Archive for July, 2011

As the new Cole Memorandum on medical marijuana federal law enforcement continues to sink in, it is notable that it specifically refers to the “caregiver” defense.

California law has permitted the caregiver defense since 1996, however, in the 2005 Mensch case, the California Supreme Court found that to properly raise the caregiver defense, the caregiver must have had an ongoing prior relationship with the patient in which the caregiver provides for the patient’s health, safety and/or housing.  Merely reciting the word “caregiver” is of no legal effect, what is significant is the actual legal relationship of the patient and caregiver.

Since the Cole Memo specifically states that the caregiver defense will, along with the actions of sick patients, qualify for “lowest priority” in terms of the federal government’s enforcement expenditures of time and money, you could say that since the Cole Memorandum, the Caregiver Defense’s stock has gone up!

Stewart Richlin, Esq. is a California lawyer with over 25 years of experience in civil law.  Having represented thousands of patients and hundreds of collectives, Mr. Richlin has been court-qualified as an expert in the field.  Mr. Richlin’s “MEDICAL MARIJUANA COLLEGE” is a one on one legal conference in his Hollywood office which includes a detailed analysis of FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL law on the topic; it includes a copy of his book on 420 law, the latest edition of which is just off the presses, and contains about 125 pages of materials to facilitate your mastery of the legal issues raised by medical marijuana rights in the State of California.  Call us at 888-420-LAW-1   or locally at 323-540-4420.

To all concerned patients, collectives, and court-watchers, the hearing previously set for 7/19/11 has been reset on the Court’s motion to August 19, 2011 from 2-5pm. !!  Sorry for any inconvenience, the change was made at the last minute by the Court.

MEMORANDUM FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
FROM:    James M. Cole Deputy Attorney
SUBJECT:    Guidance Regarding the Ogden Memo in Jurisdictions Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use
Over the last several months some of you have requested the Department’s assistance in responding to inquiries from State and local governments seeking guidance about the Department’s position on enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in jurisdictions that have under consideration, or have implemented, legislation that would sanction and regulate the commercial cultivation and distribution of marijuana purportedly for medical use. Some of these jurisdictions have considered approving the cultivation of large quantities of marijuana, or broadening the regulation and taxation of the substance. You may have seen letters responding to these inquiries by several United States Attorneys. Those letters are entirely consistent with the October 2009 memorandum issued by Deputy Attorney General David Ogden to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use o f marijuana (the “Ogden Memo”).
The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale o f marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source o f revenue to large scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. The Ogden Memorandum provides guidance to you in deploying your resources to enforce the CSA as part of the exercise of the broad discretion you are given to address federal criminal matters within your districts.
A number of states have enacted some form of legislation relating to the medical use of marijuana. Accordingly,the Ogden Memo reiterated to you that prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, remains a core priority, but advised that it is likely not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or their caregivers. The term “caregiver” as used in the memorandum meant just that: individuals providing care to individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana.
The Department’s view of the efficient use of limited federal resources as articulated in the Ogden Memorandum has not changed. There has, however, been an increase in the scope of…
[Memorandum for United States Attorneys    Page 2  Subject: Guidance Regarding the Ogden Memo in Jurisdictions
Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use]
commercial cultivation, sale, distribution and use of marijuana for purported medical purposes. For example, within the past 12 months, several jurisdictions have considered or enacted legislation to authorize multiple large-scale, privately-operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers.    Some of these planned facilities have revenue projections of millions of dollars based on the planned cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants.
The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law.    Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law. Consistent with resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financial laws.
The Department of Justice is tasked with enforcing existing federal criminal laws in all states, and enforcement of the CSA has long been and remains a core priority.
cc: Lanny A. Breuer Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division
B. Todd Jones United States Attorney District of Minnesota Chair, AGAC
Michele M. Leonhart Administrator Drug Enforcement Administration
H. Marshall Jarrett Director Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Kevin L. Perkins Assistant Director Criminal Investigative Division Federal Bureau of Investigations

[ You can see the memo at http://420lawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/guidance_regarding_medical_mariju.pdf ]

As promised, Mr. Eric Holder, US Attorney General, has delivered a restatement of federal enforcement policy for medical marijuana. As patients and their representatives have now had a bit of time to reflect on the new medical marijuana enforcement guidelines of the Federal government, the Cole memorandum, some glaring issues emerge.

In particular, the Los Angeles ordinance for medical marijuana seems to be going the wrong direction in that it calls for centralization of the mom and pop collectives. Simultaneously the Feds warn that large operations are a target for federal law enforcement. Well, contradiction and conflict are nothing new to the medical marijuana patients.

As to these New Federal Government Guidelines for Medical Marijuana Enforcement, please enjoy these video ruminations and Further Reflections by Stewart Richlin, Esq. of 420LawOffice.com.

You can see the memo at http://420lawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/guidance_regarding_medical_mariju.pdf

The federal government has announced its newest medical marijuana enforcement policy. The new federal guidance comes in the form of a medical marijuana memorandum, “The Cole Memorandum”.

Deputy US Attorney James Cole has set forth a restatement of the Obama administration’s enforcement policy on medical marijuana in the various states that have legalized the activity. Most importantly the memo reiterates that the reduced law enforcement priority on medical marijuana extends to individual patients and their caregivers, but not to groups, and in particular not to those who engage in sales or trafficking.

Notably, many of California’s sister-states have implemented “for profit” schema for medical cannabis. This seems to fly directly in the face of established law (the Controlled Substances Act) as well as the enforcement policy enunciated by Mr. Cole. And even in sunny California, where the legal defense of medical marijuana has always required only non-profit activity, ideas like the large scale grow operations contemplated last year for Oakland, are clearly on the outs. Under the language of the memorandum, even licensed dispensaries such as the approximately 200-1000 in Los Angeles (depending on whose numbers you trust) are not protected from federal enforcement. Sales and Cultivation are both federal felonies with serious consequences ranging from 5 to 20 to even more years in prison, fines from $250,000 to $1,000,000 plus, and forfeiture of property used or derived from the sale or cultivation. So, Caveat Emptor, and govern yourself accordingly. Try not to consider that the penalties for murder are less than these penalties for MARIJUANA….because it might make your head explode like the head in Total Recall.

Unfortunately, many patients can’t grow their own due to illness and other considerations, and some of them don’t have caregivers willing to risk felonies to help them. Without collectives, group activity, and readily available medicine, lots of patients would be unable to get medicine except on the black market, and that certainly isn’t an intended consequence of the current law, although it certainly occurs for many in California, not to mention the millions who must either break the law or forgo their physician-recommended medicine in the 33 remaining states in which there are no medical marijuana rights at all. Mr. Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States, pre-announced the forthcoming Cole memorandum about three weeks ago.

You can see the memo at http://420lawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/guidance_regarding_medical_mariju.pdf