Posted on | June 15, 2012 |
?
It looks like the U.S. Attorney?s office has made good on its word to look at medical marijuana operations it suspects are operating outside the boundaries of California?s Prop. 215.
The indictment of six men this week ? three of them operators of G3 Holistic which had dispensaries in Upland, Colton, and Moreno Valley, and another three connected to a warehouse growing operation that the feds say was supplying the G3 storefronts.
An Internal Revenue Service forensic accounting of G3 claims to have found 19 bank accounts associated with the operation, with deposits and nearly equal withdrawals of about $3.3 million ? activity that shows operators trying to mask that G3 is a for-profit operation, the government claims.
That?s not how authorized medical marijuana dispensaries are designed to work under California law. They are supposed to be non-profit collectives, with the members growing and contributing marijuana to the dispensary. The rules were designed to avoid the kind of operation that federal officials claim G3 had become.
San Bernardino County Sheriff?s detectives and an agent from the Drug Enforcement Administration claimed their investigation, which included undercover buys, showed that anyone with any medical condition appeared to be able to buy marijuana at G3?s Upland outlet. There also appeared to be no requirements to participate in a collective, they claimed.
It?s the second such case filed against a dispensary operation by the feds in the Central District of California since October 2011, when the U.S. Attorneys from throughout the state said they were going to review what the called suspect dispensaries.
The action adds yet another section to the grinding tectonic plates of medical marijuana?s legal status in California.
Under Prop 215 and subsequent laws, marijuana use and cultivation is legal in the state, when all the rules are followed.
But marijuana is illegal in all circumstances under federal law.
State courts have ruled that the federal status of marijuana does not take precedence over state law. But that ruling only clarified what role local police, especially those who are federally deputized, should take when dealing with Prop. 215 dispensaries and authorized users.
Federal authorities at first kept an arm?s length from the state?s OK of medical marijuana use, but late last year voiced the concerns that have resulted in criminal indictments and civil actions, such as asset forfeiture filings, that target selected operations.
In addition to that front, there remains the question of whether local governments can outright ban medical marijuana clinics.
Several have. Inland-area jurisdictions that ban clinics include Riverside and San Bernardino cities and counties.
But those bans are on hold while the California Supreme Court considers the conflicting patchwork of appellate court rulings upholding or denying local governments? dispensary bans.
Once again, legal precedence is the conflict. Who gets in line first? State laws that allow medical marijuana dispensaries? Or does local governments? discretion to regulate within their borders include the right to ban the stores?
The G3 Upland clinic is among th cases before the state high court. Upland had voted to ban clinics, the Riverside-based 4th District Court of Appeal upheld the ban, and that ruling was appealed. The civil-court matter is unrelated to the federal indictment.
Stay tuned.
michael bay ninja turtles san antonio weather mike daisey nicollette sheridan apple dividend snow white and the huntsman snow white and the huntsman
No comments:
Post a Comment