US citizens, well beyond even the scope of the warrants they obtain, all justified by less than half a dozen complaints, most of which were from the same person with a questionable mental state.

DEA raids have continued in the period since the November 4th presidential election, despite an outgoing and lame-duck Bush Administration, and a clearly stated Obama position opposed to the raids. ASA will be monitoring DEA action especially closely, and any raid activity conducted after the January 20th inauguration will be met with a strong response by ASA and medical cannabis activists.

Humboldt Supervisors Weigh in on Environmental Impact of Cannabis Growth

This week, Humboldt County Supervisors heard statements by concerned citizens about the environmental impact of indoor medical cannabis grows within the county.   At the meeting, some pointed out that the grows require 24 hour use of diesel generators that are often poorly maintained, leading to diesel spills into the groundwater, and improper and hazardous disposal of waste oil.  Also brought up was the danger of rural fires, which local fire department officials claim can result from improper use of the generators.

Potential solutions at the meeting included the consensus that the type of education necessary to properly run diesel generators to maintain a safe indoor medical cannabis grow should come from the County itself, in the form of a brochure or other educational materials. The literature would advise landowners on the proper way to set up and maintain the diesel tanks and generators to avoid hazardous contamination and how to deal with spills.

Another suggestion was the possibility of fuel tank registration, though County Environmental Health Director Brian Cox question the enforceability of such a requirement.  But in the end, the Board opted not to take action, but to defer a decision on environmental impact and regulation for another time.

San Luis Obispo Patient Receives 21 Days in Jail Before Case Dismissed

Former drug and alcohol counselor Richard Steenken, who uses medical cannabis legally to treat a medical condition, had all licenses and documentation asserting his legality under California law, yet was arrested by San Luis Obispo Sheriff’s Department and spent 21 days in jail before his case was thrown out by a judge.

San Luis Obispo Sheriff Patrick Hedges gained notoriety in part for calling DEA on dispensary operator Charles Lynch in a raid that made national headlines due to the personal vendetta that spurred the DEA call.  Lynch, who will be sentenced in early January, now potentially faces 100 years in federal prison due to the action by Sheriff Hedges.

Hedges’s deputies dedicated many hours of investigation to ultimately serve a warrant on Steenken without ever bothering to check if he was legally recognized by the county. Sheriff Sgt. Rick Neufeld said that step would generally be part of an investigation, but couldn’t say why it wasn’t done in this case.  When Steenken gave them his county issued ID card, the police didn’t bother to verify it, which could have been done easily over the internet.  The also disregarded Steenken’s doctor’s recommendation because it was over a year old.  There is no legal requirement or statute at any level of government that says doctors’ recommendations expire after 1 year.

The case was finally dropped after the city attorney called Steenken’s doctor to confirm he was a patient, after he had already spent 21 days in jail.  Steenken had 43 small plants, each less than 8 inches, 53 grams of dry cannabis, and a small amount of concentrated cannabis.  All will be returned to him thanks to ASA’s victory in Garden Grove

ShareThis