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→
The personal adult use section of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act 2016 (AUMA) initiative defines marijuana, legalizes it and establishes parameters for lawful use and responsible behavior. Age of consent at 21 years includes Legal adult use one ounce of marijuana and eight grams of concentrate, Grow six plants per residence and keep or give away the harvest, Lawful amounts not basis for search or seizure, No local bans on possession, sharing or discrete, enclosed gardens, Medical Marijuana exemptions. Responsible public behavior includes Open container rule, Marijuana DUI, Impairment issues, Workplace, Property rights, Infractions and tickets, Medical Marijuana exemption. Criminal statutes in Section 8. Continue reading California: Personal Adult Use of Marijuana→
This section of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) provides for the production and processing of industrial hemp as a small scale to large scale agricultural crop and manufacturing resource. It allows for more groups to conduct research and allows smaller projects down to 1/10 of an acre plots (formerly 2-5 acres minimum).
SB 420 / Senate Bill 420 Cannabis collective defense;
AB266 / 243 Collective defense ends in 2019 SB 2679 Interim extraction licenses through 2019
Summary: In 2003 the California legislature (SB420) created a limited collective defense allowing patients to grow, furnish or sell medical marijuana to one another in HS 11362.775. In 2015, it amended the program (AB243), creating a legal licensing scheme and terminating that defense effective in 2019.
People v. Bergen: Medical use is not a defense against charge, use of chemical extraction to manufacture a controlled substance
Note: Because marijuana and extracts are in the controlled substance list, because the HS 11379.6(a) chemical extraction ban is a general intent offense and because the medical marijuana laws do not list a specific protection from the chemical extraction charge, there was no defense. In 2015 the legislature passed the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act creating a dual state and local license for this activity.