They Said It On Marijuana, Quotable Saturday, Part CLXXXIII

Senator Booker nails it again. Though the Trump Administration acts as if cannabis is a big, scary drug, the majority of Americans view cannabis as completely normal. Cannabis isn’t simply consumed by “stoners” or “criminals,” but by the girl next door, your grandma, veterans who risked their lives for your country, your congressional leaders even. Yet cannabis remains stigmatized, along with those who use it. And what exemplifies this stigma more than cannabis’ federally illegal status and classification as a Schedule I substance?

As Booker says, our criminal justice laws need to catch up to our society. What good do those laws do us if they don’t represent us?

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/they-said-it-on-marijuana-quotable-saturday-part-clxxxiii/

Mystery Cannabis Litigation Theatre 2017: Future Enforcement of Pot Patents

The Cannabis Laws of Los Angeles County: The 24 Cities in the Westside/South Bay Region (310)

Our Los Angeles cannabis lawyers (of which I am one) are constantly being asked about the cannabis laws of various of the 88 incorporated cities in Los Angeles County.

Because it is both important and difficult to decipher each individual city’s local laws, we thought it would be helpful to provide you with charts to help. We divided the county into 4 regions and we will over the next few weeks trickle out the charts for each of these regions to keep you updated on each of the cities and their current laws.

Here is what’s going on in the 24 cities located in the Westside/South Bay Region of Los Angeles:

City	Dispensing	Cultivating	Manufacturing	Distributing	Pending Changes
Avalon	– No – Medical marijuana dispensaries are prohibited in the city.	– No – Cultivation of marijuana shall be considered a prohibited use in all zoning districts of the city.	– Silent –	– Silent –	City council met 10/3/17 to discuss considering regulating cannabis. Recommended council direct city attorney develop an ordinance to regulate cannabis.
Beverly Hills	– No – Commercial cannabis activity (profit or not-for-profit) is prohibited in the city.	– No – Commercial cannabis activity (profit or not-for-profit) is prohibited in the city. Exception for personal cultivation of 6 or fewer plants.	– No – Commercial cannabis activity (profit or not-for-profit) is prohibited in the city.	– No – Commercial cannabis activity (profit or not-for-profit) is prohibited in the city.	City adopted an ordinance on 8/8/17 expressly prohibiting all forms of cannabis-related business in the city, with the exception of medical marijuana delivery to residents.
Carson	– No – Municipal code explicitly prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries.	– Silent –	– Silent –	– Silent –	On 11/8/16 the city passed Measure KK which would impose a tax on cannabis business activity. Also, the city council has been meeting to address allowing cannabis business activities, but nothing is certain yet. Scheduled to have an ordinance in effect by 12/7/17.
Compton	– No – Commercial cannabis activities of any type or nature are expressly prohibited in all zones in the city.	– No – Cultivation of cannabis for commercial or non-commercial purposes, including cultivation by a qualified patient or primary caregiver, is expressly prohibited in all zones. Does not apply to the personal cultivation of up to 6 plants.	– No – Currently, a moratorium is in place for the establishment of all commercial medical marijuana uses in the city.	– No – Currently, a moratorium is in place for the establishment of all commercial medical marijuana uses in the city.	Emergency ordinance issuing a moratorium on cannabis activities is currently in place. City council has directed the city attorney prepare a report on effect and impact of proposed marijuana initiative.
Culver City	– Silent – The municipal code makes no mention of cannabis.	– Silent –	– Silent –	– Silent –	On 9/11/17 the city council met to consider recommendations from marijuana task force to permit commercial cannabis activity in the city and directed staff to return with proposed ordinances that would allow manufacturing and distribution. Staff recommendation is to allow retail, cultivation, manufacturing, distributing, and laboratory testing.
El Segundo	– No – No license can be issued for, nor shall any person operate a retail marijuana store, marijuana establishment, or any commercial marijuana activity in the city.	– No – No license can be issued for, nor shall any person operate a marijuana cultivation facility, marijuana establishment, or any commercial marijuana activity in the city. Cultivation for personal use is permitted of not more than 6 plants.	– No – No license can be issued for, nor shall any person operate a marijuana product manufacturing facility, marijuana establishment, or any commercial marijuana activity in the city.	– No – No license can be issued for, nor shall any person operate a marijuana testing facility, marijuana establishment, or any commercial marijuana activity in the city.	Planning commission is held a study session on 10/12/17 with city staff to discuss new state marijuana laws and to recommend the city council approve an ordinance regulating marijuana-related land uses.
Gardena	– No – Commercial marijuana activities of all types are expressly prohibited in all zones in the city.	– No – Commercial marijuana activities of all types are expressly prohibited in all zones in the city. Personal cultivation is permitted.	– No – Commercial marijuana activities of all types are expressly prohibited in all zones in the city.	– No – Commercial marijuana activities of all types are expressly prohibited in all zones in the city.	Planning commission recommended council to approve an ordinance that will prohibit all commercial cannabis activity within the city on 9/5/17.
Hawthorne	– No – Marijuana dispensaries are prohibited in all zones of the city (ordinance approved 1/26/17).	– No – Marijuana cultivation is prohibited in all zones of the city (ordinance approved 1/26/17).	– No – Marijuana processing is prohibited in all zones of the city (ordinance approved 1/26/17).	– Silent –	No mention in city council meetings since issued ordinance 1/26/17.
Hermosa Beach	– No – Marijuana dispensaries are prohibited in all zones throughout the city.	– No – Marijuana cultivation is prohibited in all zones within the city. No person shall cultivate any amount of cannabis in the city.	– No – No person shall establish, operate, conduct, or allow commercial cannabis activity anywhere in the city. Definition of commercial cannabis activity includes manufacture and processing.	– No – No person shall establish, operate, conduct, or allow commercial cannabis activity anywhere in the city. Definition of commercial cannabis activity includes distribution.	Staff recommended city council provide direction for preparing an ordinance banning or regulating sale, manufacture, cultivation, and delivery of adult-use cannabis and residential cultivation of cannabis on 9/12/17 (no action has been taken).
Inglewood	– No – The sale or dispensing of marijuana for medical purposes or otherwise at any medical marijuana dispensary is prohibited in all zones.	– No – Any use involved in the sale, possession, cultivation, use and/or distribution of marijuana for medical purposes is prohibited in all zones.	– Silent –	– No – Any use involved in the sale, possession, cultivation, use and/or distribution of marijuana for medical purposes is prohibited in all zones.	Staff recommended council amend the zoning code to prohibit all commercial activity associated with cannabis production, transport and dispensing in all zones on 9/26/17.
Lawndale	– No – Marijuana dispensaries are expressly prohibited in all zones throughout the city.	– No – Marijuana cultivation is prohibited in all zones throughout the city.	– No – Marijuana manufacturing is not a permitted use and is prohibited in all zones throughout the city.	– No – Marijuana distribution is not a permitted use and is prohibited in all zones throughout the city.	On 5/1/17 the city council adopted an ordinance that prohibits all commercial marijuana uses that may be authorized under Prop. 64.
Lomita	– No – Commercial cannabis activities of all types are expressly prohibited in all zones in the city.	– No – Commercial cannabis activities of all types are expressly prohibited in all zones in the city.	– No – Commercial cannabis activities of all types are expressly prohibited in all zones in the city.	– No – Commercial cannabis activities of all types are expressly prohibited in all zones in the city.	None since municipal code updated on 2/2/2016 by prohibiting commercial cannabis activities 2/2/16.
Los Angeles	– No – It is unlawful to operate, establish, own, use or permit the establishment or operation of a medical marijuana business in the city (unless already established prior to Sept. 2007).	– No – It is unlawful to operate, establish, own, use or permit the establishment or operation of a medical marijuana business in the city (unless already established prior to Sept. 2007).	– No – It is unlawful to operate, establish, own, use or permit the establishment or operation of a medical marijuana business in the city (unless already established prior to Sept. 2007).	– No – It is unlawful to operate, establish, own, use or permit the establishment or operation of a medical marijuana business in the city (unless already established prior to Sept. 2007).	Currently waiting on the city council to approve regulations under Measure M to  allow all commercial marijuana businesses of all types.
Lynwood	– No – Marijuana dispensaries are prohibited in all zoning districts.	– Yes – Marijuana cultivation related businesses are permitted in the Manufacturing Zone.	– Yes – Marijuana manufacturing related businesses are permitted in the Manufacturing Zone.	– Silent – Do allow a transporter to carry or move cannabis within the city if comply with State law.	Council allowing approval of development agreements for permits to operate cultivation and/or manufacturing facilities in the city.
Malibu	– Yes – Medical marijuana dispensaries are permitted.	– Silent –	– Silent –	– Silent –	On 2/22/16 city council directed staff to prepare ordinance limiting dispensaries and provide options for regulating commercial cultivation (no results yet).
Manhattan Beach	– No – Medical marijuana dispensaries are prohibited.	– No – Indoor and outdoor cultivation of marijuana for commercial or non-commercial purposes is expressly prohibited.	– No – Commercial medical marijuana activities of any type or nature are expressly prohibited in the city. Definition of commercial medical marijuana activities includes manufacture and processing.	– No – Commercial medical marijuana activities of any type or nature are expressly prohibited in the city. Definition of commercial medical marijuana activities includes distribution.	On 9/13/17 the planning commission held a public hearing to decide whether to recommend the city council adopt an ordinance prohibiting commercial cannabis activity in the city.
Palos Verdes Estates	– No – Commercial cannabis activity of all types are expressly prohibited in all zones in the city.	– No – Marijuana cultivation is prohibited in all zones within the city’s jurisdictional limits.	– No – Commercial cannabis activity of all types is expressly prohibited in all zones in the city.	– No – Commercial cannabis activity of all types is expressly prohibited in all zones in the city.	City council has met to amend an ordinance to allow certain types of cultivation.
Rancho Palos Verdes	– Silent –	– No – Code explicitly prohibits marijuana cultivation.	– Silent –	– Silent –	No action since cultivation prohibition was instituted.
Redondo Beach	– No – Commercial cannabis activity of all types is expressly prohibited in all zones in the city. Dispensaries of medical cannabis are expressly prohibited in all zones throughout the city.	– No – Commercial cannabis activity of all types is expressly prohibited in all zones in the city. Cultivation of medical cannabis for non-commercial purposes is prohibited in all zones.	– No – Commercial cannabis activity of all types is expressly prohibited in all zones in the city.	– No – Commercial cannabis activity of all types is expressly prohibited in all zones in the city.	Planning commission held a public hearing on 7/20/17 to amend zoning ordinance to continue to prohibit recreational commercial cannabis businesses, but allow delivery of medical cannabis.
Rolling Hills	– Silent –	– Silent –	– Silent –	– Silent –	Planning commission held a public hearing on 9/19/17 to consider banning all commercial cannabis activities, except allowing for delivery of medical cannabis and regulating personal cultivation.
Rolling Hills Estates	– No – Medical marijuana dispensaries are expressly prohibited.	– No – The establishment or operation of a marijuana cultivation facility is prohibited within the city limits.	– No – All commercial cannabis activity within the city is prohibited.	– No – All commercial cannabis activity within the city is prohibited.	No mention since code updated 2/23/16.
Santa Monica	– Yes – Allows for 2 medical marijuana dispensaries in city. Staff anticipates selection process for 2 will be in early 2018 (no timelines available until 10/24/17).	– Silent –	– Silent –	– Silent –	City council had study session on 3/7/17 to review options for allowing manufacturing of cannabis products that do not use volatile solvents. Expect ordinance regulating cannabis soon.
Torrance	– No – Dispensaries of medical cannabis are expressly prohibited in the city.	– No – Cultivation of medical cannabis is expressly prohibited in the city.	– No – All commercial cannabis activity within the city is prohibited.	– No – All commercial cannabis activity within the city is prohibited.	City council adopted an urgency ordinance establishing a temporary moratorium on marijuana uses on 6/27/17. On 8/8/17 council held a public hearing to consider extending the ban through December 2017.
West Hollywood	– Yes – Municipal code expressly allows medical marijuana collectives.	– Silent –	– Silent –	– Silent –	At 8/21/17 meeting council supported staff’s recommendations to allow dispensaries, cultivation, manufacturing, and testing. On 10/5/17 planning commission held a public hearing to consider a recommendation to council to amend the code to regulate cannabis-related land uses allowed under state law.

 

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/the-cannabis-laws-of-los-angeles-county-the-24-cities-in-the-westsidesouth-bay-region-310/

Mesothelioma Law and When Should You Hire a Lawyer

West Virginia Mesothelioma Law and When Should You Hire a Lawyer

Mesothelioma law is complicated. Mesothelioma is a disease that occurs in thin tissue layer, which spreads in internal organs and early treatment is highly recommended for this.

Mesothelioma and Who Should be Concerned?

Asbestos is basically foreign to the US and was strip-mined within the country throughout 20^th century. In the US, the use of asbestos peaked in 1970s. The industrial employees used in settings such as building, construction, and producing. That is why most people who are working in these fields are prone to suffering from mesothelioma because of too much exposure from asbestos.

What You Can Do and How Can You Choose the Lawyer Suited for You?

Selecting the right and best mesothelioma lawyer is essential because it isn’t easy to trace asbestos exposure and determining the company that’s responsible for the exposed asbestos workplace. You have to consider some factors while picking a lawyer for you and these factors are:

• Mesothelioma Experience

Keep your practical considerations in mind that include the area of expertise of the lawyer, the time duration of the completion of the case, and the amount of the fees charged by them. Search for a law firm that concentrates exclusively and primarily on litigating cases about mesothelioma, know the reputation and experience of the lawyer, and how good their communication skills. Speak with a West Virginia mesothelioma lawyer at the top West Virginia mesothelioma law firm.

• Basic Know-How

See to it that the lawyer offers personal service. Majority of the West Virginia mesothelioma lawyers refer the clients to some law firms for a great fee and they’ll have nothing do with you in the long run. Look for a lawyer who will help you out in the entire legal procedure and the one that has resources and experience that are important when handling the case.

• Results Speak

It’s a wise idea to look up the history of the best mesothelioma lawyer shortlisted by you. There are times that the biggest cases are settled while sometimes, the mesothelioma law firms have the reputation in choosing only such cases that have higher chance to get settled and the defendant is knowledgeable of who they are likely to be outgunned in the trial. It is also crucial for lawyers to walk you through the case’s details, explain weak and strong points, and be honest about the possibilities for the compensation gain and create a timeline. West Virginia mesothelioma attorneys at GPW are standing by to help you.

• Responsive

You must be comfortable with your hired mesothelioma lawyer as he’ll be the person who’ll help you with the entire process and would get you compensation through winning the case. The lawyer must be caring enough to respond to the calls on a regular and satisfactory manner. It may also be frustrating for mesothelioma victims when lawyers will not answer your phone call. Some are very responsive while there are others who might respond until you’ve signed the representation agreement. Seek the leading West Virginia legal help by working with the West Virginia Asbestos Exposure lawyers at GPW.

• Trust Your Instincts

Regardless of how good a West Virginia mesothelioma lawyer would look on papers, if you do not feel he’s the right one to appoint, try looking for another lawyer whom you have good working relationship and better understanding.

The post Mesothelioma Law and When Should You Hire a Lawyer appeared first on Goldberg, Persky & White P.C..

from
https://gpwlaw-wv.com/mesothelioma-law/

source http://gpwlawwv.weebly.com/blog/mesothelioma-law-and-when-should-you-hire-a-lawyer

Investing in Marijuana Businesses Abroad

This post is a follow-up to one I wrote a year ago about foreigners investing in U.S. marijuana businesses. What are the legal ramifications of the reverse? If marijuana business is fully legal in a foreign jurisdiction (think Uruguay or Canada in the near future), can a U.S. resident contribute cash in exchange for stock of a company that cultivates and sells marijuana in that jurisdiction? This is timely because Constellation Brands, the New York-headquartered owner of Corona beer and other holdings in the alcohol industry, agreed to buy a significant stake in Canopy Growth Corporation, a Canadian publicly traded cannabis cultivation company. Are they breaking the law? It’s not as simple a question as one might think.

Reuters ran a story on this topic a few years ago. In that piece, the DEA spokesperson and a financial institution money laundering risk specialist respectively implied and stated outright that such activity violated U.S. law. The DEA spokesperson said that the DEA would be “most interested in those types of activities.”

To our knowledge, the U.S. has never brought charges against a U.S. investor in these limited circumstances, so we don’t have any case law directly on point. But we can review the primary statutes that cannabis investors should be worried about —the Controlled Substances Act and the criminal money laundering statutes.

It is a general rule in the U.S., as stated in 2016 by the Supreme Court in RJR Nabisco Inc. v. European Cmty, that without “clearly expressed congressional intent to the contrary, federal laws will be construed to have only domestic application.” This means statutes that are silent on where they have effect will generally be interpreted as applying only to activities in the United States. And the U.S. does have laws on the books that are intended to be applied outside the United States. For example, the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. § 959) outlaws possession of controlled substances overseas with the intent to import them into the United States. That’s one of the statutes that the U.S. used, for example, to go after Manual Noriega in the 1990s. To be clear, this statute wouldn’t apply to Canadian operations that have no intent to export marijuana to the United States and intend to only sell it within the Canadian regulated market.

Reading the text of the domestic Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 821), there isn’t any clear indication that it is intended to apply to overseas conduct.  And in practice, we haven’t seen the United States try to claim that residents who travel to Amsterdam and use marijuana there have violated U.S. law. To the extent that the same statute exists for both possession of narcotics and manufacture of narcotics, it doesn’t look like extraterritorial application would apply.

Money laundering laws, however, are interpreted as having broad extraterritorial reach. So are U.S. investors in Canadian marijuana businesses in danger of violating those laws? 18 U.S.C. § 1957 makes it criminal for someone to knowingly engage or attempt to engage in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000 when such property is derived from “specified unlawful activity.” This law applies even if the offense takes place outside the United States if it involves a U.S. person or business entity formed in the U.S. “Specified unlawful activity” includes a laundry list of crimes, including violations of the Controlled Substances Act. So that doesn’t look great.

But here’s the thing — if the domestic Controlled Substances doesn’t apply because it only applies in the U.S., and if the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act doesn’t apply because there is no intention to send marijuana product to the United States, then a reasonable argument would be that the business of a Canadian licensed marijuana company would not constitute “specified unlawful activity.” And the money laundering law wouldn’t apply.

Therefore, Constellation Brands has a solid argument that it isn’t violating U.S. law by making an investment into the Canadian marijuana industry. There a bunch of caveats here, and there’s no way for a blog post to have a full legal analysis, and the DEA may well disagree with this interpretation even if it were an airtight legal analysis. Most U.S. banks will still shy away from offering any services connected with marijuana businesses even in countries that have legalized completely, including Uruguay. But at the end of the day, prosecutors would have an uphill climb if they truly wanted to go after a U.S. resident for investing in a foreign marijuana business that intends to serve that foreign market and is fully compliant with the laws of that nation.

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/investing-in-marijuana-businesses-abroad/

Happy Halloween!

Happy Halloween to all our readers! We hope you have a safe and fun night.

Halloween is a great time to dress up as something spooky so we put together a short list of cannabis-themed costumes:

• Cheech and Chong
• Otto from the Simpsons
• Towelie from South Park
• Shaggy and Scooby Doo
• Matthew McConaughey from Dazed and Confused
• The Zig Zag Man

If you’re really hoping to give your friends a scare you could dress up as Jeff Sessions. All you need to do is buy a Keebler Elf costume and then toss on a suit and maybe a “Make America Great Again” hat.

Whether you dress up or not, we hope you enjoy the day.

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/happy-halloween/

Federal DOJ Admits it Can No Longer Prosecute the Kettle Falls Five for State-Legal Medical Cannabis

Last week, the Federal Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay or remand appellate proceedings in its case against Rhonda Firestack-Harvey, Rolland Gregg and Michelle Gregg, the remaining members of the Kettle Falls Five, because it does not have funds to continue the prosecution. The Kettle Falls Five is the name given to a group of medical marijuana growers in Kettle Falls, a town in North East Washington. The group consisted of Rhonda Firestack-Harvey and Larry Harvey, their son Rolland Gregg and his wife Michelle, and Jason Zucker.

The Kettle Falls Five were charged by the federal government after a 2012 raid on their farm in Northeast Washington. The group was collectively growing medical cannabis plants in an amount permitted by state law. The federal government vigorously prosecuted the Kettle Falls Five over the last five years. The feds originally sought 10-year mandatory prison terms. The feds dropped charges against Larry Harvey who was battling stage four pancreatic cancer. Mr. Harvey passed away in August 2015.

Jason Zucker pleaded guilty and testified against the other defendants prior to trial. He was sentenced to 16 months of prison time based on his cooperation.  The remaining defendants faced charges of growing, possessing, and distributing cannabis, in addition to charges relating to firearms found on the same property as the cannabis grow. Rhonda, Rolland, and Michelle were acquitted of all charges except growing cannabis. Michelle and Rhonda received a sentence of one year and a day and Rolland received a sentence of 33 months.

The Kettle Falls Five appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The DOJ was expected to continue its vigorous prosecution, which makes its recent motion to stay or remand the case quite a surprise. In its motion, the DOJ provided the following explanation:

This motion is based upon Congress denying funding to the Department of Justice for the prosecution of medical marijuana patients in states where medical marijuana is lawful. The purpose of this motion is to acknowledge that the United States was not authorized to spend money on the prosecution of the defendants after December of 2014 because the defendants strictly complied with the Washington State medical marijuana laws.

This refers to the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment which limits prosecution of state-compliant medical marijuana actors.  As part of a federal budget deal in December 2014, Congress cut off funds for the federal prosecution of medical marijuana growers and users in states where medical cannabis is legal, so long as those actors are following state law. Since 2014 the Amendment has repeatedly been renewed.

The DOJ’s motion also cites United States v. McIntosh,  in which the Ninth Circuited decided the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment prohibited the DOJ from “spending funds for the prosecution of individuals who engaged in conduct permitted by the state medical marijuana laws and fully complied with the laws.” The DOJ’s motion states that the “prohibition regarding DOJ expenditure of funds applies even though the prosecution was properly initiated prior to [Rohrabacher-Farr’s] enactment.”

The DOJ asks the court either to either off on the appeal or to send the case back to the trial court. This is promising as it appears the DOJ may have finally seen the writing on the wall and is going to drop its case against the Five. However, it may also mean the DOJ is attempting to hold off on prosecuting the defendants to see if Congress reaffirms the Rohrbacher-Farr Amendment, which is not guaranteed, especially given the current political status of our federal government. It should go without saying that Jeff Sessions has openly lobbied Congress against the Amendment.

In any event, this is an opportunity for defense counsel to ask the judge to toss out the case, which we fervently hope will be its eventual outcome. On a broader scale, this motion shows that the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment is a powerful tool to limit federal prosecution of medical cannabis growers

 

 

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/federal-doj-admits-it-can-no-longer-prosecute-the-kettle-falls-five-for-state-legal-medical-cannabis/