Hacker News Reader

Comment by donatj | Hacker News Reader

> Transportation may not be done by aircraft, watercraft, rail, drones, human powered vehicles, or unmanned vehicles.

What? Why no marijuana watercraft? In all seriousness though this seems very arbitrary.

This is probably motivated in part by a desire to prevent legal in-state distribution from being easily parleyed into illegal interstate distribution. They want to be able to keep track of all the vehicles distributing mj. This is easier if they can only drive on roads and are required to have gps.

Since federal regulation of mj is built on the interstate commerce clause, actual interstate commerce is a likely trigger of conflict between the federal government and the California mj industry

In short: this regulation was passed to keep from giving the feds a very easy reason to raid the state government of California.

Sound accurate?

Seems reasonable considering all the ongoing raids on Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada governments.

From yesterday: Legal Marijuana Is Almost Here, If Only Pot Farmers Were on Board[0]

> California, which by one estimate produces seven times more marijuana than it consumes, will probably continue to be a major exporter — illegally — to other states. In part, that is because of the huge incentive to stay in the black market: marijuana on the East Coast sells for several times more than in California.

Interstate cannabis transport legalization appears to be the hurdle to California's reaping tax benefits from the industry. How will legalization in a few New England states impact Northern California's economy?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15210766

> this seems very arbitrary

It's not arbitrary at all. The only options remaining are 1) walking (totally impractical); and 2) driving a registered vehicle on public roads that are easy to spy on -- see e.g. http://gizmodo.com/feds-are-spying-on-millions-of-cars-with-...

This keeps marijuana inside state boundaries.

Why the ban on human powered vehicles? Sounds bad for the environment on the surface.

Cause you can pretty easily bike, with a big trailer of drugs, from one border town to another.

So dogsleds are horses ok?

"It's like Uber for Marijuana by Pony!"

Nope. "in person by enclosed motor vehicle" only. And the vehicle needs GPS monitoring.

Again, the goal is to make sure that legal marijuana delivery operations are demonstrably not moving legally grown California marijuana across state borders. To avoid federal involvement.

So ice cream trucks would be cool, right?

http://gta.wikia.com/wiki/Distribution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Ice_Cream_Wars

I'm not sure if that would count as "enclosed".

How about delivering marijuana by Mystery Machine?

http://scoobydoo.wikia.com/wiki/Mystery_Machine

The Mystery Machine has the uncanny ability to adapt to any given situation (and the conveniently packed items that might be needed in any given situation):

The back is filled with various equipments (ladder, lanterns, and ropes).

A bench running longwise can be stored in the rear of the van.

Also, the back can fit a table and chairs, plus the walls are lined with computer equipment; a large antenna can be attached on the roof.

Another time a table is included, the walls are lined with kitchen cabinets.

A lot of states have heavy restrictions on transport of alcohol, a sort of state-mandated middleman that is either parasitic or fulfills an important regulatory purpose depending on who you ask. This seems like a natural extension of that. In the article, it even specifies that deliveries must be accompanied by GPS.

Doesn't say anything about tunnels (another biz opportunity for The Boring Company?), or delivery via pneumatic tube.

It's also unclear if ballistic delivery plus a parachute qualifies as a vehicle. So, marijuana delivery by unpowered smart mortar . . . :-)

> human powered vehicles

Does anyone have an idea why bicycles would be a problem?

I can only imagine this is borne out of "ways we saw marijuana transported while it was still illegal."

Completely spitballing this one, but I can imagine that a bike might be argued to not be a safe way to transport drugs or any sort of high-value delivery, since they are less easily secured and more easily stolen than a locked motor vehicle when it's parked outside an apartment building (for example).

^ This. The California government likes to regulate away things it thinks will be dangerous, or that it's citizens will be too ignorant to avoid doing. Honestly I'm kinda surprised they didn't specify armored car transport as the only acceptable option.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com