Call Today! Free Immediate Response 877-781-1570


California Medicinal Marijuana: Southern California Criminal Defense Perspective

Posted by Dmitry Gorin | Mar 29, 2008 | 0 Comments

Federal criminal authorities continue to enforce marijuana laws in Southern California, serving search warrants on dispensaries, seizing medicinal products and monies, and arresting employees, buyers, and store owners. These federal criminal laws are in direct conflict with the California Compassional Use Act. Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyers are frequently hired to fight possession, sales, and transportation of marijuana charges in local California Court.A frequest defense approach is to cite in court Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which is codified in Health & Safety Code Tagged as:


flomax on December 14, 2009 at 6:36 p.m. wrote: nice Steven Douglas Currie on May 25, 2008 at 8:04 p.m. wrote: My response will admittedly extend somewhat beyond the narrow topic of medical marijuana enumerated in the blog, yet I think it is demanded in light of David Cassidy Preston on May 20, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. wrote: I have to disagree with the above comment. Medicinal marijuana is obviously a controversial subject but arguing that its use is completely unjustified based on the suspicion that some doctors prescribe it to people that may not necessarily need it ignores the fact that this law was initially created to serve those who really do need it to relieve their pain. It would be more reasonable to argue that there needs to be more restrictions placed on this legislation to best ensure proper administration so that it is used to serve those that most need it without throwing out the legislation all together. Furthermore, arguing that prescribing medicinal marijuana is unjustified on the basis that other states do not allow it is faulty reasoning. This rationale implies that a state should always act in accordance with the majority of states, an idea that would prevent the passing of progressive legislation such as the legalization of gay marriage which California recently enacted. States are legally separate entities and entitled to make their own laws and regulations provided they do not violate constitutional parameters. The proposition that a given state's action or piece of legislation is invalid because other states disagree with that action ignores the fact that a state or its citizens might uniquely benefit from the enactment of specific legislation. Medicinal marijuana has been proven to be medically effective in relieving the pain associated with maladies such Glaucoma, Arthritis and Chemo therapy treatment. Eliminating this state law on the basis that other states do not recognize medical marijuana as a valid treatment or because some doctors have not prescribed it with enough discretion would be a gross disservice to the many citizens who benefit from medical marijuana treatment. Kelsey Kernstine on May 18, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. wrote: I disagree with the use of medicinal marijuana. I believe that many of the doctors who prescribe this use of marijuana do not only prescribe it to the people that are truly in need of it. In fact, is a doctor supposed to prescribe someone marijuana if they claim to have horrible back pain? Anyone can use that as an excuse to need marijuana. I do not think making medicinal marijuana helps drug traffic control like many think. I believe that this is a multibillion-dollar business and many people with this prescription abuse it and use it as an easy mechanism to make money and sell their prescribed marijuana. Maybe regulating the amount of the drug that can be prescribed is the best solution to the problem; however, I still believe too many people and doctors are abusing the prescription. I believe that there are so many other drugs out there that are legal and are capable of curing some of the problems these medicinal marijuana patients are complaining about. So why not use those legal prescriptions instead? One should also remember that California is one of the only states, if not the only state that allows medicinal marijuana. Therefore, if it is supposedly that needed, you would think the other states would incorporate it as well, but they haven David Askander on May 16, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. wrote: The two comments above are both very valuable points; however I feel that an underlying concept is being missed. That is, why should we as a 'government for the people and by the people' allows a substance which we know is harmful to the individual be given to them to temporarily relieve them of their pain. It seems counterintuitive to me. We saw drugs are wrong and if you Deborah Winograd on April 24, 2008 at 1:48 a.m. wrote: While I agree with much of the above commentary, I do believe that doctors need regulation in the amounts they can prescribe. I work as a registered nurse and believe without any hesitation that doctors are not always as honest and credible as we expect them to be. Marijuana remains an illegal drug that is highly desired by many. If doctors are able to prescribe it without any limitation, a dangerous temptation is left for the patient. As with Vicodin and Percocet (narcotics that are highly desired) prescriptions are tightly controlled so that patients are not tempted to sell or give away their extra doses. Kyle Reilly on April 13, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. wrote: The whole debate surrounding medical marijuana baffles me. While I do understand that state and federal laws do contradict each other, I do not see why someone using a drug to help with their pain when prescribed by a medical doctor can be incarcerated. I believed licensed physicians should be able to prescribe whatever dose they deem necessary for their patients. While I do not use any type of drugs such as marijuana, I do have frequent migraines and I do know that my prescription Maxalt does take the pain away. If the government were to criminalize a drug that helped me feel better, I would resort to underground purchasing of Maxalt. It works for me, and I believe doctors should have the ability to decide and regulate how much I should be able to have. In addition, states can earn valuable tax dollars by allowing purchases rather than have people purchase them underground, lose on tax revenues, and potentially expose people to unsafe medications. I believe a doctor should decide what is best for his or her patients, and their years of educational experience should allow them to make that important decision. The government should not be mandating how much of something a person can have: it does not affect others; it only affects the person taking the drug. I believe this important both a patient and a doctor best make decision. -Kyle Reilly

About the Author

Dmitry Gorin

Dmitry Gorin is a licensed attorney, who has been involved in criminal trial work and pretrial litigation since 1994. Before becoming partner in Eisner Gorin LLP, Mr. Gorin was a Senior Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles Courts for more than ten years. As a criminal tri...


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

We speak English, Russian, Armenian, and Spanish.

If you have one phone call from jail, call us! If you are facing criminal charges, DON'T talk to the police first. TALK TO US!

Anytime 24/7