Honey oil, hash oil and solvent extract are all legal for adults and qualified patients to possess in California. The state’s solvent extraction ban, Health and Safety Code 11379.6, was originally written to prevent methamphetamine production. It is the process that is banned, not the product or its consumption.
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.
Legislation has improved this definition, fortunately, in Proposition 64 voter initiative and Senate Bill 94, and it now reads:
11362.3. (b) (3) “Volatile solvent” means a solvent thatis or produces a flammable gas or vapor that, when present in the air in sufficient quantities, will create explosive or ignitable mixtures.
Marijuana should be removed from the controlled substances list
The real problem is that keeping cannabis in the controlled substances list ties it to the extraction penalties for more toxic and dangerous processes. The real solution is to remove cannabis from the list and treat extraction as a commercial enterprise and set safety standards for home production.
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 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.
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).
One million people convicted of marijuana-related misdemeanors and felonies could petition to have their records changed or cleared, the nonprofit organization estimates. That would give them wider access to jobs, housing and other services that are currently out of reach.
“The criminal code changes are so profound that, even if I didn’t like other things in the initiative, I would vote for it just for that,” said Chris Conrad, a longtime marijuana activist who’s backing Prop. 64 even as many friends in the medical cannabis community remain divided over the measure.