In People ex rel. Lungren v. Peron (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 1383, 1393-1395 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 20, Division Five of the First District Court of Appeal rejected the argument the Compassionate Use Act provided a defense to the sale or giving away of marijuana under section 11360, subdivision (a). The court reiterated the Trippet court's observation that the Compassionate Use Act specifically included sections 11357 (possession) and 11358 (cultivation), and did not include any reference to section 11360 (transportation and sale). (Peron, at p. 1392.) The Peron court also found the arguments tendered to the electorate in support of the Compassionate Use Act supported the conclusion section 11360 was not included under the Compassionate Use Act (i.e., that the Compassionate Use Act would not change the law in any other respects, and " 'police officers can still arrest anyone who grows too much, or tries to sell it' "). (Peron, at p. 1393.) In rejecting the Cannabis Buyers' Club's argument the judiciary must interpret the act as permitting them to sell marijuana, the court concluded: "By doing so, we would initiate a decriminalization of sales of and traffic in marijuana in this state. Whether that concept has merit is not a decision for the judiciary. It is one the Legislature or the people by initiative are free to make. Proposition 215, in enacting section 11362.5, did not do so." (Id. at pp. 1394-1395.)