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→
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→
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.
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 equal to 15% of sales price, and state cultivation taxes on marijuana of $9.25 per ounce of flowers and $2.75 per ounce of leaves. Exempts medical marijuana from some taxation. Establishes packaging, labeling, advertising, and marketing standards and restrictions for marijuana products. Allows local regulation and taxation of marijuana. Prohibits marketing and advertising marijuana to minors. Authorizes resentencing and destruction of records for prior marijuana convictions.
Qualified medical use is allowed during probation: “The people of California and a growing number of other states have recently enacted compassionate use laws. Congress should consider the wisdom of accommodating the people of these states.” — Concurring opinion of Judge J. Morrison
“[W]e see nothing in the statute that requires a patient to periodically renew a doctor’s recommendation regarding medical marijuana use. The statute does not provide, as the Attorney General asserts, that a recommendation “expires” after a certain period of time. As for Dr. Eidleman’s suggestion that appellant see him annually, there was no evidence appellant’s failure to do so invalidated the doctor’s medical marijuana recommendation.”