Extracts?

[mibrains]

the thing about the extracts is.. the COA is pretty much right on point with their language and concerns for once... and it will be difficult at best to overcome their decision.

 

I mean I hate to say that. but all they did was quote the definition of cannabis according to the MMMA.  dry usable flowers and leaves but no stems or seeds.

 

extracts are not, were not, and most likely wont be able to be manufactured from residential homes. 

 

unfortunately the definition of "any preparation thereof" does not include removing the plant materials or chemically altering the cannabis.

 

I feel like we are going to need to be addressing this issue from many fronts.  not just the Caruthers appeal... we had better be proactive and have a initiative on the ready.   however they will NOT allow chemical extractions from average people in residential homes.  so anyone who is hell bent on having RSO or BHO had better get busy figuring out a safe way to complete those extractions without blowing up houses. it will have to become an entire industry and have mega oversight and safety regulations to ensure first its safe to do and second its safe to use once done.

 

my point is...if you are supporting the Caruthers appeal just to get chemical extractions back I sure would strongly advise a back up plan..

[Celliach]

 most likely wont be able to be manufactured from residential homes 

i agree and that may be the plan all along IMHO may open the door for the house Bill 4271 

 

4271 is dead.  Remember they said it was stream-lined through the state congress and would be passed in a few months?  It still hasn't gotten through committee.  I'm not sure why, but there must have been opposition from some where.  It's been languishing in the committee ever since.  I don't expect to get out of committee at this point, and if they do, they still have to get it past Schuette's tool in the senate, Rick Jones.

[bobandtorey]

4271 is dead.  Remember they said it was stream-lined through the state congress and would be passed in a few months?  It still hasn't gotten through committee.  I'm not sure why, but there must have been opposition from some where.  It's been languishing in the committee ever since.  I don't expect to get out of committee at this point, and if they do, they still have to get it past Schuette's tool in the senate, Rick Jones.

again Thank you

 

IMHO weather it's dead or not i'am not so sure of it  things do have away of making a come back when the $$$ come rolling inn 

[Wild Bill]

unfortunately the definition of "any preparation thereof" does not include removing the plant materials or chemically altering the cannabis.

 

I disagree on that point. This law is supposed to be viewed by "common language". I Googled the two words in question and came up with this;

 

prep·a·ra·tion    the action or process of making ready or being made ready for use or consideration.

"the preparation of a draft contract"

 

a substance that is specially made up and usually sold, esp. a medicine or food.

synonyms: mixture, compound, concoction, solution, tincture, medicine, potion, ointment, lotion

 

 

there·of   Of the thing just mentioned; of that. "the member state or a part thereof"

 

The COA is using the first definition, which is proper although limited. In the context of the MMMA it would seem the second is more applicable, especially when looking at the synonyms.

 

The COA has just cherry picked a definition that will fit into their narrow Reefer Madness viewpoint. Even using their preferred definition it says nothing about not changing the structure of the thing mentioned, it only speaks to "being made ready for use".

 

Is jelly made from grape juice no longer grape because it doesn''t contain pulp? Or is it indeed a grape preparation?

 

Of course, I just cherry picked the definition I like. Which one do you think actually applies to this particular law?

Edited September 26, 2013 by Wild Bill

[bobandtorey]

I disagree on that point. This law is supposed to be viewed by "common language". I Googled the two words in question and came up with this;

 

 

The COA is using the first definition, which is proper although limited. In the context of the MMMA it would seem the second is more applicable, especially when looking at the synonyms.

 

The COA has just cherry picked a definition that will fit into their narrow Reefer Madness viewpoint. Even using their preferred definition it says nothing about not changing the structure of the thing mentioned, it only speaks to "being made ready for use".

 

Is jelly made from grape juice no longer grape because it doesn''t contain pulp? Or is it indeed a grape preparation?

 

Of course, I just cherry picked the definition I like. Which one do you think actually applies to this particular law?

Thank you

i use this one to look up Law

 

Black's Law Dictionary is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black (1860-1927). It is the reference of choice for definitions in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases.

The latest editions, including abridged and pocket versions, are useful starting points for the layman or student when faced with an unfamiliar legal word.

[mibrains]

I disagree on that point. This law is supposed to be viewed by "common language". I Googled the two words in question and came up with this;

 

 

The COA is using the first definition, which is proper although limited. In the context of the MMMA it would seem the second is more applicable, especially when looking at the synonyms.

 

The COA has just cherry picked a definition that will fit into their narrow Reefer Madness viewpoint. Even using their preferred definition it says nothing about not changing the structure of the thing mentioned, it only speaks to "being made ready for use".

 

Is jelly made from grape juice no longer grape because it doesn''t contain pulp? Or is it indeed a grape preparation?

 

Of course, I just cherry picked the definition I like. Which one do you think actually applies to this particular law?

 

 

exactly WB

and is probably the single word this whole thing could boil down to.

 

the thing is...

 

people keep blowing up houses... so the "bad apple" effect is going to affect us all.

 

It seems relevant to approach this from a schedule 1 narcotic viewpoint and assume the most stringent of controls when applying the use of cannabis in our daily lives.

 

it is up to each and every person who decides to use cannabis to weigh the options very carefully.

 

read the law a thousand times until you understand it.

 

check for updates daily by what ever resource you must to ensure you are "industry compliant"

 

the rules can and do change daily.  it is up to the person who decides to use cannabis to be prepared and knowledgeable on the subject as far as all current legislation that's applicable to the field..

 

the same holds true for every industry.

 

that being said.

 

people keep blowing up houses.

 

I don't see how they are going to allow chemical extractions.

 

I don't see how they can change the current COA opinion to include any type of definition where a flammable gas is used to "refine" the cannabis.. I know... it works and should be allowed... but it is going to be done under very stringent controls and oversight and anyone who thinks otherwise is probably willfully ignorant.

 

I don't mean that as an insult to anyone or in any way.  I just mean to say its so much easier to hope they will reverse it and everything will be peachy than it is to realize when houses blow up on the news... things are going to immediately change.

 

much like after McQueen.. we will all have to find another way to make extracts that are compliant...

 

this is only the beginning they will change or attempt to change these rules governing cannabis for all time.

 

strap in for the ride... hang on and don't get to attached to any one particular way of doing things..for the one true certainty in life is that everything is bound to change.

 

so we wait..

 

I am trying to find a way to get many of the same benefits of consuming the extracts by pulverizing the dried and decarboxolized cannabis and ingesting it.

hasn't worked yet.

 

but still I shall continue to try.

 

in my mind... a whole new bill is needed that would encompass distribution channels and extracts as well as address issues about income and taxes and making sure the government gets its share... I mean really that's what it all boils down to.  they want the tax revenue and a cash industry is a tuff one to regulate.

 

let it be free and we will all live happily ever after I promise... with huge smiles and no worries about the reason people are killed over a dam plant.

[Wild Bill]

in my mind... a whole new bill is needed that would encompass distribution channels and extracts as well as address issues about income and taxes and making sure the government gets its share...

 

I'll go along with that up until the tax part, which I think is illegal anyway, but that's another topic.

 

We need a very specific law that details every possible permutation and it needs to be worded very simply and concisely so all the slow readers in the court system will be able to understand it. (NO gray areas)

[mibrains]

I'll go along with that up until the tax part, which I think is illegal anyway, but that's another topic.

 

We need a very specific law that details every possible permutation and it needs to be worded very simply and concisely so all the slow readers in the court system will be able to understand it. (NO gray areas)

 

I totally agree.

 

lets write one.

 

the simpler the better.

 

how hard could it be? 

[ozzrokk]

I have to completely have to disagree with the COA reasoning in the extract case........... It makes zero since to me and most others. They are way off base........

[t-pain]

its not going to be that simple to write the law.

i think we should copy the oregon petition laws currently going around.

they have two, one is like measure 80 and the other is a oregon constitutional ammendment.

check them out...

 

anyway heres a really bad incomplete start i wrote up.

i'm probably missing a bunch of stuff.

 

-2. The people of the State of Michigan find and declare that:
1. Marijuana is safer than Alcohol and Tobacco and Aspirin and Prescription Medication.

2. No one should ever be jailed for manufacturing, distributing, posessing, using or any other activity with Marijuana.

3. The war on drugs has failed. Prohibition has failed.

4. It is the RIGHT of every person to grow, manufacture, process, distribute, buy , sell and trade any cannabis, marijuana, hemp or any other plant in the cannabis family.

5. It is the RIGHT of every person to posess, distribute, trade, sell, buy or any other activity with marijuana.

-3. Definitions:

-4. Protections and Rights
1.Any person age 21 or older may grow, manufacture, distribute, sell, trade, purchase, barter or process (or any other activity in the future) marijuana.

2. This law shall be retroactive

3. any medical marijuana patient shall have their case dismissed if in court on a marijuana charge. any medical marijuana patient shall have any posession or distribution or manufacturing convictions nullified and be released from jail.

4. every person shall have their posession or manufacturing conviction removed from their record and expunged.

5..any person who is in prison, probation, etc for the use, distribution, manufacture, posession, etc shall be released and have their marijuana conviction records cleared and expunged.

6. any city, county, municipality, town, home owners association, judge, prosecutor, government employee etc shall not be allowed to limit any person over 21's use, manufacture, distribution, posession of marijuana.

7. every instance of marijuana and related items to marijuana and its penalties shall be removed from the entire michigan compiled laws and constitution, except for the MMMA.

-penalties
1. anyone in violation of this act shall not be fined, cited, or prosecuted in any way.

2. any person who gives marijuana to a minor shall be subject to the same penalties of giving alcohol or tobacco to a minor.

-power of this act
1. all other laws or parts of laws inconsistent with this act shall not apply to the rights and protections in this act.

2. this act, and the parts of laws that this law changes shall only be changed by another voter inititive. it shall not be changed by the state supreme court, legislators, or any other government employee or agent etc.

Edited September 26, 2013 by t-pain

[Highlander]

I have to completely have to disagree with the COA reasoning in the extract case........... It makes zero since to me and most others. They are way off base........

 

Let's put it this way.  The COA said that the extract was illegal because there weren't any leaves or flowers in the material.....yet the MMMA allows us to have "internal possession" of cannabis and allows us to smoke it.  If I smoke cannabis, I am internally-possessing cannabis...but not leaves or flowers.  I am, more or less, internally possessing an extract of cannabis.  So if we toss out extracts as illegal, then we necessarily toss out smoke too.  Smoke is an extract of cannabis without leaves or flowers.  So the idea that we can't possess extracts without leaf or flower is in direct conflict with the clear protection we have for smoking cannabis. 

 

As to MIBrain's observations regarding extracts being illegal due to houses blowing up....sure that is a concern for the community.  But the potential to blow up a house isn't addressed in the MMMA.  So this possible danger really doesn't have any relevance to the current discussion.  I can see where lawmakers and even ordinary folks and maybe even MMMP folks will recognize the issue with possibly blowing up a house, but there is no place for this matter in this discussion.  This would be similar to saying "well, obviously you can't smoke cannabis because some people fall asleep with a lit joint and burn their house down."  Yes, this is a legitimate concern, but not one addressed in the MMMA.

[mibrains]

what makes it relevant when houses are blowing up is that it will persuade those who are in a position to make or unmake these decisions.... not that it necessarily has a background in the act itself.

 

I suppose I should have been more clear in my statement.. its so hard to express everything when typing.

 

since I don't see how they are going to allow a person to use a flammable gas to extract cannabis I don't foresee them allowing any extracts - to include hash - which I personally see as the most clear definition of "preparation thereof" that would be allowed..

 

interesting approach with the concept of smoke being an extract.  by that argument vaporizing would also be a "extraction" and using a bag to contain the vapor prior to inhaling it would arguably constitute a violation of the COA ruling..

 

with internal possession it is different than a "preparation" waiting to be consumed.

 

the breakdown of atoms and digestion begins immediately upon inhalation... which would suggest that internal possession protections begin upon the cannabis entering the body which could be achieved correctly by many different delivery methods.. 

Edited September 26, 2013 by mibrains

[Highlander]

I get what you mean about the extracts not being addressed in the act....and that getting lawmakers on board to pass legislation to allow chemical extracts would be an uphill struggle.

 

But we already have laws that make it illegal to use hazardous substances in a manner inconsistent with their labeling....and for good reason, as you point out.  So even if the courts ruled in favor of extracts that don't include leaf or flower, it would still be illegal for just about anyone to make oil using a flammable substance.

 

But what about hash made from an ice-water extraction....or sifted through a screen?  There are ways to make extracts without using flammable chemicals.  We need to keep reminding people about this so the baby doesn't get thrown out with the bathwater.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Highlander

[ozzrokk]

. If an extract does not have part of the leaf and flower IN IT, then where did the canabanoids come from? Part of the leaf and flower are still in the extract. They can measure it in the canabanoids. In fact they did and acknowledged that it was in there. Plus the law even adds  a mixture or preperation there of.......

 

Yes one good thing did come out of the bills among many more restrictions be it easy to follow or not. Some are impossible for some patients to follow.

[mibrains]

it isn't LARA'S responsibility to ensure we are compliant.  they do not mail updates to me for my real estate license... or when I had a builders license either (both issued from LARA)

it is up to us as individuals to ensure we are compliant in our field.

 

because so many people were not keeping up they (LARA) recently instituted a continuing education requirement for builders, among other industries.

 

if folks get their dander to much in a ruff im sure LARA would be happy to require an addition level of education for us in the form of con ed...

 

lets not push for that...

even by accident...

 

please.

[mibrains]

. If an extract does not have part of the leaf and flower IN IT, then where did the canabanoids come from? Part of the leaf and flower are still in the extract. They can measure it in the canabanoids. In fact they did and acknowledged that it was in there. Plus the law even adds  a mixture or preperation there of.......

 

Yes one good thing did come out of the bills among many more restrictions be it easy to follow or not. Some are impossible for some patients to follow.

 

 

the problem is in the inclusion of the entire plant.

 

if you heat and extract allergy medicine you come up with crystal meth.

 

the COA point is that you must use the entire flower and not just extract the active ingredients separate from the useless plant materials.

 

right or wrong that position is difficult to argue...

 

a preparation thereof would stand to include all the parts thereof, not just a sampling.

 

a partial inclusion of the parts thereof would be defined as "extracted parts thereof" or "remaining parts thereof" therefore at a minimum an additional word is needed for that definition to stand correctly.

[mibrains]

it was pointed out to me this morning that the discussion about the extracts is not in a proper thread

 

I started this one to continue this discussion if anyone chooses to.

 

the thread it was in was about transporting cannabis.

 

my apologies if I caused any confusion.

 

[jointedone]

Edited October 16, 2013 by jointedone

[t-pain]

extracts not  being part of the act is like saying thc is not part of the act.

 

because THC is NOT part of the usable marihuana! oh no! all other cannibinoids arent part of the usable marihuana either! what will we ever do?

see where this logic goes? its dumb.

the coa is wrong here and has been wrong in other cases.

 

cannibinoids are part of the definition of marihuana tho.

 

it would have been more interesting if the CoA banned extracts because sec4 doesnt protect 'processing' or 'cooking' or 'distilling'.

 

the coa was right in that resin from stems or roots isnt 'usable marijuana' in the MMMA.

 

i think we're still waiting to see the diff between marihuana and usable marihuana in the supreme court , and if sec4 protects against the unusable marihuana?...

Edited September 27, 2013 by t-pain

[t-pain]

i'd like someone to explain how 'any preparation of dried flowers' does not include extracts.

ANY

 

its a simple word that CoA cant handle.

 

since we are talking about medicine, its better to use medical definitions

 

from m-w:

Medical Definition of PREPARATION
1: the action or process of preparing
2: something that is prepared; specifically : a medicinal substance made ready for use (a preparation for colds)

 

looking for definition of preparation in MCL now.

 

does anyone else think its bad that the courts have decided things are legal/illegal by the definitions of words?

i mean, the whole law can be changed depending on if one definition or the other is used?

 

7106, the same law that the MMMA gets its definition of marijuana from , puts preparations under 'manufacturing'

 

(2) “Manufacture” means the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion, or processing of a controlled substance, directly or indirectly by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis. It includes the packaging or repackaging of the substance or labeling or relabeling of its container, except that it does not include:

Edited September 27, 2013 by t-pain

[jointedone]

Edited October 16, 2013 by jointedone

[mibrains]

its so very interesting....

 

such a conundrum...

 

is "usable cannabis" the entire parts of the dried flower and leaves without the stems, roots or seeds, or does it also breakdown and therefore include by definition each of its component parts individually.

 

 - can the individual parts of the cannabis plant be protected as individual components of the defined "usable cannabis" or does it have to stay effectively "whole" ?

[cristinew]

the oils are part of the dried flowers, and are usable 

Edited September 27, 2013 by cristinew

[GanjaWarrior]

the thing about the extracts is.. the COA is pretty much right on point with their language and concerns for once... and it will be difficult at best to overcome their decision.

 

I mean I hate to say that. but all they did was quote the definition of cannabis according to the MMMA.  dry usable flowers and leaves but no stems or seeds.

 

extracts are not, were not, and most likely wont be able to be manufactured from residential homes. 

 

unfortunately the definition of "any preparation thereof" does not include removing the plant materials or chemically altering the cannabis.

 

I feel like we are going to need to be addressing this issue from many fronts.  not just the Caruthers appeal... we had better be proactive and have a initiative on the ready.   however they will NOT allow chemical extractions from average people in residential homes.  so anyone who is hell bent on having RSO or BHO had better get busy figuring out a safe way to complete those extractions without blowing up houses. it will have to become an entire industry and have mega oversight and safety regulations to ensure first its safe to do and second its safe to use once done.

 

my point is...if you are supporting the Caruthers appeal just to get chemical extractions back I sure would strongly advise a back up plan..

can you define "any preparation there of" and provide a link....forget it it doesnt exist. so let me provide you with an example. i can use eggs or any preparation there of to make my cake, so i remove egg whites.... its a preparation there of.

 

prep·a·ra·tion

ˌprepəˈrāSHən/

noun

noun: preparation

1.

the action or process of making ready or being made ready for use or consideration.

"the preparation of a draft contract"

synonyms: devising, putting together, drawing up, construction, composition, production, getting ready, development More

[mibrains]

I love it..

 

thank you everyone for contributing.

 

this has become a productive thread filled with ideas and definitions.

 

everyone has a different approach to their understanding and I appreciate everyone's ideas.

 

just so we are clear.. I am trying to play the tenth man.  the devils advocate as it were.  I am not trying to be right or wrong.. merely to discuss the ideas to conclusions.

 

I personally absolutely believe we need to have cannabis extracts and truthfully I would say the "super potent" isolated compounds will probably eventually lead to the best health and medical advancements.

 

my approach to cannabis use has been and will continue to be one of extreme caution because I think everyone should approach there cannabis use from a cautious perspective.

while I know cannabis use is a very personal experience and one I think many more people could benefit directly (and indirectly) from I am worried about the fact that with every misstep it make's the progress of our plant that much more of a daunting task.

 

no worries though..

 

the world is as it is. 

 

we are all equal because we are alive today.