Unfortunately, often when I post, I have shared feelings of sadness, anger, and frustration, as i have watched good people get wrongly punished.  So, it’s especially sweet that I can post today to share my pride and joy (or nachas, as we Jews say) that A.B. 2279 taken the next step, and passed the California Senate today, after its previous success in the Assembly.

The story of this bill starts at the desk of the Legal Services Coordinator.  I, and those who have done this job before me, had received countless legal calls from patients relaying heartwrenching stories in which they had been fired or denied employment, simply because of the biases of an employer against medical marijuana.  Californians were being told that they faced a no-win choice:  (1) use a medicine that works for you and that eases your symptoms and go without employment, or (2) either suffer through your symptoms without any medicine or be forced to use opiates (which cause negative reactions for many people) in order to be able to earn a living and provide for your family.   After the January Ross v. Raging Wire decision, I was reduced to telling people that the California Supreme Court had basically decided that they didn’t have any rights in the employment context, a sad mantra to have to repeat over and over.  I yearned to be able to do something to fix this, to change the shock and resignation I would hear on the phone into something more hopeful.

In a perfect storm of activity, I was given the power to help.  ASA evaluated the political climate and began to think the legislature was ready to pass good legislation on this topic, Assemblyman Leno’s office (who was equally incensed about the Ross decision) requested a first draft of legislation from ASA, and the assignment was given to me.

I consulted with Chief Counsel, researched previous medical marijuana and employment legislation, and tried to carefully craft each provision in my memorandum to Assemblyman Leno.  I attempted to make the language clear and concise, and evaluate my word choices for current political palatability and with an eye down the road for the larger policy implications and possible litigatable issues raised by the language.  Most importantly, I assumed that anything I drafted at this early stage would inevitably be amended by legislators, and some of the protections removed, and thus I tried to craft base legislation that protected as many patients as was possible.

Since I sent that memo to Assemblyman Leno, he and his staff, and the rest of ASA staff, especially California Director Don Duncan, have tirelessly collected support and successfully lobbied on-the-fence legislators, while negotiating to ensure passage of the bill in the Assembly, and now in the Senate today.  It has been a pleasure to watch their great work, and I am so happy that we were able to retain many of the protections present in my original draft.  So, though I still miss the provision that protected caregivers, I am overjoyed that patients who are fired based on simple employer knowledge, and no actual failed drug test, will remain protected in the final legislation, something that I inserted specifically in response to calls of that type.  It also comforts me to know that it will be up to a judge (and not a simple bright-line rule) to decide whether or not an employer can actually claim the safety-sensitive exception of the statute regarding a specific position, and that the judge will rely on the presence of 3 characteristics in making that decision.

Finally, it is incredibly exciting that patients in the future (in non-safety-sensitive positions) who face this type of hurtful employment discrimination will be able to sue for damages, reasonable attorneys fees and costs, injunctive relief, and any other equitable relief that the court deems proper.  It feels great to know that I really got to help make a difference, and that the language that I helped to create is so close to becoming the law of the land, language that will protect patients from losing their jobs all across California, and allow them to seek just recourse if it happens nonetheless.

Soon, our bill (after the minor differences between the Assembly and Senate versions have been ironed out) will be sent to Governor Schwarzenegger for signature, and we must ensure that this legislation clears its last hurdle, and that he signs it.  We hope and pray that the Governor will do the right thing, but it is always helpful to let him know that the citizens of his state support that decision, vociferously.  Be on the lookout on our website and listserves for upcoming actions that you can personally take to inform the Governor of what he MUST do to protect the rights of Californians and to free them from this terrible choice.

California Supreme Court Considers Medical Cannabis Again
by Joseph Elford, ASA Chief Legal Counsel

Just as many would have thought that the SB 420 guidelines of 8 ounces and 12 immature or six mature plants were a dead letter — a blessing for some a nightmare for others — the California Supreme Court granted review of People v. Kelly, which held that the SB 420 quantities are “limits” on the amount of marijuana a qualified patient may possess and, as such, constitute an unconstitutional amendment of a voter-approved initiative. Another Court of Appeal agreed in People v. Phomphakdy, so it appeared that the SB 420 guidelines were done.

For some, this was a good thing, as many law enforcement officers applied the SB 420 quantities as limits on the amount of marijuana patients may possess and busted patients who had anymore than 8 ounces or six mature plants. For others, this was a potential nightmare, since police in some communities may well go back to busting patients who have as little as an ounce or one or two plants.

So, without taking any pleasure from the process, we filed a letter with the California Supreme Court requesting depublication of the Kelly decision. Although we agreed the result of the Kelly decision and love the fact that yet another court has sided with patients, we felt it was important for the California Supreme Court to hear our view — that the SB 420 guidelines are thresholds, not ceilings. Patients should have a safe harbor and the Kelly decision, though well-intentioned, took that safe harbor away.

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court granted review of the Kelly decision, framing the issues as follows:

(1) does Health & Safety Code section 11362.77 violate the California Constitution by amending the Compassionate Use Act without voter approval?; and (2) were there alternative remedies to invalidating section 11362.77 in its entirety?

This bodes well for Mr. Kelly and the rest of us, as it appears that the Court will likely affirm the reversal of Mr. Kelly’s convictions, while maintaining that the SB 420 guidelines are constitutional, at least as they apply only to patients with identification cards or if they are interpreted as thresholds. Meanwhile, the Kelly case is depublished and the SB 420 guidelines will remain in effect.

Mendocino “Yes on B” Group Pressures Council to Stiffen Penalties for Medical Cannabis Patients

Earlier this year, a group of Mendocino County citizens pushed a ballot initiative that reduced the number of medical cannabis plants allowed by qualified patients under local guidelines.  Now, the “Yes on B Coalition” has petitioned the Mendocino County Supervisors to alter the County Code, turning what are currently minor infractions against patients into criminal matters.

Ukiah resident Larry Puterbaugh asked the supervisors to make cannabis that can be seen or smelled from adjoining properties punishable as criminal offenses. As it stands, this is considered a “public nuisance”, handled either by neighbors or a code enforcement officer.  In addition, they proposed levying a “Medical Marijuana Impact Fee” against patients or caregivers, who would be charged on a per-plant basis, and required that all plants be tagged with a numbered zip-tie. Failure to purchase zip-ties would be treated as a criminal violation, as well.

Community members spoke out against the group’s proposals, finding them ill-conceived and impractical. Jeanette Bouge said making the visibility of medical cannabis a crime is absurd. She said she grows medical cannabis behind her home in a greenhouse behind a fence, but that her neighbors would be able to see over her fence from the second floor of their homes regardless of where the garden is planted. Under the ordinance, she may be brought up on criminal charges.

Supervisors questioned the intent, priority, and practicality of the issues brought forth by the Yes on B Coalition. Third District Supervisor John Pinches said he was discouraged to see the county focusing on gardens between six and 25 plants when there are 10,000 plant gardens in the county. Fifth District Supervisor David Colfax agreed, saying the measure was representative of a “proto-vigilante attitude.”

The issue was tabled for further discussion and, along with the possible creation of a citizens advisory board, will likely be brought forth at future council meetings.

Protesters Demand I.D. Cards from San Bernardino County

More than 25 protesters gathered Tuesday at the San Bernardino County Government Center and demanded that the county start issuing medical cannabis identification cards.  Lanny Swerdlow, head of ASA Affiliate Marijuana Anti-Prohibition Project (MAPP), organized the protest to call attention to the need for the ID cards in the community, as well as the absurdity of the County to continue to challenge the program after two losses in state court.   ASA’s California Director Don Duncan was also on site offering support and letting the County know that ASA is following their actions closely.

In 2003, the state Legislature required county health departments to issue ID cards to medical cannabis patients to assist law enforcement in following state law, and to protect patients from unnecessary arrest. But San Bernardino and San Diego Counties have refused to issue the cards, taking their case to both Superior and California Appeals courts, losing both times. In light of the July 31^st Appeals Court ruling that San Bernardino must start following state law, MAPP saw the opportunity to exert heated pressure on local county officials who don’t want to follow the will of the voters, the state legislature, or the courts.

In addition, the protesters accused the county was wasting valuable taxpayer money on a hopeless lawsuit  at a time when healthcare, education, and public service budgets are being slashed. “They have basically put themselves at opposition with the people of California,” said Fontana resident Craig Johnson, a medical cannabis advocate who is on disability from his job.

The board of supervisors will decide whether the county will appeal the case to the state Supreme Court later this month.  Lanny Swerdlow and MAPP are not going to go away, and they plan to continue to aggressively hold the board accountable for mishandling county funds and subverting the will of their constituents.

Just as many would have thought that the SB 420 guidelines of 8 ounces and 12 immature or six mature plants were a dead letter — a blessing for some a nightmare for others — the California Supreme Court granted review of People v. Kelly, which held that the SB 420 quantities are “limits” on the amount of marijuana a qualified patient may possess and, as such, constitute an unconstitutional amendment of a voter-approved initiative. Another Court of Appeal agreed in People v. Phomphakdy, so it appeared that the SB 420 guidelines were done.

For some, this was a good thing, as many law enforcement officers applied the SB 420 quantities as limits on the amount of marijuana patients may possess and busted patients who had anymore than 8 ounces or six mature plants. For others, this was a potential nightmare, since police in some communities may well go back to busting patients who have as little as an ounce or one or two plants.

So, without taking any pleasure from the process, we filed a letter with the California Supreme Court requesting depublication of the Kelly decision. Although we agreed the result of the Kelly decision and love the fact that yet another court has sided with patients, we felt it was important for the California Supreme Court to hear our view — that the SB 420 guidelines are thresholds, not ceilings. Patients should have a safe harbor and the Kelly decision, though well-intentioned, took that safe harbor away.

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court granted review of the Kelly decision, framing the issues as follows:

(1) does Health & Safety Code section 11362.77 violate the California Constitution by amending the Compassionate Use Act without voter approval?; and (2) were there alternative remedies to invalidating section 11362.77 in its entirety?

This bodes well for Mr. Kelly and the rest of us, as it appears that the Court will likely affirm the reversal of Mr. Kelly’s convictions, while maintaining that the SB 420 guidelines are constitutional, at least as they apply only to patients with identification cards or if they are interpreted as thresholds. Meanwhile, the Kelly case is depublished and the SB 420 guidelines will remain in effect.

I’m a bit behind on reading other blogs (it’s been a busy couple of weeks!) so I just got a chance to read a great post by Alex at Drug Law Blog about a pair of pie charts that was featured in the ONDCP’s 2008 Marijuana Sourcebook (PDF).

Though they don’t say so explicitly, Alex argues (and I agree) that the ONDCP is implicitly making the case that medical marijuana patients in California aren’t really sick. Unless you have cancer, glaucoma, or AIDS, the ONCDP is suggesting that you are abusing the system. What this display of data ignores though is the fact that far fewer people in this country suffer from AIDS, for example, than from chronic pain. Pain issues are serious, and unfortunately often misunderstood. Just because someone isn’t terminally ill, that doesn’t mean s/he should not be able to benefit from the pain relief and muscle relaxation gained from using cannabis.

The second pie chart is just as unfair in its implications. Just because someone is “young” does not mean that s/he does not have a serious illness. In my years of working at ASA, I’ve been amazed at how often people who use medical marijuana appear to be healthy. Some are young, in good physical shape, and have successful careers. But I’ve gotten the opportunity to get to know these patients and found that they suffer terrible pain from arthritis, multiple sclerosis, various forms of cancer, debilitating back pain, or HIV.

The reason many of these people are able to pass as healthy is because marijuana is working. This is something the ONDCP’s pie charts could never show.

As Alex concludes, “It is, to say the least, a frightening thought to suppose that some bureaucrat in Washington D.C. is sitting at a computer making pie graphs that purport to tell the entire country what medical conditions are and are not serious enough to warrant relief from suffering.” Go read the rest of his post for more analysis.

Check out the latest video from Reason TV on the trial of medical marijuana provider Charles Lynch. Reason was present with Americans for Safe Access and others when the jury returned their guilty verdict. The video includes interviews with Lynch’s attorneys and the jury foreperson, all speaking candidly about the trial and verdict.

Sadly, Lynch faces decades in federal prison. But, before his sentencing occurs, Lynch’s attorneys intend to file a motion for a new trial. Stay tuned here or at reason.tv for updates.

In the Midst of National Attention and Community Uproar, Charles Lynch Found Guilty on All Counts
Request for a new trial scheduled for October 6th; sentencing scheduled for October 20; attorneys vow to appeal

Charles Lynch, the Morro Bay collective operator who’s recent federal trial gained national attention, was found guilty on Tuesday of all five counts against him, including marijuana cultivation, conspiracy, trafficking, and selling to a minor. As a result, he could face a minimum of 5 years, and up to 100 years in jail, although the judge might not be constrained by mandatory minimums, since it was obvious Lynch was not a drug kingpin. Read up-to-date accounts on ASA’s blog.

Despite this “obvious” assertion, prosecutors did indeed try to portray Lynch as a “drug kingpin”. Although Lynch operated a medical cannabis dispensary in compliance with California’s voter approved Compassionate Use Act, as well as the more recent Medical Marijuana Protection Act, enacted by the state legislature in 2004, the the words “medical marijuana” were not allowed in any evidence or testimony. Because the federal government refuses to acknowledge that cannabis has medical value, the court ordered, as in all federal medical cannabis cases, that Charles Lynch be tried as a large scale drug dealer. The absurdity and confusion of the scenario was apparent in this particular trial, as the jury heard evidence that Lynch’s dispensary was licensed by the City of Morro Bay, received cooperative support from the Morro Bay Chamber of Commerce, the Morro Bay Mayor, and local police chief Patrick Hedges, and was widely viewed as a prominent and welcome member of the community.

Lynch’s defense was based on the premise of “entrapment by estoppel”, in which he claimed he’d spoke with representatives of the federal DEA about his dispensary prior to opening, they referred him to local officials about his questions, and that he understood he wouldn’t be prosecuted if he opened a medical cannabis dispensary. His attorneys argued that Lynch was entrapped.

The case has received wide attention as the conflict escalates between State law and what some have said are the increasingly malicious practices of the DEA. DEA is accused of undermining numerous state laws that allow patients to use cannabis with a doctor’s approval. In New Mexico they threatened federal prosecution of state officials if they implemented their legislatively approved program. However California’s state-sanctioned medical cannabis dispensaries have received the most attention.

Drew Carey’s reason.tv, CNN, and many other national media outlets have been covering the story. Media attention was further stoked by the fact that DEA agents raided two additional Los Angeles area dispensaries, and three in San Diego, while the trial was underway.

Sentencing for Lynch is scheduled for October 20th. Lynch’s lawyer, Lou Koorey, is planning to file a motion for a new trial in US District Court in Los Angeles on October 6th. See the Special Events section below for info on ASA’s October 6th protest!

Last week will go down as the busiest week for medical cannabis in the California courts of appeal. In a two-day span, the court issued three published decision in medical marijuana cases, all in favor of medical cannabis patients. This is a very welcome trend after the first several years of a series of bad decisions. Read all about it on ASA’s Blog

The most well-known case is the San Diego case, which you can read about here. The other two cases involve the denial of medical cannabis defenses in cases of patients who possessed more than the SB 420 guidelines.

One case is People v. Windus, where the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District (Los Angeles) held that the trial court improperly denied a medical cannabis defense to the defendant because his recommendation had “expired” and he possessed more than eight ounces of dried cannabis. The court held that the defendant’s medical cannabis recommendation did not expire, even though the doctor who issued it required yearly evaluations. The court further held that patients are not bound by the quantities specified in SB 420, but may possess an amount of cannabis that is consistent with their personal medical use. You can Click here to view the ruling.

The other case, People v. Phomphakdy, which comes out of the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District (Sacramento). Following a recent trend in the courts of appeal, the court agreed with the People v. Kelly decision and held that the quantities of cannabis specified in the Medical Marijuana Program Act (SB 420) constitute an unconstitutional legislative amendment of a voter-approved initiative. You can Click here to view the ruling.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine once again found that smoked cannabis was effective in reducing neuropathic pain associated with HIV.

The study, sponsored by the University of California Center for Medical Cannabis Research (CMCR) based at UC San Diego, comes on the heels of a 2007 clinical trial by UCSF’s Dr. Donald Abrams that also found cannabis to reduce neuropathic pain for those with HIV.

The federal government, including NIDA, DEA, and FDA, continue to claim that there is “no scientific evidence” that cannabis has medical value, an assertion that drives federal policy and is the root cause for DEA’s attempts to undermine medical cannabis laws in California and 11 other states. The double-blind, placebo controlled is the gold standard for medical research, and this study comes atop mounds of research and data finding a large variety of therapeutic benefits in cannabis.

The study’s findings are consistent with and extend other recent research supporting the short-term efficacy of cannabis for neuropathic pain, also sponsored by the CMCR.

Please read more here: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/117509.php

On August 5^th, Narcotics agents raided four San Diego medical cannabis dispensaries and made three arrests as the ongoing federal trial of Charles Lynch continued to received national prominence.

Federal authorities said the dispensaries were not distributing within the limits of state Proposition 215. However, Proposition 215 did not set limits, and those set by the California State Legislature in the 2004 Medical Marijuana Program Act have been ruled unconstitutional by three separate California Appeals Courts in the past week.

Drug Enforcement Administration and county Narcotics Task Force agents served search warrants at Answerdam on Convoy Court, Plan B Coastal Care Group on Adams Avenue, Chronic Care Providers on Daggett Street and Safe California Access on Murphy Canyon Road. Three men, ages 59, 35 and 26, were arrested at three of the businesses on suspicion of marijuana sales and possession for sale, DEA spokeswoman Eileen Zeidler said.

Meanwhile, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors continues what some have said is a fruitless court battle against having to implement the state mandated ID card program that would allow patients to be easily identified by law enforcement.

The board voted 4-1 yesterday, with Supervisor Ron Roberts opposing, to continue to spend thinning local resources to ask the state Supreme Court to review its lawsuit. San Diego County has been ruled against in both Superior and Appellate courts, and many speculate it is very unlikely that the Supreme Court will hear the case.

The 4^th District Appellate Court “missed the point” of the case, according to Tom Bunton, senior deputy county counsel, who was quoted in local media.

from your friendly neighborhood Legal Services Coordinator

CA Medical Marijuana Patients Busted for Less Than 8 oz. & 6 plants? Fight It & Get Your Medicine Back!

To fight your citation, you should:

• Be a qualified patient with an up-to-date recommendation during the incident;
• Be charged with (Health & Safety Code) marijuana possession, possession with intent to distribute, cultivation, transportation, or (Vehicle Code) possession in a vehicle;
• Be charged with possessing less than 8 oz. and 6 plants (unless your county guidelines allow more). While you are allowed 12 immature plants, they may mature at different rates, which may complicate matters.

If so, you were acting legally under California law, and should fight your citation until it is dismissed, and demand return of your confiscated property. At your first court hearing, bring copies of your recommendation and explain that, based on your up-to-date recommendation, you acted legally in possessing/cultivating/transporting your medicine, and then present your materials to your attorney and/or the D.A. and judge, and ask that the case be dismissed. Unfortunately, several unfriendly California jurisdictions have forced some patients to take these cases to trial, but otherwise, it may only take 3-5 court appearances. After your arraignment, you and your Public Defender should use the materials on www.AmericansforSafeAccess.org/LegalFAQ-Criminal1 to assert your affirmative medical marijuana defense in a Motion to Dismiss.

Also, visit www.AmericansforSafeAccess.org/returnofproperty, to complete a Motion for Return of Property. When your criminal case is dismissed, politely ask the judge to consider your Motion for Return of Property.

Additional Note: This tip reflects current law. If any cases completely invalidating all guidelines (e.g People v. Kelly) are upheld by the California Supreme Court, ASA will post updated information.

I was sitting in my office, working to expand ASA’s Interactive Legal FAQ, when our Chief of Staff, Rebecca Saltzman, knocked on my door to share the unfortunate news.  Charles Lynch had been convicted on all counts this afternoon.  The counts specifically, were

• conspiracy to possess and
• possession with intent to distribute marijuana and concentrated cannabis,
• manufacturing (cultivating) less than 100 plants,
• knowingly maintaining a drug premises, and
• sales of marijuana to a person under the age of 21

You can read more about Charles Lynch and the federal government’s war against him on these previous blog posts.  What is apparent from these stories is that Charles is a member of the medical marijuana movement that was really trying to do everything right and according to state law; and look what he received for his efforts: a federal criminal conviction.  All Lynch wanted to do was help sick people get the medicine that they needed, and now he has to start calculating how much time he is going to have to spend away from his family, not able to earn a living, “paying his debt to society” in a federal prison with hardened criminals.

Let’s look at the facts:

Lynch ran a very well-run dispensing collective that attempted to stringently follow state, county and city medical marijuana regulations since it opened in April 2006. According to a testimonial I received when this all started, ­”Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers took precautions to inform its patients regarding the restrictions that applied to them by attaching a copy of the rules and regulations governing medical cannabis to their package upon receipt. Picture IDs were issued to prevent fraud. Not only were the letters of recommendation verified, they also looked up the doctors on the California Medical Board’s web site to make sure that the doctors were in good standing. The Morro Bay dispensary added video surveillance and a metal detector to further the safety of its patients and to discourage misuse. For the year that the CCCC was open, there were no problems or complaints reported to the dispensary. In fact, employees of neighboring businesses were dismayed to see them raided by law enforcement.”

More importantly, Lynch was led to believe by a whole bunch of official authorities that they were both aware that what he doing was in compliance with state law, and that they were totally ok with it.  The City of Morro Bay was actively aware of CCCC’s purpose, issuing him a business license for a “‘Medical Marijuana Dispensary” and a Cannabis Nursery Permit after a lengthy city conditional use permit process.  We even have an already iconic picture of Lynch cutting the ribbon at a Morro Bay Chamber of Commerce Welcome Party.  Indeed, Lynch, who unsuccessfully brought up the defense of entrapment by estoppel in his trial, testified that he went so far even as to call the DEA and confer with them about his enterprise.

CCCC operated for nearly a year without incident, providing safe access for Central Coast patients until March 29, 2007.  On that day, San Luis Obispo County Sheriff Pat Hedges decided to flout the will of the voters, California law, the wishes of the City of Morro Bay, and patients across the state, and, instead of pursuing Charles on state charges that he knew would not stick, he took the cowardly way out and called in the DEA to do his dirty work for him.  The DEA raided Charles’ dispensary on March 29, 2007, and later arrested him on July 17.  Apparently, Sheriff Hedges felt he needed to make the infuriating point that “he didn’t believe in medical marijuana”, and that all Lynch could expect for his efforts at openness and transparency and playing by the rules, was a thank you for making it so easy to charge and convict him federally.

However, this isn’t just about cold, hard facts, and the good that Mr. Lynch tried to do on paper.  Charles Lynch is a real person.  I was working here when he was raided and arrested, and I have spoken and kept in touch with both him and his supporters and wished him luck countless times on his case.  He is a good man, and he does not deserve to be treated this way, and to face many years in federal prison (I count at least 5 felonies, some of which may have mandatory minimums).  I am really angry about this, and frustrated, and sad.

and so, in order to do something about this, I search for something, at least that I (we) can do on this sad day, to help empower ourselves amidst this federal War on the Sick.  First, I hope that members of the jury, now that they are free from their sequestration, will educate themselves on the story of the man they just convicted, and ideally, speak out as did the jurors of the Ed Rosenthal case, and call on Judge Wu to exercise his discretion.  Further, as members of the community, each one of us can write a letter to Judge Wu, at the appropriate time, sharing our experiences with Charles, or even with safe access generally, and respectfully asking for lenience for Charles.  Keep watch on our site and at Charles’ website, www.friendsofccl.com, for more information on sentencing letters as we get it.

Closing arguments in the federal trial against medical marijuana dispensary operator Charles Lynch occurred yesterday. This morning, the jury came to the Los Angeles federal courthouse to deliberate a verdict.

Based on recent history, Lynch’s chances at full acquittal are slim. Since the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich, which allows the government to exclude any reference to medical use or state law, all four trials have resulted in convictions.

However, there is always a glimmer of hope that even a single juror could recognize an outmoded federal law when they see it and vote their conscience by acquitting.

Stay tuned to the Americans for Safe Access website for the verdict, and in the meantime, catch up on the most recent video coverage by CNN and Reason TV.

Last week will go down as the busiest week for medical marijuana in the California courts of appeal. In a two-day span, the court issued three published decision in medical marijuana cases, all in favor of medical marijuana patients. This is a very welcome trend after the first several years of a series of bad decisions.

The most well-known case is the San Diego case, which I’ve already blogged about. The other two cases involve the denial of medical marijuana defenses in cases of patients who possessed more than the SB 420 guidelines.

One case is People v. Windus, where the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District (Los Angeles) held that the trial court improperly denied a medical marijuana defense to the defendant because his recommendation had “expired” and he possessed more than eight ounces of dried marijuana. The court held that the defendant’s medical marijuana recommendation did not expire, even though the doctor who issued it required yearly evaluations. The court further held that patients are not bound by the quantities specified in SB 420, but may possess an amount of marijuana that is consistent with their personal medical use. You can Click here to view the ruling.

The other case, People v. Phomphakdy, which comes out of the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District (Sacramento). Following a recent trend in the courts of appeal, the court agreed with the People v. Kelly decision and held that the quantities of marijuana specified in the Medical Marijuana Program Act (SB 420) constitute an unconstitutional legislative amendment of a voter-approved initiative. You can Click here to view the ruling.