Landmark New Ruling: The People v Kelly Decision (2010): The Supreme Court held that the quantities are legal as a safe harbor for state ID cardholders but are unconstitutional as a limit on a qualified patient’s legal defense. It also noted that the state ID card system is constitutional and collectives operating under Health and Safety Code 11362.775 are lawful throughout the state. Click here to view as a PDF (320k) Chris Conrad’s cannabis expert testimony cited multiple times.

Berry Decision: Patients can use medical marijuana on probation or parole

Bearman Decision: Appellate Court: Judicial review of good cause is required before the California Medical Board can gain access to private physician / patient documents.

Bergen Decision (2008) determined that qualified patients making edibles, hash and kief are clearly legal but using butane to make hash oil is chemical extraction that is not covered by the medical use statutes — although the oil product is legal. Click here to view as a PDF (44k).

Chakos Decision: “Nowhere in this record do we find any substantial evidence that the arresting officer had any expertise in differentiating citizens who possess marijuana lawfully for their own consumption, as distinct from possessing unlawfully with intent to sell.” Click here to view as a PDF (48k).

Galambos: Prop 215 CUA caregiver defense not available to one who helped others obtain medicinal marijuana unless strict standard is met. (Case preceeded SB420 (HS11362.775) that allows patients to associate collectively to cultivate and provide cannabis.) (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1152.

Jones Decision: Prop 215: A patient can testify about their oral medical approval when the physician is not willing or available. All defense needs to raise is a reasonable doubt of guilt, not preponderance of evidence or any other standard. “Thus, a physician could approve of a patient’s suggested use of marijuana without ever recommending its use.” Chris Conrad’s consulted on case but did not testify.

Kelly Decision: Three Appeals courts ruled the quantity limits passed by the legislature in SB420 were unconstitutional .Chris Conrad testified at Kelly’s original Long Beach trial and is cited. The Supreme Court held that the quantities are legal as a safe harbor for state ID cardholders but are unconstitutional as a limit on a qualified patient’s defense in court. It also held that the state ID card system is constitutional and that collectives operating under Health and Safety Code 11362.775 are constitutionally protected throughout the state. Click here to view as a PDF (320k) Chris Conrad’s cannabis expert testimony cited multiple times.

Kelly Appeals Court Decision. Chris Conrad testified at the original Long Beach trial and is cited. Ruling that was reviewed by the Supreme Court (Click here to view as a PDF (144k). Christopher Conrad testimony, mention 1. Christopher Conrad testimony, mention 2.

Phomphakdy Appeals Court Decision: Chris Conrad testified at the original Sacramento trial and is cited. Held that Quantities listed in SB 420, HS 11362.77(a) are unconstitutional to the extent that they are taken as limits affecting patients’ rights or legal defense. Chris Conrad’s testimony, mention 1 . Chris Conrad’s testimony, mention 2.

Archer Appeals Court Decision. Chris Conrad testified at the original San Diego trial. SB 420 quantity limits held unconstitutional by Appeals Court.

Kha Decision: Appellate Court: Local police must return medical marijuana to patients if found to be lawful under state law, regardless of federal law. Click here to view as a PDF (120k). “Mindful as we are of the general supremacy of federal law, we are unable to discern any justification for the City or its police department to disregard the trial court’s order to return Kha’s marijuana. The order is fully consistent with state law respecting the possession of medical marijuana, and for all the reasons discussed, we do not believe the federal drug laws supersede or preempt Kha’s right to the return of his property. That right has its origins in the CUA and MMP, but it is grounded, at bottom, on fairness principles embodied in the due process clause. Those principles require the return of Kha’s property.”

Mentch Decision Supreme Court limited use of the “the person exempted under this act who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health or safety of that person.” It did not limit the activities of patient / caregiver collectives operating under Health and Safety Code 11362.775. Chris Conrad testified at the original Santa Cruz trial. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 274, 45 Cal.4th 308b

Mower Decision Supreme Court, Prop 215: Supreme Court upholds right to patient’s benefit of the doubt and prosecutor’s burden of proof, encourages pre-trial disposition of medical marijuana-related charges on limited immunity, not merely an affirmative defense at trial. Chris Conrad testified at the original Tuolumne County trial and is cited. Testimony of Chris Conrad

Peron Decision: Appellate Court: “Proposition 215 does not allow ‘unlimited quantities of marijuana to be grown anywhere.’ It only allows marijuana to be grown for a patient’s personal use. Police Officers can still arrest anyone who grows too much, or tries to sell it.” Medical marijuana caregivers have a right to remuneration for services that are consistently provided to a patient.

Spark Decision: Juries and judges do not get to “second guess” a doctor’s approval, condition need not be determined to be “serious” for a valid approval.

Rigo Decision : The CUA defense cannot apply to a physician’s post-arrest ratification of self-medication on marijuana. People v. Rigo (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 409, 412.

Rossi Decision: Appellate Court, SB 420: Retroactive application of the law extends benefits of changes in penalty, but later-enacted crimes or penalties are not retroactive.

San Diego v NORML: Federal law does not trump state law, California counties and agencies have to follow State law, not federal. Download as PDF.

Tilehkooh Decision: Appellate Court, SB 420: Use of medical marijuana is legal for a qualified patient on probation.

Trippet Decision: Chris Conrad testified at the Humboldt County trial. Appellate Court, Prop 215: Patients not entitled to “unlimited amounts,” but transportation and possession are authorized. “The rule should be that the quantity possessed by the patient or the primary caregiver, and the form and manner in which it is possessed, should be reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs. What precisely are the “patient’s current medical needs” must, of course, remain a factual question to be determined by the trier of fact.” No discussion of Conrad’s testimony.

Urziceanu Decision: Appellate Court, SB 420: Rights to collectively obtain, cultivate and dispense not protected by HS11362.5 but they are protected by HS 11362.7. Chris Conrad testified at the original Sacramento trial and is cited. Testimony of Chris Conrad

Williamson Decision: Appellate Court: Personal (non-commercial) marijuana cultivation can get a deferred entry of judgment and diversion from prison.

Windus Decision: Doctor’s approval is not an annual requirement and can be good for years; doctor’s dosage is advisory and does not restrict patient from having a “reasonable” amount, even if less than what a patient has.

Wright Decision: California Supreme Court, SB 420: holds that sponsors of Senate Bill No. 420 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.) made clear that, although couched in mandatory terms, the amounts set forth in section11362.77, subdivision (a) were intended “to be the threshold, not the ceiling.” This decision laid the groundwork for People v Kelly (2010).

Staunch advocates of an unregulated cannabis industry likely employ attorneyspeak due to the company they keep. I can’t blame people who often speak with attorneys for sounding like attorneys themselves.

I think Arcata’s cultivation permitting was a reaction to industrial agriculture encroaching on residential neighborhoods. A connection must have been made in residents’ minds between small local storefronts and the large-scale export industry. Regulating a local industry with the intent of curtailing an export industry does not seem like it will ever have the desired effect.

The Netherlands dealt with their internationallegal issues and desire for common sense regulation by never permitting commercial cultivation. The Dutch system is one where the supply side is simply ignored by the government. A system of purposeful ignorance could work well for Arcata’s local industry while keeping the city clear of violating federal law.

This is a loaded issue and I appreciate you taking the time to discuss it. I am usually too annoyed by the either the Scott Burns or cannabis-worship reasoning used when people discuss this issue to want to talk about it frankly.

Various city attorneys across the state apparently disagree (including ours, who has spoken personally with the regional U.S. attorney on the subject), as their municipalities are following through with permit denials.

“Is there another business type where the city require a storefront to manufacture their inventory?”

I’m not aware of any. Nor am I aware of another product which has compelled so many people to convert residential housing into neighborhood-blighting industrial facilities. Further, the cannabis centers prefer to grow their own anyway as they can control the quality.

Since the big money came into the cannabis picture, any discussion of regulating its manufacture and distribution to minimize impacts has been met with the same reaction all big industries have: go away, leave us alone. Couple that with the all-forgiving veneration that surrounds cannabis and you suddenly have a lot of advocates attempting attorneyspeak, data mining, offering selected case law precedents, dispensing far-reaching legal opinions and dismissing as illegitimate and illegal any attempts at reasonable regulation. But outside of that bubble, most of the rest of the populace is happy to accommodate the industry as long as prudent conditions are in place.

Is there another business type where the city require a storefront to manufacture their inventory? This does not seem like an exemption to me if other businesses are not required to meet the same standard.

All kinds of businesses which generate impacts are required to get Conditional Use Permits which carry conditions of approval in order to manage these impacts. There’s no logical reason to exempt cannabis centers.

I see no evidence that a cannabis business is actually associated with the perceived impacts which Arcata’s permitting is supposed to mitiage. It has been over a decade with these businesses operating in Arcata. I have anecdotally noticed nothing from cannabis businesses above and beyond the issues associated with other businesses, neighbors, and landlords. If it were not for Kevin’s journalistic gusto, I may have missed that there has been more than one of these businesses operating in Arcata. The only one I was aware of until reading the Eye articles was located where the Hospice Shop is now. I recognize that neighbors to these businesses are likely not so blissfully ignorant. I have some reason to believe that the federal government would not be closely monitoring the situation if not for the city adopting a permitting system.

There may be a need for conflict resolution as there appears to be some disgruntled players involved in the local industy. I don’t think this would be made into such a dramatic issue if not for people’s opinions of cannabis itself. Without cannabis involved, I would like to think there would be an opportunity for those involved to sit at the table, make peace, and hash out compromises. Instead, there seems to be the notion of activism on all sides with the local government stuck in the middle trying to make opposed activists groups happy. Situations involving unrelenting activisim are not good for business as one side will always try to one up
the other.