People v. Piper

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

John Henry Piper appeals a court-tried judgment (probation order) convicting him of possessing marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11530) and possessing narcotic paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11555).

[250]

Piper possessed 13.6 grams of marijuana, enough to make about 34 cigarettes, and a smoking pipe containing marijuana residue. His sole contention on appeal is the prosecution did not bear its burden of showing he possessed a “usable” quantity of marijuana because no quantitative analysis of the marijuana was made to establish the particular marijuana he possessed had a potential to produce a narcotic effect on one using it.

The law regulating possession of marijuana draws no distinction between a high grade and a low grade plant. Expert testimony at the trial identified the chemical component of marijuana which produces a narcotic effect as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which is contained in the resin of the marijuana plant. Health and Safety Code section 11530 refers to possession of marijuana, rather than any component of the plant. Marijuana is defined as “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L. (commonly known as marijuana), whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin” (Health & Saf. Code, § 11003.1). Cannabis sativa is defined as meaning “the male or female of any species commonly known as cannabis sativa, hemp, Indian hemp, or marihuana” (Health & Saf. Code, § 11003).

The legislative intent is to regulate the possession of marijuana in any form. Possession is not privileged because the particular plant may contain a low level of THC any more than it would be privileged to a person who has developed a high tolerance to the narcotic effect of marijuana. It is the plant itself, as well as its products, which is regulated.

Piper cites

People

v.

Leal, 64

Cal.2d 504, 512 [50 Cal.Rptr. 777, 413 P.2d 665], to support his contention the legislative scheme in narcotics regulation “proscribed possession of a substance that has a narcotic potential; it [the Legislature] condemned the commodity that could be used as such.”