Tag Archives: licenses

Brown vetoes bill to limit access to butane

The California legislature has passed a bill that will regulate and restrict access to the highly purified butane supply that is used to make BHO, butane hash oil or butane honey oil.


Update: Brown vetoes Butane Bill

Governor Jerry Brown vetoed Assembly Bill 1120, which would regulate butane as a controlled substance. Governor Brown’s full statement was as follows:

I empathize with the author’s intent to address the tragic explosions that can occur at illegal butane hash-oil production sites.  Unfortunately, I believe this bill takes a very expansive approach that may not ultimately solve the problem.  The Department of Public Health is currently working on regulations that will be finalized at the end of this year that move this type of production out of the shadows and into a safe and regulated environment.  I believe any additional legislation aimed at curbing illegal butane use should be more narrowly tailored, and not place a uniform limit on an industry that has many other legitimate uses.

This is good news for butane manufacturers, wholesalers, resellers and retailers, who will not be forced to acquire customer information, maintain substantial records or coordinate with the Department of Justice.


Assembly Bill AB 1120 would have allowed those with commercial extraction licenses to get butane for closed loop extraction and allow people to refuel their lighters and dab-torches. The text of the bill follows: 

Health and Safety Code 11107.2. (a) It is unlawful for a manufacturer, wholesaler, reseller, retailer, or other person or entity to sell to any one customer more than 600 milliliters of nonodorized butane in any 30-day period. …
(d) The limitations in subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not apply to any of the following transactions:
(1) Butane sold to manufacturers, wholesalers, resellers, or retailers solely for the purpose of resale.
(2) Butane sold to a person for use in a lawful commercial enterprise, including, but not limited to, a volatile solvent extraction activity licensed under Division 10 (commencing with Section 26000) of the Business and Professions Code or a medical cannabis collective or cooperative described in subdivision (b) of Section 11362.775 of this code, operating in compliance with all applicable state licensing requirements and local regulations governing that type of business.
(3) The sale of lighters, torch lighters or other appliances, or lighter refill canisters that contain or use nonodorized butane and contain less than 150 milliliters of nonodorized butane.

The registry was intended to prevent large scale sales of butane to the public and appears to be an effort to block home “BHO blasting,”  to make resin extract, which has a legacy of exploding garages and homes while driving consumption of the solvent-extracts.

California’s solvent extract ban, HSC 11369, was originally written to prevent methamphetamine production. However, the broad language of the law has plagued people who try to use safe extraction methods like closed loop solvent extraction, CO2 and even alcohol-evaporative concentrates. This is due to the definition in the law.

The legislature has recently improved this definition, fortunately, in Senate Bill 94.

11362.3. (b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(3) “Volatile solvent” means a solvent that is or produces a flammable gas or vapor that, when present in the air in sufficient quantities, will create explosive or ignitable mixtures.

We expect that home extraction labs will fade away as commercial production and access become more available, but there will always be a few people who can’t learn from others’ mistakes. Be on the watch for more efforts to go after butane supplies. 

Hash oil, BHO, chemical solvent extraction laws

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

Medical marijuana collective and extraction defenses

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.

Continue reading Medical marijuana collective and extraction defenses

Prop. 64: Full text of the initiative passed by voters

The Adult Use of Marijuana Act

Official AUMA 2016 Campaign Website

Friends of AUMA

Compare previous penalties to AUMA legalization

What AUMA does and how it works

Drug Policy Action

The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:

MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Legalizes marijuana and hemp under state law. Designates state agencies to license and regulate marijuana industry. Imposes state excise tax on retail sales of marijuana Continue reading Prop. 64: Full text of the initiative passed by voters

Cannabis Radio interview with Vivian McPeak 2016

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.

MMRSA: Senate Bill No. 643 Reconciliation

Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act

The effect of this bill is to reconcile the Senate’s legislation with two Assembly Bills on medical marijuana, AB 243 and AB 266.

Senate Bill No. 643 • CHAPTER 719 Continue reading MMRSA: Senate Bill No. 643 Reconciliation

MMRSA: Assembly Bill 266 Regulations

Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act

The effect of this Assembly Bill is to regulate the production and distribution of marijuana and marijuana products for medical use in California. [And, in the process, AB266 eliminates all criminal defenses from SB 420 collectives, meaning no growing for other patients, no sharing more than an ounce (misdemeanor) and no sales (wobbler) allowed between patients without a state and local license license.]  Continue reading MMRSA: Assembly Bill 266 Regulations

MMRSA: Assembly Bill 243 Licensed cultivation

Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act

The effect of this bill is to regulate the agricultural aspects of medical marijuana production, to license cannabis cultivation and to exempt small personal medical marijuana grows to 100 square feet and patient collectives up to five patients from licensing provisions. Continue reading MMRSA: Assembly Bill 243 Licensed cultivation