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
Proposition 64 Section 9. INDUSTRIAL HEMP.
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).
It amends the Health and Safety Code and the Food and Agricultural Codes, as follow: Continue reading California industrial hemp laws
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.
In 2008 the courts (People v Bergen) ruled that this defense does not apply to the use of chemical extraction in HS 11379. In 2016, the legislature (AB2679) amended to HS11362.775, adding a provision to allow local governments to license collectives to make chemical extracts.
Hempresent Radio: Seattle Hempfest’s own Vivian McPeak interviews California activist Chris Conrad on why he is supporting Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuan Act. Click here to listen in.
Proposition 64. Section 4. PERSONAL USE.
The personal adult use section of the AUMA initiative establishes the parameters of legal use and responsible behavior, including: Legal adult use one ounce of marijuana and eight grams of concentrate, Home gardens, Grow six plants and keep or give away the harvest, No local bans on possession, sharing or discrete, enclosed gardens, Lawful amounts not basis for search or seizure, Responsible public behavior, Medical Marijuana exemptions, Infractions and tickets, Open container rule, Marijuana DUI, Age of Consent at 21 Years, Impairment issues, Workplace, Property rights, Medical Marijuana exemption
Proposition 64 Section 8. CRIMINAL OFFENSES, RECORDS, AND RESENTENCING.
This section of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act 2016 does not repeal the current criminal penalties on marijuana but it adjusts 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. ORLOSKY
233Cal.App.4th257(2015) • 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 561
Evidence of formally organized collective was not required for collective marijuana cultivation defense to be applicable in trial for marijuana possession and cultivation. (Note: Pursuant to HS 11362.775, which sunsets in 2019.) Continue reading Orlosky: Informal collectives get state defense