California: Governor opposes 3 «anti-cannabis» bills»

«There has to be a limit to the coercive power of government,» said California Governor Jerry Brown in response to 3 vetoes he posed last week regarding bills related to regulating the cannabis.

Consumption on beaches and in nature parks

The bill Senate Bill 386 would have banned all smoking of tobacco or any smoked herb in California's nature parks and plazas, and punished any violation with a fine of 100$. Vaping would also have been banned in these same areas.

The project aimed both to limit the environmental damage caused by indelicate smokers, and to keep in step with the state's strong anti-cigarette policy. California was the first American state to ban smoking in public places.

But it would also have hampered retail cannabis sales, both for Californians wishing to take cannabis with them to the state's sumptuous natural scenery, and reduced consumption venues for tourists looking to consume cannabis once recreational sales are in place, in January 2018.

In fact, the Governor clearly pointed this out: «If people can't smoke, even on a deserted beach, where can they?»

Restrictions on space food

The Governor also refused to sign the’Assembly Bill 350, which would have prohibited the creation of cannabis-infused foods in certain forms that might appeal to children (cartoon characters, animals, fruit, etc.).

Colorado has recently passed a law along these lines, after several incidents. The Governor of California explained that the future law regulating cannabis already covered this subject.

Butane ban

L’Assembly Bill 1120 aimed to reduce the availability of butane by adding it to the list of controlled substances. This proposal would have restricted butane sales and created a list of buyers kept by the California Department of Justice. Butane is used to make cannabis extractions, This flammable substance can cause explosions and fire when not used with care. This flammable substance can cause explosions and fire if not used with care.

The Governor felt that future cannabis regulation in the state would address this issue, and that finer restrictions were needed that would not disturb legitimate uses.