Cal NORML Election Guide to Cannabis Candidates

May/June 2026 Primary Election

Got input on candidates or races? Write here.

Artwork: Ruth Anne

Quick Links: EXECUTIVE / CONGRESS / STATE SENATE / STATE ASSEMBLY / LOCAL

Governor

Xavier Becerra – In 2016, as California’s Attorney General, Becerra told Politico he would be defending California’s new law legalizing marijuana against possible federal interference, and admitted he tried weed “at a younger time.” Asked if it was illegal then, he compared it to driving over the speed limit. “Cannabis is last century’s argument. We’re beyond that,” he said. He continued the CAMP (Campaign Against Marijuana Planting) program (as have all AGs) and in 2020, he joined 34 other AGs to urge Congress to provide banking services for licensed cannabis businesses. In 2013, as US Secretary of Health and Human Services, oversaw the agency’s recommendation that cannabis should be reclassified as a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act, something that’s back in the news.  Becerra has a longer record of public service in both state and federal government than all the other candidates. He compiled a consistently good voting record over 24 years as a Congressman from L.A.

Chad Bianco – Riverside sheriff Bianco is a crusty, old-style, right-wing Republican who takes a tough line on drug issues.  A former narcotics officer, he is the only candidate on record as opposing legal marijuana, and he thinks legalization has exacerbated the problem of illegal grows. (Cannabis growers can’t be licensed in most of his district; a horrible homicide in Riverside left seven dead at an illicit farm in 2020.) Last year, commenting on news that that California’s Department of Cannabis Control lost a lawsuit alleging they failed to stop illegal operations, Bianco commented, “Another failed agency from a failed State agenda….Legal marijuana was doomed from the start. It was a scam to begin with but once passed it was going to actually take work to make it successful.” Reportedly Bianco said that all marijuana is laced with fentanyl at a campaign event. He seized voting records in Riverside in a MAGA-inspired goose-chase for voter fraud, before the courts stopped him.

Steve Hilton – Former Fox News host Hilton is the other Republican front-runner in the race and the one that Trump endorsed. Like Bianco, he is critical of California’s Democratic supermajority. Unlike Bianco, his views on cannabis legalization are unknown.  Given the Trump administration’s bold rescheduling order, it’s not impossible that they are favorable. One of his CalDOGE investigations concluded the $370 million in cannabis taxes earmarked yearly for youth drug prevention is largely misspent, including funding Democratic-leaning organizations.  The same organizations lobbied forcefully to raise the cannabis excise tax last year in order to keep their funding.

Matt Mahan – The moderate Democrat in the race, Mahan is the popular mayor of San Jose who has made strides against homelessness in the city. He was typically supportive of local dispensaries, except for one zoning vote. Mahan styles himself as a social liberal, but is mostly interested in economic issues. Local activists give him a thumbs up.

Katie Porter – Porter takes pride in being the only candidate who never accepts corporate donations. She is particularly interested in economic issues, but has consistently voted well on marijuana bills. She has co-sponsored the SAFE Banking Act and the MORE Act to legalize at the federal level, with equity and human rights components. She voted well on other bills, and declared support for legal marijuana in response to a questionnaire from Cal NORML in a past race.

Tom Steyer – A self-styled progressive, hedge fund billionaire Steyer has bombarded the air with over $100 million in commercials, spending multiple times more on his campaign than all other candidates combined. Steyer is an outspoken champion of environment and climate legislation, but has made no campaign pronouncements on cannabis (but now that rescheduling has happened perhaps a reporter  will actually ask candidates about it.)  In 2020, while running for President, Steyer was overheard supporting legalization, saying “I’m from California, are you kidding me?”  He also vocally advocates “restorative justice.”  At a debate on KRON TV in which Bianco and Hilton blamed homeless on drug addiction, Steyer advanced his plan to provide emergency shelter without requiring residents be “clean” (from drugs). Like all candidates, however, he endorses mandatory treatment for delinquent addicts.

Also running:  The ballot is cluttered with another 56(!) candidates for governor.  Among the more notable are:
– Former LA Mayor and Assemblyman Antonio Villaraigosa, a former labor leader and ACLU president who styles himself as a problem solver and has admitted to using marijuana. As mayor, Villaraigosa presided silently over the introduction of medical marijuana clubs into the city  (no one had dared open one during the administration of his Republican predecessor).
– State Education Superintendent Tony Thurmond. A solid progressive, Thurmond posted a good voting record in the Assembly, where as chair of the Labor Committee he supported a Cal NORML-sponsored bill for employees’ right to use marijuana off the job .

Lieutenant Governor

Fiona Ma – As state treasurer, Ma has been a longtime supporter of cannabis and of lowering taxes on cannabis. She responded to Cal NORML/CCIA’s 2026 Candidate Survey, saying she would support addressing “cannabis deserts” with no licensed businesses, streamlining state/local permitting and regulations, and encouraging cannabis tourism in our state. She also supports intensifying enforcement against the illicit market, and measuring enforcement effectiveness in terms of market growth/stability/outcomes. And she’s for providing MediCal and worker’s comp coverage for medicinal cannabis, and funding state-sponsored research into the safety and efficacy of cannabis products.

Ma wrote, “We need to overturn Prop 64. It’s a complete failure,” something she was interviewed about in High Times. She testified before Congress in favor of banking for cannabis businesses. She also offered a response to rescheduling, saying, “I welcome the long-overdue decision to reclassify cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III, a step that will provide meaningful relief by ending the unjust application of IRS Code Section 280E and beginning to dismantle barriers that have shut legitimate businesses out of the financial system. But let us be clear: reclassification alone is not enough.”

Attorney General

Rob Bonta sponsored bills to regulate medical cannabis, lower taxes on cannabis, and protect employment rights of cannabis users while in the Legislature. As AG he helped expedite the clearing of criminal records for past cannabis offenses.

CONGRESS

Here are some of the frontrunners in key new Congressional districts (all are up for election). Many are in crowded fields in these top-two primaries.

Don’t know your district? Look it up.

Find office holders’ NORML ratings.

Got input on candidates or races? Write here.

CD1

Mike McGuire (A rating at NORML) has a strong voting record and authored one of the three bills that regulated medical marijuana in California in 2015. He favors adult-use legalization, but opposed Prop. 64 until such time as regulation of medical cannabis could be solidified. He strongly supports local regulation and was a key opponent of outlawing local delivery bans.
James Gallagher (D- rating) has a bad voting record in the state legislature, slightly improved in 2024 with yes votes on ending double cannabis taxation at local level, and allowing small farmers to sell directly to consumers.

CD6

Martha Guerrero – West Sacramento Mayor has local activist support; she voted in favor of cannabis licensing
Thien Ho – Sacramento’s district attorney
Dr. Richard Pan – Along with other Democrats, Sen. Pan voted against a 2012 bill to reduce charges in marijuana cultivation cases, after strong police opposition. As chair of the Senate Health committee in 2018, he voted for a bill to redirect cannabis tax funds for youth programs despite the Dept. of Health Care Services writing an opposition letter saying it would require them to exercise preferential treatment. In 2022, he authored a bill to require costly, badly designed new label warnings on all cannabis products.
Kevin Kiley (D+ NORML rating) voted wrong on nearly every key vote in the Assembly, although he did vote for cannabis compassion programs, automatic resentencing, and a resolution to ask the DOJ to allow cannabis businesses.

CD14

Victor Aguilar, Jr. is a Brownie Mary Club Member and San Leandro councilmember
Sen. Aisha Wahab (C rating) – Rather weak voting record for a Democrat. Voted against cannabis cafes and farmers markets, but also against restrictive labeling for cannabis products in 2024.
This is one of many crowded fields.

CD20

Vince Fong (D-) posted a terrible voting record on marijuana & drug issues in the CA Assembly, just like his former boss, Kevin McCarthy.

CD22

Asm. Jasmeet Bains (B-) – Dr. Bains is the medical director of a network of Bakersfield addiction treatment centers. Has voted well, except on cannabis cafe bills, from which she has abstained. Shut down any discussion of relative harms of cannabis and tobacco smoke in committee, scolding us by saying, “Smoking is bad, people” and leaving in a huff.
Randy Villegas – A progressive who’s said to have a fundraising lead. Endorsed by Bernie Sanders, Dolores Huerta, Ro Khanna, Lateefah Simon, others.
David G. Valadao (D+) – As an Assemblymember, Valadao voted against every marijuana reform measure and opposed recreational legalization, but co-sponsored an industrial hemp bill. In Congress, he supported the SAFE banking act and medical marijuana research, but joined other Republicans in opposing the Democrats’ MORE legalization bill. One of just two Republican House members running for re-election who voted to impeach Donald Trump.

CD23

Jay Obernolte (D+) has had a poor voting record in the legislature and Congress. He did vote yes on a state bill (AB2020) to expand places where cannabis events can be held, and was absent for a vote on a resolution to the federal government to allow state-legal cannabis programs (AJR 27). Twice he voted against cannabis compassion programs for needy patients (SB 34).

CD26

Asm. Jacqui Irwin (C-) Mixed voting record. Sponsored failed bills to ban cannabis billboards and impose restrictive labeling requirements on cannabis products; voted against cannabis cafes; skipped votes on employment rights, medical access. To her credit, she did move AB 2555, a bill to extend cannabis compassion programs, through a key committee she chaired in 2024.
Fellow Democrat Chris Espinosa is challenging her.

CD38

Hilda Solis, a former Congresswoman, championed cannabis business licensing “that is rooted in equitable access, strong and effective enforcement, and community awareness and education” as an LA County Supervisor. She has also championed Prop. 47’s implemetation, saying she is is “deeply concerned about rising deaths within our correctional health system, driven in large part by overdoses….Every person in custody deserves timely, adequate, and humane health care, and we must continue working to achieve this goal.”
Monica Sánchez has the endorsement of Linda Sánchez, who is vacating the seat to run in the 41st. She’s either (or both?) Pico Rivera Councilmember / Montebello Mayor Pro Tem.

CD40 

Ken Calvert (F) has voted badly on every cannabis bill in Congress.
Young Kim (D+) had a poor voting record in the state legislature except on more recent regulatory bills, and she opposed Prop. 64. In Congress, she voted against the MORE Act but supported the SAFE Banking Act.

CD41

Linda Sánchez (B+) Co-sponsored the SAFE Banking Act of 2021, voted well on other bills.

CD48

Incredibly crowded field; no incumbent.
Corinna Contreras (D) Vista City Councilmember
Jim Desmond (R) San Diego County Supervisor

STATE LEGISLATURE

Find your districts.

Find office holders’ NORML ratings.

Got input on candidates or races? Write here.

Senate

State Senate District 4
Marie Alvarado-Gil (R) (B-) Mixed voting record in CA Legislature. Voted for cannabis cafes and against restrictive labeling on cannabis products. Was absent for employment rights vote and voted against farmer’s market bill. Sponsored a bill to forfeit property from illicit cannabis growers; took amends from Cal NORML to target grows of 1,000 plants or more. Switched from a Democrat to a Republican in mid-2024.
Also in the race: County Supervisor Jaron Brandon (D) and Alexandra Duarte (R) mother/farmer

State Senate District 10
Aisha Wahab’s East Bay district.
Scott Sakakihara (D) – Union City councilmember; served in Obama White House. Endorsed by State Senator Jesse Arreguín, Assemblymember Bill Quirk (Ret.), East Bay Young Democrats, unions.
David Cohen is a member of the San Jose City Council
Anne Kepner is a member of the West Valley-Mission Community College District Board of Trustees
Raymond Liu is a member of the Fremont City Council

State Senate District 12
Shannon Grove’s district.
Nathan Magsig (R) is a member of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors
Louis Miramontes (R)
William Brown Jr. (L)

State Senate District 24
Ben Allen’s district (running for Insurance commissioner)
Eric Alegria is a member of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District school board
Dr. Sion Roy is a physician, professor, and education advocate who is Vice Chair of the Santa Monica College Board
Zennon Ulyate-Crow was shot in the face with a rubber bullet while peacefully protesting ICE. Gen Z.

State Senate District 26
Maria Elena Durazo’s District (withdrawn?; running for LA County supervisor)
Wendy Carrillo was a communications manager for SEIU ULTCW (United Long Term Care Workers) and a communications and social media deputy for the City of Los Angeles
Sara Hernandez is a member of the Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees
others…

State Senate District 40
Brian Jones’s district
Mara Elliott (D) was the San Diego City Attorney
Kristie Bruce-Lane (R)
Ed Musgrove (R)

Assembly

State Assembly Member District 3
Gallagher’s district
3 Republicans running

State Assembly Member District 12 (Petaluma)
Damon Connolly’s district
Jackie Elward is a labor organizer and the first Black woman elected to the Rohnert Park City Council. Born in the Congo.
Endorsed by: Congressmember Mike Thompson, Former Congressmember Lynn Woolsey, State Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, Former State Senator Steven Bradford, State Treasurer Fiona Ma

State Assembly Member District 27 (Fresno)
Esmeralda Soria’s district
Brian Pacheco (D) – Fresno city councilmember
Japjeet Singh Uppal (D)
Mike Murphy (R)

State Assembly Member District 34 (Barstow)
Lackey’s district
Randall Putz (D) – Former school board member, city councilmember, and three-time Mayor of Big Bear Lake. Endorsed by California Democratic Party, California Teachers Association, California Young Democrats, Communication Workers of America, and San Bernardino County Professional Firefighters Local 935, State Treasurer Fiona Ma, Superintendent Tony Thurmond, Senator Tom Umberg, Assemblymembers Josh Lowenthal, Juan Carrillo, John Harabedian, Nick Schultz, James Ramos, Robert Garcia, Corey Jackson, and Congresswoman Norma Torres.
3 Republicans

State Assembly Member District 35 (Bakersfield)
Jasmeet Bains’s district
Andrae Gonzales (D)
Ana Palacio (D)
Saul Ayon (R)

State Assembly Member District 42 (Thousand Oaks)
Jacqui Irwin’s district
Deborah Klein Lopez (D)
Ted Nordblum (R)
Rocky Rhodes (R)

State Assembly Member District 65 (Compton)
Gipson’s district
open field

State Assembly Member District 66 (Torrance)
Muratsuchi’s district
open field

State Assembly Member District 67 (Fullerton)
Quirk-Silva’s district
open field

State Assembly Member District 68
Avelino Valencia’s district
Jessie Lopez (D)
David Penaloza (D)
Shannon Wingfield (D)
Mayra Ruiz (R)

State Assembly Member District 72 (Huntington Beach)
Diane Dixon seat
Chris Kluwe (D)  An ex-NFL football player for the Minnesota Vikings, Kluwe is a strong believer in medical cannabis.
Matthew Harper (R)
Gracey Van Der Mark (R)
Frank Wagoner (No party preference)

Local Measures

City of Los Angeles – Measure CB, Apply Marijuana Tax to Unlicensed Marijuana Businesses Measure
A “yes” vote supports applying the city’s tax on cannabis businesses to unlicensed cannabis businesses, amounting to:
10% on cannabis sales; 5% on medical cannabis sales; 2% on manufacturing, cultivation, or other commercialization; and 1% on testing, research, or transportation.
A “no” vote opposes applying the city’s tax on cannabis businesses to unlicensed cannabis businesses.

San Benito County (Unincorporated Area) – Measure D, Marijuana Business Tax Increase Measure
A “yes” vote supports changing the county’s cannabis cultivation tax in unincorporated areas from a per-square-foot rate to a per-acre rate, with the cultivation tax set within a range of $1,000 to $10,000 per acre.
A “no” vote opposes changing the county’s cannabis cultivation tax in unincorporated areas from a per-square-foot rate to a per-acre rate.

The order states:

“State medical marijuana regulatory systems have matured significantly since California first authorized medical use in 1996, and today the vast majority of States maintain comprehensive licensing frameworks governing cultivation, processing, distribution, and dispensing of marijuana for medical purposes. These state regimes have developed robust infrastructure for preventing diversion, ensuring product safety, maintaining records, and conducting facility inspections—functions that fulfill the objectives of federal registration and recordkeeping requirements. The Attorney General has reviewed the operation of these state systems and finds that, taken as a whole, they demonstrate a sustained capacity to achieve the public-interest objectives that underlie the CSA’s registration framework, including protecting public health and safety and preventing the diversion of controlled substances into illicit channels.”

“The Acting Attorney General further notes that, as a consequence of this rule, state licensees will no longer be subject to the deduction disallowance imposed by Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which applies only to businesses engaged in trafficking in controlled substances… in a schedule I or II…qualifying state licensees should consult with tax counsel regarding the applicability of Section 280E to their specific circumstances.”

Hearings Set for Broader Rescheduling

In addition, DOJ announced “procedural updates to expedite the ongoing rulemaking process required to fully remove marijuana from Schedule I and place it into Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act.”

According to Marijuana Moment, DOJ is moving to end a prior administrative hearing process on the rescheduling proposal that stalled near the end of the Biden administration amid litigation from pro-reform parties that alleged improper agency communications and witness selection decisions. The DOJ release states that DEA is “terminating those proceedings in order to move more efficiently toward the completion of marijuana’s complete redesignation.”

Beginning on June 29, there will be a new expedited administrative hearing process to consider the broader rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. Terry Cole, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), said that the agency is “expeditiously moving forward with the administrative hearing process—bringing consistency and oversight to an area that has lacked both.” The hearing process will conclude no later than July 15, 2026, according to the notice that Blanche signed. It would then have to be published in the Federal Register for 30-90 days before it could take effect.

DEA Involvement to Satisfy Treaty Obligations?

The proposed amendments establish “a new registration pathway for state-licensed medical marijuana entities seeking federal DEA registration as manufacturers, distributors, and/or dispensers.” The regulation creates an expedited review process under which the Administrator must take action in 60 days.

The order states, “Pursuant to a 2018 OLC opinion, DEA must buy marijuana crops from registered manufacturers, be the seller of that marijuana to any eligible registered purchaser, and establish prices for such purchase and sale. Marijuana growers must pay DEA an administrative fee for such transactions. These actions are necessary for the United States to meet its obligations under articles 23 and 28 of the Single Convention.”

Looking Forward

Rescheduling from Schedule I (“no accepted medical use”) to Schedule III won’t federally legalize cannabis, but it could remove barriers to research as well as offer tax benefits to cannabis businesses. And it could have other benefits for patients in the areas housing, employment, and medical care, where discrimination against medical cannabis users continues.

Cal NORML will be closely monitoring the effect of this announcement and subsequent actions on state laws and regulations, and exploring possible future legislation and regulation to advance cannabis consumers’ rights. Join us at the Cannabis Unity Coalition Lobby Week May 12 – 14 in DC to meet with Congressmembers and their staffs on reforms at the national level, including pending bills to allow VA doctors to recommend cannabis, and more.

NORML first sued the DEA to reschedule marijuana in 1972. Read National NORML’s release: Justice Department Moves to Federally Reschedule State-Approved Medical Cannabis Products.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates. 

Join Cal NORML through 4/30 with a discounted $42 Gold Membership and get a free thank-you gift: Our popular gold lapel pin in the shape of a pot leaf. It’s a great way to represent your support for Cal NORML and cannabis!

As another special offer, Cal NORML Business or Legal Committee Memberships, usually $500/year, are discounted to $420 through the end of the month.  Get your discounted membership today!

Join Cal NORML now through the end of April with a discounted $42 Gold Membership and get a free thank-you gift: Our popular gold lapel pin in the shape of a pot leaf (shown). It’s a great way to represent your support for Cal NORML and cannabis!

Join Cal NORML through 4/30 and we will send your gift to you by mail. Membership renewals qualify; email here if you are unsure of your membership status. Members receive our printed newsletter and discounts on events and items throughout the year.

As another special offer, Cal NORML Business or Legal Committee Memberships, usually $500/year, are discounted to $420 through the end of the month.  Get your discounted membership today!

Business memberships include a listing in our online cannabis marketplace and guest blog post on the high-authority CaNORML.org, plus other great promotional benefits and discounts. Contact kharla@canorml.org, 707-337-9747 for more info. Sign up by 4/30 for this $80 discount.

Cal NORML is completely funded by personal and business memberships and donations from within California. We are the only organization advocating for the rights of all cannabis consumers in our state.

Read more about Cal NORML and Our 50 Years of Progress.

LAST UPDATED 4/21/2026

Cal NORML is tracking the following and has reached out to the authors’ offices:

AB 1826 (Lackey) To improve due process around the recall, embargo, and destruction of cannabis products. Sponsored by CCIA. Passed Assembly Business & Professions and Judiciary committees. Heading to Appropriations.
Cal NORML has joined a sign-on letter in support of this bill.

AB 1965 (Sharp-Collins) Cannabis: testing: quality assurance. Passed unanimously in Com. on B. and P. and referred to the Committee on Appropriations with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. Hearing set for 22-APR-26. Cal NORML has sent a letter in support of this bill.

AB-2249 (Irwin) Cannabis: labels, packaging and manufacturing. Passed Com. on B. and P. with amendments. Heading to Appropriations.

AB-2532 (Irwin) Cannabis: labels, packaging and manufacturing. Passed Com. on B. and P. with amendments. Heading to Appropriations.
Cal NORML has taken a neutral position on this bill following the news that amendments have been worked out with the cannabis industry removing the 10 mg cap on beverages and requiring industry-wide precision dosing and product identification features on all multi-serving cannabis beverages, warning label standards, child-resistant container requirements, while prohibiting single-serve marketing and supporting a funded, statewide campaign on responsible, informed cannabis beverage consumption, potentially modeled on alcohol responsibility campaigns. We will be continuing to follow this bill as amendments are published. Thanks to all who have taken our Beverage Safety survey; you can continue to provide input there. 

AB 2250 (Aguiar-Curry) Modify AB 8 to exclude CBN from the definition of cannabis concentrate. Passed Asm. Com. on B. and P. and REV. and TAX. In Appropriations.

AB-2420 (Caloza) Cannabis: donations: seniors. Authorizes cannabis retailers to donate cannabis or cannabis products to persons 65 years of age and older. 14-APR-26 hearing in Asm. B & P cancelled at request of author. Cal NORML supports. 

AB 2506 (Hart) Cannabis: tribal government licensure. Passed unanimously in Com. on B. and P. with amendments; referred to Appropriations.

AB 2537 (Chen) Cannabis Enforcement Accountability and Public Health Prioritization Act of 2026. Passed Asm. Com. on B. and P.; in Appropriations.
Would “require the DCC to prioritize its enforcement of MAUCRSA in a manner consistent with a risk-based enforcement framework that focuses on material threats while applying less intensive and less punitive measures on minor technical or administrative violations by licensees.” Sponsored by CaCOA.

AB 2697 (Pellerin) Cannabis drive-throughs. Passed Asm. Com. on B. and P.; in Appropriations
Would authorize a local jurisdiction to allow a licensed cannabis retailer to conduct sales or deliveries at a drive-through, pass-out window, or slide-out tray, if the sales and deliveries are made through a fixed-pane security window with a security drawer. Referred to Com. on B. and P.  Set FOR Hearing ON 21-APR-26.

AB 2667 (Hadwick) Vape products: household hazardous waste: advertising. Passed Asm. Committees on E.S and T.M. and B. and B. and P.;  heading for Appropriations on 4/22.
Would allow authorize hazardous waste collection facilities to mechanically disassemble vape pens and devices, and prohibit nicotine or cannabis vapes using branding to appeal to minors, packaged to conceal the nature of their use, or including interactive videogame capabilities. Cal NORML has taken a “support if amended” position on this bill. 

AB 1884 (Hadwick/Sharp-Collins) Interscholastic athletics: drug testing: suspensions: nicotine use. Passed Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, & Tourism; hearing in Education committee cancelled at request of the author.
This bill has been amended to allow schools with drug testing programs to also test for nicotine, limit it to athletics, and require diversion instead of banning participation for a positive drug test. We will continue to watch.  

AB-2617 (Schiavo) NO LONGER A CANNABIS BILL. It’s now the Protecting Kids from Online Gambling Act.

AB-2246 (Wicks) NO LONGER A CANNABIS BILL. It’s now the Youth Social Media Protection Act: report.

A “joint” hearing

Chair of the Joint Legislative Audit committee John Harabedian (D-Pasadena) opened the hearing and turned it over to Asm. Jacqui Irwin (D-Ventura) who requested an audit of cannabis packaging last year. The audit determined that laws and guidance are not always clear on what constitutes a package that is attractive to children, and that the DCC’s enforcement against companies with repeated violations was lacking.

DCC’s regulations prohibit cartoonish characters on cannabis packages, but examples were shown of gummy packages that arguably had such images, as well as those with images of marshmallows or candies and sweets like fruity rice, all of which had been determined to be within the agency’s guidelines. Also shown were bottles of drinks containing 100 mg of THC—ten times the standard adult dose—that provided no mechanism to consume a lower dose. It was recommended that CA either limit drink packages to 10 mg, unless a device is included to measure dosages.

Asm. Irwin pointed to increases in Poison Control Center calls and emergency room visits involving children ingesting cannabis, saying they are coming not just from the illicit market but also the legal, regulated one. It was pointed out that some of steepest increases in poison control center calls came after 2019 when hemp was descheduled at federal level and intoxicating hemp products proliferated. Also, it’s hard to distinguish if calls were coming from products on legal or illegal market. But Irwin kept coming back to, but some of the problems are from the legal market, to which DCC’s Christina Dempsey replied, certainly and said her department has taken steps to better coordinate and take action against violators.

Dempsey said the state audit happened during period where staff were still being combined from three different agencies that formerly regulated cannabis in CA. DCC has spent time developing a tool that will scan labels and highlight what staff might miss, she said, adding that in some cases it’s not obvious what’s attractive to youth. The agency is getting ready to roll that out their tool to licensees this summer.

DCC would love to have more inspectors, Dempsey said, but they have resource constraints. The agency has budget proposals under consideration for additional legal staff to review complaints, and to consolodate licensing systems, which are still in two separate databases (down from three, when Prop. 64 first took effect).

“We need cannabis products to look more like the pasta aisle than the cereal aisle,” Harabedian said, noting this his children don’t ask for pasta in the grocery store, but they want every cereal they see. He and others also objected to the name Root Beer being used on drink cans, to which the response was that root beer float was the name of a cannabis strain.

Several committee members like Legislative Audit Vice Chair Cabaldon asked if statutory clarity was needed on products like “Krispy Rice treats”? Asm. Hart asked, is the definition of child-attractive packaging or enforcement the issue? (Answers were unclear.) Asm. Bauer-Kahan noted that we must support the legal market, “it’s making us safer.” But we must protect children.

Asm. Berman, chair of Asm. Business and Professions committee, asked why strain names are a problem, saying that they’re used on flower, not products. He noted that this year marks 10 years of legal cannabis in CA, but the industry is still struggling to meet its expectations. He held up a package that “looks like it’s straight out of Alice in Wonderland,” calling it unacceptable.

Dr. Lynn Silver, a pediatrician and CDPH task force on packaging co-chair, noted that almost none of recommendations from the task force’s 2024 have been implemented. Those recommendations included moving to plain packaging or a system like Oregon’s where packaging is pre-approved. California has been a national leader in reigning in flavored tobacco, Silver noted, and should take the lead here as well. She raised an objection to Snoop Dogg onion rings and said that $70 million went from youth programs funded by cannabis taxes to the DCC to address child-attractive packaging.

Caren Woodson of CCIA noted that Prop. 64 tax money was to go to education and prevention. “How about instructing parents about safe storage?” she asked, noting that children can’t get into licensed cannabis retailers to see packages and must be accessing them at home.

Amy Jenkins of CaCOA said her organization just put out a White Paper based on an audit of 161 popular products, which found that 62% were compliant, 10% were clearly out of compliance, and the rest were unclear. CaCOA recommends:
1. Define observable design features
2. Align DCC guidance with regulation
3. Focus enforcement where risk is highest

“Protection without undermining the legal market is possible,” Jenkins concluded. The most egregious examples of dubious child-friendly products come from the illicit market, which has no age gating. The legislature has made substantial investments in enforcement, and needs to do more at the illicit retail level, she said.

Irwin said she would like to see CaCOA’s white paper, and was glad the industry was willing to work together for more precision in labeling.

During public comment, Dr. Alisa Padon from the Public Health Institute, said that with DCC funding, her organization used a Content Appealing to Youth Index and found measurable features like psychedelic effects that appeal to teens. Usage remains lowest in places without retail sales, she said, so the legal market matters.

Sam Rodriguez, who represents vertically integrated cannabis farmers from the Santa Barbara county area noted that labels that reflect the region – mountains, rivers, surfers – promote the industry and tourism for the county. While agreeing that cannabis must be kept away from youth, he asked, “Please be prudent and don’t overreach.”

Irwin’s last packaging bill was opposed by Cal NORML and the California cannabis industry and was vetoed by Gov. Newsom as overly broad. It disallowed any kind of picture, such as a picture of a farmer, on packages. The Assemblywoman has introduced a bare-bones packaging bill that will soon be flushed out, it is expected, along with a bill addressing marketing practices.

California NORML and our supporters worked hard in 2022 to sponsor and pass 

Our bill became law on January 1, 2023 (BPC 2228.5), prohibiting physicians and health plans to have policies denying medical treatment to qualified patients with a recommendation to use medical marijuana. The only exception is if a clinical determination is made on a case-by-case basis that a “medically significant” contraindication exists. The law further states, “The use of medical cannabis that has been recommended by a licensed physician and surgeon shall not constitute the use of an illicit substance in the evaluation described.” See a Fact Sheet about the law.

Unfortunately, we have continued to receive complaints from Kaiser patients who are being denied health care for using cannabis since the law took effect. This seems to impact pain patients the most, despite numerous studies demonstrating that the use of cannabis can lessen a patient’s need for prescription painkillers, and that access to medical cannabis lessens the rate of opiate abuse and overdose. Kaiser continues to drug test pain patients and prohibit its doctors from prescribing certain medicines if a patient tests positive for cannabis as a blanket policy, in direct violation of the law. We are also hearing from patients who have been denied surgery due to a positive drug test for THC.

Cal NORML is working demanding Kaiser change its policy in accordance with state law, for which we need a critical mass of patients to tell us their stories. All information will be kept confidential and anonymous, unless you give us permission to share it. 

IF YOU HAVE BEEN DENIED MEDICAL CARE BY A KAISER DOCTOR DUE TO CANNABIS USE, WE WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE YOU IN OUR EFFORT TO CHANGE KAISER’S POLICY. PLEASE WRITE TO ELLEN@CANORML.ORG WITH THE DATE AND OTHER DETAILS ABOUT WHEN YOU WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY KAISER. 

UPDATE 2/26/26 – The cannabis language in the bill has been erased, following opposition from some in the cannabis industry, concerned that it would open the door to broader shipping. 

UPDATE 2/20/26 – During a chat with Capitol Weekly, new DCC chief Clint Kellum said (@ 19:46 in), that direct-mail options for cannabis could be “quite beneficial” to consumers, noting that most people are getting goods via Amazon, etc. Kellum said that the cannabis consumer has “quite a confusing market to deal with, in that there’s not widespread access across the state, you have intoxicating hemp cannabinoids that aren’t allowed in the state but are allowed at the federal level that make their way in through direct-to-consumer efforts, so there’s quite a bit of confusion, and having more traditional lines like direct-to-consumer would be nice.” However, Kellum said we were a long way off from such a plan, due to federal law. 

1/25/26 – Asm. Patrick Ahrens (D-Silicon Valley) has introduced a bill, AB 1564, to allow for the shipment of certain medical products from specified cannabis license holders directly to patients. Ahrens’s attempt at the bill last year, AB 1332, passed unanimously in the Senate and Assembly last year; however Gov. Newsom vetoed it.

“While I appreciate the author’s goal of expanding patient access to medical cannabis, the proposed direct-shipping program would be burdensome and overly complex to administer,” Newsom said in his veto statement. “The Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) will need to revamp the California cannabis track-and-trace system, which will take significant resources and time. Moreover, this measure includes numerous restrictions on eligible products – many of which are unclear, overly narrow or unworkable, adding to the implementation challenge.”

As reported by Cannabis Business Times, according to a fiscal analysis of the bill from the Senate Appropriations Committee, the DCC estimated a one-time implementation cost of approximately $269,000 to modify the track-and-trace system, and ongoing annual costs of $472,000 to oversee shipments and ensure compliance with product restrictions. That annual cost represents less than 0.05% of what the state collected in taxable cannabis sales in 2024, according to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.

The bill would have allowed any microbusiness with an M-license whose licensed activities include retail sale, manufacturing, distribution, and outdoor cultivation may directly ship medicinal cannabis to a medicinal cannabis patient in the state. “Given that this measure allows just two businesses to ship medical cannabis directly to patients, the costs of administering this program far outweigh the possible benefits to patients,” Newsom claimed.

Dr. Laurie Vollen testified in favor of A.B. 1332, saying that 29 years after medicinal marijuana was legalized in California, “medicinal products have become virtually extinct in today’s cannabis marketplace. Long-term patients cannot find any of the products that they were using effectively five years ago. No dispensary or delivery service has a full complement of medicinal products suitable for serving the needs of a variety of cannabis patients, especially cannabis-naive patients desperately seeking to begin alternatives to dangerous and addictive pharmaceuticals.”

The legislation as written would limit product shipments to cannabis flower and tinctures manufactured with non-volatile solvents, mechanical extraction or infusion only, sent by common carriers like FedEx or UPS. Ahrens had included a three-year sunset provision in A.B. 1332 in an effort to allow lawmakers to revisit its effectiveness. The new bill AB 1564 extends that date out to January 1, 2030. More revisions are expected.

In his 2025 veto statement, Newsom said he remains open to working with state lawmakers to adopt strategies to effectively advance equitable access to safe medical cannabis. Some 57% of California cities and counties still prohibit retail cannabis businesses, according to the DCC.

“I need the shipping bill,” wrote one Cal NORML supporter.  “I live in a legal cannabis desert, which creates both logistical and financial burdens for obtaining my necessary medication.”

Tell us: How might cannabis shipping benefit you? 

Cal NORML favors shifting to vapes with removable batteries and developing disposal options for cannabis vape waste. 

Manufacturers and retailers should explore re-designing vapes with removable batteries, and/or provide waste disposal programs for cannabis cartridges, vape pens, and batteries. 

See: THE GREEN PUFF: TRANSFORMING CANNABIS VAPING INTO A SUSTAINABLE PRACTICE  and

Raising the Volume: How Regulations and Consumer Market Trends Have Increased the Volume of Cannabis Packaging Waste in California

Consumers should be aware of proper disposal options for cannabis cartridges and integrated cannabis vaporizers. 

Consumers: Check with your licensed cannabis retailer to see if they have a waste disposal program.

You can use this link to find an authorized hazardous waste facility near you.

Find battery drop-off sites.

Find Waste Management Locations.

Also see: How to Dispose of Vape Pen Batteries.

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality guide on cannabis waste disposal, including vape waste (page 17).

If All Else Fails…

If you live hundreds of miles away from any of these drop-off points and don’t want a pile of batteries building up (as they may catch fire), you will need to process the batteries yourself:

1. Discharge each battery completely and allow them to cool.
2. Submerge them in cold salt water for a full two weeks, covered with a secure lid.
3. Wrap them in a newspaper and put them in the trash.

The aim of this process is to make the electrolyte fluid safe so that the batteries won’t explode or ignite. Remember that ignition is the main risk of improper disposal.

Treat your lithium-ion e-cigarette batteries just as you would your vape pen batteries. And if you have plastic e-liquid bottles (or liquid nicotine bottles) and cartridges for your e-cig, you can recycle those normally. Just make sure to first rinse any remaining residue from bottles.

Also see: Vaping Resources and Products

Cal NORML Launches Vape Safety Study

Read our report below on the bill’s first hearing this year, along with feedback on the bill from Cal NORML members and supporters.

Asm. Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) brought her bill AB 762, to ban disposable nicotine and cannabis vape pens, to the Assembly Business and Professions Committee for a hearing on Tuesday, January 13. Disposable devices are incredibly popular, you can see them everywhere, including in childrens’ backpacks, Irwin said. Most look like pens, but screens and buttons are being added to play video games like PacMan or Tetrus. Disposable vape pens designs intend them to be thrown away, rather than refilled or recharged. Lithium ion batteries are flammable, igniting garbage trucks and recycling centers.

She pointed to the UK, which has banned disposables, and reported that 85% of customers there switched to reusable products. She said she had to omit vape products from her battery recycling bill because “we couldn’t find a way to recycle them.” We’ve been on a mission, she said, with AB 2440 just coming online and SB 1215, one on loose batteries, one embedded. This category got carved out of the embedded law that just came online January 1. She passed around samples of reusable vs. disposable vapes. (Jokes were made about about how they were just to look at, not use.)

Irwin brought up witness Joe La Mariana of ReThink Waste and a Doug Subers from CA Professional Firefighters to talk about problems with fires at recycling centers due to lithium ion batteries. LeMariana said there have already been two fires at facilities this year; they are quite common.

Those standing to add their support included the League of CA Cities, CSAC, RCRC, the cities of Alameda and Thousand Oaks, Santa Clara and Santa Barbara counties, LA County Sanitation Districts, and the San Francisco Board of  Supervisors. Also, the Product Stewardship Council – Stop Waste, Nor Cal Recycling Association, Parents Against Vaping, and the Teamsters, among others.

THE OPPOSITION SPEAKS

Amy Jenkins of CaCOA provided opposition testimony on behalf of the cannabis industry. Lithium ion batteries are ubiquitous, she said, and this bill doesn’t address improper disposal or educate consumers about it. Disposables serve unique medical patients and accessibility, since dexterity issues preclude changing batteries for some. Consumers do shift to readily available illegal products, e.g. harmful EVALI products.

Sacramento County Sheriff’s deputy Nate Grgich spoke about the illicit market, which he said is increasingly tied to organized criminal networks, many coming from overseas, calling it a health risk and national security concern. He said there were 150 operations into smoke shops last year in Sacramento County raiding businesses with products marketed to minors.

Opposition support came from CCIA, the CA Roundable Business Assn., CA Grocers and Retailers Associations, and the Hispanic and Asian Pacific Chambers of Commerce, along with Weedmaps, the Cannabis Distribution Association, Marsh & Ash and the Catalyst Cannabis Co.

THE COMMITTEE ASKS QUESTIONS

Asm. Philip Chen (R-Orange, San Bernardino) said that 90% of unregulated market comes from from China and asked how does the bill would address that. “We find it hard to believe this bill will impact illicit market,” Irwin said, pointing to two “very strong” enforcement mechanisms in bill: license revocation and civil penalties.

Chen then asked the opposition, “Does this have teeth or is this a drop in the bucket?” Jenkins responded that the lion’s share of enforcement dollars have gone to illicit grows; there has been a lack of emphasis on retail. She noted there is an illicit dispensary on K St. near the capitol, where you can buy an integrated vaporizer, and will continue to be able to buy if this bill passes.

Asm. Heather Hadwick (R-Alpine, Amador, El Dorado, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou counties) asked if CA’s ban on flavored vapes increased the illicit market? Irwin pointed out this would make enforcement easier, since law enforcement won’t have to distinguish between flavored and nonflavored vapes. (She added: I’d like to see the K St. store closed too.) The Sheriff’s deputy agreed that it is hard to distinguish flavored vapes from others. Fine is $500. Jenkins added that flavored vapes are rampant, despite very robust penalties already in MACURSA, can be $30K per violation.

Hadwick said she spent 12 years on her county’s tobacco coalition. There is no punishment possible for kids at school, and 90% of products are from China and not FDA controlled. “I just don’t think this bill is the answer. The 10% of those who are legal aren’t the problem,” she said. “My average age of kids caught was 10 years old. This is ruining our youth.”

Asm. Sade Elhawary (D-Los Angeles) drilled down, asking: Based on some of the illicit market packaging coming from China, what would be effective?

Jenkins replied that previous legislation did require packaging and labeling, and consumer information about proper disposal. If you eliminate a portion of our retail vaping sales, you’re eroding some of that education material that is provided. Integrated vaporizes represent 40% of sales. There are responsible suppliers who do have take-back programs e.g. Marsh & Ash. This bill would take some of that away.

[AB 1894, which took effect in July 2024, requires labeling and mandatory consumer education about proper disposal at hazardous waste facilities on disposable. Licensed manufacturers are complying, and the regulated market has the infrastructure and accountability to address environmental concerns responsibly, CaCOA says, adding that AB 762 dismantles that progress.]

Elhawary noted the llicit market is huge, and oftentimes the fires are coming from that market. She said, I don’t want to be harmful to an industry that’s struggling; although I support bill.

Newcomer Asm. Natasha Johnson (R-Riverside) opined that she can’t imagine a consumer who’s buying an illicit product will be concerned with waste management. Don’t understand how banning a legal product will help. Irwin replied that this is an incremental change that will have negligable impact on consumers. She pointed again to UK and enforcement piece. Johnson replied, I don’t know how we can regulate what we can’t ban. If we’re removing the cleanest version of what we have right now, we’re left with the dirtiest version.

Johnson asked what has happened in good faith negotiations with opposition since the bill was introduced last year. Irwin replied that there was concern from business owners about stock on hand, which was addressed with the addition of a sell-through date of January 1, 2028. The AG’s office or city and county attorneys would be responsible for enforcing the bill.

Asm. Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento) also expressed concerns about the illicit market; does this bill exacerbate that? Asm. Bauer-Kahan thanked Sac sheriff for his work in district. She said she will be supporting; she represents a very large senior community that relies on cannabis for things like arthritis. I want them to have access to the legal market. There’s a difference between how long tobacco vapes last vs. cannabis (others said cannabis vapes could last 6 months). I support related to tobacco piece. I’m hopeful that we can move in that direction going forward.

Dr. Jasmeet Bains (D-Kern Co.) said she will be supporting. We have two fundamental things: illicit vs. licit. But inaction is not a good thing either. Implementation is a factor; where is the implementation of many laws we pass? Also, I don’t our kids to be caught in this debate.

Asm. Alexandra Macedo (R-Fresno) asked about border states selling disposables, relating it to flavored tobacco, saying, “I know people that load up on flavored tobacco when they go to border states. We’re missing that tax income.” I share environmental concerns but I think there are other work arounds, she said.

Chair Marc Berman (D-San Mateo, Santa Clara) closed the hearing by saying, this is a very thoughtful, detailed conversation. This is not a silver bullet. It won’t solve the problems of the illicit market or youth use. But it’s an incremental step in the right direction. People can drive to Reno for a disposable but that seems like a lot of work when could get a reusable one here. There needs to be more enforcement, towards stores instead of grows. But this addresses concerns about environment and waste facilities (he added that he appreciated a tour he got of one facility). Risk and insurance costs have gone up and that gets passed on to all consumers. I know you’ll continue to have conversations with opposition on “tweaks” to bill.

The measure then passed by a vote of 10-5, with Democrats Ahrens, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Caloza, Elhawary, Haney, Irwin, Lowenthal and Pellerin voting in favor. Voting no were Republicans Alanis, Chen, Hadwick, Johnson and Macedo. Not voting were Democrats Jackson, Krell and Nguyen. The bill now heads to the Assembly Appropriations committee on January 22. The next stop would be the Assembly floor, and then Senate committees. 

Cal NORML put out a call last week for feedback on the bill from our members and supporters. Here are some of the responses:

UPDATE: City councilmembers heard from several patients, activists and West Sacramento residents in support of cannabis equity at their meeting on 1/21/2026. 

The City of West Sacramento is choosing to scrap its cannabis equity program rather than grant a license to an equity applicant it approved last year.

Applicant Richard Miller not only meets all of California and West Sacramento’s stated social equity eligibility criteria, he and his business STASH successfully advanced in the RFP process to open an equity business, receiving a letter on July 17, 2025 so stating. However, in late September 2025, the City notified Miller that it was canceling the entire Equity Retail RFP, offering no rationale for the move, as required by law. City officials had until had until January 9, 2026 to respond to a demand from Miller’s attorney Khurshid Khoja; no response was provided.

EQUITY AND THE APPLICANT

Cities across California (and in other regulated US state markets where cannabis commerce is lawful) have adopted social equity cannabis licensing programs, professing an intent to redress the harms of the War on Drugs. Specifically, social equity was intended to redress the myriad injuries endured by individuals who were previously arrested and/or convicted of non-violent offenses that would today constitute lawful cannabis commerce.

According to the CA Dept of Cannabis Control’s website, “California’s cannabis equity efforts support people and communities harmed by cannabis criminalization. These efforts lower barriers to the cannabis industry for those hit hardest by the War on Drugs.” This includes, “people convicted of a cannabis offense. In 1988 Miller was targeted in a sting operation in Foster City by someone posing as a medical marijuana patient and convicted of a cannabis offense. Subsequent arrests in Rancho Cordova and Auburn have affected his employment opportunities, his health, and his driving and child custody rights.

Born in San Francisco, Miller owned printing businesses in the Bay Area. He became active in the medical marijuana movement when his uncle was diagnosed with AIDS, and donated supplies and printing services to San Francisco’s Prop. P campaign to legalize medical marijuana in 1991 and the subsequent statewide Prop. 215 campaign in 1996. Meanwhile, he baked cannabis cookies to donate to AIDS patients at Golden Gate Charities and the Bartlett House where his uncle was house, and assisted patients in wheelchairs at protests.

Miller, who identifies as gay, still proudly holds one of the original pre-Prop 215 caregiver cards issued by legendary medical cannabis patient advocate and AIDS activist Dennis Peron. In 2005 he moved to Sacramento and has worked to implement reforms at the state level, working with several advocacy organizations like California NORML and Americans for Safe Access. In 2022, Richard was named “Patient Advocate of the Year” by ASA.

WEST SAC’S GRANT TO DEVELOP CANNABIS RETAIL & EQUITY BUSINESSES

The DCC’s Cannabis Local Jurisdiction Retail Access Grant Program provided funding to local governments to support the development and implementation of a local cannabis retailer licensing program in 2023. DCC’s grant guidelines state: “An eligible jurisdiction may receive funding up to the maximum amounts listed in Table A, based on the local jurisdiction’s population…Additional funding will be awarded to local jurisdictions that include a proposal to issue retail licenses to qualified local equity businesses.”

At West Sac’s population level, they were eligible for a grant of $175K, plus an additional $60K if they were implementing an equity program. They were awarded a total of $235K, since their grant application had an equity component. The City is missing out on millions more in grants from the Governor’s GoBiz office that other cities and counties with equity programs are being awarded. In addition, two-year grant funding of $250K each year to support cannabis equity businesses was reportedly earmarked as part of the Entertainment District Public Safety and Security project to be funded by West Sacramento’s Measure N, which passed on November 6, 2018. Those funds have yet to be disbursed.

West Sac’s website states that planning commission staff is “developing a retail (storefront and non-storefront) program with a social equity component for further consideration by the City Council.” But now the council plans to scrap the program for which they accepted a state grant to develop.

WHAT’S NEXT?

“If anyone deserves a license to serve California’s medical marijuana patients, it’s Richard Miller,” said Ellen Komp, Deputy Director of California NORML. “West Sacramento would enjoy tax revenue, employment opportunities, and other benefits to the City if it does the right thing and reverses its decision to rescind Richard’s RFP award.” The City now plans to open up their General Retail Cannabis Program, for which anyone can apply. “Unfortunately, we’ve seen small and equity businesses squeezed out of these processes, where licenses largely go to out-of-town chain stores that often don’t include local or equity brands among their offerings, and don’t prioritize patient needs,” Komp added.

West Sacramento residents are encouraged to contact their councilmember in support of the city’s equity program, and plan to attend the city council meeting on Wednesday, January 21 to make a public comment.

Today, January 12, 2025, is the Sesquientennial of author Jack London’s birth 150 years ago.

Jack London was California’s most celebrated literary figure at the turn of the last century. London had achieved worldwide fame through such novels as Call Of The Wild, The Sea-Wolf, and White Fang. He was also an enthusiastic booster for social reforms ranging from socialism to–paradoxically–prohibition.

London first described his adventurers with hashish in John Barleycorn, his “alcoholic memoirs,” devoted to his struggles with drink. Published in 1913, the book was dedicated to the prohibitionist cause, which was then in the midst of a statewide initiative campaign.

In the book, London describes what he calls the “White Logic,” the irresistible drive leading him to intoxication. There he mentions his experience with hashish.

How to describe this White Logic to those who have never experienced it! It is perhaps better first to state how impossible such a description is. Take Hasheesh Land, for instance, the land of enormous extensions of time and space. In past years I have made two memorable journeys into that far land. My adventures there are seared in sharpest detail on my brain. Yet I have tried vainly, with endless words, to describe any tiny particular phase to persons who have not travelled there.

I use all the hyperbole of metaphor, and tell what centuries of time and profounds of unthinkable agony and horror can obtain in each interval of all the intervals between the notes of a quick jig played quickly on the piano. I talk for an hour, elaborating that one phase of Hasheesh Land, and at the end I have told them nothing. And when I cannot tell them this one thing of all the vastness of terrible and wonderful things.

London was introduced to hashish by a fellow Oaklander, the poet George Sterling. Now largely forgotten, Sterling may be best remembered for his lines about San Francisco, “The City by the Sea,” the “Cool, Grey City of Love.” He achieved minor fame as a kind of unofficial bohemian poet laureate presiding over an artists’ colony in Carmel. There he and his friends indulged liberally in alcohol and occasionally in other drugs, including hashish. Sterling left no account of his own hashish travels, though he is said to have written his masterwork, “The Wine of Wizardry,” under the influence of opium.

London’s boyhood friend, Frank Atherton, tells the of London’s first hashish trip with Sterling:

Sometimes Jack would go out for an afternoon with George Sterling. I well remember one night when they had been together. It was quite late when Jack came home.

His eyes looked glassy, and apparently he had been drinking too much. Still he was very quiet, retiring immediately. We didn’t see him again until the next morning when he related his experience of the previous night. He and George had tentatively indulged in hashish.

“To one who has never entered the land of hashish,” he said, “an explanation would mean nothing. But to me, last night was like a thousand years. I was obsessed with indescribable sensations, alternative visions of excessive happiness and oppressive moods of extreme sorrow. I wandered for aeons through countless worlds, mingling with all types of humanity, from the most saintly persons down to the lowest type of abysmal brute.”

“But why in the devil did you want to take the damned stuff?” I asked him. “It’s a wonder you and George didn’t go crazy.”

Jack smiled evasively. “Say, Frank, you’ve read some of Marie Corelli’s books, haven’t you? No doubt you’ve read Wormwood.”

“Yes, I have, but what has that to do with hashish?”

“Everything.” Jack replied. “Marie Corelli couldn’t have written Wormwood if she hadn’t drunk enough Absinthe to experience all those strange dreams and fancies described in Wormwood. And I’ve read that she even became an inmate of brothels to get the material for other books. So you see in order to write intelligently, one must have certain experiences that coincide with the subject.”

In Planchette (1906), London wrote, “She pondered the flower slowly and thoughtfully, as a hasheesh-eater, heavy with the drug, might ponder some whim-flower that obtruded on his vision.”

In London’s Martin Eden (1909), Eden’s counterpart Russ Brissenden is described as having “fire, the flashing insight and perception, the flaming uncontrol of genius.   Living language flowed from him.” He admits to “wandering in hasheesh dreams.” Written when London was 33, just after his success as an author, Martin Eden is similarly successful, but his newer collection “Smoke of Joy” is not well received.

In Burning Daylight (serialized in The New York Herald, June-August, 1910), Daylight’s lawyer and confidant Larry Hegan “was a confirmed but temperate eater of hasheesh.” He is called “that able hasheesh dreamer.”

London’s hashish adventures ended abruptly during his famous yacht voyage on the Snark on a visit to the Solomon Islands. There the party was entertained by the charming British owners of a coconut plantation, Penduffryn, on the island of Guadalcanal. The story is told by Martin Johnson, the Snark’s cook, engineer and photographer:

“The merrymaking lasted several days, until it ended by all present agreeing to take the Oriental dope called hashish.

“Darbishire was the first to partake. After he had passed under the influence, we decorated him with parts of Mrs. London’s clothes, and I did a little artistic work with water-colors. For several days he went around the house in a half-dazed state, and would at times drop dead asleep while standing on his feet. One after another took this hashish, until the night Jack took it. He went clear off his head, acted so wild that Mrs London was frightened; and no one else would take it. Next night was to have been my turn.”

Cannabis was still legal when London and Sterling tried it. However, just as John Barleycorn was being published in the spring of 1913, the California legislature outlawed cannabis at the behest of the state Board of Pharmacy.

The Board, a nationally recognized pioneer in the war on drugs, expressed concern about the use of cannabis by East Indian “Hindoo” immigrants. Ironically, only after cannabis was prohibited did it come into widespread popularity in California, but that would be years in the future.