HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE – HSC
Div. 10. Uniform Controlled Substances Act [11000 – 11651]
Chapt. 6. Offenses and Penalties [11350 – 11392]
ARTICLE 2. Marijuana [11357 – 11362.9]
This post has most of the Health and Safety Code laws regarding marijuana, the Prop. 215 medical defense and destruction of bulk evidence, but other sections on my site include the SB 420 MMPA and AB 266 MCRSA medical marijuana programs. These are the statutes in this post: Health and Safety 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11361, 11362, 11362.5, 11479
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE – HSC
DIVISION 10. UNIFORM CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT [11000 – 11651]
Chapter 6. Offenses and Penalties [11350 – 11392]
This section of the code created the voluntary state medical marijuana ID card program, the individual safe harbor and the collective defense. Continue reading SB 420: Medical Marijuana Program statutes
California Proposition 64 (2016):
The Adult Use of Marijuana Act
The initiative passed Nov. 8, 2016 with 57.2% of the vote. The chart below shows how the ballot measure changed the State’s Health and Safety Code.
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
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 recommend cannabis
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 Luna: Hash oil manufacturing case needs all components
Proposition 64 Section 8. CRIMINAL OFFENSES, RECORDS, AND RESENTENCING.
The Adult Use of Marijuana Act 2016 did not repeal all the previous criminal penalties on marijuana but adjusted them downward and allows for more social justice. This section describes the remaining criminal penalties, downward resentencing for people with priors, destruction and expungement of records, early release from incarceration and juvenile justice.
People v. Urziceanu: While Prop 215 did not protect collective medical marijuana gardens or sales, SB420 HS 11362.775 did (ending in 2019).
NOTICE: The California Legislature voted to terminate the legal defenses for Collective gardens and sales in January 2019 via AB 266 (MMRSA / MCRSA)
“As we shall demonstrate, the [Prop. 215] Compassionate Use Act, alone, does not authorize collective growing and distribution of marijuana by a group of qualified patients and caregivers.” .. “This new law [HS11362.775] represents a dramatic change in the prohibitions on the use, distribution, and cultivation of marijuana for persons who are qualified patients or primary caregivers and fits the defense defendant attempted to present at trial. Its specific itemization of the marijuana sales law indicates it contemplates the formation and operation of medicinal marijuana cooperatives that would receive reimbursement for marijuana and the services provided in conjunction with the provision of that marijuana. ” Continue reading SB 420: Patient collectives get defense for sales