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!

Cheryl “Herbalicious” is an activist, a member of ASA and other organizations and a medical marijuana patient who suffers from chronic pain. She has met with all three of her congresswomen’s offices.  She has also attended city council meetings, volunteered at cooperatives, and written articles about medical cannabis for couple of cannabis publications such as Treating Yourself magazine. She has volunteered to help organize the Oct. 6, 11am protest for Charles C. Lynch outside the Federal Courthouse at 312 N. Spring St. Los Angeles.

The Verdict

On August 4, 2008, the jury in the Charles C. Lynch federal court case began their deliberations after arduous closing arguments, numerous jury instructions and a taxing two-week trial. I sat through that process to show my support for medical cannabis which has benefited me in many ways. Before leaving the courthouse on that first day of deliberation, I gave my phone number to both Reuven Cohen, one of Charlie’s federal public defenders, and to Charlie. Mr. Cohen said he would text me when the jury came back from deliberation.

I never got that text.  Later the following day, I found out via a web posting that Charlie was found guilty of conspiracy to possess and distribute marijuana, two counts of providing cannabis to adults under the age of 21 years old, possession with intent to distribute and maintaining a drug premises. The news of the verdict sent me into disarray.

How can Charlie be guilty? He followed all his business license requirements, city regulations, county restrictions, and state law. I’ve heard people question Charlie’s actions and accuse him of many things, but no evidence was presented in federal court that implied he broke state law. I realize he was being tried in federal court for breaking federal law, but he called the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) before opening his medical cannabis dispensary and was told, “It’s up to cities and counties to handle that [medical marijuana dispensary] matter”. And he did everything to follow local laws. Later, he explained to me some of the tedious precautions he took to operate a legitimate medical marijuana dispensary.

When I found out about the verdict, I was in disbelief. I called Charlie, but I got no answer, so I texted him. “Guilty on all five counts…still out on bail…have to appear on Oct. 6 8am…” was the message he sent back to me. I sent a text message announcing the difficult news to several people, including Don Duncan. Don responded with a text, “Terrible injustice! We must protest at his sentencing.” And so my protest planning escapades began.

When I Dream, I Dream Big

The very next morning, I got up early (actually I couldn’t sleep) and began working on protest plans even though the protest was exactly 2 months away.  I jumped the gun and began promoting an Oct. 6 nationwide protest in which every person who consumes cannabis would not go to work, school, and any other normal daily activity. The goal was to show the nation that we don’t work without our medicine and this country doesn’t work without us.

Call to Action

My goal is to get 2,000 supporters out to the federal courthouse on October 6. I told you, I dream big. Some people seem dead-set on focusing on 100 or 200 protesters.  I think if we set our sights on 200 protesters we’ll be lucky to get 20.  If we push for 2,000, we will get plenty of protesters and it would send a strong message to the federal government that we’re not going anywhere and we’re not going sit by and let them intimidate and interfere with our Constitutional and state rights.

What the government did to Charlie could easily happen to any and all dispensary owners and that scares me. I rely on dispensaries for my pain-relieving medicine. I can’t physically grow my own, and even if I could, my landlords would not allow it because they have been intimidated by federal actions in California. Why does it seem the good and innocent suffer from the federal government’s persecution of cannabis?

Two thousand protesters would be doable if ALL medical marijuana patients within Los Angeles attended the protest.  It seems there is plenty of time for patients to arrange for time off of work and school. I fully understand that not all patients can attend for different reasons.  Not being able to attend should not stop ALL patients from contributing in some way to these efforts.

See you all out at the protest October 6th at 11am at 312 N. Spring St. in Los Angeles, CA. For more information about the rally, please visit www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/FreeCharlesLynch.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 2279 late last night, leaving hundreds of thousands of legal medical cannabis patients without protection from workplace discrimination. In a terse statement, the Governor said that employment protection was not the voters’ goal when they approved Proposition 215 in 1996. This is the same faulty logic offered by the California Supreme Court when they negated patients’ rights in Ross v. Ragingwire (2008), a decision called one of the worst of the year by Attorney Gerald Uelman in the September issue of California Lawyer.

Schwarzenegger said he does not want to interfere in employment decisions where medical cannabis is concerned. It is more likely, however, that powerful law enforcement and employer lobbyists exercised their usual influence over the Governor in stopping this reasonable and common sense measure. Both groups tried unsuccessfully to kill AB 2279 at committee hearings and on the floors of the Assembly and Senate.

It is unreasonable for the Governor to assume that California voters intended to legalize medical cannabis in 1996, but did not intend that qualified patients would enjoy basic protections from discrimination. In vetoing AB 2279, Schwarzenegger has effectively disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of law-abiding medical cannabis patients and rejected the endorsement of powerful labor organizations, including SEIU and AFSCME, representing over one million workers in the state.

Since February, I have met with dozens of Assemblymembers and Senators in an effort to build support for AB 2279. We succeeded in winning enough support to get the bill to the Governor’s desk. We also learned a lot about the intricacies of Sacramento politics and the perception of medical cannabis among our lawmakers. During more than twenty separate trips to the Capitol this year, I only rarely heard objections to the actual provisions of AB 2279. More commonly, lawmakers expressed concern about the perceptions surrounding medical cannabis – especially the perception of abuse. We are going to have to do a much better job answering these concerns and talking about how Proposition 215 is working for legitimate patients when we rejoin the fight for employment rights next year.

AB 2279 landed on the Schwarzenegger’s desk in the middle of an unprecedented constitutional battle between the Governor and lawmakers. The Governor vetoed a record number of bills this year in retaliation for the Legislature’s rejection of his budget proposal. It is impossible to know if this bill – and hundreds of others that were summarily dismissed – might have fared better absent this power struggle.

This was a tough year for medical cannabis in Sacramento, but we need not be discouraged by this delay. We are still fighting to protect and expand patients’ rights in California. Patients and advocates can be sure we will be back next year with a new bill and the same grassroots momentum that took us so far this year. In the meantime, we are still winning in California, with court victories like those in Garden Grove and San Diego, progress on local implementation, and growing resistance to federal interference and intimidation. The Governor may not get it, but our courts, local representatives, and the vast majority of Californians do!

After Years of Waiting, Police Return Medicine to Huntington Beach Patient

After three years of waiting Jim Spray, a former client of ASA’s who had his medical cannabis wrongly confiscated by Huntington Beach Police, had his cannabis and growing equipment returned to him under court order earlier this week.  The order from Orange County Superior Court Judge Thomas Borris came nearly nine months after the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled in Garden Grove v. Superior Court that qualified patients who have their medication wrongly seized by police have the right to get it back..

Spray, who was represented by ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford in his case (in which the court reached the same ruling) is the second patient in Huntington Beach, to have had medication returned that was seized by police. According to officials, Huntington Beach Police don’t have a policy on dealing with medical cannabis.

To read a detailed account of Spray’s case, take a look at Joe Elford’s blog post about this story.

Santa Barbara Dispensaries Close Their Doors, After Feds Threaten Landlords

According to Dale Gieringer of California NORML, this week several Santa Barbara dispensaries closed their doors, in the face of threats by the federal government against their landlords. In early August, officials from the United States Justice Department had met with the landlords and admonished them to evict their dispensary tenants or risk asset forfeiture.

Hundreds of dispensary landlords throughout the state have received letters from the DEA advising them of their tenants’ activities and telling them that they risked asset forfeiture. However, neither the DEA nor the DOJ had ever followed up on these letters, except during these meetings in Santa Barbara.

Though this situation appears to be isolated, it is a huge loss for Santa Barbara patients and the surrounding communities. Since the only other central coast dispensary, run by Charles Lynch who was recently convicted in a federal court, was shut down last year, safe access in the area is now in danger. Patients will either be forced to drive long distances to procure their medicine or may have to resort to the illicit market.

For more information, please see Dale Gieringer’s full press release.

Area Medical Cannabis Dispensaries Urge Los Angeles City Council to Move Forward with Regulations

Representatives from a number of local medical cannabis dispensing collectives spoke before the Los Angeles City Council last Friday to ask that the council move quickly on adopting regulations and creating an ordinance governing medical cannabis dispensaries. Council members were attentive and interested in the concerns brought forth, a noticeable change from past meetings.

The meetings came partly in response to the recent dispensary guidelines issued by Attorney General Jerry Brown, in which Brown asserted that nonprofit dispensing collectives and cooperatives are legal under California law.  The medical cannabis community requested that the council provide them with guidelines and regulations in order to engage in best practices and to better serve the community.  To date, Los Angeles has issued no such regulations.

In November of 2003, medical marijuana patients James Spray has his medical marijuana seized after members of the Huntington Beach Police came to his home in response to an “erroneous 911 call.” The officers seized approximately five ounces of marijuana, twelve immature plants, and jar of concentrated cannabis and marijuana cultivation equipment.

Spray, then, filed a motion in the Superior Court, but the motion was denied, with the judge claiming that there was no authority for this under California law. What made the case most interesting to me was that it occurred in Orange County. This was the hotbed for return of medical marijuana cases because that’s where the only published case occurred. In Chavez v. Superior Court, the court held that Marvin Chavez was not entitled to the return of his more than ten pounds of medical marijuana because he admitted that it was not all for his personal medical use. Courts and prosecutors throughout the state relied on this case for the proposition that no medical marijuana patient can have his marijuana returned even when legally possessed under California law. The Chavez case did not say this, and we had been fighting this in a number of cases; however, because one can only appeal the denial of a motion for return of property through a procedure known as a writ, the appellate courts could elect to ignore us altogether, which is what they did.

By the end of the day, I had filed a half dozen writs, and trust me, they are burdensome. But the most promising one involved Felix Kha, who was granted his motion for return of property and the City, for a change, had to file the writ after we threatened it with contempt for refusing to return his marijuana. that was in October of 2005. The case, then, just sat there for months and there was nothing we could do to get it going — until Jim Spray’s case came along. With the filing of the writ in his case, I could remind the court of appeal that the Garden Grove case was pending and that this was an issue that needed to be resolved. I had become frustrated and James Spray’s case was a vehicle to push the issue along. It did.

Soon after we filed the writ in Jim Spray’s case, the Garden Grove case got moving again. Eventually, both cases were consolidated for oral argument and, in bizarre fashion, I argued consecutively — first, as the Real Party in Interest on one side of the court in Garden Grove; then, moving my briefcase three feet over, as the Petitioner in Spray. All of the Justices cracked a smile on this one. That’s some lawyer humor for you.

Three months later, decisions were entered in favor of our side in both cases, as you probably all know by know. Garden Grove v. Superior Court (Kha). was published. Spray was not, but both resulted in orders for the return of medicine. Still, the difficulties continued.

For reasons still unknown to me, the Superior Court refused to issue a written order for the return of Spray’s property, despite being directed by the court of appeal to do so. This required a lot of persistence on Jim’s part, as well as some work by mine. Finally, after I sent the court a letter with the order and the opinion attached the trial court signed the order.

Jim was delighted when I gave him the news and, two days ago, he took the order to the Huntington Beach Police Department to get his medicine and equipment back. Although much of the cultivation equipment had been mysteriously destroyed and the dried marijuana and marijuana plants were unusable, one jar contained several grams of concentrated cannabis that Jim may still use. I never thought I’d see the day.