2 Attys Will Add Marijuana Issues to Petdefense

Why would attorneys add marijuana issues to legal issues?  We will tell you why.

First because the Feds may change marijuana from Schedule 1 to schedule 2; and second, because CA last fall already has made new legislation involving the possible regulation of medical marijuana and marijuana because of the ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in California this year

.  eagle cross logoimages

Drug issues including marijuana, medical marijuana, and all other drugs, legal and non legal, are included in most states’ determination of either child endangerment, or some law which may affect the rights of PARENTS or kids.

In determining custody and visitation, at least in CA— ALL parents should know that any suspected drug use of any kind, including alcohol or prescriptions, legal or not; drunk driving (even if charges dismissed) and over use or improper use of legal meds (let’s say cough medicine, benadryl,etc.) can affect a parent’s rights to both custody and visitation.

When this happens, we believe that it will eventually filter down to the ANIMALS OR PETS in the care of parents.

What we mean by that is: let’s suppose that a parent bought legal medicinal marijuana in an edible form (let’s say candy) and the dog or cat found it in a cupboard and ate it, requiring a vet visit; then the vet reports that the owner either possibly poisoned their animal or maybe tried to make it “suffer” which is what animal rights thrives on? Alleged suffering?

NOW while the animal is obviously not human, if one reads the CA Penal Code for animals and abuse, there is nothing there to say an OWNER can’t be charged with abuse of an animal due to negligence.  In fact, the penal code is based on both negligence and knowing acts……….CA PC 597(b):

..."[a]nd whoever, having the charge or
custody of any animal, either as owner or otherwise, subjects 
any animal to needless suffering, or inflicts unnecessary
cruelty upon the animal, or in any manner abuses any animal,
or fails to provide the animal with proper food, drink, 
or shelter or protection  from the weather, or who drives,
rides, or otherwise uses the animal when
unfit for labor, is, for each offense, guilty of a crime
punishable pursuant to subdivision..."

We guarantee this code is used and will be used to prosecute
a case involving animals that become ill from something that
is linked to owners.
You will notice the language only says "subjects any animal to..", 
it does not say "knowingly subjected"....... and all criminal 
offenses  normally require a requisite intent, a knowing mental
state, or  some kind of willful conduct. If there is no mental
state which  involves willful, then the crime may be difficult
to fit the law. Meaning, if it's negligence, 
BUT not gross negligence--
then maybe the crime will not rise to the level of "criminal." 

In CA, a special jury instruction could be used, since there is
 no jury instruction for animal
abuse. And if negligence is not willful conduct then of course the
 conduct must be gross negligence for most if not all, animal
 abuse charges.

So let's say you left out the rat poison box while you had rushed 
to take care of your kids and forgot it was still sitting on the
laundry room counter, and then you rushed out the front door
for an appointment and forgot to put it away and your dog climbed
up and ate some of the poison. That is a good example of something
that is not gross negligence in our view, but do you really think
AC is going to believe it? NO they will prosecute you if they can. 
However, the District Attorney likely would not do so unless they 
were in some rabid AR jurisdiction (which would be SF, Los Angeles,
and overly liberal areas.)

Well we think the same would go for any marijuana product, even 
if it was inside a cabinet and the dog got it opened anyway. 
Because how would you ever prove the cabinet was NOT opened? 
The defense never has the burden of