Solvent extracts and concentrates are covered by a number of California laws and case law.
Propositions 215 and 64 both included extracts but did not remove cannabis from the controlled substances list. The Health and Safety Code 11379.6 “Meth House” statute, below, includes cannabis because it is on the list of substances in HS 11054, but since 2015 HS 11379.6(d) specifically mentions cannabis extraction. For many years that has meant BHO was legal to possess but not to make. The People v Bergen decision held that it is the process, not the product, that is banned. People v Luna established the prosecutor’s burden of proof. When the legislature passed MCRSA, the medical marijuana regulations, it included a license to make volatile extracts. The following year, a provision was added to HS 11362.775 for an interim local license before the MCRSA licenses issue. Prop. 64 mirrors that licensing process for nonmedical use and modified the legal issues on extraction by including in HS 11362.3(a)(6) the term “volatile” rather than simply “chemical extraction.” Continue reading Hash oil, BHO, chemical solvent extraction laws
20th Annual Report, 1989: California state Prosecutor’s Report on Marijuana & Drugs (Excerpt)
About the Report: This report was prepared by a panel of experts commissioned by State of California Attorney General John Van de Kamp. Upon receiving the panel’s recommendations, based on its 20-year study of the crisis in drug policy, AG Van de Kamp — by then a candidate for governor — suppressed the report and refused to publish it. The panel published its final report at their own expense. Continue reading California AG’s Panel: Legalize home grows and gifting
Conant v. Walters: Physicians have a First Amendment right to discuss cannabis with patients — not to help them obtain it.
The order enjoins the federal government from either revoking a physician’s license to prescribe controlled substances or conducting an investigation of a physician that might lead to such revocation, where the basis for the government’s action is solely the physician’s professional “recommendation” of the use of medical marijuana. Continue reading Physicians’ First Amendment right to discuss marijuana with patients
People v Luna: “while the [chemical extraction] manufacturing process need not be complete, it must at least be started.”
“[W]hile the [solvent extraction] manufacturing process need not be complete, it must at least be started.” … “At the time appellant was arrested, he had no ability to begin manufacturing hashish, which expert opinion established is an instantaneous as opposed to an incremental process. In order to begin manufacturing hashish, appellant still had numerous steps to accomplish, including assembling the components of the manufacturing device… ” Continue reading Hash oil manufacturing charge requires all components