California Bans Drones From Delivering Marijuana (theverge.com) 82
In what will surely be disappointing news for a host of start-ups promising to deliver marijuana by drone like MDelivers and Eaze, California's Bureau of Cannabis Control has recently unveiled new regulatory rules that will ban drones from delivering marijuana. "The Bureau is currently developing regulation surrounding weed use and sales under the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) after recreational marijuana was legalized in California," reports The Verge. From the report: "Cannabis goods will be required to be transported inside commercial vehicles or trailers," the proposed program description reads. "Transportation may not be done by aircraft, watercraft, rail, drones, human powered vehicles, or unmanned vehicles." Under the rules, deliveries can only be made by licensed retailers, "in person by enclosed motor vehicle," and the vehicles used for deliveries must have a GPS that allows the seller to track the package. The Bureau also specifically states that those delivering the cannabis aren't allowed to consume the substance while out on the delivery. Further reading: Ars Technica
Only 1 Q (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The usual alcohol delivery rule is: somewhen between 22:00 and midnight, you send a person or a team with backpacks to deliver more. They're allowed to go on foot or by bus, obviously not being able to use a bike or car. So no, this is not an "enclosed vehicle". In my times, there was no GPS either, although nowadays probably a cell phone counts.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I can't imagine that it's terribly different. They all have some mechanism to make sure you're not under 21, right? Hard to do that via drone; you can always just scan a borrowed license if they want a barcode
Re: (Score:2)
Well, obviously they are afraid that there will be a lot of drones flying very slowly along the grassy verges of roads.
how we sposed to deliver? (Score:1)
Low Ri Der, Ride a little Lower...
beep beep
these are Proposed Guidelines, not rules (Score:2)
Re: these are Proposed Guidelines, not rules (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
which won't be obeyed, anyway.
At least now they won't have dealers calling the police or the insurance companies claiming someone stole the stash from their drone... They are now on their own because it is against the guidelines...
Oh, snap! (Score:3)
You can get high... (Score:5, Funny)
They may have banned drones, but... (Score:3)
... did they think to ban delivery of MJ by ICBMM?
Perfect transition of NK to a peaceful world power.
Re:They may have banned drones, but... (Score:4, Funny)
ICBMM? Inter-Continental Ballistic Marijuana Missile?
No Bicycles either?? (Score:1)
Not allowing unstaffed vehicles makes sense but why no "human powered vehicles"?
If they want an armored vehicle then require that.
Re:No Bicycles either?? (Score:4, Informative)
I just delivered pot with a drone. (Score:1)
First buds of the fall. Took one of the plants early.
Flew a nice kola to a neighbor's house. Neiner neiner!
Re: (Score:2)
A rocket is an aircraft, and any aircraft transportation is banned. I think I'll get in the business of delivering marijuana by caterpillar. For the sake of security I'll make deliveries in an armored caterpillar. One like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
What? You thought I was going to make deliveries on the back of an insect? Well... know that I think about it, that would totally freak out the recipients if I did. How fast does a laden caterpillar crawl?
Re: (Score:2)
A rocket is an aircraft, and any aircraft transportation is banned.
Fine, trebuchet it is then.
What? Are they high? (Score:2)
Oh, wait, this is California. Of course they were high when they drafted this rule.
FAA Jurisdiction? (Score:3)
This may simply be a pragmatic issue. Once the cannabis is in the air it likely falls under Federal law regarding air navigation (The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace). Cannabis distribution is a federal offence. Best to keep the Feds out of this.
Re: (Score:3)
The federal government already has a ban on cannabis, how does transporting it by a drone change that? Or any means of transport by air, water, or rail? (Rail? Why ban rail transport?)
Obama let this ride for years and now Trump and his DOJ has to do something about this eventually. It will be a year into this administration real soon now. I'll give a pass for a few months because he has to appoint people and deal with a lot of other damage left on his desk. He's given a lot of non-answer answers when
Re: (Score:3)
The Federal government has stated that it will not step in if a State chooses to allow recreational/medicinal cannabis provided there is a regulation system in place (i.e. what CA is trying to do). However, if the trade is interstate or leaves the State's jurisdiction then bets are off (especially given the present politics). If the cannabis is in the air then it is (arguably) no longer in California's jurisdiction. CA may simply be avoiding any legal ambiguity surrounding this mode of transport.
Alterna
Re: (Score:2)
They stated what they did in an effort to save face. The fact is that they can't find juries to convict and they know it. They aren't leaving this alone for any policy reason, they are leaving it alone to preserve their conviction %.
Basically, keep out of shitholes like Utah and you've got nothing to worry about vis pot.
Re: (Score:2)
At some point the law needs to change or be enforced. The status quo is a mockery of the rule of law.
The federal government's tortuous interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause justifying their authority to ban intrastate marijuana sale and possession is a mockery of the rule of law.
They want to track it (Score:2)
Seems to me all modes of transport that aren't subject to traffic cameras and license plate readers is being excluded. Apparently an "active GPS device" with the package just wasn't enough for the surveillance state to be satisfied. Right there in the 500 page regulations document [ca.gov] a stated objective is the development of a complete "track and trace system" for the distribution chain.
"CA wants complete surveillance for the MJ market" seems like the real headline and not the clickbait-esq "ban on weed drones"
Re: (Score:1)
Well of course they want to track it, how else can they ensure that it is taxed properly?
Re: (Score:2)
They're dreaming/posing for the feds, CA has the least regulated medicinal pot market. Contrast to Colorado where every plant must be tracked, guarded and video recorded from seed to bud.
CA's pot market was thriving before prop 215. Nothing will change that.
I'm willing to bet that CA's #1 export 'cash crop' is still pot. Federal laws be damned.
I'm waiting for legal imports of Thai highland haze. The best pot on the planet.
Re: (Score:1)
Can not your "Thai highland haze" be cultivated locally? If it can be, why would you be waiting instead of growing?
Re: (Score:2)
Only if your locality is right on the equator. It's known as Panama red in central america.
It buds at age, not based on light cycles (those being 12/12 all year on the equator). I tried growing it indoors about 30 years ago. No luck. Just grew tall, eventually it budded, but the buds never matured. Still good, but nothing like the natural form.
Re: (Score:1)
So it is your lack of skills that is the problem then?
Re: (Score:2)
It's your lack of reading comprehension that's the problem right now.
Lack of an 18 month growing season with continuous 12/12 light cycle. You could grow it indoors in a large enough space. But you'll never get light as good as the sun.
Best practical alternatives are hybrids. Trainwreck is good, but still a cut below Haze.
Re: (Score:1)
More it is likely my lack of expertise in all things marijuana. Though I most certainly back legislation, particularly due to the opportunity it would provide to increase state coffers, I personally have never felt the need to consume it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If the state can't track it, it can't tax it. Look, one of the biggest selling points for legalizing marijuana was taxing a multibillion dollar under ground economy. I have been for the legalization of pot for decades for that very reason. I also am for legalizing and taxing prostitution, with proper regulation of course, for the same reason.
Have to wonder (Score:2, Insightful)
Fucking military weapons are shipped with less rules.
OMG police state! (Score:2)
/s Subject is a joke obviously, TLDR, just be happy its getting normalized enough to have these sorts of conversations.
Well I am of the opinion that they can make some stupid rules at the beginning, especially by some "standards body" that is probably answerable to government in the end. The important thing is that its legalized, the finer points will be worked out in time.
Liquor not being sold on a sunday was a thing for a long time, and then society changed and it was fine. The important thing is users ge
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, as the legendary P. J. O'Rourke once said, recreational drugs come in two doses: too much, and not enough.
Weed on the hoof (Score:2)
As someone who moved to California just a week ago, I think it's pretty cool that we have pot delivery at all. I just found out that my local dispensary will bring the herb right to your door. I haven't got my medical card yet, because I'm shy about going to a doctor and trying to say I've got some medical condition that requires pot (since I don't, really), and I'm not sure I want to smoke any at all, because it makes me kind of goofy and lazy, but it's still cool. This is a pretty wonderful place. That
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't got my medical card yet, because I'm shy about going to a doctor and trying to say I've got some medical condition that requires pot (since I don't, really)
I don't see why you'd bother. You don't need one. The first time you show up at a dispensary you'll have to do some paperwork and show a driver's license (so don't bother trying before you change to a CA license), and that's all. Every time after that, just show the license.
and I'm not sure I want to smoke any at all, because it makes me kind of goofy and lazy,
Try a sativa rather than an indica or hybrid. It has less propensity to stick me to the couch, and also has minimal munchies.
human powered vehicles (Score:2)
Drones progress (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> Transportation may not be done by aircraft, watercraft, rail
Note that railways, being interstate in nature, are the domain of federal jurisdiction, thus California can not touch them. I think the same is true for aircraft or at least airlines, which are even protected by international treaties (i.e. pay no VAT and fuel tax). Don't even get started on ships, which may well travel in international waters and even the 12mi territorial waters of California are the domain of federal Coast Guard / Navy jurisdiction, not the state.
California doesn't seem to have a problem defying Federal jurisdiction and Federal laws regarding "sanctuary cities" that shield illegal aliens from the consequences of violating Federal immigration laws.
I guess it's a matter of priorities for California politicians. Making sure there is a large underclass of workers they can avoid paying minimum wages to and forego health coverage and workplace protections for is far, far more important to those California politicians who claim to be so worried about the w
Re: (Score:2)
Gah!
"Making sure there is a large underclass of workers they can avoid paying minimum wages to and forego health coverage and workplace protections for is far, far more important to those California politicians who claim to be so worried about the welfare of illegal aliens, than in not prosecuting/incarcerating people who use medical marijuana."
Sure would be nice if Slashdot advanced beyond the '90s and added an 'edit' feature like nearly every other forum on the interwebs.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
California doesn't seem to have a problem defying Federal jurisdiction and Federal laws regarding "sanctuary cities" that shield illegal aliens from the consequences of violating Federal immigration laws.
It's not on individual states to enforce federal laws. The federal government has a pretty limited set of enumerated powers and commandeering state and local police to enforce federal laws isn't one of them. Historically they've cooperated, but they are not obligated to. See, for example, the Texas law enjoining state agencies from enforcing certain federal firearms laws [volokh.com]. In general states can't obstruct, but aren't obligated to help either.
The stick the feds use is generally tying federal aid to complia
Re: (Score:2)
Quite true regarding enforcement, but you did not address jurisdiction, which Arizona fell afoul of with their proposed laws around determining immigration status. It is arguable those California policies/laws violate Federal jurisdiction.
Strat
justification? (Score:2)
Oh, I see: the justification is "FYTW"
Regulators gonna regulate.
better idea,, what the fuck (Score:1)
The Real Drone/Weed Opportunity (Score:2)
Instant delivery of SNACK's to marijuana users.