1. San Mateo City Council Moves to Regulate Medical Cannabis Dispensaries

The city of San Mateo this week took steps toward regulations that would oversee the operation of medical cannabis dispensaries this week.  The review of the draft ordinance, which took place at a special city council study session and is to be considered for a vote later this year, was generally viewed favorably by officials and the public alike, though there was some concern over what was seen by some as problematic language.

City staff drafted the proposal after federal agents and local police raided dispensaries in August of last year.  This week’s meeting was an attempt by the city to bring clarity, consistency, and hopefully safety to San Mateo residents and dispensary operators. "Overall, I support this and want to move forward as fast as possible so people know what they can and what they can’t do," said Deputy Mayor Brandt Grotte.

The ordinance would require collectives to register with the Police Department  and collective growers to obtain a license. In addition, the ordinance will require certain security standards, such as on-site cameras, security lighting, and alarms, and will prohibit advertising and exchange of cannabis for money at the collective. The ordinance will prohibit collectives from being anywhere in the city except manufacturing and service commercial areas, according to the report.  Though it was encouraging for San Mateo officials to be considering these regulations, certain functional difficulties presented themselves with the ordinance, such as how a collective could continue to function and maintain itself if members were not allowed to exchange money for cannabis on site.  Residents of San Mateo are encouraged to participate in upcoming council meetings where the draft resolution will be considered.

2. San Joaquin County Votes to Implement  Patient ID Program

The San Joaquin Supervisors voted 3-2 to implement the medical cannabis ID card program earlier this week, which has been mandatory for counties since SB420 passed the CA State Legislature in 2004. Though some on the board expressed a desire to continue to avoid implementing, the consensus was that officials’ hands were tied, that the program was legally required by the state, and that there seemed to be no other way to avoid making the ID that would help people living with serious illnesses avoid going to jail needlessly.

According to Bill Mitchell, San Joaquin County Public Health Director, the demand for the ID card hasn’t been large, but there has been speculation that the interest will increase once the county begins to administer the program. Though voluntary, the ID cards help protect patients from unnecessary arrest, as law enforcement typically rely on the card as the most legitimate form of documentation asserting a patient’s status as legal under California Proposition 215 .   Law enforcement are technically required to accept any doctor recommendation.

The County is scheduled to hear public comments on proposed costs of the ID to applicants on November 4, at the Supervisors Meeting, 222 E. Weber in Stockton.

La Palma City Council members effectively banned medical cannabis dispensaries within city limits by voting on an ordinance that bans any establishment that violates local, state, or federal laws.  The vote was clearly directed at those qualified patients seeking to gain access to cannabis as treatment, though the ordinance language was ambiguous.

At least one medical cannabis patient attended the meeting and made a tearful plea to dissuade the council members.  Lisa Boynton said that cannabis helped her deal with her pain, and that she needed a place where she could safely get it.  "Your community is suffering from this," said Boynton, referring to the vote.  Wanting to come off as compassionate to those living with serious illnesses, La Palma City Councilors claimed their hands were tied, that they had to "maintain the laws of our state and federal government" according to Council Member Christine Barnes.

The argument was unconvincing, and demonstrated to many that the council members for the smallest municipality in Orange County were either uneducated on state and federal supremacy laws, or purposefully misrepresenting them.  State law clearly allows collectives and cooperatives according to guidelines recently issued by California Attorney General Jerry Brown, cities and counties throughout California have regulated them with no legal disputes, and numerous courts at both the state and federal levels have held that municipal and state governments can keep and implement effective medical cannabis laws.

This is a guest blog by a former medical marijuana dispensing collective operator in Santa Barbara County, who was recently forced to close his collective as a result of federal pressure. The author wishes to remain anonymous.

I am a legal medical marijuana patient who, until recently, operated a neighborhood dispensing collective in a small city in Santa Barbara County. I opened the facility in 2007 because I wanted to help patients get the medicine they need at a reasonable price. The short time we were open was one of the most rewarding of my career. What a privilege to help people get better and see some hope come back into their eyes.

We were careful to do things right. We were good neighbors, obeyed the law, and paid our taxes. Unfortunately, doing things right is still illegal under federal law. My colleagues and I in Santa Barbara County were not surprised when our landlords started getting letters from the DEA threatening prosecution and asset forfeiture. The DEA mailed hundreds of these letters to law abiding property owners all over California beginning in the summer of 2007. I have always been candid with my landlord and was a conscientious tenant. I shared the asset forfeiture material ASA provided with my landlord, and he agreed to take a wait and see approach.

That changed in July of this year, when my landlord received a new letter from the US Attorney’s Office summoning him to a private meeting. The purpose was to deliver an ultimatum: evict your tenant or face prosecution and asset forfeiture. This new tactic escalated the situation in Santa Barbara County to crisis level. Unlike the DEA, the US Attorney has the authority to press charges or file for forfeiture. My landlord, and six or seven others like him in the county, was now in an untenable position. He wanted me as a tenant, but could not afford to be prosecuted or lose his property. It was time for me to go.

When news that the US Attorney’s Office was involved broke in July, ASA Executive Director Steph Sherer flew in from Washington, DC, and she and California Director Don Duncan called a meeting of collective operators and property owners in Santa Barbara. They did their best to reassure property owners, and set up a series of meetings with local and federal representatives to build opposition to the new federal attack on patients’ access. Meanwhile, ASA staff in Washington, DC, took our story directly to US House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), who was already preparing for Congressional oversight hearings focused on DEA interference and intimidation.

I have high hopes for Chairman Conyers’ investigation, but Santa Barbara is not out of the woods yet. Just this week, DEA Agent David Sheets – a long time nemesis of patients and operators here – was seen conducting surveillance at one of the only collectives left in the area. We may still find that our county is the only one in California to face landlord prosecution and asset forfeiture. If that happens, it will send a chill through California’s medical marijuana community and escalate pressure on landlords statewide.

There is a lot of talk about hope in this election season. Those of us in Santa Barbara are hoping this escalation is just another bluff by federal ideologues bent on inflicting maximum casualties on the medical marijuana community in the waning days of the Bush Administration. We are also hoping the rest of California notices what is happening here and stands behind us. I hope that new Administration will bring new polices, and I can go back to helping my patients.

1. California Supreme Court Makes Medical Cannabis Victory Final

On Thursday, the California Supreme Court decided not to hear an appeal from San Diego County in their attempt to invalidate California’s medical cannabis ID card program.  The refusal by the state’s highest court means that ASA’s July victory in the appellate court stands, and the decision that federal law does not trump state law is final.

ASA intervened in the lawsuit on behalf of patients in 2006, after San Diego County refused to issue state medical cannabis ID cards to patients, as required under Senate Bill 420, passed by the California Legislature in 2003. Both superior and appellate courts ruled in our favor, affirming that counties cannot just decide for themselves whether or not to follow the law. The Supreme Court¹s decision not to hear an appeal means that because of our victory, San Diego and all other counties must implement California law.

After we won in appellate court, ASA’s Chief Counsel, Joe Elford, contacted every county in California that had followed San Diego’s lead by refusing to initiate the program.  Elford made it clear to these hold-out counties that it is against the law for them not to implement the ID card program, and that we were watching them closely. As a result, two California counties,  (Fresno and Kings) ­ voted to issue the patient ID’s almost immediately. Now, ASA is again following up with a warning for remaining California counties that refuse to obey the law.  According to Elford, “We are prepared to commence litigation.”

The implications of the San Diego victory are far-reaching. Elected officials at every level of government often cite federal law as a reason not to obey California voters. And officials across the country who are looking at medical cannabis in their own states are often unsure if federal law trumps state action. With this case they’ll know it does not.

2. Garden Grove bans medical marijuana dispensaries

Garden Grove City Council members voted 4 – 1 to ban medical cannabis dispensaries within city limits this week, an ordinance which becomes active in just one month.

Over 25 people showed up to the city council meeting to oppose the dispensary ban, though news accounts do not mention one person who spoke in support. Patients, some in wheelchairs, pleaded with the council to allow one dispensary in particular, seven month old “Unit-D”, to remain as a place to access medication in town.  Reports from local police that were submitted to council members showed no legal incidents or complaints associated with the dispensing collective since it opened.

Despite no evidence or suggestion of problems, only council member Mike Rosen voted to allow Unit D to remain open under a conditional use permit.  Other officials brought forth confusing claims and concerns.  Councilmember Steve Jones claimed that the City of Garden Grove would be held liable for “poor quality” medical cannabis that might be given to qualified patients.  What “poor quality” means, how it could be interpreted and by whom, what would be the impact on patients who used “poor quality” cannabis, and whether or not there existed any such legal precedent anywhere in the 12 states that allow medical cannabis, was not explained by Jones.  Jones and three others voted to ban the treatment centers.

Major DEA Raid Activity in Southern California and Alameda County, Despite AG Guidelines, Federal Inquiries, and Pending Litigation

Federal agents moved into California this week, conducting paramilitary style raids on four medical cannabis dispensaries. Two raids occurred in Long Beach, in addition to one in Laguna Beach and one in Alameda County.  Accounts from all collectives separately describe DEA agents seizing equipment, destroying property, and intimidating volunteers and patients physically and verbally.  Personal information of all patients, volunteers, and employees were taken, though no arrests were made.

Local law enforcement participated in the raids in Alameda and Laguna Beach, though it is unconfirmed whether local police were involved in the Long Beach raids. This comes just one month after California Attorney General Jerry Brown explicitly directed all California police to obey local and state, not federal laws.  It was uncertain why local police were violating the directive of the Attorney General, though departments that participated have been identified as expressly hostile to California’s medical cannabis law.

DEA tactics have come under increased scrutiny by local, state, and federal officials in recent months.  As California’s medical cannabis law is strengthened through litigative and legislative acts, DEA activity has increased,  signaling a disregard by federal agents for state law. The raided dispensaries were operating legally under California Proposition 215 (1996), Senate Bill 420 (2003), and official dispensary guidelines issued by the California Attorney General (2008).  At least one of the collectives that was raided, We Are Hemp, operated under a license by Alameda County.

DEA activity continues despite attempts at oversight and scrutiny.  A federal court recently allowed a lawsuit to move forward which alleges DEA is illegally trying to disrupt California law.  In addition, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which oversees DEA activity, has begun interrogating DEA over the intent and effectiveness of these aggressive raid tactics.  Raids conducted by the agency will be used as evidence both in the trial and in Congressional oversight hearings, should they move forward.

Thankfully, ASA was able to respond quickly to the raid in Alameda using our Text Message Emergency Response system.  We were alerted about the raid from an activist, and immediately sent text messages to activists telling them to go down and protest the DEA as they raid.  Its a critical component of our strategy.  Please sign up for our Emergency Response.

Los Angeles Protest Demands Justice for Charles Lynch, Asks Congress to Intervene

A major protest in LA this week further accented the concern over escalating DEA activity in California.  Over 350 people attended a protest to support former Morro Bay dispensary collective Charles Lynch, whose story of local compliance and community compassion met with aggressive DEA arrest and prosecution made national news and drew support by various activist bodies, including Drew Carey’s Reason.tv.

Organized by LA ASA’s Cheryl and a team of dedicated activists, the protest was attended by numerous criminal justice and patient rights organizations, and took place in front of the LA Federal Courthouse on the day Lynch was to have a hearing on a motion for a new trial.  This hearing has been delayed to November 4.

Lynch operated his permitted collective within the mandates of state and local law, but the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff took issue with his facility and called in the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to close him down.

There are more than one hundred Americans facing federal prosecution for medical cannabis right now. None of these people will be able to tell jurors that their actions were legal under state law, explain their compassionate motives, or even say the words "medical cannabis" in court. They will all be portrayed as vicious drug dealers, as prosecutors demand and federal judges require. With conviction rates over 90% in federal court, few of these defendants have hope of justice.

This week, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will decide exactly what actions individuals must take in order to be defined as a primary caregiver under California’s medical cannabis laws.  People v. Mentch is the fifth medical cannabis case to be heard before the State’s Supreme Court.

In addition to determining whether one can be classified as a primary caregiver simply by providing medical cannabis to qualified patients, the court will also address the question of how judges must instruct jurors with regard to similar cases.

Roger Mentch was arrested in 2003 and charged with illegal marijuana sales for supplying medicine to five patients.  Mentch counseled the patients about the types of strains that would be suit their medical needs, grew and tested multiple strains, and drove two of the patients to doctor’s appointments.  In court, Mentch attempted to assert a defense based on his status as a primary caregiver.  The trial court rejected the defense and refused to instruct the jury on it, finding that Mentch had failed to establish himself as a primary caregiver.

On appeal, the court unanimously disagreed. The California Supreme Court then granted review, primarily to resolve the issue of what type of evidence is necessary to allow the jury to consider whether one is a “primary caregiver,” which is defined in the Compassionate Use Act as one who “consistently assumes the responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of” a qualified patient.

ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford filed an amicus brief contending that cultivating cannabis for a qualified patient alone qualifies one to assert a medical cannabis defense (and Mentch’s attorney argued this point in court).  The Attorney General, on the other hand, contends that one is only a primary caregiver if he “consistently assumes the responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of” a qualified patient, aside from providing medical cannabis.  The court will issue a ruling in, at most, 90 days.

Last week’s ASA Weekly Alert reported that the Arcata City Council’s had a marijuana task force and had approved dispensary regulations for the city. This was not true.  Thank you to the readers who caught this error, which was a mix-up with action taken by another city council.

The City of Arcata does not have a Marijuana Task Force, and city officials recently signed off on a draft of potential dispensary regulations, which now go back to the Arcata Planning Commission for further review at the City Council meeting on November 5th.

We apologize for any inconvenience.

Many of you may have noticed ASA’s new pink tint for the last few days.  Yes, its true, we’ve gone pink.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, so ASA’s website has gone pink in a show of support for those who are or have suffered through breast cancer.  We’re encouraging people to go to our site and click on the “Go Pink” button in the upper right of our homepage.  There you’ll find resources with information on how to contribute to raising awareness and support for breast cancer survivors.

Aside from the fact that cancer has at one time impacted the lives of most, if not all of us, and supporting Susan G Komen for the Cure is just the right thing to do, we’re encouraging all of our members to remember the importance of reaching out.  This month, please give of yourself. Give your time, your money, your resources, or your ideas to further helping those living with and living through illness.

In our line of work sometimes outsiders can lose sight of the fact that we’re working with illness and pain as much as any other condition-focused foundation like Susan G Komen for the Cure.  Sometimes in the media and in the public eye, the “pot” gets all the attention and the people get left to the wayside.  We’re always trying to bring the focus back where it belongs, to the courageous people who live everyday in a fight to survive.  This is what’s most important.

Please visit Susan G Komen for the Cure, and find out how you can help.

This afternoon around 2pm, we received a call that the DEA was in the process of raiding We Are Hemp, a dispensing collective in San Lorenzo.  We all immediately jumped into our raid-response roles, and I rushed to the computer to send out a text message alert to over 500 patients and allies in the Bay Area, asking everyone to come down, bring signs, and show their support.  Meanwhile, another staff member was busy gathering signs and arranging for transportation to the site, while another staff member was alerting the media, making sure there would be significant coverage of the raid.

Besides the fact that the dispensing collective was in compliance with California State law and the recently issued Attorney General guidelines, We Are Hemp also had a business permit from the County of Alameda.  So the county can issue permits, give their official approval, and then turn around and let their Sheriffs assist in a DEA raid?  This is absolutely ridiculous and a blatant affront to California state law.

It is always incredibly upsetting when there is a raid on a dispensing collective, but what often adds to my personal frustration is the fact that I normally am not able to physically go down to the site and show my support.  This time however, the raid was right in our back yard and I was able to go onsite with another staff member and protest these atrocious actions on the part of the DEA and our local Alameda County Sheriffs.  It actually felt so good to be there, to be able to physically do something, even if that was just holding a sign, chanting “We’re Patients, Not Criminals!” and watching DEA agents and Sheriffs get flustered when they saw us taking their pictures.  We even met some neighbors of the dispensing collective who were just as outraged as we were!  Although not patients themselves, they were very supportive of We Are Hemp and said that the dispensing collective had really improved the safety in the area.  Appalled that something like this could actually happen, these two new allies grabbed their own “Stop Arresting Medical Marijuana Patients” signs and joined the demonstration.
One of our most powerful tools during a raid like this is our very own physical presence.  With each added person that arrives onsite to show support, our message becomes that much stronger.  With one extra voice, we become that much more difficult for them to ignore.  The next time the DEA tries to raid in our neighborhood, go down and show your support, or send someone in your stead if your cannot go yourself.  With so many major changes happening right now in our country, this is the time to make our voices heard!

The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in the Court’s fifth medical marijuana case.  At issue were two questions:  (1) can one qualify as a primary caregiver solely by consistently providing a patient with medical marijuana, and (2) how should the jury be instructed regarding the burden on defendants when they assert a medical mariuana defense?

The case involves medical marijuana cultivator Roger Mentch, who supplied medicine to five patients.  In addition, Mentch counseled the patients about the types of strains that would be suit their medical needs, as he grew multiple strains that he tested himself, and he drove two of the patients to doctor’s appointments.  After the cops busted Mentch and charged him with illegal marijuana sales, Mentch attempted to assert a defense based on his status as a primary caregiver.  The trial court rejected the defense and refused to instruct the jury on it, finding that Mentch had failed as a matter of law to establish that he qualified as a primary caregiver.

On appeal, the court unanimously disagreed.  In the published decision of People v. Mentch, the court found that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to instruct the jury on a primary caregiver defense, since Mentch had done more than simply supply marijuana to patients.  At the Attorney General’s behest, the California Supreme Court granted review of the case, primarily, to resolve the issue of what type of evidence is necessary to allow the jury to consider the question whether one is a “primary caregiver,” which is defined in the Compassionate Use Act as one who “consistently assumes the responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of” a qualified patient.

Whereas ASA filed an amicus brief contending that cultivating marijuana for a qualified patient, standing alone, qualifies one to assert a medical marijuana defense (and Mentch’s attorney argued this in court today), the Attorney General contends that one is only a primary caregiver if he “consistently assumes the responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of” a qualified patient, aside from marijuana providing.  The crux of the issue is the role of the jury in defining a “primary caregiver” versus the court excluding this issue from the jury’s consideration on the basis that persons like Mentch do not qualify as a matter of law.

This, I think, is the reason the Court asked the second question about the proper instructions to be given to jurors about the burden on medical marijuana defendants who raise a Compassionate Use Act defense, which strikes me as the more important of the two questions.  I’ll try my best to explain, but it gets rather technical.  In People v. Mower, the California Supreme Court held that a patient had the burden of coming forward with some evidence that he qualified for a defense under the Compassionate Use Act, but that he only need enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt on the issue.  Oddly, some courts issued instructions suggesting that the defendant had the burden of establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence, so the instructions needed some fixing.  Based on the questioning at today’s oral argument in Mentch, it seems that the Court will set the framework as follows:  A defendant must come forward with some evidence on each of the elements of the defense and the judge (not the jury) decides whether he has done so.  If not, the jury is not instructed on the Compassionate Use Act at all.  If so, the jury will be told what the defense entails and that it is the government’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense does not apply.  Or something like that.  We’ll find out in, at most, 90 days.

A noisy crowd of 350 medical cannabis supporters gathered in front of the federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles to call for a new trial for Charles C. Lynch, the operator of a Morro Bay medical cannabis collective raided by the DEA in March of last year. Lynch, who operated Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers with the blessing of the City of Morro Bay, faces decades in federal prison following his conviction last month. His attorneys are asking Judge George Wu for a new trial on November 4.

The larger-than average crowd braved the notorious Los Angeles heat and tolerated crowded conditions on the narrow sidewalk between the barricades protecting the courthouse along Spring Street and the spacious lawn – which was strictly off limits to protesters. They even took the malfunctioning PA system in stride, pressing in close to hear from the defendant, his attorneys, and a handful of other speakers. Cars and a steady stream of buses honked in support as protesters waived signs and banners in support of Lynch and medical cannabis.

The story surrounding Charles Lynch’s arrest and prosecution strikes a nerve in the medical cannabis community because his case illustrates the fundamental injustice of those caught between state and federal law: doing things right is still a crime. Lynch operated his permitted collective within the mandates of state and local law, but the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff took issue with his facility and called in the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to close him down. Lynch now faces between five and one hundred years in prison and up to four million dollars in fines for playing by the rules under state law.

What is even more disturbing than Lynch’s plight is the fact that he is not alone. There are more than one hundred Americans facing federal prosecution for medical cannabis “crimes” right now. None of these people will be able to tell jurors that their actions may be legal under state law or explain their compassionate motives. With conviction rates over 90% in federal court, few of these defendants have hope of justice. It is imperative that Americans for Safe Access (ASA) succeed in harmonizing federal law with the laws of the states that allow for medical cannabis if we are going to stop this injustice.

But we can not let the our local law enforcement and elected representatives off the hook. Remember how Charles C. Lynch got into trouble in the first place. He worked with his local government to get the right permits and obeyed state law. It was the Sheriff who took it upon himself to call in the DEA and usurp state law. The courts have been clear on this topic – local governments and state law enforcement must uphold Proposition 215 and other medical cannabis laws despite the fact that they differ from federal law. We must hold elected officials – including mean-spirited Sheriffs – accountable when they fail to uphold our voter-approved medical cannabis laws.

California voters must insist that their elected representatives fully implement state law, and use legislation and litigation to reign in non-compliant law enforcement. ASA is working every day to protect and expand patients’ rights in California, but we need your help to keep doing it. Next time you hear about a protest in your community, come out and join a few hundred of your friends to make your voice heard. Don’t worry… we’ll make room for you on the sidewalk!

You can also help out by joining ASA today!

1. Governor Schwarzenegger Vetoes Anti-Employment Discrimination Bill

Governor Schwarzenegger jeopardized the financial security for California’s most seriously ill by vetoing ASA’s anti-employment discrimination bill (AB 2279 ), which would have protected the jobs of legal medical cannabis patients statewide.  As it stands, thanks to the 2007 California Supreme Court ruling in Ross v. Ragingwire , those who are legally qualified to use cannabis as a treatment option under California law may be fired from their jobs because of it.

The incredible effort put forth by ASA staff and activists in lobbying, building powerful coalitions with health care groups and labor unions, and working with the bill’s sponsor, Assemblymember Mark Leno (D) had led to positive momentum for this important step toward equality for medical cannabis patients.  The bill passed through both the California Assembly and Senate, and reached the Governor’s desk in the midst of an unprecedented display of sweeping vetoes by Governor Schwarzenegger. The message that the Governor attached to the veto implied that he felt California voters passed Proposition 215 without intending to protect patients from employment discrimination and the right to financially support themselves and their families.

Most everyone outside of the Governor’s mansion believes that people who live with illness should be encouraged to work rather than rely on services from the state, further straining our tight budget.  We saw a greater mobilization of our members than almost ever before, with AB 2279 receiving more  pressure from constituents than almost any other bill the Governor considered.  This kind of action demonstrates what our community can do when we bind together across the state . Medical cannabis is making powerful progress in dispensary regulations and ID cards , and we’re making new legal in-roads all the time.  ASA has vowed to bring this fight for job security even more aggressively next year, and we know you’ll be right there with us!

2. Palm Springs and Arcata Move Forward on Dispensary Regulations

In two different parts of the state, local governments continue to take important steps to expand California’s medical cannabis program.  Officials for the cities of Arcata and Palm Springs moved toward new regulations this week to address dispensary operation and maintenance, bringing their jurisdictions up to code and in compliance with both California law (SB 420 ) and with the recently issued guidelines by Attorney General Jerry Brown.

The Arcata City Council is considering dispensary regulations that were brought to it by the City Planning Commission as part of its land use zoning deliberations.  The Planning Commission was delayed in bringing proposed regulations to the city in August due to the release of the AG guidelines, which it wanted to to review before issuing its own recommendations.  The council is considering these regulations, which would be a welcome step by community members who rely on medical cannabis dispensary services.   (**This paragraph has been edited for errors since first posted.**10/6/08)

Officials in Palm Springs also moved forward with civil codes allowing and regulating dispensaries.  The proposed draft ordinance, which has the support of the Mayor and most council members , would bring zoning and operation requirements to an area which, only months prior, had been considering banning public medical cannabis services outright.  The draft ordinance was referred to the city’s planning commission for review, and will be returned to the city council.

Carlo Sarmiento, a volunteer at Community Caregivers, said of the proposed guidelines, which may rezone the dispensing collective,  “Our original goal is to get this medicine to the patient… If it requires us to move, we would still have to follow (that) goal.”   The turnaround for Palm Springs was the result of education and pressure from members of the community on city regulators; it did not happen on its own.  Its absolutely critical that community members who live in areas where access to medical cannabis is restricted or denied outright take control of their local governments, working individually to call officials and cooperatively with ASA chapters or other community groups to inform apprehensive local lawmakers of their duty to comply with state law and to those living with illness in their neighborhoods.

Read more about Arcata and Palm Springs on medical cannabis.

In a horrible example of the need for greater protection from local law enforcement, a security guard at an Los Angeles dispensary was shot and killed while on duty this week. ASA’s sincere thoughts and prayers go out to the friends and family of Noe Campos Gonzalez, 25, who was fatally shot about 3:30 p.m.Wednesday at the La Brea Collective in Los Angeles.  The unarmed Gonzalez was shot in an apparent robbery attempt, and law enforcement have identified two suspects in the shooting.

The tragedy struck as the LA medical cannabis community is coming together to support dispensary owner Charles Lynch at the LA federal courthouse on Monday.  Lynch will be sentenced on federal charges for his role in running a medical cannabis dispensary.  Local law enforcement have been exceptional in working to bring the violent perpetrators to justice, which underscores the need for positive relationships between collectives and police in every community.   At this time, La Brea Collective and the Gonzalez family need the support of the community.  Thanks to everyone who’s been present through this difficult time.

1. In Vindictive Raid, Riverside Police Destroy Small Patient Collective

Riverside Police brought almost 20 law enforcement officers to a small medical cannabis collective, destroying and seizing property, harassing one 81 year old patient and another woman with severe multiple sclerosis, and arresting medical cannabis patient Martin Victor on $50,000 bond.

When the Riverside officers arrived at the nine-patient collective, Mr. Victor presented them with documentation affirming the legality of the 50 – 70 plant garden, well within the limits for a collective of that size.  However, the officers disregarded the recommendations and proceeded to destroy the garden, including a chain fence, cameras, and motion detectors.  They also seized medicine and other personal property, including the Victors’ computer. Police justified the harassment, destruction of property, and arrest of Victor by stating that the nine patients growing cannabis collectively for each other did not have a city permit to operate as a business under the recently released Attorney General guidelines.

Local medical cannabis activists Lanny Swerdlow and Dave Herrick were members of the small collective. Victor, who was arrested on three felony charges in the raid, was scheduled to testify last Monday in a trial in defense of Swerdlow, who is accused of “pushing” a reserve of the Riverside Sheriff’s Department at a public anti-medical cannabis group meeting.  Though Victor was in jail at the time of the trial, Swerdlow was nonetheless acquitted by a jury that did not find the Sheriff’s reserve officer “believable”.  Some have speculated the raid on the small collective was an attempt by the Riverside police to keep Victor from testifying and to intimidate, threaten, and suppress the activities of activists in the area.

There have long been accusations of rampant corruption of law enforcement in Riverside.  Though police abuse against medical cannabis patients is an unfortunate reality, rarely do we see the type of blatant and vindictive use of police power to harass and harm law abiding citizens, as in this case.  ASA is reviewing our options and may pursue legal action against Riverside Police.

2. Man Sues Seal Beach Police for Taking Medical Cannabis

In a backlash against law enforcement harassment, former Seal Beach resident Bruce Benedict, a medical cannabis patient who suffers from Hepatitis C, is suing city police for violation of health and safety codes and breach of contract, alleging they unlawfully seized 40-50 medical cannabis plants and then coerced him to move and to become a police informant.

The suit alleges that after Benedict called Seal Beach Police on an unrelated matter, officers Mike Henderson and David Barr entered his home after smelling cannabis. Though Benedict showed them his recommendations and asserted his status as a legal patient and caregiver under California law, the officers took pictures of Benedict’s medical cannabis and brought it to the local District Attorney, who refused to pursue charges against a legal patient.  Unsatisfied, the officers called federal agents and returned to Benedict’s home with the DEA, who arrested and charged him.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown recently released guidelines as a reference for law enforcement to use when dealing with medical cannabis encounters.  The guidelines state that police should follow state, not federal laws with regard to medical cannabis, and according to the guidelines, it would have been inappropriate for the Seal Beach officers to call DEA after finding Benedict compliant with local laws.

Though this is the first case of its kind, the Garden Grove decision by the California Supreme Court affirmed the right of the return of  medical cannabis to patients if it is wrongfully seized by police.

A series of recent events have led to local governments enacting medical cannabis regulations.   The Attorney General guidelines, which describe how law enforcement should deal with medical cannabis encounters, has prompted some cities and counties to reconsider their medical cannabis bans and moratoriums.  Also, ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford recently sent letters to California counties that have refused to implement the medical cannabis ID card program.  The letters encouraged county supervisors to implement the program or face potential legal action by ASA, and led directly to some counties voting to implement the program.

Garden Grove Bans Dispensaries
At the city level, Garden Grove banned dispensaries within city limits last week, despite testimony from patients who spoke out against the ban, and no one coming forward in favor.  Currently there is one dispensary operating in Garden Grove, and police told city officials there had been not one legal incident at or near the facility in the seven months its been operating.  City officials then voted to ban it, claiming dispensaries would be too hard on police. They also claimed that the state hadn’t yet fully decided on the issue, despite the Attorney General guidelines which affirmed the legality of dispensaries.

Arcadia Officials Enact Moratorium
In Arcadia, city officials enacted a 45-day moratorium on medical cannabis dispensaries to study their options with regard to regulations.  However, Arcadia Mayor Robert Harbicht says he’s opposed to allowing patients safe access through collectives or dispensaries in his town.   Citizens have 45 days to organize and to provide information to city officials on the need for dispensaries to assist the community of medical cannabis patients.

Laguna Woods Becomes First in OC to Regulate Dispensaries
Laguna Woods, on the other hand, bucked a trend in Orange County last week and became the first in the area to approve and regulate dispensaries.  The retirement community has an average age of 78, and council members recognized that many citizens are dealing with end of life ailments and chronic pain.  Individuals who spoke in favor of the regulations at the city council meeting described buying medical cannabis from a street dealer, or not having access to cannabis at all.  “It’s a very positive step,” said Cha Hanna, Orange County ASA chapter coordinator. “All of the other cities that are banning [dispensaries] are violating the spirit of the Compassionate Use Act.”   Congratulations to everyone in Orange County, and especially to the OC ASA chapter.  If you would like to push for safe access in Orange, please email Cha:  channa.ocasa@yahoo.com.

Kings County Implements ID Cards
In another positive step this week, Kings County Supervisors voted to implement a state mandated program and distribute ID cards to medical cannabis patients. In response to ASA’s letter threatening potential legal action if they did not approve the program, Kings County attorneys contacted ASA before the vote to affirm that they would comply, almost 5 years after the ID card law was passed.  Congratulations yet again to ASA’s incredible legal team and all others who worked with Kings County!