Clones Not Technically A "plant"

[Michael Komorn]

Clones not technically a "plant"

 

The federal definition requires a marijuana cutting have roots, a rootball, or root hairs observable to the naked eye in order to be considered a marijuana plant. That definition is in the notes in the Guidelines at 2D1.1, note 17. There is case law that says essentially the same thing.

 

Michael Komorn

Attorney and Counselor

Off: 248-357-2550

Mbl: 248-321-5393

Email: Michael@komornlaw.com

Website: www.komornlaw.com

Check out my Radio show

Live Every Wednesday 8-9:00 p.m.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/realtalkfm

Click GreenTrees Radio

Call in Number 347-205-9718

[phaquetoo]

I totaly respect your opinions and knowledge of the law!

 

What im wondering though Is can I advertise my services on here? In every one of my posts? Just wondering!

I am a liscensed builder, and id like to build every one in the state a Grow Room!

That would be sweet, Ill have a great experienced crew go do all the work, and when all these nice peeps get popped for growing legaly ( i realize there are some bad apples in our mm community). but hey im sure you will represent them,( so we could be kinda like partners) I build it, if they get raided, you defend them!

 

I dont give negs to any one, If I could give you rating I would give you a million ++++++++pluses

if your interested in my suggestion, maybe you could put my business on your post with yours!

 

That would be Sweet!!!

 

Free The Weed!

Peace!

Jim

[big bud]

I totaly respect your opinions and knowledge of the law!

 

What im wondering though Is can I advertise my services on here? In every one of my posts? Just wondering!

I am a liscensed builder, and id like to build every one in the state a Grow Room!

That would be sweet, Ill have a great experienced crew go do all the work, and when all these nice peeps get popped for growing legaly ( i realize there are some bad apples in our mm community). but hey im sure you will represent them,( so we could be kinda like partners) I build it, if they get raided, you defend them!

 

I dont give negs to any one, If I could give you rating I would give you a million ++++++++pluses

if your interested in my suggestion, maybe you could put my business on your post with yours!

 

That would be Sweet!!!

 

Free The Weed!

Peace!

Jim

if you need a extra builder let me no thats my hobby now that they got me on disability from ironwork i love working with wood buildings like art.

[AnthonyB]

Clones not technically a "plant"

 

The federal definition requires a marijuana cutting have roots, a rootball, or root hairs observable to the naked eye in order to be considered a marijuana plant. That definition is in the notes in the Guidelines at 2D1.1, note 17. There is case law that says essentially the same thing.

 

Michael Komorn

Attorney and Counselor

Off: 248-357-2550

Mbl: 248-321-5393

Email: Michael@komornlaw.com

Website: www.komornlaw.com

Check out my Radio show

Live Every Wednesday 8-9:00 p.m.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/realtalkfm

Click GreenTrees Radio

Call in Number 347-205-9718

 

 

Wait a sec now... So clones are not part of 12 plants per patient limit again?

[kruztydj]

Do ya have a link to that case law so we can look it over ???

[Zombiefied]

Do ya have a link to that case law so we can look it over ???

Here ya go!

 

Go down to Note #17 LOVE IT!!!!

 

 

+ (how do you do the unlimited sign) rep for Michael Komorn, So much info posted in the past few days, THANK YOU!

[first mate]

Wait a sec now... So clones are not part of 12 plants per patient limit again?

they are as soon as they have a visible root ball,so might just as well plan on counting them when you take the cutting!!!!

[JohnB RPh]

I know states have the authority with pharmaceuticals (and probably other matters as well) to make Federal drug scheduling stricter, but not more lenient. Is this, then, how the law in this state is able to count unrooted clones as plants?

[phaquetoo]

Here ya go!

 

Go down to Note #17 LOVE IT!!!!

 

 

+ (how do you do the unlimited sign) rep for Michael Komorn, So much info posted in the past few days, THANK YOU!

 

 

People I totaly Respect Mr. Komorn for his knowledge and the Help he has provided for the cause!

I was serious when I said I would give him a millions +plus reps if I could!

 

Zom The link is to complicated for me! Thats why I would give him + reps! I will take his word for it

He understands that stuff and is willing to fight it in court!

I would have to think a clone with no roots, is nothing but clippings, so a lil hill billy sense tells me not to have more than the clones with me if im transporting, just in case they want to weigh bunny muffin. now i know it isnt cured so it shouldnt count, also i would have to say that once your clones have roots, they are considered towards your count! thats the way Im gonna play it!

 

If you have 5 patients, you should realy have alot of wiggle room and not even come close to 12 plants per patient!

If your a patient grower, You should have no prob with the 12 plants to get you going!

I guess if you had 12 plants, and got 12 clones from them for next run, you shouldnt tell peeps, and if you get caught I believe you have a defense!

 

F T W

Peace!

Jim

[phaquetoo]

if you need a extra builder let me no thats my hobby now that they got me on disability from ironwork i love working with wood buildings like art.

 

 

If anything comes to your part of the state I will be sure your involved!

 

F T W

Peace!

Jim

[boroboro]

It seems that the most interesting part of this, if it proves to be true in the eyes of Michigan judges, is an easier ability to trade unrooted clones.  The person donating or trading the clones would not have to have the extra plant count.  Snip off a nice section of the plant, dunk in a plastic bottle with some water in it, and head off to meet the happy recipient of the trade.  

Of course, the recipient will need to know how to root clones...

 

Thanks Michael!

 

 

[peanutbutter]

Clones not technically a "plant"

 

The federal definition requires a marijuana cutting have roots, a rootball, or root hairs observable to the naked eye in order to be considered a marijuana plant. That definition is in the notes in the Guidelines at 2D1.1, note 17. There is case law that says essentially the same thing.

 

 

So then ..

 

If there is a tray of cuttings that haven't produced any roots yet, they are still just cuttings and not plants yet. Is that correct?

 

There is another interpretation that is based on the 1978 MI CSA. That rule said that the moment the cutting is taken, it is a plant.

 

There are several cases that depend or have depended on counting every cutting in a tray. No evidence is gathered or preserved to show that there were roots at the time the tray was captured.

 

We're all just supposed to accept the word of any leo that there were roots on the cutting AT THE TIME OF CAPTURE.

 

Someone at the lab might look to see if roots exist .. might. And that might be several days after the capture. So when did the roots grow? While in the evidence room?

 

If LEO wishes to grow plants in the evidence room, why should a defendant do time for what LEO does in the evidence room?

 

There is nothing to show that a defendant would not have done this:

 

Assume a 50% success rate with cuttings. After the desired amount of plants are produced, then the defendant destroys the rest of the cuttings.

 

Most cases attempt to claim that every cutting will take root every time. Defendants are being charged for every cutting. No evidence is being gathered to prove roots existed at the time of raid.

[phaquetoo]

So then ..

 

If there is a tray of cuttings that haven't produced any roots yet, they are still just cuttings and not plants yet. Is that correct?

 

There is another interpretation that is based on the 1978 MI CSA. That rule said that the moment the cutting is taken, it is a plant.

 

There are several cases that depend or have depended on counting every cutting in a tray. No evidence is gathered or preserved to show that there were roots at the time the tray was captured.

 

We're all just supposed to accept the word of any leo that there were roots on the cutting AT THE TIME OF CAPTURE.

 

Someone at the lab might look to see if roots exist .. might. And that might be several days after the capture. So when did the roots grow? While in the evidence room?

 

If LEO wishes to grow plants in the evidence room, why should a defendant do time for what LEO does in the evidence room?

 

There is nothing to show that a defendant would not have done this:

 

Assume a 50% success rate with cuttings. After the desired amount of plants are produced, then the defendant destroys the rest of the cuttings.

 

Most cases attempt to claim that every cutting will take root every time. Defendants are being charged for every cutting. No evidence is being gathered to prove roots existed at the time of raid.

 

 

 

F T W

Peace!

Jim

[Guest Wayne]

The prosecutor in Tuscola County applied Michigan statutes that define a plant as any that have had cotyledons or came from a plant that had cotyledons. I would like to get an answer from Mr. Kormon on the Michigan statutory language. To date for wht it's worth most LEO in Michigan are counting only those cuttings that appear to have been put in media that would encourage root growth, ie bubbe cloners, rockwool cubes, dirt, etc. Not cuttings obviously discarded as garbage (though they may throw then in an evidence bag and claim the weight for all I know). We get no definitive answer in this case as a plea deal was reached before a ruling on the issue could be determined.

[bobandtorey]

Here ya go!

 

Go down to Note #17 LOVE IT!!!!

 

 

+ (how do you do the unlimited sign) rep for Michael Komorn, So much info posted in the past few days, THANK YOU!

 

For purposes of the guidelines, a "plant" is an organism having leaves and a readily observable root formation (e.g., a marihuana cutting having roots, a rootball, or root hairs is a marihuana plant).

[Guest Wayne]

If the legal community is going to apply federal law to this argument are all federal marijuana laws applicable? Or is this a cherry picking expedition?

[Zombiefied]

If the legal community is going to apply federal law to this argument are all federal marijuana laws applicable? Or is this a cherry picking expedition?

I could of sworn that is still illegal under federal law, so if I go down under Federal Law, and they try to get me for unrooted clones, then I should not use this?

[Zombiefied]

People I totaly Respect Mr. Komorn for his knowledge and the Help he has provided for the cause!

I was serious when I said I would give him a millions +plus reps if I could!

Zom The link is to complicated for me! Thats why I would give him + reps! I will take his word for it

He understands that stuff and is willing to fight it in court!

I would have to think a clone with no roots, is nothing but clippings, so a lil hill billy sense tells me not to have more than the clones with me if im transporting, just in case they want to weigh bunny muffin. now i know it isnt cured so it shouldnt count, also i would have to say that once your clones have roots, they are considered towards your count! thats the way Im gonna play it!

 

If you have 5 patients, you should realy have alot of wiggle room and not even come close to 12 plants per patient!

If your a patient grower, You should have no prob with the 12 plants to get you going!

I guess if you had 12 plants, and got 12 clones from them for next run, you shouldnt tell peeps, and if you get caught I believe you have a defense!

 

F T W

Peace!

Jim

 

I completely respect Mr. Komorn myself. I am glad to see this posted, and all the other stuff he has posted too....

 

Thats cool, I didnt post it for you, it was for kruztydj who asked for the link

[Guest Wayne]

Currently Matt Abel is advising that cuttings in grow media or cloners should be included in plant counts. Not saying a challenge wouldn't prevail but until someone runs the gauntlet the answer is open. IMO

[MIMEDGROW]

first of all..

 

We DO NOT want to start applying any forms of FEDERAL LAW to our Michigan law.

 

Second.

 

If you have the INTENT of making a cutting into a rooted clone than the state of Michigan intends to view it as a plant as that is the definition that is currently on the books.

 

Third.

 

I don't really care and will fight it tooth and nail in court that a plant has to have 1 root and 1 leaf in order to qualify as a plant.

 

This is the reason that I use aero-ponic cloning methods to ensure that I know exactly when they count.

[Guest Wayne]

MIMEDGROW, I believe your correct and think you may have found a great way to avoid application of the law with your aeroponic method of propogation. Until statutes change our logic must evolve. Great post. I also believe other aspects of the MMMP give broader protection than those actually successfully argued in court to date. Hopefully with time things will change for the better. Major battle won but the fight goes on.

[MIMEDGROW]

air-layering is pretty much the safest bet. If you are a patient grower this would be the method of choice!

[+JuztBudz]

Regardless of federal laws, Michigan has established what qualifies as a plant under its jurisdiction. We cannot pick and choose whose guidelines we are going to live under. We cannot say that federal law apply in this situation, yet say that another part of federal law, then does not apply. We live in Michigan, and need clarification of those laws, not further muddying of the waters by bringing in the federal interpretations. While the Michigan interpretation is somewhat messed up, it is Michigan's laws that we must abide by. While I would love to see the states interpretation challenged and the federal one used, it simply does not apply presently in this state....IMHO

 

And...I am not a lawyer...

 

Peace...j.b.

[peanutbutter]

Second.

 

If you have the INTENT of making a cutting into a rooted clone than the state of Michigan intends to view it as a plant as that is the definition that is currently on the books.

 

Intent is NOT in the 1978 law.

 

Many people like to include it there .. but it simply isn't there.

 

This is a "common sense" way to apply the old law. Fair enough .. just don't think or try to say that is what that old law SAYS.

 

Roots and intent are not there. The only thing that matters is did you cut something from the mother plant. If you do, that is a new plant.

 

The old law doesn't say you have to put the cutting into anything. You just have to make the cutting.

 

So, under that old law, you are making thousands of plants when you harvest a plant.

 

You think it would not be fair to count plants that way. I would agree with you. It would not be fair.

 

So what? The word "fair" is not in that old law. It was never intended to be "fair."

[peanutbutter]

Regardless of federal laws, Michigan has established what qualifies as a plant under its jurisdiction. We cannot pick and choose whose guidelines we are going to live under. We cannot say that federal law apply in this situation, yet say that another part of federal law, then does not apply. We live in Michigan, and need clarification of those laws, not further muddying of the waters by bringing in the federal interpretations. While the Michigan interpretation is somewhat messed up, it is Michigan's laws that we must abide by. While I would love to see the states interpretation challenged and the federal one used, it simply does not apply presently in this state....IMHO

 

And...I am not a lawyer...

 

Peace...j.b.

 

Hey jb!

 

I believe the old law does not apply. Any old harsh law, that was intended to punish people for a plant, does not apply to us. (last part of section 7 of our new law)

 

This old Michigan law has never been applied according to the letter of that law and never will be. It has never been literally applied in a recreational marijuana case. Those clippings in the trash .. a literal application would have every one of those clippings count as plants.

 

Never has been and never will be applied as written.

 

So why start now with medical marijuana patients? Why apply the law more harshly against patients than drug dealers?