- The Weed Blog https://www.theweedblog.com

Medical Marijuana Patient Sues California City


Malinda Traudt, a 29 year old blind woman who also suffers from cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and severe osteoporosis, is suing the California City of Dana Point. Her attorney, Jeffrey Schwartz, is seeking an injunction to prevent the closing of Ms. Traudt’s preferred dispensary, the Beach Cities Collective in Dana Point. “Anything in federal court, in my opinion, is going to lose because under federal law it’s illegal,” Schwartz said. “In my mind, Malinda is the face of medical marijuana. She was what it was designed for.”

Which argument Mr. Schwartz plans on using, is still unclear. In the article, Schwartz sites a San Clemente ordinance that banned leaflets, but was deemed unconstitutional because it impeded free speech. I’m not sure that a free speech strategy will win in court, but I will reserve judgment until the trial is underway. I think an ‘undue burden,’ ‘pain and suffering,’ and/or ‘equal protection’ argument(s) would be more valid in a medical marijuana case, but maybe Mr. Schwartz is planning on doing just that.

Malinda Traudt started using marijuana after experiencing horrible side effects from conventional (pill) medicine. At one point Ms. Traudt’s mother was advised that her daughter could only live a few hours. In desperation, her mother replaced the pain medication with medical marijuana, and within just a few hours, all the symptoms subsided. I read a headline today out of Colorado, calling medical marijuana a ‘con.’ How someone could call medical marijuana a ‘con,’ when CLEARLY it is a viable medicine (Ms. Traudt is a prime example), is beyond me.


About Author

We’re everything you need to know about marijuana – your #1 source of important marijuana-related information. From the plant and its benefits to its place in culture and society, TWB has you covered! News. Culture. Science. Cooking. Growing. Industry. Advocacy. You can find this and so much more.

  • Huge Advocate

    I realize this was a few years ago but would anyone happen to know if it’s a high CBD strain that’s used to help Cerebral Palsy?? Thanks

  • Most of the people calling it a con have never consumed cannabis in any form. I have no problem with doctors signing forms so their patients can use their medicine of choice. I am a legal cardholder in Canada. I have explained that it is impossible for someone to overdose on cannabis and the Doctors in California know it is safe. According to the oath they took when they became doctors is that they are to do no harm. Since there is very little bad side effects with Cannabis ( and if eaten I can not see ANY negatives) they are just following their oath. Also the people calling it a con usually has a hidden agenda (or an obvious one if they are a cop or prison guard)- job securty for life is slipping away from them quickly. That means lower taxes when we let go the excess guards and police. Clear this thing up quickly and send Marc Emery back home to Canada!

  • No prob, feel free to post that link on every article we have if you want!

  • Please do take the time to do the Colorado Medical Marijuana Regulations survey:


    Thank you to those who have already done it, you can see the impressive analysis and all of the comments at the above link as well. Thanks WeedBlog for allowing me to post this link multiple times.

  • miggy420

    Excellent article, god speed to you Mr. Schwartz. I hope his argument is heard by reasonable people.

    Funny how people can call medical marijuana a con when we pop pills for everything else.

  • Thanks for the clarification, and keep up the good fight!

  • Jeff Schwartz

    I’m Jeff Schwartz, Malinda’s attorney, and I want to clarify the basis for our lawsuit. It alleges that, by attempting to close the only collective within wheelchair distance of Malinda’s home (her mother wheels her to and from the collective to get her medicine), the city is interfering with Malinda’s fundamental, constitutional rights to life and safety.

    There are no free speech issues in this case. However, the San Clemente leaflets case is informative because it demonstrates how “strict scrutiny” is applied to governmental actions that interfere with fundamental, constitutional rights such as speech, life, and safety.