Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/266281/Opinion-of-the-California-Attorney-General-03-411
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 01:04:27+00:00

Document:
“marijuana” as that term is used in the Compassionate Use Act of 1996?
“marijuana” as that term is used in the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative (2001) 532 U. see People v. 1160-1162. anorexia. 753.App.5 provides: “(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.) The federal law contains no medical necessity exception.4th 409. Mower.4th 748. 28 Cal. 486. subd. Peron (1997) 59 Cal.5 “creates an exception to California laws prohibiting the possession and cultivation of marijuana. AIDS. or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief. 412. glaucoma. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1147. People v. (a). 471-474. 235. Mower. Bianco. 2.” (Ibid. chronic pain.) The measure added section 11362. 93 Cal.” (§ 11362. People v. 486. supra. 2. (People v.4th at pp. supra. Rigo (1999) 69 Cal. fn.) “These prohibitions no longer apply to a patient or his primary caregiver who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the patient’s medical purposes upon the recommendation or approval of a physician.S. supra. People v. People v. migraine. spasticity. Young (2001) 92 Cal. 463. 483. Galambos (2002) 104 Cal.). 1387.” (United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative. 1996. (United States v..App. an initiative statute authorizing the medical use of marijuana.S.5’s reference to “marijuana” includes concentrated cannabis or hashish. 28 Cal.4th 457. supra.App.4th at p. the voters of California adopted Proposition 215.) 2 03-411 . We conclude that it does. at p. arthritis. § 801 et seq.4th at p.App.) Section 11362.App. 532 U.C. 751. Section 11362. People v. People v.S. Lungren v.4th 229.)2 We are asked to determine whether section 11362. fn. 465. 1 All references hereafter to the Health and Safety Code are by section number only.5 to the Health and Safety Code1 and entitled the statute the “Compassionate Use Act of 1996.4th 1383. ANALYSIS On November 5. Bianco (2001) 93 Cal. 2 The possession and distribution of marijuana remain unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (21 U.5. (People ex rel.App. “(b)(1) The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows: “(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer.
‘primary caregiver’ means the individual designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing. relating to the cultivation of marijuana. “(d) Section 11357. or to a patient’s primary caregiver. or denied any right or privilege. “(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law. “(C) To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.” Although section 11362. mixture. who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. the resin extracted from any part of the plant. “(e) For the purposes of this section. nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes. and every compound.. shall not apply to a patient. whether growing or not. relating to the possession of marijuana.5 does not define the term “marijuana.” the statute is part of the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act (§§ 11000-11651. or safety of that person. “Act”).5 uses only the term “marijuana” and contains no direct reference to “concentrated cannabis” or “hashish. manufacture. oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant. or preparation of the plant. the seeds thereof. which contains the following definition of marijuana in section 11018: “ ‘Marijuana’ means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L. its seeds or resin. and Section 11358. no physician in this state shall be punished. manufacture. fiber produced from the stalks. any other compound. “(B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction. mixture.” Section 11362. “(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others. It does not include the mature stalks of the plant. 3 03-411 . derivative. salt. for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes. derivative. salt. health.
Rigo. The quality.3d 572.3d at pp. 4 03-411 . 621). “[u]nless the context otherwise requires” (§ 11001). 46 Cal. 105 Cal. supra. 1151-1152.” (See People v. obtained from marijuana. Fisher (2002) 96 Cal. 579). supra.5. People v. supra. (5th ed.C. at pp.4th at p. or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom). depend upon a number of different factors.3d 900. “Concentrated cannabis” is defined for purposes of the Act.5. People v. Van Alstyne (1975) 46 Cal.App. 810 F.App. 963-964.) We are informed that the THC level of ordinary marijuana varies widely from 5 to 60 percent. we find that subdivision (d) provides the operative terms of the statute.” Federal law has a similar definition of marijuana. see People v.App. 717-719. 909-911. Hamilton (1980) 105 Cal. relating to the cultivation of marijuana. Schultz (S.5. 717-718 [312 So. (21 U. including hashish. 714. 46 Cal. as defined in section 11006. People v. or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. State (1975) 54 Ala. U. People v. which is commonly defined as “[a] form of cannabis that consists largely of resin from the flowering tops and sprouts of cultivated female plants” (Stedman’s Medical Dict. 917. Rigo. (See People v.) “Unless the context otherwise requires” (§ 11001). it may range up to 70 percent. whether crude or purified. 233. State Personnel Board (1980) 111 Cal. 69 3 Accordingly.S. Hamilton.App.3d 113.App. 116. 230. and strength of ordinary marijuana and concentrated cannabis. the definition of marijuana found in section 11018 controls our interpretation of section 11362.2d 961.3d at pp. Haynes v. 105 Cal. 116-117. Van Alstyne. (People v. United States v. relating to the possession of marijuana.S.3d at pp. If a patient or caregiver “possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. cf.4th at p.3d at p. 69 Cal. 1982). supra.Supp. Haynes v. supra. 1976) 527 F. supra. State. and Section 11358. 910. 115-116. Hamilton.D. 93 Cal.App. 916. supra.2d 406].2d at pp. 413. Schultz.) Returning to the language of section 11362.” two statutes do not apply to the patient or caregiver: “Section 11357. § 802(16). supra. U. 751. p. Bianco. purity. we will treat concentrated cannabis and hashish as being equivalent for purposes of our analysis. 312 So. v.” Concentrated cannabis “includes hashish” (Hooks v.Supp.5: “ ‘Concentrated cannabis’ means the separated resin. or cake.4th 1147.App.App. People v. oil. for concentrated cannabis. Kelly (9th Cir. 231-234.3 Tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) is marijuana’s most active pharmacological ingredient. in section 11006. v. supra.S.App. Ohio 1992) 810 F.App. fiber.App. Van Alstyne. People v.
“(b) Except as authorized by law. 412.4th at p.5 grams of marijuana other than concentrated cannabis. is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100)). upon the grounds of. other than concentrated cannabis. every person under the age of 18 who possesses not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. “(d) Except as authorized by law. People ex rel. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal. any school providing instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 through 12 during hours the school is open for classes or school-related programs is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500). every person who possesses not more than 28. People v. every person who possesses any concentrated cannabis shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500).App.4th 1532. every person who possesses more than 28. or by both such fine and imprisonment.) Section 11357 states: “(a) Except as authorized by law. or within.5 grams of marijuana. upon the grounds of. or within. . any school providing instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 through 12 during hours the school is open for classes or school-related programs is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to the following dispositions: “(1) A fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250). or by both such fine and imprisonment. upon a finding that a first offense has been committed.App. or shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison. or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than 10 days.Cal. supra. “(c) Except as authorized by law. 1550. Lungren v. other than concentrated cannabis.4th at pp. 5 03-411 . every person 18 years of age or over who possesses not more than 28. . shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than six months or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500).App. Peron. other than concentrated cannabis. 59 Cal. 1387- 1394. . or both.5 grams of marijuana. “(e) Except as authorized by law.
People v. Jones (2000) 83 Cal. cultivates. ranch. or both.) 6 03-411 .) Second. section 11357 uses the phrase “other than concentrated cannabis” when concentrated cannabis is intended to be distinguished from ordinary marijuana. [Citation. “(2) A fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500). 1332. 685. Holmes v. 1166.4th at p.App.5.4th 681.” We believe that concentrated cannabis comes within the provisions of section 11362.)4 Of course. Trippet. obtained from marijuana” (§ 11006. supra. Lungren v. . 59 Cal. Rizo (2000) 22 Cal. 891. see also Traverso v. 56 Cal.3d 1326. The framers of Proposition 215 did not employ similar exclusionary language for concentrated cannabis when they proposed the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. 1392.App. or commitment to a juvenile hall. Concentrated cannabis is “the separated resin . . People ex rel. Inc. People ex rel. harvests.4th 882. except as otherwise provided by law.4th 1152. camp. supra.]” (People v. First. we find neither intent nor need to construe the term “marijuana” any differently from the definition contained in section 11018. 1550. the inclusion of such a provision in another statute concerning a related matter indicates an intent that the provision is not applicable to the statute from which it was omitted. Edwards Theatres Circuit.App.” (Marsh v. Peron. (1976) 64 Cal. . [Citations. Dept. “Both the Legislature and the electorate by the initiative process are deemed to be aware of laws in effect at the time they enact new laws and are conclusively presumed to have enacted the new laws in light of existing laws having direct bearing upon them. “Where a statute on a particular subject omits a particular provision. we apply the same principles that govern statutory construction.]” (Williams v. shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison.App.3d 881. the statutory definition of marijuana for purposes of the Act as set forth in section 11018 plainly includes concentrated cannabis.5) and thus constitutes “the resin extracted from any part of the plant” (§ 11018).” Section 11358 provides: “Every person who plants. there would be no need in section 11357 to employ the phrase “other than concentrated 4 “In interpreting a voter initiative . or secure juvenile home for a period of not more than 10 days. 890. dries.5 for several reasons. County of San Joaquin (1990) 225 Cal.4th at p. or processes any marijuana or any part thereof. forestry camp.App. if concentrated cannabis were not “marijuana” in the first instance. . In the context of section 11362. of Transportation (1993) 6 Cal. upon a finding that a second or subsequent offense has been committed.
]” (Dix v. People ex rel. “[W]e consider portions of a statute in the context of the entire statute and the statutory scheme of which it is a part” (Curle v. 1545-1549. 69 Cal.App.4th at pp. supra. 104 Cal. 471-474. quality. We conclude that concentrated cannabis or hashish is included within the meaning of “marijuana” as that term is used in the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. as previously mentioned. e.4th at pp. Galambos. Most significantly.4th 973. may have similar levels of THC supports our interpretation that the terms of section 11362. it is manifest that one may possess concentrated cannabis without violating the terms of section 11357 as long as the requirements of section 11362. 1386. 1165-1168. 246.4th at pp..) 7 03-411 .4th at pp. supra. 1545-1546.5 Finally. or quantity of marijuana to be used for medical purposes as long as the use is reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs and was recommended or approved by a physician.4th 266. Peron. Jenkins (1995) 10 Cal. Rigo.) Proposition 215 was approved by the voters without specificity as to the strength.4th 1057. 56 Cal. People v. (See People v. Peron.) If anything.” Hence.” “Where reasonably possible. (See. we avoid statutory constructions that render particular provisions superfluous or unnecessary. Wilcox v. supra. Hull (1991) 1 Cal. Mower.App. the provisions of section 11357 are expressly rendered inapplicable under the conditions specified in section 11362.3d 442. 459. People v. 56 Cal.App.cannabis. 1161-1162.4th at pp. Trippet.) The contrary construction with respect to section 11357 would mean that a person could not possess concentrated cannabis for medical purposes under section 11357 but could process it for such purposes pursuant to section 11358.5. 1400. and the first subdivision of section 11357 sets forth the penalty for possession of “concentrated cannabis. 59 Cal. supra. 415.4th at pp. accord. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal. Lungren v. 1063) “ ‘ “in order to achieve harmony among the parts” ’ ” (People v.App. People v.App. supra. ***** 5 We view the phrase “relating to the possession of marijuana” contained in subdivision (d) of section 11362. 1394. Lungren v.4th 234.App. 1394.g.4th at p. [Citations.5 are met. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.5 apply to concentrated cannabis. People ex rel. 59 Cal.5 as an abbreviated description of section 11357’s provisions rather than as a limitation upon such provisions in a manner intended to exclude the possession of concentrated cannabis. Trippet. 413. supra. the fact that ordinary marijuana and concentrated cannabis. (See People v. 28 Cal. including hashish. 272) “and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences” (People v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal. we have carefully reviewed the ballot materials accompanying Proposition 215 and have found nothing therein to indicate that the voters intended for concentrated cannabis to be treated differently from ordinary marijuana when used for medical purposes. 978).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 801
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 802
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.