Monday, January 21, 2013

Dispensaries Still Under Fire By City Attorney

Several news sources outline the continuing saga of litigation towards medical marijuana dispensaries and co-operatives. 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2013

San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith Refuses Closure of Medical Marijuana Dispensary Cases, Sends Misleading Letter to Litigants, Mayor and City Council

By Terrie Best, San Diego ASA Court Support Coordinator
San Diego – City Attorney Jan Goldsmith dashed off a letter to litigants in medical marijuana dispensary cases indicating he is not answerable to his client the Mayor and manufacturing mistruths, in what appears an attempt to make the procedure the punishment in twelve medical marijuana dispensary zoning cases.

Last week in a dramatic move, newly elected San Diego Mayor, Bob Filner presumably put an end to the investigation and persecution of medical cannabis dispensaries by the city’s Neighborhood Code Compliance.  Additionally, Mayor Filner directed the City Attorney, Jan Goldsmith to drop twelve pending civil suits against medical cannabis dispensary operators for zoning code violations. These suits relied heavily on testimony from code enforcement officers and, by his own admission, without this testimony Goldsmith has no standing to pursue the cases. 

Additionally, The California Supreme Court Ruled on Dispensary Ruling

California Supreme Court Denies Review of Medical Marijuana Case, Affirms Legality of Dispensaries

High Court also denied depublication of People v. Jackson despite request from League of California Cities
SAN DIEGO, CA — The California Supreme Court denied review yesterday of a landmark medical marijuana dispensary case, which drew widespread attention from prosecutors and policymakers across the state.
Jovan Jackson
Jovan Jackson
The Fourth District Court of Appeal for California issued a unanimous published ruling on October 24th in the case of People v. Jackson, reversing the conviction of former San Diego dispensary operator Jovan Jackson and establishing a clear defense for Jackson and other medical marijuana providers similarly prosecuted in state court.
Notably, however, the State Supreme Court took decisive action yesterday in the way that it did, despite requests to depublish the appellate court decision from the League of California Cities and an amicus brief supporting the High Court’s review of the case from district attorneys in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Sonoma Counties, as well as the Los Angeles City Attorney.
“Not only has the California Supreme Court rejected attempts to have it review the Jackson case, thereby affirming the legality of medical marijuana sales and distribution in the state, it also chose not to depublish this landmark ruling benefiting thousands of patients,” said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access, who represented Jackson in his appeal. “Even though the appellate court decision garnered significant opposition, patients have prevailed in their struggle to protect safe access to medical marijuana.”
Jackson was convicted in September 2010 after being denied a defense in San Diego Superior Court. However, yesterday’s decision not to review his case now entitles Jackson — and, by extension, other California dispensary operators — to a defense in state court. By rejecting the Attorney General’s argument that patients who utilize dispensaries must collaborate, or ‘come together’ in ‘some way’ to cultivate the marijuana they purchase, the appellate court ruling provided the elements for a defense in future jury trials across the state.


Friday, January 11, 2013

Mayor Filner Recinds War On Dispensaries

Mayor Bob Filner has asked Jan Goldsmith, City Attorney, to cease prosecuting city medical marijuana dispensaries and collectives. This story has been well covered by news outlets across California.

KPBS;

San Diego CityBeat;

SD Chapter of Americans for Safe Access

Medical Marijuana Business Daily

The Medimar Clinic operator maintains a database of operating dispensaries. Call 877-627-1644  or 213-675-0765

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Lawful Medical Marijuana Patients Can Lose Child Custody Battles, But It’s Getting Better

Smell the Truth Repost

Divorces can be plenty messy to begin with. Add in a few kids, some run of the mill vindictiveness and a medical marijuana recommendation – and it can become a nightmare.

Comedian, writer and Sacramento News and Review columnist Ngaio Bealum tries to provide some clarity on the issue this week, writing that California courts are starting to go easier on pot-smoking parents.
Keep away from child custody disputes: a Kiva medical cannabis bar
“Recently, the California Courts of Appeal found that someone using marijuana did not automatically mean someone was abusing marijuana. In this case, the father (known as “Paul M.” in court records) had a recommendation for medical cannabis, and would medicate in a shed outside of the house while an adult family member watched his child. The cannabis was also kept in a locked box in the shed. Originally, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services had ordered the father to take random drug tests, and the lower court agreed, but the appeals court reversed that decision, stating, ‘both DCFS and the trial court apparently confused the meanings of the terms ’substance use’ and ’substance abuse.’’ As it stands now, medical cannabis is being treated more and more like a regular prescription and less like a criminal offense. If you take the necessary precautions, there is no reason for you to lose custody of your kids over your cannabis use. Good luck.”
If you’re growing it in the same house with kids – watch out. And we would add that Child Protective Services reacts differently in every California county to adult medical marijuana use. Responsible use of the medication in San Francisco might not be an issue, whereas a parent using medical marijuana in Modoc County might still be in for a world of hurt.
Read Sacramento News & Review’s ‘Custody and pot’ here.
This article is not the opinion of Medimar and we only repost it for the service of our patients. Medimar  holds no opinion on this subject.