Tag Archives: Full Circle

Hothouse Grow Labs Authorized Dealer

logo1

Full Circle Cannabis Consultations is pleased to announce that we are an Authorized Dealer for Hothouse Grow Labs. We encourage marijuana growers to check them out!

Hothouse Grow Labs are engineered and constructed using the highest quality materials and workmanship to insure longevity and durability for any type of grower. We provide optimal growing conditions for your plants in this closed grow, sea of green (SOG)/screen of green (SCROG) system along with a cutting edge monitoring and control system.

Hothouse Grow Labs are turn-key, meaning that virtually everything you need is included… set up is minimal. It is designed with the novice AND seasoned gardener in mind.

Mention Dealer Code: 10015 to receive a discount!

Contact Information:
Jason Browne
Email: education@fullcirclecannabis.com
Web site: hothousegrowlabs.com
Phone: 530-736-6801

Water Usage Overview Required…

Pot-Background1.jpgA recent study from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has the Media pinning the drought on cannabis cultivation, but does the math add up?


Jason Browne of Full Circle Cannabis Consultations has a few talking points regarding water usage for cannabis cultivation.


jbrowne0785I would like for us all to put an entirely different spin on this issue of water usage and cannabis cultivation, as posited in a new study from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Fortunately, an article in the most recent issue of High Times has done a lot of the work for us. They have some great comparisons of the water usage of different plants, including cannabis, which, not surprisingly, uses far less water than most other crops. Now we can take their information, and apply our own economic comparisons. We know how much water it takes to produce a pound of almonds, alfalfa, plums, rice, etc. — and how much to produce a pound of cannabis — now let’s compare the value of a pound of cannabis, compared to each of the other crops, and then relate that back to our water usage. They opened Pandora’s box, and we should take advantage of the Truth of the matter. The truth is that cannabis produces far greater wealth, jobs and potential tax revenues, per gallon of water used, than any other agricultural commodity in California. Let’s get that on the front pages!

These are the talking points I think we should work on, and back them up with data and links:

1) All “marijuana” plants being cultivated on public property, whether by foreign drug cartels or by American citizens, are unlawful and have no place in any conversation about regulated cannabis cultivation. Such operations are beyond the scope of any regulations, they are under the exclusive purview of law enforcement and they will continue to be eradicated every year, regardless of medical and recreational cannabis laws. Adding additional penalties against persons whose only incentive to cultivate “marijuana” is for financial gain, will not deter such illegal cultivation. However, applying those harsh penalties against qualified individuals for growing their own medicine, in accordance with state laws, and then intentionally misrepresenting that legal patient gardens and illegal marijuana operations are the same thing, is unconscionable.

2) Cannabis cultivation is legal in California, when done in accordance with the C.U.A. and M.M.P.A. If we are truly having a discussion about water conservation and usage during times of drought, then we insist that cannabis plants be afforded the same scrutiny as other legal uses of water. If a municipality or agency wants to restrict water usage, it properly does so according to land zoning categories and other factors such as restricting days and times of water use. This attempt to indirectly circumvent the rights of patients to cultivate their own medical cannabis has been an ongoing problem for 18 years in California, and blaming cannabis cultivation for the drought is a new low for the advocates of reefer madness.

3) Our property rights in California (and all western states) actually begin with water rights. When water was appropriated for agricultural purposes, it formed the basis of title or rights to other land uses in California. So property owners either have vested rights to use water, or they lease those rights out, to the government, or legal tenants. Water use laws in the western states are very complex, and are not something that cannabis prohibitionists can really hope to change, just because they don’t like people growing the herb. Notwithstanding all this bantering by certain regulatory agencies, if they attempt to deprive landowners of legitimate water rights, based merely on the presence of cannabis plants, they will open up yet another Pandora’s box… and they will ultimately lose that argument in court.

4) The United States Supreme Court has, on more than one occasion, ruled that all cannabis cultivation and distribution are matters of Interstate Commerce (OCBC, Raich, Rosenthal), and as such, all medical cannabis production in California must be considered to be “Agriculture”, as that term applies to California Zoning Codes. The main reason that cities and counties are getting away with their abatement schemes, is precisely because they are claiming (with straight faces) that “cannabis is not agriculture, because it cannot be grown commercially.” If the Supreme Court of the United States says that all cannabis cultivation is a form of commerce, in order for the Federal Government to even claim jurisdiction on this subject within the States, then it most certainly can be grown commercially, and local governments should not be allowed to continue enforcing local bans and nuisance abatement schemes under color of law. The personal cultivation of cannabis, and the commercial cultivation of cannabis, are properly regulated according to long-standing land use laws, under local zoning categories. The commercial cultivation of cannabis, if undertaken on any agriculturally or industrially zoned parcels, is exempt from common nuisance abatement, under existing California Zoning Codes (people living in or near those zones, and even local municipalities, have no legal right to seek an abatement or to file a nuisance complaint against persons, specifically for engaging in activities that are allowed in those zones). And residential properties already allow for the personal cultivation of various kinds of plants, including food crops, in accordance with California Zoning Codes.

I hope this proves useful. I’m already on this bandwagon. Check out the High Times article, and if you like this idea, please share this information on your social media accounts.

Jason Browne
Full Circle Cannabis Consultations
http://fullcirclecannabis.com



 

Challenges to People v. Bergen

Full Circle Cannabis Consultations’ Challenges to People v. Bergen (2008 – Second Appellate Court) by Jason Browne


Summary

Niall Patrick Bergen appeals from the judgement entered following the plea of no contest to manufacturing concentrated cannabis, known as “hash oil” or “honey oil,” by using butane to extract the resin containing the psychoactive ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) from marijuana plant material.  (Health & Saf. Code, § 113779.6, subd. (a) (section § 11379.6(a).)  Bergen contends he should have been charged under section § 11358, which addresses the processing resin from marijuana, instead of section § 11379.6(a).  We conclude that when, as here, the method used to extract the marijuana resin was by means of a chemical such as butane, section § 11379.6(a) applies over the more general statute punishing marijuana cultivation, harvesting or processing.  (§ 11358.)  Accordingly, we affirm.

Read the full case here.

Analysis for Attorneys

The following legal challenges to People v. Bergen are meant as a general guide, and may be applied in various capacities, depending on the nature of each particular case. For example, they may be used in 402 Hearings, to challenge the admission of evidence. They may be used in a Demur, to challenge the application of the law as applied to defendant. They may be used in Motions to Dismiss, based on Mower / Konow / Frazier, Colvin. They may be used in Writs or Appeals that directly challenge Bergen. And they may even be used to construct and propose alternative jury instructions during Trial. These are categorized as either “legal” or factual” challenges (or both), but it’s really up to individual attorneys how best to utilize this information, whether in criminal or civil court, and in any specific case, only some of them might apply. The use of Expert Witnesses with experience in Chemistry, Botanical Plant Extractions or Cannabis Plant Conversions is encouraged, wherever applicable, in order to lay your foundation.

Factual Challenge: Bergen only refers to the uses of a category of solvents, including Butane and Hexane. It does not mention others, including isopropyl alcohol. Before we address more fundamental challenges to the Bergen Ruling, we first address the matter of the misapplication of Bergen against defendants who use isopropyl alcohol or other solvents not covered under the ruling, to extract cannabis concentrates (Bergen is irrelevant to the facts in such a case). Nowhere in Bergen is the residential / home use of “rubbing alcohol” ever mentioned. The Bergen Court repeats an interest in protecting public safety, several times throughout the ruling. It also stipulates that the circumstances in the case (using Butane to extract cannabis in a residential setting) were primary factors in reaching the decision (due to the increased likelihood of starting a house fire). There is no factual basis to indicate that the use of isopropyl alcohol is even remotely as dangerous in a residential setting as the use of butane, for the purposes of extracting essential plant oils. Demand an offer of proof that rubbing alcohol is as dangerous or regulated as butane, or that it was intended to be included under the Bergen Ruling.

Factual Challenge: Demand Adequate Lab Results.  Make sure the evidence presented in your case actually indicates the presence of cannabis concentrate, before acquiescing to the presence of cannabis concentrate. The lab test information provided by law enforcement is usually a receipt from a laboratory, indicating the presence of cannabis at some microscopic level. It neither provides the actual test results, nor does it indicate the presence of various cannabinoids, or the percentage of any cannabinoids (including but not limited to THC) present in the sample. As such, you should challenge the presumption that the sample was actually “concentrated cannabis”. The sample may just as easily be cannabis plant waste, with minimal concentrations of THC.

Factual Challenge: A Solution is not a Concentrate. While it is true that isopropyl alcohol or other agents are “solvents” that can be used to separate resin from marijuana to make concentrated cannabis, in cases involving the processing of topical applications, the evidence should indicate that this was not being done. In order for the resin to be extracted / separated from the marijuana plant material, it must first be evaporated from the Solution of alcohol. So long as the material remains in the isopropyl alcohol solution, it is not “concentrated”. A concentrated cannabis solution is only meant for inhalation or ingestion (as a narcotic). Cannabis processed for topical uses require that it remains in a Solution. A solution is not a concentrate.
“Concentrated Cannabis” means the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from marijuana. According to Webster’s Dictionary, “concentrated” means “(1) rich in respect to a particular or essential element: strong, undiluted; (2) intense…”(Webster’s 3rd New International Dictionary – 1993 – p. 469). If anything the separated resin of cannabis in an alcohol solution is actually diluted by the solution, and cannot be considered concentrated unless and until the isopropyl alcohol is evaporated or the resin is otherwise separated from it.
The act of dissolving cannabis in rubbing alcohol, where the solution continues to contain cannabis plant materials of whatever size and consistency, does not produce concentrated cannabis. Whether or not such a substance could be evaporated in order to produce concentrated cannabis, the matter of whether it was evaporated is the relevant factor, because so long as it remains diluted in a solution, it is legally insufficient to constitute concentrated cannabis as a matter of law. Wherever this is the case, the facts presented by the prosecution do not state a crime under the applicable statute.

Factual Challenge: Cannabis Plant Conversions prepared as Topical Preparations are exempted from 11379.6(a) because they cannot be used as narcotics. In all cases where cannabis has been chemically extracted / separated from the plant material, and the resin remains in a solution or infusion (in rubbing alcohol, vinegar, lipids, etc…), it is not in a form which can be utilized as a narcotic. When cannabis is mixed with / diluted as a topical preparation, it cannot be used as a narcotic substance by ingestion, by smoking or otherwise.
Rather than this being a question of the substance being of sufficient quality to produce a narcotic effect, this is instead a question of whether the substance is in a usable form. A conviction may not be predicated upon possession of a narcotic so limited in quantity or altered in form as to be useless for narcotic purposes. People v. Johnson (1970) 5 Cal. App. 3d 844, 848 {85 Cal. Rptr. 238}, People v. Fein (1971) 4 Cal. 3d 747 {94 Cal Rptr. 607, 484 P. 2d 583}.

Legal Challenge: Preclusion Doctrine and the Specific over General Rule. Prosecution cannot elect to prosecute under the more general statute where a specific statute encompasses the same or similar conduct but carries a lesser penalty. In re Williamson, 43 C.2d 651, 654 (1954); People v. Gilbert, 1 C.3d 475 (1969); People v. Jenkins, 28 C.3d 494 (1980); People v. Glenos, 7 C.A.4th 1201 (1992); People v. Rehmeymer, 19 C.A.4th 1758 (1993); People v. Rackley,33 C.A. 4th 1659 (1995); People v. Coronado, 12 C.4th 145(1995).
The Bergen Court reversed the meanings of these terms and its ruling was in error. Bergen incorrectly found that CH&SC §11358 was the general statute, and that CH&SC §11379.6(a) was the specific statute. However, CH&SC §11379.6(a) actually prohibits the processing of all schedule I drugs generally, and carries a greater penalty (3 years, 5 years, 7 years plus $50,000) (PC §        ). Whereas CH&SC §11358 actually prohibits the processing of marijuana specifically, and carries a lesser penalty (16 months, 2 years, 3 years) (PC §18). The Bergen Court apparently misapplied this rule of law by confusing it with the factual elements of the case and how they related to the legal definition of the word “processing”.
A similar problem was addressed in City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court of Orange County and Felix Kha (2007-4th Appellate District), where Vehicle Code Section 23222(b) was being misapplied against qualified individuals by CHP and certain District Attorneys, and the Court held that the statute on which the V.C. Section was based (i.e. the Health and Safety Code, where marijuana was criminalized in the first place) took precedence. In Bergen, the court seems to be insinuating the opposite…that a general statute prohibiting unlicensed chemical extractions of illicit drugs somehow takes precedence over the specific statutes against cannabis, that are the foundation of the very drug prohibitions that Section 11379.6(a) derives its authority from.

Legal Challenge: The term “Processing” is Unconstitutionally Vague. The Bergen Court has created a situation allowing two statutory schemes, where the same conduct (processing) is legal when applied to qualified individuals under CH&SC §11358, and is also illegal when applied to qualified individuals under CH&SC §11379.6(a).
According to CH&SC §11358, the term “processing” is an element of cultivation “Every person who plants, cultivates, harvests, dries, or processes any marijuana or any part thereof…”. However, according to CH&SC §11379.6(a), the term “processing” is a separate element that is not related to  cultivation “…manufactures, compounds, converts, produces, derives, processes, or prepares, either directly or indirectly by chemical “extraction” or independently by means of chemical synthesis, any controlled substance specified…”.
The processing of cannabis plant materials is an essential component of its cultivation. Processing includes harvesting the plant, separating the usable components from the plant waste, grading different categories of the usable plant materials, separating and weighing those plant materials, curing the usable cannabis before it is ready for consumption, packaging the usable plant materials, as well as disposing of the plant waste materials. For the purposes of CH&SC §11358, the term “processing” shares some aspects of the term “processing” that are also applied to CH&SC §11379.6(a)…namely “produce”, “derive”, “process” and “prepare”. However, the term “processing” as applied to CH&SC §11358 does not include other aspects of the term “processing” as they are applied to CH&SC §11379.6(a)…namely “manufacture”, “compound” and “convert”.
It is unconstitutionally vague to define the word “processing” as having different meanings under these two separate statutes, as they are applied to qualified individuals. The terms manufacture, compound, convert, produce, derive, process, or prepare, as used in §11379.6(a) are to be interpreted as their ordinary and common meanings and do not have any separate technical meaning in the statute. People v.Jackson, 218 C.A.3d 1493, 1503 (1990).

Legal Challenge: The meanings of the terms “Processing” and “Manufacturing” are both included under the scope of the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program Act.  According to CH&SC §11362.77(d), “only the dried mature processed flowers of female cannabis plant or the plant conversion shall be considered when determining allowable quantities under this section.” Under this statute, cannabis can definitely be “processed”, and it can arguably be manufactured. For the purposes of Section 11362.77(d), the term “plant conversion” means the same thing as the terms “manufactures, compounds or converts” mean when they are applied to Section 11379.6(a). Plant conversions include the byproducts of chemical extractions and/or chemical synthesis, and they are specifically allowed under the M.M.P.A. Plant conversions include cannabis foods and beverages, topical applications, tinctures, butter and oil infusions, vapor-inhalers and all forms of cannabis concentrates.
Additionally, according to California Attorney General Opinion Letter # 03-441, concentrated cannabis, or hashish is included within the meaning of “marijuana” as that term is used in the Compassionate Use Act. (*)
Also, CH&SC §11018 defines “hash oil” as a type of marijuana, and not a separate and different controlled substance from marijuana. It is clear that various forms of concentrated cannabis, including hash oil, are just as lawful to possess and produce as raw marijuana is, for qualified individuals.

Legal Challenge: The Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program Act have abrogated California’s criminal codes, as they apply to qualified individuals. Both CH&SC §11358 and CH&SC §11379.6(a) contain the language “except as otherwise provided by law”, as a pretext of their legal authority. The Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program Act are exactly “as otherwise provided by law”. Both the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program Act have abrogated the laws against “marijuana” offenses, and qualified individuals may assert an Affirmative Defense against such charges. So long as they raise a reasonable doubt in establishing their status, they are entitled to Qualified Immunity from those statutes (they are effectively an exempt class of individuals, in regards to the application of certain marijuana related statutes). Once an affirmative defense is sufficiently raised by a defendant against marijuana related charges, at trial the prosecution bears the burden of establishing the lack of medical authorization by a preponderance of the evidence. Like other jurisdictional bars, such as the statute of limitations, the prosecution is required to allege the factual circumstances that defeat the bar in accusatory pleadings.  The Compassionate Use Act declared that Sections 11357 and 11358 of the California Health and Safety Code shall not apply to a (qualified) patient or such a patient’s primary caregiver.  The reason it did so was to ensure that such individuals are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.  The burden of a patient or primary caregiver to verify a claim of approval or recommendation from a physician for the medical use of cannabis is no greater than a suspects claim that possession or narcotics is pursuant to a valid prescription.  Thus, probable cause that a crime has been committed requires probable cause to believe that the claim of a valid prescription or a valid physician’s approval or recommendation is inoperative (People v. Mower *, People v. Konow *, People v. Frazier *, People v. Colvin).
According to People v. Tilehkooh (2003 3rd Appellate District), “Since the use of (cannabis) is not a crime (for qualified individuals), the term ‘prosecution or sanction’ must read to apply to any criminal sanction for the use of (cannabis).” “Indeed, it would completely frustrate the purpose of Section 11362.5 if a violation of probation for the medical use or possession of (cannabis) is permitted while barring a criminal prosecution for the identical conduct.” The same logic should be applied against the Bergen ruling. It would frustrate the purposes of the C.U.A. and the M.M.P.A. if a violation for the manufacture of a cannabis plant conversion is permitted while barring a criminal prosecution for the possession and use of the same cannabis plant conversion. People v. Mulcrevy, 233 Cal.App.4th 127, 2014 (Click here to view People v. Mulcrevy Actual).

Legal Challenge: Creating a new crime by combining two otherwise lawful activities. It is currently legal in California for any adult (including all qualified individuals under the C.U.A. and M.M.P.A.) to purchase, store and use various “chemical solvents” in their homes and businesses. These solvents include butane, propane and hexane, as well as many others. The containers of all hazardous materials contain instructions for use and information about reporting emergencies and proper waste disposal. There are no laws prohibiting the lawful uses of many solvents in California. Any legal adult may currently use any one of these solvents in their homes to extract lavender oil, tea-tree oil, or any other plant-based oil, without risking criminal prosecution.
There are existing protocols within California for the uses of all hazardous agents, for otherwise lawful purposes. Wherever such uses exceed the safety limitations otherwise associated with residential uses, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is responsible for inspecting all manufacturing sites where specific solvents or other hazardous materials are used, according to State and Federal regulations. Local Zoning Classifications also stipulate where specific activities are appropriately allowed or disallowed, based on how a parcel is zoned. There are no regulations restricting the residential uses of legal solvents for extracting plant oils in California. The fact that an individual utilizes otherwise legal methods to extract cannabinoids, should not create a new class of “marijuana crime” where it did not otherwise exist.
It is also true that qualified individuals may lawfully possess all forms of concentrated cannabis, including those produced through the use of various “chemical solvents” (including those mentioned in Bergen). People v. Mulcrevy, 233 Cal.App.4th 127, 2014
Bergen prevents qualified individuals from using solvents and other hazardous materials only when performed in the “extraction” of concentrated cannabis, where the uses of the same materials for other purposes are still completely legal, and the possession of cannabis concentrates made from those solvents are also legal. This is creating a new crime by combining components of otherwise lawful activities.

Factual Challenge: All Solvents Are “Chemicals”. The findings of the Bergen Court are contrary to scientific knowledge and application. The ruling is unenforceable on its face. The Bergen ruling seems to imply that some forms of “natural extraction” are legal (citing methods that include the use of extreme temperatures, water extraction and even high pressure), while those that use “chemicals” or “solvents” are illegal. The Court specifically states that “Section 11358 applies to extraction from pressure, a screening process, ice water and dissolving in a non-chemical lipid extractor (butter/oil)”, while “Section 11379.6(a) applies to extraction by means of chemical extraction (process of removing a particular component of a mixture from others present)”. From a purely scientific perspective, this ruling makes no sense. There is no such thing as a “natural” vs. “unnatural” or “chemical” vs. “non-chemical” solvent. There are organic and inorganic solvents, but neither term has a direct correlation to the issues being discussed in Bergen. You should stipulate that water is a chemical solvent and that lipids are also chemical solvents. You should also stipulate that all forms of cannabis “extraction”, other than simple dry screen-filtration, require the use of one form or another of solvent.
Additionally, there are other forms of extraction that the Bergen Court did not mention, and due to the unscientific manner of this ruling, any one of them could be viewed as either compliant or non-compliant with Bergen. These include the use of carbon dioxide (an extraction method that is growing in popularity and use), the use of grain alcohol or vegetable glycerin to extract cannabis into tinctures, the use of various solutions, dilutions and infusions to make topical preparations, and the extraction methods used to procure vaporized cannabis inhalers (currently produced and sold globally by G.W. Pharmaceuticals, a publically traded company based in Great Britton).

Factual and Legal Challenge: The terms Extraction and Separation are unconstitutionally vague as they are both applied to cannabis concentrates. The manufacturing or processing of cannabis plant conversions involves both “extraction”, and “separation”, as those terms are commonly used. In fact, both words contain contradictory and similar meanings to one another.
Concentrated cannabis is defined under CH&SC §11006.5 as “the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from marijuana.”
According to Wikipedia, the term “chemical separation” means: In chemistry and chemical engineering, a separation process, or a separation technique, or simply a separation, is a method to achieve any mass transfer phenomenon that converts a mixture of substances into two or more distinct product mixtures (which may be referred to as fractions),[1] at least one of which is enriched in one or more of the mixture’s constituents. In some cases, a separation may fully divide the mixture into its pure constituents. Separations are carried out based on differences in chemical properties, or physical properties such as size, shape, mass, density, or chemical affinity, between the constituents of a mixture, and are often classified according to the particular differences they use to achieve separation. Usually there is only physical movement, no substantial chemical modification. In the case that no single difference can be used to accomplish a desired separation, multiple operations will often be performed in combination to achieve the desired end. Barring a few exceptions, almost every element or compound is naturally found in an impure state. Often these impure raw materials must be separated into their purified components before they can be put to productive use, making separation techniques essential for the modern industrial economy. In some cases, these separations require total purification, as in the electrolysis refining of bauxite ore for aluminum metal, but a good example of an incomplete separation technique is oil refining. Crude oil occurs naturally as a mixture of various hydrocarbons and impurities. The refining process splits this mixture into other, more valuable mixtures such as natural gas, gasoline and chemical feed stocks, none of which are pure substances, but each of which must be separated from the raw crude. In both of these cases, a series of separations is necessary to obtain the desired end products. In the case of oil refining, crude is subjected to a long series of individual distillation steps, each of which produces a different product or intermediate. The purpose of a separation may be analytical, i.e. to help analyze components in the original mixture without any attempt to save the fractions, or may be preparative, i.e. to “prepare” fractions or samples of the components that can be saved. The separation can be done on a small scale, effectively a laboratory scale for analytical or preparative purposes, or on a large scale, effectively an industrial scale for preparative purposes, or on some intermediate scale.
CH&SC §11379.6(a) likewise seeks to prohibit the manufacture of various illicit drugs utilizing processes involving chemical extraction (or chemical synthesis).
According to Wikipedia, the term “chemical extraction” means: Extraction in chemistry is a separation process consisting in the separation of a substance from a matrix. It includes Liquid-liquid extraction, and Solid phase extraction. Extraction may refer to Liquid-liquid extraction, and Solid phase extraction. Extractions often use two immiscible phases to separate a solute from one phase into the other. Typical lab extractions are of organic compounds out of an aqueous phase and into an organic phase. Common extractants are arranged from ethyl acetate to water (ethyl acetate < acetone < ethanol < methanol < acetone:water (7:3) < ethanol:water (8:2) < methanol:water (8:2) < water) in increasing order of polarity according to the Hildebrand solubility parameter. The extract can be put back to dried form using a centrifugal evaporator or a freeze-drier. The distribution of a solute between two phases is an equilibrium condition described by partition theory. This is based on exactly how the analyte move from the water into an organic layer. Techniques include supercritical carbon dioxide extraction, ultrasonic extraction, heat reflux extraction, microwave-assisted extraction, instant controlled pressure drop extraction (DIC), and perstraction. Boiling tea leaves in water extracts the tannins, theobromine, and caffeine out of the leaves and into the water. Solid-liquid extractions at laboratory scales can use Soxhlet extractors.
It is apparent that these two words (extraction and separation) are neither mutually exclusive, nor mutually inclusive, and that they both apply equally to the processing and manufacture of all cannabis plant conversions, including concentrates. It is therefore impossible to rely on a parsing of these terms, for the limited purpose of making any legal distinctions between the prohibitions contained within CH&SC §11358 / CH&SC §11006.5 (et al), and those contained within CH&SC §11379.6(a). As such, the Bergen Ruling is constitutionally vague.

Legal Challenge: The ruling contradicts and frustrates the Legislative Intent behind CH&SC §11379.6(a). The legislative intent behind CH&SC §11379.6(a) was to fix a problem with a prior drug bill regarding PCP, and also expended generally the definition of manufacture, as well as simplifying language in various code sections regarding illegal drugs. There was no indication of any intent to include the mere use of chemicals for otherwise lawful means, within the prohibitions contained within the statute. The Bergen court relies on language from the Clandestine Laboratory Enforcement Program, and discusses the legislative intent of Section 11379.6. The court concludes that the intent of the legislature was to inflict more severe punishment on those using chemicals to produce controlled substances, and that a purpose of the bill was “to deter the operation of clandestine drug laboratories”, with another purpose of the bill being to “create a separate offense of manufacturing any controlled substance.” It should be argued here, that the establishment of licensed / permitted drug laboratories, that produce legal drugs and supplements, or companies making botanical plant oils, vitamins or other plant extractions, are certainly not the target of this Section. Because medicinal cannabis is now lawful to produce and manufacture in California, when done in accordance with State laws, Section 11379.6 must not be applied to operations where 100% of the cannabis plant conversions being manufactured are for the lawful, medical purposes of qualified patients. In fact, the application of this section against medicinal cannabis manufacturers actually works at cross purposes with that bill, because it drives the manufacturing process underground, where there are no licenses, permits, zoning requirements or inspections by state and local agencies. The Bergen ruling only increases the likelihood of future risks to our communities, by forcing all providers of medicinal cannabis plant conversions to operate outside of any regulatory framework, rather than allowing existing State and local regulations to oversee this new manufacturing industry and protect the consumers (patients) who possess and use cannabis plant conversions legally within California.

Shared Post: CALIBERTY.ORG Weekly Shout Out 11/18/14

caliballbanner

California Liberty Alliance
Open House Meeting

7 p.m. Wednesday, 11/19/14

North River Chapter
2643 Henderson Rd., Redding, CA 96002

North River Chapter

Click to enlarge

North River Chapter serves the Siskiyou, Shasta and Tehama county areas. Our primary focus in Shasta County will be instigating legal challenges against Measure A, as well as drafting ballot measures for the 2015 election cycle that will allow voters to reign in local governments by mandating uniform compliance with California laws.

Our unique membership categories, dues structure and fundraising options make California Liberty Alliance the ultimate umbrella organization. Our tent includes all lawful consumers, producers and providers of cannabis, as well as every business, organization and individual that supports a well-regulated and legal cannabis industry. We’re a 501-C-4 with local chapters developing throughout California, and have partnered with a Political Action Committee, in order to provide a comprehensive strategy to democratize and legalize the cannabis industry, through the advancement of community and industry educational forums, professional consultations, targeted litigations and political activities at the state and local levels.

Please visit our North River Chapter, at any of our regularly scheduled Open House meetings and consider joining our growing membership. Visit caliberty.org and consider starting or joining a Local Chapter anywhere in California.  Lend your voice to our efforts, and influence the course of our activities through direct participation in our Subcommittees. Pool your resources through our combined membership dues and statewide fundraising efforts, knowing that your money will be spent addressing local matters that directly impact your rights. Take advantage of our membership referral program, and reduce your membership dues, or even earn extra money for your time. Help us grow California Liberty Alliance, from the ground up, as our State Chapter and Political Action Committee prepares to endorse or draft 2016 initiative language to legalize and decriminalize adult cannabis use in California.

California Liberty Alliance is democratically organized and inclusive of every component of the cannabis industry. Our membership includes many ancillary and auxiliary businesses that understand the benefits of a uniform, statewide, regulated cannabis industry. Unlike other organizations that proclaim to stand up for your rights, California Liberty Alliance is not beholden to vested interests that seek to monopolize the cannabis industry. Our operations are completely transparent and our model prepares every Local Chapter to form its own 501-C-4. Our primary purposes include protection of the private property rights, personal medical rights and privacy rights of all qualified individuals within California (i.e. those who lawfully use cannabis in accordance with state laws). Our Chapters will provide educational, legal and political solutions to communities wanting to defend themselves against the discriminatory and unconstitutional actions of local governments. We shall no longer accept the imposition of second-class status or the infringement of our rights by those who hide their efforts behind the smoke screen of cannabis prohibition! The time to act is now, and we are inviting you all to join us.


 

joinbtnJoin California Liberty Alliance
North River Chapter today!

Click here to join now.

dlpdfbtnCalifornia Liberty Alliance
Membership Application and Agreement

Download and fill out our Membership Application and Agreement in PDF.


Q&A: Your Friendly Neighborhood Marijuana Consultant, Jason Browne

By Paul Wachter, Esquire Magazine, 01/31/2013

Last fall, Washington state became one of the first two states (along with Colorado) to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. Now, Washington’s Liquor Control Board, tasked with implementing the policy, is hiring consultants to advise government officials on every aspect of the process, including cultivation, transportation, sales, and quality control. The state is expected to begin sales in December, when anyone over twenty-one will be able purchase up to an ounce of marijuana. Continue reading