Komorn Law, Pllc-14 Pound Medical Marihuana Case Dismissed Pursuant To Section 8 Of The Mmma.

[mibrains]

I would argue that even a harvested plant meets the definition or a plant under Michigan law, even without roots attached. It is easier than arguing unusable material, in my opinion.

 

what? wait... back up... i am confused... this is the first time i have heard this approach.

 

i have to include harvested plants in my plant count now?

 

at what point is it no longer a plant?

once i kill it is my assumption.

 

intent and whether it is dry or not is where i thought the usable argument comes in.

 

by this statement are you saying we should be counting harvested materials on a drying screen or rack as a plant and in a plant count? it's interesting...

[BirdHunter]

I just think it is a nonsense definition. The seeds already have cotyledons even before they germinate. If you take a dry bean for example, and split it in two, you are holding the 2 cotyledons. That's why beans are dicots, they have 2, and the plant did not produce them they are there in the seed. The baby plant uses them for energy until they are totally absorbed. So in effect the plant consumes cotyledons rather than produces them.

[CaveatLector]

I think you should read it again. It definitely describes a plant scientifically. It does include cuttings, however, which are not included in other definitions.

Lately, I have been looking toward the definition of "plant" in the Michigan public health code, MCL 333.7401(5), which does not require roots:

 

 

 

I think using this definition will save a lot of heartache in court instead of trying to explain drying plants as unusable material, which has not really been recognized uniformly.

Could save heartache, yes.

 

As you know I generally tend to err on the side of caution. However, technically speaking, you cannot use the definition from the PHC to define a term used in a different law (the MMA). Especially when the term is defined as an operational definition, as is evidenced by the fact that the term is qualified by the limiting words, "as used in this section."

 

I think to define plant under the MMA we need to look at a dictionary. The dictionary definition of plant is narrower than the PHC definition. Under Webster's definition it is not a plant if it isn't planted OR suitable for planting. I think it would be hard to argue that an unrooted cutting is suitable for planting.

 

With all of that said I would caution that some courts will use the PHC definition and you may end up climbing the stairs to the MSC for ultimate resolution. So if you want to go that route then, by all means, have at it. Just have the money and fortitude as well.

 

Ideally we would get the legislature to define the term in a very narrow manner within the MMA. That would clear up this problem. Many here know that a plant definition has been tossed around here since virtually the beginning of this website. It will probably continue until the court or legislature clears it up.

[dutchfarm]

Thank You All for your opinions and thoughts!! I think I will continue to leave the root balls on the plants after harvesting, my thought being that if the root balls are attatched then there should be no question as to whether the material is a "plant" or "unusable material", imho. Again "Thank You!" Any other opinions or thoughts would also be appreciated.

Farmer Brown

[trichcycler]

I transport my deliveries in zipper bank pouches, placed into large hobby lobby jars, placed inside a zipper backpack, in my trunk. there is no smell ever, and my patients all have the same zipper pouches/jars for our exchange. very tidy.  Keeping a patient safe in their transport is very important to me. My safety is always on my mind.

do they make giant turkey bags for the smell? lol.