Jump to content

Meanwhile In Sf:court Rules "concentrated" Cannabis Is Medical...


slipstar059

Recommended Posts

So the real question is was it synthetic or plant derived. Can anyone find People v. Campbell, 72 Mich App. 411 (1977). and post it here? I've been looking all day. It's posted on NORML but when I web search I come up empty.

72 Mich. App. 411 (1976)

249 N.W.2d 870

PEOPLE

v.

CAMPBELL

Docket No. 25401.

 

Michigan Court of Appeals.

Decided November 23, 1976.

 

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Gerald D. Lostracco, Prosecuting Attorney, and Daniel J. Loomis, Chief Assistant Prosecutor, for the people.

 

Hoschner and Kurrle, for defendant.

 

Before: BRONSON, P.J., and BEASLEY and D. ANDERSON, JR.,

  • JJ.

     

    BEASLEY, J.

     

    Defendant, Scott Campbell, was charged with and convicted by a jury of selling the controlled substance, tetrahydrocannabinols (THC), *412 contrary to MCLA 335.341(1)(b); MSA 18.1070(41)(1)(b). Conviction on this charge carries a seven-year maximum penalty. Defendant was sentenced to not less than three nor more than seven years in prison.

     

    THC is most commonly found in its natural state, being the active ingredient in marijuana, but it can also be produced synthetically. In the present case, it was uncontroverted that the substance sold by the defendant contained natural THC. Based on this fact, the defendant contended, both at trial and originally in this appeal, that he should have stood trial for sale of marijuana, a four-year felony, rather than the charged offense. He pointed to the language of the Controlled Substances Act, MCLA 335.301 et seq.; MSA 18.1070(1) et seq., and argued that the act intended to include the sale of only synthetic THC in the category of narcotics carrying a seven-year penalty, while it intended sale of natural THC to be punished only under the provisions dealing with marijuana. On appeal the prosecution has agreed that the defendant's interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Controlled Substances Act is the correct interpretation of those provisions. This Court agrees. The language of the act supports this conclusion. Unless the statute is so interpreted, any person selling marijuana could be charged with sale of THC and become subject to the greater penalty since all marijuana contains at least a trace of natural THC. In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, the Legislature did not intend such an anomalous result.

     

    Reversed.

    NOTES

  • Former circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T-pain, I just read the Carruthers COA ruling and noted the following quotes that I think (I'm no lawyer, either) supports your contention that "edibles are allowed". As long as the THC isn't extracted in resin form. I'd appreciate your comments.

 

COA, Section V, p.5. "Therefore, to constitute usable marijuana under the MMMA, any “mixture or preparation” must be of “the dried leaves or flowers” of the marijuana plant."

 

P. 7. "Consequently, an edible product made with THC extracted from resin is excluded from the definition of “usable marihuana.” Rather, under the plain language of the MMMA, the only “mixture or preparation” that falls within the definition of “usable marihuana” is a mixture or preparation of “the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant . . . .” Id."

 

P. 9. "Our interpretation also does not preclude the medical use of marijuana by ingestion of edible products; (9) to the contrary, that use is authorized by the MMMA, within the statutory limitations, provided that the edible product is a “mixture or preparation” of “the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant,” rather than of the more potent THC that is extracted from marijuana resin."

 

Footnote: 9. "Defendant advances such an argument with respect to counting the entire weight of an edible product toward the quantity limit of § 4 of the MMMA. Although defendant formerly argued (at his preliminary examination) that edible products made with THC extract were not usable marijuana, we can now envision a possible argument to the effect that, because our endorsement of that position might result in the subjection of a possessor of those edible products to prosecution under our controlled substance possession statutes, that finding will similarly preclude all medical use of marijuana by ingestion of edible products. We disagree, for the reasons noted."

 

So, it seems to me that these examples would meet this requirement:

- ground up dried leaves and flowers, either loose and sprinkled on/in food, added to a liquid or placed in gel caps

- dried leaves and flowers that have been added to an "oil" and allowed to sit, and then ingested. For example, I grind up dried leaves and flowers and let them sit in oil for a period of time. My take is that if I leave the dried leaves and flowers in the oil and consume both, then I'm ok. However, if I filtered, strained the dried leaves and flowers out of the oil and then ingested it (the oil) I would be in violation.

 

Finally, what is the status of the Carruthers appeal for a Section 8 defense? Is there a date set?

when you make your tincture or oil with out lets say butane, put your dried leaves and flowers in tea bags made of cheese cloth, leave it in there!  will that make it qualified?

 

Peace

 

edit= you could still strain it and wrap more chees cloth on it,, keep it in the dark and shake when ever you think of it, it would actualy get stronger and have the leaves and ground budd still in there, good for salad dressing,,You know I have never tried mm tea, I guess I will make a few mmtea bags and see how it works!

Edited by phaquetoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Consequently, an edible product made with THC extracted from resin is excluded from the definition of “usable marihuana.”

 

"Our interpretation also does not preclude the medical use of marijuana by ingestion of edible products; (9) to the contrary, that use is authorized by the MMMA, within the statutory limitations, provided that the edible product is a “mixture or preparation” of “the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant,” rather than of the more potent THC that is extracted from marijuana resin."

 

Does this mean that the resin itself is legal as long as it isn't pure delta 9 THC extracted from resin? I know I don't have the money, lab equipment or technical knowledge to extract THC.

 

You would first have to purify the resin to cannabigerolic acid, the endogenous precursor to THC or cannabidiol, the laboratory precursor to THC. Then go through a long, potentially dangerous and expensive process to convert these precursors to pure THC.

 

Not within the skill set of most folks.

Edited by Wild Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was charged with delivery of hash oil in 1976. The charge read "Delivery of Marijuana (hash oil)".

 

So it's marijuana if it suits their purposes.

I got popped with honey oil back in the day, the called it a felony, enhancement or something like that,,,I didnt get convicted or Im sure I would remember what the charge name was, enhancing idk, bet zap knows!

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people not using medical cannabis aren't charged differently for oil/cannabis than people using medical cannabis shouldn't be either. They said they have no precedent and couldn't charge based on percentage of THC only if it was synthetic or plant based, and labs can now see the cannabinoids present, and easily tell if it's plaht based. I really hope the Supreme Court gets see a case based on these questions. Although I'd rather not see anyone have cases taken to the SC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Consequently, an edible product made with THC extracted from resin is excluded from the definition of “usable marihuana.”

 

"Our interpretation also does not preclude the medical use of marijuana by ingestion of edible products; (9) to the contrary, that use is authorized by the MMMA, within the statutory limitations, provided that the edible product is a “mixture or preparation” of “the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant,” rather than of the more potent THC that is extracted from marijuana resin."

 

We can't discuss the CoA's comments intelligently because they obviously have no understanding how marihuana works. How precious is it that they appear to think the "more potent THC" is extracted from the stalks? They likely envision it to be something akin to sugarcane. Just strip off the bark and go crazy!

 

COA, Section V, p.5. "Therefore, to constitute usable marijuana under the MMMA, any “mixture or preparation” must be of “the dried leaves or flowers” of the marijuana plant."

 

That's what I find as the loophole. The oil of course comes from a preparation that used the dried leaves or flowers of the plant. With the research I have done it seems near impossible to remove ALL the chlorophyl from BHO. Because it is a "mixture or preparation" the burden falls upon the state to prove that the substance is not from the leaves or flowers.

 

The heart of the matter is that LEOs know the difference and they want to maintain a way to use the cuffs for crimes of THC.

 

The loophole for them appears to be the weight of brownies. A brownie over 2.5oz is illegal in addition to any brownies to which it may be adjacent. The entire thing counts as a "mixture or preparation" near as I can tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The definition specifically excludes the “mature stalks” of the plant “except the resin extracted therefrom.” Id. By virtue of that exception, therefore, resin extracted from mature stalks is also expressly included within the definition of “marihuana.” There is no dispute that both the raw marijuana and the brownies found in defendant’s possession constitute marijuana under the MMMA. By contrast, however, the definition of “usable marihuana” under the MMMA does not include “all parts” of the cannabis plant. More to the point, it specifically does not include “the resin extracted from” the cannabis plant. Nor does it include “the resin extracted” from mature

stalks of the plant.

 

the COA said it themselves that edibles made of dried leaves and flowers are allowed, you read it yourself. its not something i made up. see, the bolded part, i'm taking to mean that the coa is talking about resin extracted from stalks.you see they really focused hard on the stalks of the plant, and resins of the plant. what they are trying to say is that if you extract resin from flowers its ok, but resin from stalks or roots are not ok. i'd say making oil out of dried flowers is ok. its a preparation of dried flowers.*yes, dried flowers. wet flowers arent "usable marihuana" as defined in our act.the coa thinks "resin" is defined as "resin from mature marijuana stalks".i'm trying to say that the entire carruthers opinion is based solely on this stalk issue that the coa imagined how carruthers created his edibles/butter with stalks instead of dried flowers. all because carruthers or someone called it "resin".i'd love to see the oakland county court transcript of the case.

The last two sentences of the above quote from Carruthers confuses me. It is talking about two things that are NOT INCLUDED (not allowed) both resin extracted from the CANNABIS PLANT and resin extracted from mature STALKS of the plant.

 

Are there saying they're one and same or TWO DIFFERENT PARTS (your interpretation, I believe) of the plant? Roots and leaves/flowers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More to the point, it specifically does not include “the resin extracted from” the cannabis plant. Nor does it include “the resin extracted” from mature stalks of the plant.

 

 

The last two sentences of the above quote from Carruthers confuses me. It is talking about two things that are NOT INCLUDED (not allowed) both resin extracted from the CANNABIS PLANT and resin extracted from mature STALKS of the plant.

 

Are there saying they're one and same or TWO DIFFERENT PARTS (your interpretation, I believe) of the plant? Roots and leaves/flowers?

i think everyone is getting stuck on the word "resin".

 

its trying to say:

the (whole) cannabis plant = not usable marihuana

stalks of the plant = not usable marihuana

 

seeds = not usable marihuana

roots = not usable marihuana

 

 

you make anything out of dried leaves and flowers = usable marihuana

 

its as simple as that.

 

just a lot of people made up the following in their heads:

"resin extracted from the dried leaves and flowers is not usable marihuana"

 

but that sentence is just not in the opinion.

Edited by t-pain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not really possible to come to any intelligent conclusions from reading the sub-literate drivel that they have presented to us. I'm starting to think that their intent was to say that we could be arrested for using the "non usable" parts of the plant.

 

But who really knows? The court of appeals rulings seemingly have no basis in the law and are just haphazardly thrown together in an attempt to nullify the law.

 

Poorly written by people who have no knowledge of the subject and are unwilling or perhaps incapable of learning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not really possible to come to any intelligent conclusions from reading the sub-literate drivel that they have presented to us. I'm starting to think that their intent was to say that we could be arrested for using the "non usable" parts of the plant.

 

But who really knows? The court of appeals rulings seemingly have no basis in the law and are just haphazardly thrown together in an attempt to nullify the law.

 

Poorly written by people who have no knowledge of the subject and are unwilling or perhaps incapable of learning.

 

No different than most of us thought, though they called us "cynics".

 

All that matters is doing all you can to preserve your freedom from politicians and LEO who live each day trying to deny it. Good luck and Merry Saturnalia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...