Aaron Sandusky is seeking a
little help from his friends in the pro-medical-marijuana movement in
his defense against the federal government.

Sandusky, the president of G3 Holistic, a now-closed
medical-marijuana cooperative in Upland, has opened a legal defense fund
to help him pay attorney fees and some living expenses while he is
under house arrest awaiting his trial.

"This has been a very difficult thing for me to do. I have
always been the one giving," Sandusky said in an email. "I have never
had to ask for any help like this before but (because) the DEA has
seized all my personal assets, forced our business shut, put me on house
detention and are monitoring my every move, I don’t have many choices."

Sandusky and five others affiliated with G3 were arrested and indicted in June on federal drug-trafficking charges.

The six defendants, including Sandusky’s brother Keith, who is
also under house arrest, were charged in a conspiracy to manufacture
and to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, according to the
indictment.

The indictment also charges all the defendants with possession with intent to distribute marijuana.

Sandusky ran co-ops in Moreno Valley and Colton as well as a
warehouse in Ontario. The Upland shop was the only one operating at the
time of the arrest.

Sandusky said the public has heard about his situation and has been asking for ways to help, so he decided to open the fund.

"I know these are very difficult times to be asking people for
money but I don’t really have many choices and as you can imagine my
legal expenses are great," he said. "It’s really important that we win
this case by jury nullification, I’m hoping, and I believe we can
achieve it in this state and more important in L.A. County."

State voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996, allowing medical marijuana in the state.

But marijuana – medical or otherwise – is illegal under federal law.

"I think it’s important to let the public know what is going
on in this case and how our rights are being violated," he said. "This
is not only an attack on medical marijuana but an attack on our rights
as voters to enact laws, this was voted on and passed by the people."

Sandusky is one of about 100 people across the country who
have been indicted by the federal government since President Barack
Obama took office in 2009, said Kris Hermes, a spokesman for
Oakland-based Americans for Safe Access.

"So he’s among a lot of other people who are facing similar prosecution," he said.

The nationwide organization is aware of Sandusky’s situation
and is encouraging medical-marijuana advocates to support him in court
and with legal funds.

"Typically we post hearing dates, and we encourage folks to
show up for those hearings and when the trial occurs, and in Aaron’s
case he’s not waiving his speedy trial time so that’s fairly soon, we
would try and get people into the courtroom as supporters," Hermes said.

Hermes said Americans for Safe Access has been pushing the
federal government to stop its aggressive attacks against medical
marijuana not only in California, but around the country.

This week, as the average American begins to pay close attention to
the Presidential race during the party conventions, my organization, Americans for Safe Access,
is preparing to flood America — and especially swing states — with a
poster that asks the question, "Can Broken Promises Lose an Election? 1
Million Medical Marijuana Patients Will Decide." This message is
controversial, and many liberals who support President Barack Obama as
well as compassionate use are asking why we are targeting a President
who once made the boldest pro-access statement in history.

We are sending a message to President Obama and his supporters
because he is our President, and his decisions have grave consequences
for medical cannabis patients. His administration has rejected our
petition to overturn the federal definition of marijuana as without
"accepted medical use in the United States" — a decision that we will challenge in court on October 16th. Obama’s administration has raided more
medical marijuana facilities in three and a half years than Bush’s
administration did in eight. And his appointed U.S. Attorneys are
shutting down dispensaries left and right, including model operations whose medicine is a lifeline for patients.

ASA has been accused of creating a propaganda campaign that will help
Mitt Romney. But that’s not the reality on the ground. We are hearing
from our grassroots — and reading in polls
— that medical marijuana patients and their loved ones are considering
voting for third-party candidates or not voting at all. This trend is
most pronounced in the medical cannabis states that are also swing
states, like Colorado and Nevada. In a close election, a few percentage
points peeled off to a third party could make the difference in the
Electoral College, and we want to wake Obama up to that fact.

Medical marijuana does not have to be a partisan issue — lawmakers
on the Republican side of the aisle have supported and led efforts to
respect state laws on compassionate use in state capitols and in
Congress. Republicans and Republicans-turned-Independents such as Ron
Paul and Lincoln Chaffee have vocally supported medical cannabis access
and efforts to reschedule cannabis in the Controlled Substances Act — a
position we will advance in court just weeks before the election.

Patients Are Fed Up

Medical marijuana patients are sick and tired of being sick and
tired. We don’t want our issue to be treated like a criminal justice
issue, but as a healthcare issue. We need leadership that respects our
medical needs. Obama’s biggest mistake was trying to deal with medical
cannabis in a brief memo. He should have put together a team of agencies
along with governors of medical cannabis states to find a long-term
solution.

This is not in my control, it is in Obama’s hands. If I tried to
rally support for Obama, I wouldn’t get very far, because the patients
and their supporters who tell pollsters they support third-party
candidates wouldn’t listen. If Obama doesn’t wake up to the needs of
medical marijuana patients with an indication that his hard line could
be softened, these votes will be lost.

That is why I and other medical cannabis supporters are distributing posters throughout the nation.
We want Obama’s campaign to know that the reason they aren’t meeting
their volunteer goals in deep-blue counties, or are uncomfortably close
in polls in key swing states, is that people who would otherwise be
strong supporters are finding this president’s policies on cannabis too
hard to swallow. And we want Republicans to know that our movement is
not just a wing of Democratic party: we are looking for compassionate
leadership where we can find it.

Obama can make the difference

It’s not too late for the president to turn this around. We want to
hear that the Obama administration’s historically harsh crackdown on
medical cannabis access will be reconsidered, and only then we can begin
efforts at rallying supporting in states like Colorado and Nevada. With
polls showing the public’s overwhelming acceptance
of state compassionate use laws, and with an outdated Controlled
Substances Act the subject of our court battle in October, there is no
reason for President Obama to go down in history as America’s latest
hardline drug warrior.

If the subject of our posters bothers you, please email the Obama
campaign and not me. I am just articulating the sentiment of the one
million legal medical marijuana patients. Only Obama can ask for their
votes.

The state Supreme Court backed off ruling on a closely watched medical marijuana case Wednesday, saying the case was now moot.

The move could clear the way for lifting a county moratorium on new
pot clubs, after the case led the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
to suspend local dispensary rules. That left local providers in limbo
amid a broad federal crackdown and a growing number of California
governments banning pot clubs altogether.

"It’s terrific news," said Ben Rice, a local attorney who represents
several local dispensaries. "Everybody’s real hopeful that the county’s
going to engage all these folks again in regulating medical marijuana in
the county."

While the court declined to hear the much-anticipated case, the
effect is as good as a win for medical marijuana advocates. Under
Supreme Court rules, the disputed appeals court ruling no longer has
legal force.

The case began when the city of Long Beach passed regulatory rules
demanding a steep payment from operators for the chance to enter a
lottery allowing them to open their doors in city limits.

Dispensary operators sued, arguing that local governments had no
business regulating an area governed by federal drug laws, and a state
appeals panel agreed. But rather than simply toss the regulatory scheme,
the judges cited federal law and blocked any local regulations, even
going so far to suggest local officials could be prosecuted for passing
them.

The clubs’ risky legal strategy had backfired, and they dropped it
after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, Pack v. City of Long
Beach. Long Beach also later joined scores of California cities in
lowering a total ban on dispensaries, making the case moot.

In the meantime, the ruling seemed to contribute to a trend of pot
club prohibitions that came despite broad public support for Prop 215,
the ground-breaking 1996 medical marijuana law that has since been
adapted to 16 states.

In California, 20 counties and at least 179 cities – including Los
Angeles, the second-largest city in the U.S. – now ban dispensaries,
according to the advocacy group Americans for Safe Access.

"A lot of cities used the Pack decision as cover to ban everything,
outright," said H. Allen Hopper, criminal justice and policy director at
the American Civil Liberties Union’s Northern California chapter, who
filed a joint brief in the case on behalf of Santa Cruz County and San
Francisco.

County Counsel Dana McRae said she expects to return to the Board of
Supervisors with an update on the case, which could include a discussion
of the county’s moratorium on new dispensaries.

Passed in May 2011, the original county regulations were welcomed by
local operators, setting business operations standards and location
restrictions. Board of Supervisors Chair John Leopold, who helped author
the law, said it was too early to say what the county might do next.

All eyes now turn to another potential Supreme Court ruling on a ban
on dispensaries in Riverside, in a case involving a collective called
the Inland Empire Patient’s Health and Wellness Center. Advocates hope
to prohibit bans, citing Prop 215.

"We’re back now to the same legal landscape that existed before the
Pack appellate court decision. Counties are free to regulate, and
whether or not they can completely ban is a very uncertain proposition
given the Supreme Court review pending in the Riverside case," Hopper
said.

Kris Hermes, a spokesman for American for Safe Access, agreed the
medical marijuana industry is watching the Riverside case. But he added
that he hoped the state Legislature would take up the matter as well.

"We’re not necessarily waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on this
issue. We’re also hoping the Legislature will adopt sensible
regulations," Hermes said.

For the past few years, as businesses associated with medical
marijuana have proliferated in Western Washington, federal prosecutors
have taken mostly a hands-off approach.

On Thursday, however, the feds issued the clearest threat yet to 23
medical-cannabis dispensaries in the region: Shut down or else. The
issue was their location, within 1,000 feet of an "educational facility
or other prohibited area."

In letters sent by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the
targeted businesses were warned they could be charged criminally if they
didn’t close within 30 days. Their property, including profits and the
buildings themselves, could also be seized under federal law, which
prohibits the sale of marijuana, the letters warned. They were sent to
both the business operators and their landlords.

"Please take the necessary steps to discontinue the sale and/or
distribution of marijuana … ," reads the letter, signed by Matthew G.
Barnes, special agent in charge of Seattle’s DEA office. He warned more
dispensaries may be targeted.

Neither the DEA nor the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which supported the
action, would release the names of the 23 dispensaries or even disclose
which cities they’re in. Emily Langlie, a spokeswoman for the U.S.
Attorney’s Office, said releasing the information would be
"inappropriate," since the businesses had not yet received the letters.

"We need to enforce one message for our students: Drugs have no place
in or near our schools," U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan said in a news
release.

The action follows a pattern elsewhere in the country. Dozens of such
warnings were sent in Colorado, and those dispensaries closed or moved.
In California, more than 300 letters have been sent out, primarily
targeting businesses near schools.

The U.S. Attorney for Eastern Washington sent warnings to 55
businesses and landlords in April 2011 after hearing complaints about
nine dispensaries operating near schools, including one with a large
billboard two blocks from an elementary school. Those that didn’t shut
down were raided before the 30-day time period was up.

"I think the federal government has sent a pretty clear message in
the last couple of years that they’re just not going to tolerate
cannabis distribution within 1,000 feet of schools," said Kurt Boehl, an
attorney who represents medical-marijuana businesses.

"Since we’re seeing such a proliferation in Seattle maybe they’re just trying to regulate that a little bit," he added.

Dispensaries have sprung up, in part, because authorized patients say it’s hard to grow marijuana themselves.

Washington’s medical-marijuana law doesn’t authorize them, however.
An effort to legalize and regulate them passed the state Legislature
last year but was vetoed by Gov. Chris Gregoire, leaving Washington with
one of the most unregulated medical-marijuana industries in the
country.

Seattle, home to more than 140 medical-marijuana-related businesses,
lightly regulates them, requiring only basic business licenses and
compliance with city building-safety codes.

"The dispensaries that are located within 1,000 feet of schools are
fair game for federal action, as the owners/operators know and have been
told by the city," Kimberly Mills, communications director for Seattle
City Attorney Pete Holmes, said in an email.

The City Council will hold public meetings to consider zoning restrictions this fall.

Aaron Pelley, a medical-cannabis attorney, said finding a spot
outside a 1,000-foot radius can be challenging

Even as the city’s ban on
medical marijuana is facing legal and political challenges, the City
Council on Wednesday asked local and federal law enforcement agencies to
develop new strategies to enforce the shutdown.

"We need to get out of the way of law enforcement," Councilman
Bernard Parks said of his request asking the Los Angeles Police
Department to coordinate with the district attorney and Drug Enforcement
Administration on an enforcement policy.

"Federal law is clear. State law is clear," said Parks, a
former L.A. police chief. "State law allows collectives. It does not
allow for the sale of marijuana."

The City Council recently adopted a proposal to close down all
the medical marijuana dispensaries operating in the city as of next
month and the City Attorney’s Office sent a letter to landlords advising
them of the law.

However, a lawsuit has been filed challenging the city measure
and proponents of medical marijuana have been working to qualify a
referendum challenging the law.

Parks said he tried to introduce a similar measure five years ago, but action was never taken on it.

Kris Hermes, spokesman for the pro-medical marijuana group Americans for Safe Access, said they were surprised by the action.

"This proposal is unsettling to have local government work with the federal government to undermine a state law," Hermes said.

"We have maintained that passing a total ban is illegal and we’re in statecourt
fighting that and are collecting signatures on our referendum. We
expect to qualify it in early September when the new city law is
scheduled to take effect."

An alliance of medical marijuana collective owners, vendors and
patients sued the city of Los Angeles Friday to block the implementation
of a ban on pot shops.

The lawsuit from the Patient Care Alliance-Los Angeles seeks an
injunction against the ban, which is scheduled to take effect on Sept.
6. The plaintiffs argue that the city will deny patients access to badly
needed medicine and put an entire industry out of business. 

A medical marijuana trade group is suing Los Angeles to stop the city from implementing a ban on prescription pot dispensaries.

The suit filed by Patient Care Alliance alleges the ban violates the constitutional right of freedom of assembly, the Los Angeles Times reported Friday ( http://lat.ms/NtAQ5p).

The
ordinance passed last month by the City Council said medical marijuana
may be grown and shared only by groups of three people or fewer, and it
outlaws the sale of the drug in stores.

Marc O’Hara, who heads the trade group, said the ban is
"unconstitutional on its face" and said it denies patients their right
to assemble and care for each other.

"We believe that this is a very necessary medical need in the city of LA," O’Hara said.

The
city is notifying dispensary owners that they must shut down by Sept.
6, when the ban takes effect. In a letter sent out this week, city
lawyers warned that those who don’t comply face fines or jail time.

Special Assistant City Attorney Jane Usher told the newspaper the city had not yet seen the lawsuit and had no comment.

Patient Care Alliance works with more than 300 dispensaries in Los Angeles.

The
suit comes as other groups of medical marijuana activists are working
to qualify a ballot measure to repeal the ban, the Times reported. The
Greater Los Angeles
Collectives Alliance and Americans for Safe Access have joined forces
with a labor union of dispensary workers to gather enough signatures to
put the issue to voters.

Medical marijuana dispensary owners across
Los Angeles will be receiving glum news in the mail this week: a letter
from the city telling them it’s time to shut down. 

But despite threats of fines and jail time, some dispensary owners
have vowed to stay open. They say they are working hard to qualify a
ballot measure to overturn the ban on storefront sales of medical marijuana passed last month by the Los Angeles City Council.

The letter from the city,
sent Tuesday from the office of City Atty. Carmen Trutanich, says
dispensaries have until Sept. 6 to comply with the ban. Shops that
refuse to shut down may be subject to penalties of $2,500 a day and up
to six months in jail.

Dispensary owner Yamileth Bolanos, who heads the Greater Los Angeles
Collectives Alliance, said she hadn’t gotten the letter yet. But she was
defiant: "I’m not shutting down."

Bolanos, who believes the city could have come up with a workable policy
that would limit the number of dispensaries while also ensuring
patients have access to the drug, said her group’s current focus is on
collecting signatures for a voter referendum to overturn the ban.

The process of getting signatures has already begun, according to Don
Duncan, California director for Americans for Safe Access. He said
about 27,500 people must sign the petition for the referendum — or
one-tenth of the voters who participated in the last mayoral election.

Last month’s ban was seen as a turning point in the city’s seemingly
unending battle to regulate the distribution of medical marijuana.

It will outlaw the estimated 1,000 or so storefront dispensaries in
the city, but it will still allow patients and their caregivers to grow
and share marijuana in groups of three people or fewer.

The City Attorney’s Office
announced today it is warning all marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles
to close by Sept. 6, when a new ordinance goes into effect, or face
court action and a $2,500 fine for every day they remain open after the
deadline.

The office mailed letters to 1,046 suspected dispensary
locations and to 728 landlords, warning they are also liable if
dispensaries remain open beyond the deadline.

The City Council voted in July to ban storefront marijuana
dispensaries, citing a lack of clarity on how the city can legally
regulate the distribution of medical cannabis and the potential threat
of federal legal action against the city.

The council’s vote allows primary caregivers and patients to
grow and transport marijuana. Under the new ordinance, two or three
patients are allowed to collectively grow and share marijuana in homes
or apartments, but not storefronts.

The letter from Chief Deputy City Attorney William Carter
warns dispensaries that each day they remain open beyond that date is a
separate violation of the law and a misdemeanor subject to a $1,000 fine
and six months in jail.

In the letter, Carter recounted the city’s attempts to
regulate dispensaries in recent years and the dozens of lawsuits by
marijuana collectives that followed.

"The city spent nine months in settlement discussions with the
dispensary litigants and the court. We are not able to share the
content of those confidential discussions, but we can tell you that we did not achieve settlement," Carter wrote.

"The unresolved and continuing legal impasse has been accompanied
by a massive proliferation of unregulated dispensaries in the city,
leaving the city with only one clear legal option — to recognize
compassionate access, but prohibit medical marijuana businesses within
the city."

Medical marijuana supporters, led by Americans for Safe
Access, have been collecting signatures in an effort to put a referendum
on the March or June citywide election ballot to repeal the law. "The
tens of thousands of patients harmed by this vote will not take it
sitting down," Americans for Safe Access California Director Don Duncan
said last month. "We will campaign forcefully to overturn this poor
decision by the council."

Medical marijuana clinics in Los Angeles must
shut down by Sept. 6, the City Attorney’s Office is warning operators
and landlords in a letter sent out this week.

The three-page letter follows a decision earlier this summer by the City Council to ban the clinics.

The letter was sent to more than 1,000 locations where the
clinics are believed to be operating, and it warns they face court
action and a $2,500 fine for each day they stay open past Sept. 6. The
letter also went to more than 700 landlords, warning that property
owners could be held liable if their tenants continue to operate
dispensaries.

City officials have been meeting to develop a coordinated
approach on enforcement, but nothing has been officially decided, said
Councilman Jose Huizar, who authored the measure to ban the clinics.

"This is the first step," Huizar said. "We are meeting with the LAPD to discuss what steps to take next."

Kris Hermes, spokesman for Americans for Safe Access, said the
letter signed by Chief Assistant City Attorney Bill Carter was puzzling
because it included a detailed history of the city’s efforts to control
the dispensaries.

"But this was not unexpected," Hermes said of the warning
letter. He added a number of other efforts are under way that could
block the city’s ban.

Among these is a potential referendum to overturn the Los
Angeles city law, which needs fewer than 30,000 signatures to qualify
for a special election. There is a possibility the state Supreme Court could decide to hear cases involving the legality of medical marijuana clinics.

But the city’s effort places the dispensary operators in an uncomfortable position, Hermes said.

"We don’t have a clear-cut response for them on what’s going
on," Hermes said. "It would be imprudent to tell them to stay open. But
at the same time, there is all this other activity going on that could
change the situation in a matter of weeks."

The city does have a list of 782 dispensaries that have registered, but officials believe another 200 have also been operating.