Posts Tagged ‘orange county dispensary’

7 Lake Forest pot shops told to shut down

7 Lake Forest pot shops told to shut down


LAKE FOREST – The city has been granted temporary restraining orders to close seven medical marijuana dispensaries operating illegally within the city and located within 600 feet of a Montessori school, city officials said Friday.

Orange County Superior Court Judge David Chaffee granted the city’s request to close the pot shops located in a building on Raymond Way near Montessori Children’s School House, 24601 Raymond Way. The Montessori offers a kindergarten class.

Article Tab : collective-manager-lake-w
Damon Harris, left, manager at the Lake Forest Wellness Center and Collective shows samples to customers. The dispensary had been told to shutdown last summer but appealed the judges order. It is now on the list of seven who are located within 600 feet of a school. City officials expect to proceed against it and other dispensaries in early May.

The judge found that Vale Tudo Café, 24601 Raymond #9B, Lake Forest Community Collective, 24602 Raymond Way #201, Lake Forest Wellness Center & Collective, 24602 Raymond Way #203, Lake Forest Patient’s Collective/Florentina Organic, 24602 Raymond Way #208, Independent Collective of Orange County, 24602 Raymond Way #209, and The Health Collective, 24602 Raymond Way #210, are in violation of a new state law that prohibits marijuana dispensaries from operating within 600 feet of a school.

“We are pleased to see state law catch up with our stance that marijuana stores are not a compatible land use near schools,” Mayor Peter Herzog said. “We will continue to aggressively pursue our stance that marijuana stores were not contemplated on our land use plan and are therefore not allowed in any area of our city.”

City Attorney Scott Smith said the dispensaries are subject to the temporary restraining order as soon as served. A court hearing is scheduled next month on a preliminary injunction.

“The council has indicated it is completely unwilling to compromise the city’s quality of life in these neighborhoods, especially in such close proximity to schoolchildren,” he said.

In March, the city filed lawsuits against Patient Farmers Cooperative on Lake Forest Drive and World Cann Wellness Center on Enterprise Court. A complaint was also filed against David H. Tayyanipour Trust, owner of the Enterprise Court property. With these actions, the city is seeking to close the marijuana stores and collect attorney fees and expenses. The city is engaged in litigation with all marijuana stores operating in the city. Officials believe 12 continue to operate.

“These lawsuits should serve as a warning to any potential business operators, leasing agents and property owners that marijuana stores violate the city’s zoning code and that the city will take legal action to close these illegal businesses,” Smith said. “If additional marijuana stores are discovered, further complaints will be filed.”

In December, Lake Forest filed lawsuits against Pharmer’s Choice Collective and Lake Forest Discount Caregivers, which had just opened a few weeks before. The city also filed complaints against Youssef Ibrahim and H&H Investments, owners of the property where the dispensaries are located.

The four lawsuits follow 11 filed last year against other medical marijuana dispensaries in the city. The city claimed the dispensaries violated the city’s zoning code. In May 2010, Chaffee agreed with the city and issued an order requiring all medical marijuana dispensaries in Lake Forest to close immediately.

At that time, Chaffee wrote “all defendants and their officers, agents, employees, representatives and all persons acting in concert or participating with them are prohibited and restrained from engaging in committing, providing the location or performing by any means activity related to the distribution of marijuana.”

With the order, the city began demanding pot shops close. Several did, including 215 Agenda (operating as Bulzi Rx), Vale Tudo Café, Lake Forest Patients Collective Association, Lake Forest Wellness Center and Collective, Earth Cann Wellness Center, Evergreen Holistic Collective, Independent Collective of Orange County, GGECO (operating as Care Mutual), The Health Collective, New Amsterdam Cooperative and Lake Forest Community Collective.

However, five collectives appealed Chaffee’s ruling to the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana, attempting to stay open. The court of appeal set aside the judge’s order in June. A final ruling has not been made.

“Lake Forest was inundated with marijuana dispensaries,” City Councilman Scott Voigts said. “The city’s main focus is public safety. When you have that many in one city, it’s bad for the residents of that city, and it violates city zoning.”

Contact the writer: 949-454-7307 or

10 Major Health Benefits of Marijuana

North Alabama infant tests positive for marijuana; mom charged

FLORENCE, Ala. (AP) – Florence police say a woman was arrested after her newborn baby tested positive for having marijuana in her system.

Police say 35-year-old Jennifer Lynn Sopanos of Florence, is charged with chemical endangerment of a child.

Sopanos’ baby boy was born March 16 at Eliza Coffee Memorial Hospital. Police say he tested positive for THC, the main active chemical in marijuana. Ppolice detective Keith Johnson said Sopanos also tested positive for THC.

Johnson says Sopanos has denied using marijuana during her pregnancy and claims the positive test is a result of second-hand marijuana smoke.

Wax – Dispensary Girl

Our Favorite Song!

Wax – Dispensary Girl

Come in to visit your favorite girl budtender at Cafe Vale Tudo
24601 Raymond Way, Suite 9B
Lake Forest, Ca

(949) 454-9227

Open from 10 am to 10 pm, 7 days a week!

Cannabis Timeline

A historical timeline of Cannabis through the ages.

6000 B.C.
Cannabis seeds used for food in China

4000 B.C.
Textiles made of hemp are used in China. Remains have been found of hemp fibers from this period and from Turkestan a century later.

2727 B.C.
First recorded use of cannabis as medicine in Chinese pharmacopoeia. In every part of the world humankind has used cannabis for a wide variety of health problems.

1500 B.C.
Cannabis cultivated in China for food and fibre.

1500 B.C.
Scythians cultivate cannabis and use it to weave fine hemp cloth. (Sumach 1975)

1200 – 800 B.C.
Bhang (dried cannabis leaves, seeds and stems) is mentioned in the Hindu sacred text Atharva veda (Science of Charms) as “Sacred Grass”, one of the five sacred plants of India. It is used by medicinally and ritually as an offering to Shiva.

700 – 600 B.C.
The Zoroastrian Zend-Avesta, an ancient Persian religious text of several hundred volumes, and said to have been written by Zarathustra (Zoroaster), refers to bhang as Zoroaster’s “good narcotic” (Vendidad or The Law Against Demons)

700 – 300 B.C.
Scythian tribes leave Cannabis seeds as offerings in royal tombs.

500 B.C.
Scythian couple die and are buried with two small tents covering censers. Attached to one tent stick was a decorated leather pouch containing wild Cannabis seeds. This closely matches the stories told by Herodotus. The gravesite, discovered in the late 1940s, was in Pazryk, northwest of the Tien Shan Mountains in modern-day Khazakstan.

500 B.C.
Hemp is introduced into Northern Europe by the Scythians. An urn containing leaves and seeds of the Cannabis plant, unearthed near Berlin, is dated to about this time.

500 – 100 BC
Hemp spreads throughout northern Europe.

430 B.C.
Herodotus reports on both ritual and recreation use of Cannabis by the Scythians (Herodotus The Histories trans. G. Rawlinson).

100 – 0 B.C.
The psychotropic properties of Cannabis are mentioned in the newly compiled herbal Pen Ts’ao Ching which is attributed to an emperor c. 2700 B.C.

0 – 100 A.D.
Construction of Samartian gold and glass paste stash box for storing hashish, coriander, or salt, buried in Siberian tomb.

Dioscorides mentions the use of Cannabis as a Roman medicament.

Galen (Roman) alludes to the psychoactivity of Cannabis seed confections.

500 – 600
The Jewish Talmud mentions the euphoriant properties of Cannabis. (Abel 1980)

900 – 1000
Scholars debate the pros and cons of eating hashish. Use spreads throughout Arabia.

1090 – 1256
In Khorasan, Persia, Hasan ibn al-Sabbah, the Old Man of the Mountain, recruits followers to commit assassinations…legends develop around their supposed use of hashish. These legends are some of the earliest written tales of the discovery of the inebriating powers of Cannabis and the supposed use of Hashish.

Early 12th Century
Hashish smoking very popular throughout the Middle East.

12th Century
Cannabis is introduced in Egypt during the reign of the Ayyubid dynasty on the occasion of the flooding of Egypt by mystic devotees coming from Syria. (M.K. Hussein 1957 – Soueif 1972)

1155 – 1221
Persian legend of the Sufi master Sheik Haidar’s of Khorasan’s personal discovery of Cannabis and it’s subsequent spread to Iraq, Bahrain, Egypt and Syria. Another of the ealiest written narratives of the use of Cannabis as an inebriant.

13th Century
The oldest monograph on hashish, Zahr al-‘arish fi tahrim al-hashish, was written. It has since been lost.

13th Century
Ibn al-Baytar of Spain provides a description of psychaoctive Cannabis.

13th Century
Arab traders bring Cannabis to the Mozambique coast of Africa.

Hashish introduced to Iraq in the reign of Caliph Mustansir (Rosenthal 1971)

1271 – 1295
Journeys of Marco Polo in which he gives second-hand reports of the story of Hasan ibn al-Sabbah and his “assassins” using hashish. First time reports of Cannabis have been brought to the attention of Europe.

Ottoman Emir Soudoun Scheikhouni issues one of the first edicts against the eating of hashish.

Babur Nama, first emperor and founder of Mughal Empire learned of hashish in Afghanistan.

Angolan slaves brought cannabis with them to the sugar plantations of northeastern Brazil. They were permitted to plant their cannabis between rows of cane, and to smoke it between harvests.

mid 16th Century
The epic poem, Benk u Bode, by the poet Mohammed Ebn Soleiman Foruli of Baghdad, deals allegorically with a dialectical battle between wine and hashish.

17th Century
Use of hashish, alcohol, and opium spreads among the population of occupied Constantinople.

French and British cultivate Cannabis for hemp at their colonies in Port Royal (1606), Virginia (1611), and Plymouth (1632).

Late 17th Century
Hashish becomes a major trade item between Central Asia and South Asia.

Napoleon discovers that much of the Egyptian lower class habitually uses hashish (Kimmens 1977). He declares a total prohibition. Soldiers returning to France bring the tradition with them.

19th Century
Hashish production expands from Russian Turkestan into Yarkand in Chinese Turkestan.

Antoine Sylvestre de Sacy, a leading Arabist, reveals the etymology of the words “assassin” and “hashishin”.

In America, medicinal preparations with a Cannabis base are available. Hashish available in Persian pharmacies.

Le Club des Hachichins, or Hashish Eater’s Club, established in Paris.

Hashish appears in Greece.

British tax ganja and charas trade in India.

1870 – 1880
First reports of hashish smoking on Greek mainland.

c. 1875
Cultivation for hashish introduced to Greece.

Kerr reports on Indian ganja and charas trade.

Greek Department of Interior prohibits importance, cultivation and use of hashish.

Hashish made illegal in Turkey.

1893 – 1894
The India Hemp Drugs Commission Report is issued.

1893 – 1894
70,000 to 80,000 kg of hashish legally imported into India from Central Asia each year.

Pure Food and Drug Act is passed, regulating the labelling of products containing Alcohol, Opiates, Cocaine, and Cannabis, among others. The law went into effect Jan 1, 1907.

Early 20th Century
Hashish smoking very popular throughout the Middle East.

1915 – 1927
Cannabis begins to be prohibited for nonmedical use in the U.S., especially in SW states.

Metaxus dictators in Greece crack down on hashish smoking.

Hashish smuggled into Egypt from Greece, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and Central Asia.

Lebanese hashish production peaks after World War I until prohibited in 1926.

Recrational use of Cannabis is banned in Britain.

1920s – 1930s
High-quality hashish produced in Turkey near Greek border.

Yarkand region of Chinese Turkestan exports 91,471 kg of hashish legally into the Northwest Frontier and Punjab regions of India.

Legal taxed imports of hashish continue into India from Central Asia.

1934 – 1935
Chinese government moves to end all Cannabis cultivation in Yarkand and charas traffic from Yarkand. Both licit and illicit hashish production become illegal in Chinese Turkestan.

Propaganda film “Reefer Madness” made to scare American youth away from using Cannabis.

Cannabis made federally illegal in the U.S. with the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act.

Supply of hashish from chinese Turkestan nearly ceases.

Greek hashish smoking tradition fades.

Indian government considers cultivation in Kashmir to fill void of hashish from Chinese Turkestan.

1941 – 1942
Hand-rubbed charas from Nepal is choicest hashish in India during World War II.

Legal hashish consumption continues in India.

1945 – 1955
Hashish use in Greece flourishes again.

Hashish still smuggled into India from Chinese Central Asia.

Moroccan government tacitly allows kif cultivation in Rif Mountains.

First hashish made in Morocco.

Turkish police seize 2.5 tons of hashish.

First reports of C. afghanica use for hashish production in northern Afghanistan.

Mustafa comes to Ketama in Morocco to make hashish from local kif.

The Moroccan government attempts to purge kif growers from Rif Mountains.

England win the World Cup.

“Smash”, the first hashish oil appears. Red Lebanese reaches California.

Late 1960s – Early 1970s
The Brotherhood popularizes Afghani hashish.

1970 – 1973
Huge fields of Cannabis cultivated for hashish production in Afghanistan. Last years that truly great afghani hashish is available.

The Nixon-appointed Shafer Commission urged use of cannabis be re-legalized, but their recommendation was ignored. Medical research continues.

Early 1970s
Lebanese red and blonde hashish of very high-quality exported. The highest quality Turkish hashish from Gaziantep near Syria appears in western Europe.

Early 1970s
Afghani hashish varieties introduced to North America for sinsemilla production. Westerners bring metal sieve cloths to Afghanistan. Law enforcement efforts against hashish begin in Afghanistan.

Nepal bans the Cannabis shops and charas (hand-rolled hash) export.

Afghan government makes hashish production and sales illegal. Afghani harvest is pitifully small.

FDA establishes Compassionate Use program for medical marijuana.

1976 – 1977
Quality of Lebanese hashish reaches peak.

Westerners make sieved hashish in Nepal from wild Cannabis.

Late 1970s
Increasing manufacture of “modern” Afghani hashish. Cannabis varieties from Afghanistan imported into Kashmir for sieved hashish production.

Morocco becomes one of, if not the largest, hashish producing and exporting nations.

“Border” hashish produced in northwestern Pakistan along the Afghan border to avoid Soviet-Afghan war.

Early 1980s
Quality of Lebanese hashish declines.

1983 – 1984
Small amounts of the last high-quality Turkish hashish appear.

Hashish still produced by Muslims of Kashgar and Yarkland (NW China).

Most private stashes of pre-war Afghani hashish in Amsterdam, Goa, and America are nearly finished.

Moroccan government cracks down upon Cannabis cultivation in lower eleations of Rif Mountains.

DEA administrative law Judge Francis Young finds after thorough hearings that marijuana has clearly established medical use and should be reclassified as a prescriptive drug. His recommendation is ignored.

Cannabis eradication efforts resume in Morocco.

Heavy fighting between rival Muslim clans continues to upset hashish trade in Afghanistan.

Border hashish still produced in Pakistan.

Introduction of hashish-making equipment and appearance of locally produced hashish in Amsterdam coffee shops.

Oct 23, 2001
Britain’s Home Secretary, David Blunkett, proposes relaxing the classification of cannabis from a class B to class C. As of June 10, 2002, this has not taken effect.

Driving High on Marijuana Not an Impairment, Study Says

Marijuana’s effects on driving, including separating data between men and women, is negligible. A similar study conducted in Israel showed similar results.

Of course, that may not be saying much given the state of some highways in this nation, but at least the road hogs and blind spot lurkers don’t drive any worse while high.

Most of the studies for stoned and drunk driving were conducted in the 1970s. Driving simulators, measurement tools, and even drug potency were different then. Although studies into drunk driving have continued to the present, studies of marijuana’s effects on driving have not.

A new study from researchers at the Olin Neuropsychiatry Research Center has found that marijuana’s effects on driving – including separating data between men and women – is negligible.1

The research is legitimate, double-blind, placebo-controlled and used 85 subjects (50 men, 35 women) on driving simulators. Subjects were tested sober and then shortly after having smoked either a 2.9% THC marijuana joint or an identical placebo.

The only measurable difference in driving between those who were sober when stoned was that they tended to slow down and drive slower than otherwise. Which any safety advocate will tell you is almost always a good thing.

Other studies conducted overseas, including one in Israel published in 2008,2 showed similar results.

These studies and their findings should call into question every “impaired driving” law in which marijuana is treated the same as alcohol and hard drugs.

Of course, as marijuana becomes more and more socially acceptable and laws regarding its use loosen or are eliminated, a review of laws that lump it in with other, much more impairing drugs should be conducted as well.

If the Feds Get Their Way, Big Pharma Could Sell Pot — But Your Dime Bag Would Still Send You to Jail

By Paul Armentano | Published in AlterNet

DEA claims medical marijuana has no proven medical value


“[M]arijuana has no scientifically proven medical value.” So stated the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on page six of a July 2010 agency white paper, titled “DEA Position on Marijuana.”

Yet only four months after the agency committed its “no medical pot” stance to print, it announced its intent to allow for the regulation and marketing of pharmaceutical products containing plant-derived THC — the primary psychoactive ingredient in cannabis.

But don’t for a second believe the DEA has experienced a sudden change of heart regarding patients’ use of the marijuana plant — use that is now legal under state law in 15 states and the District of Columbia (although recently approved laws in Arizona, New Jersey, and Washington, DC still await implementation). Despite growing public support for medical marijuana legalization, America’s top anti-drug agency remains resolute that these hundreds of thousands of medi-pot patients are no more than common criminals, and their herbal remedy of choice is nothing more than the “Devil’s weed.”

It’s not public pressure that’s motivating the agency to consider rescheduling an organic cannabinoid for the first time since the creation of the U.S. Controlled Substances Act of 1970. (Under this act, all prescription drugs are classified as schedule II, III, IV, or IV controlled substances, while all illicit substances are categorized as schedule I drugs.) And it’s not the recent publication of a series of FDA-approved “gold standard” clinical trials affirming the plant’s safety and efficacy that’s prompting the agency into action. (The DEA has so far refused to acknowledge these studies even exist.) Rather, the agency’s sudden call for regulatory change is inspired by far more politically influential forces: The DEA is responding to the demands of Big Pharma.

Rescheduling ‘Dronabinol’

The DEA initially made public its desire to recognize the use of marijuana plant-derived pharmaceuticals in a “notice of proposed rulemaking,” which appeared in the November 1, 2010 edition of the Federal Register.

The agency posted, “This proposed rule is issued by the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to modify the listing of the Marinol formulation in schedule III so that certain generic drug products are also included in that listing.” (Marinol is the brand name for dronabinol, a prescription pill approved by the FDA in the mid-’80s that consists of synthetic THC in sesame oil and is encapsulated in a soft gelatin capsule.)

Specifically, the DEA’s intent is to expand the federal government’s schedule III listing to include pharmaceutical products containing naturally derived formations of THC while simultaneously maintain existing criminal prohibitions on the plant itself. “The DEA has received four petitions from companies that have products that are currently the subject of ANDAs (abbreviated new drug applications) under review by the FDA,” its post reads. “While the petitioners cite that their generic products are bioequivalent to Marinol, their products do not meet schedule III current definition provided above. Therefore, these firms have requested that 21 CFR 1308.13(g)(1) be expanded to include naturally derived or synthetically produced dronabinol.”

By contrast, any use of the plant or plant-derived cannabinoids by the public will remain criminally prohibited. “THC, natural or synthetic, [will] remain a schedule I controlled substance,” DEA spokesman Rusty Payne affirmed to the Washington, DC publication, The Daily Caller, in February. “Under the proposed rule, in those instances in the future where FDA might approve a generic version of Marinol, that version of the drug will be in the same schedule as the brand name version of the drug, regardless of whether the THC used in the generic version was synthesized by man or derived from the cannabis plant.”

Who Stands to Gain?

Of the four petitioners cited in the DEA’s notice of intent, two are companies seeking to market synthesized THC pharmaceuticals similar to Marinol. According to a March 17, 2010 letter to the DEA from Howard Koh, assistant secretary for health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, representatives from Barr Laboratories (now Teva Pharmaceuticals, the largest generic drug manufacturer in the world) and Insys Therapeutics (a biotech specializing in anti-emetic drugs) both have synthetic-THC products in their pipeline. “In both of these petitions, the Petitioners assert that their generic drug products have a similar chemical properties, composition, and therapeutic value as those of Marinol,” the letter states. (In 2008, Par Pharmaceuticals of New Jersey became the first company to receive FDA approval for a generic version of Marinol.)

A third petitioner — the Canadian-based Cobalt Pharmaceutical — is seeking to bring an organic THC based drug to market. “Cobalt is developing a generic drug product that references Marinol [and is] requesting that the product be placed into schedule III,” states a June 1, 2010 letter from Koh. “This drug product contains naturally-derived dronabinol dissolved in sesame seed oil and encapsulated in a gelatin capsule at three dosage strengths (2.5 mg, 5mg, and 10mg per dosage unit.)” If successful, Cobalt would become the first company since the passage of the federal Marihuana Tax Act in 1937 to legally market a prescription drug in the United States containing natural marijuana plant compounds.

Though not named as a specific petitioner, another major pharmaceutical company that would stand to benefit financially from the legalization of plant-derived THC is the former Mallincrodkt Baker (now Avantor), a worldwide producer of biotherapeutic agents. Testifying under oath in the 2005administrative legal challenge Craker v. DEA, federally authorized pot farmerMahmoud ElSohly revealed that he possessed a contract with the Big Pharma firm to provide it with organic THC extracts. Mallincrodkt desired the extracts, Elsohly explained, because they — like Cobalt — wished to bring a Marinol-like pill comprising of actual THC to the U.S. market.

Another member of Big Pharma that stands to benefit from the DEA’s pending change is Bionorica Worldwide, a German-based company founded in 1933 that specializes in manufacturing plant-derived pharmaceutical products. In 2009, a company representative affirmed in a story on that Bionorica was seeking U.S. FDA approval for both a plant-derived version of Marinol as well as a sublingual THC spray.

The United Kingdom’s GW Pharmaceuticals would also no doubt welcome the DEA’s call for rescheduling. GW Pharma is the manufacturer of Sativex — a oral spray containing plant-derived extracts of the cannabinoids THC and CBD (cannabidiol). The spray is presently available in Canada and the United Kingdom, but could not be legally marketed in the U.S., even with FDA approval, until its natural cannabinoid compounds are reclassified under federal law.

Ironically, the federal government itself also stands to benefit financially from rescheduling. After all, under the U.S. government’s existing monopoly on marijuana production — a monopoly that was upheld in 2009 when the DEArejected its own administrative law judge’s decision in Craker — no domestic-based pharmaceutical company wishing to develop products derived from organic THC could legally acquire the necessary extracts without first contracting to purchase those compounds from the federal government’s sole pot farm, located at the University of Mississippi at Oxford and headed by ElSohly.

Who Stands To Lose? You Do

While the DEA’s forthcoming regulatory change promises to stimulate the advent of legally available, natural THC therapeutic products — and will also likely encourage the development of less expensive yet similarly synthetic alternatives to Marinol — the change will offer no legal relief for those hundreds of thousands of Americans who believe that therapeutic relief is best obtained by use of the whole plant itself. Rather the DEA appears content to try to walk a political and semantic tightrope that alleges: “pot is bad,” but “pot-derived pharmaceuticals are good.”

It’s a position that would appear to be scientifically untenable, and one that will do little to bridge the existing gap between the public’s demand for a rational medical marijuana policy and the federal government’s desire to maintain a criminal prohibition that lacks any rational basis whatsoever.

%d bloggers like this: