Extracts?

[cristinew]

And not one person ever said extracts were illegal until  the COA made it,  MPP  the authors of the Act even do not agree with the COA<

[mibrains]

I also agree that the use instructions on butane should be sufficient to control its applications.

 

responsible people will do the right thing in that respect.

 

does anyone know which states specifically allow or do not allow extracted cannabis preparations? is there a chart or graph somewhere anyone knows about?

 

good point bill about the authors intent.  do we have that in some kind of quotable form? some link to their intent? 

 

the COA decision defiantly caught me off guard..

I already had concerns about the methods of extraction but I had not considered anything even remotely close to the COA's narrow definition of useable cannabis being an obstacle.

[bobandtorey]

found this

 

15. “USABLE MARIJUANA” MEANS THE DRIED FLOWERS OF THE MARIJUANA PLANT, AND ANY MIXTURE OR PREPARATION THEREOF, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE SEEDS, STALKS AND ROOTS OF THE PLANT AND DOES NOT INCLUDE THE WEIGHT OF ANY NON-MARIJUANA INGREDIENTS COMBINED WITH MARIJUANA AND PREPARED FOR CONSUMPTION AS FOOD OR DRINK.

So let’s take a hard look at these words, “DRIED FLOWERS OF THE MARIJUANA PLANT, AND ANY MIXTURE OR PREPARATION THEREOF” in specific “preparation thereof”.

 

As I pointed out in your last blog statement Mr Humble, every person that uses a grinder to separate the dried flowers of the cannabis plant into a more useable form could potentially be in violation of a narcotics statute because the grinder collects the resin as it grinds and separates the cannabis. So whether a patient is rolling a joint or loading a bowl, using a grinder to assist in the process is a narcotics violation? Doesn’t make much sense does it sir?

 

To further the point I am attempting to make here, I offer the following…

“According to the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, a qualifying patient may not consume medical marijuana at a dispensary but may eat medical marijuana in foods or use infused products at other locations. State law lists places where a qualifying patient may not smoke medical marijuana, including public places.”

 

Those are your words sir.

“use infused products” and “may not smoke medical marijuana” suggest there are other forms than the “edible” form you discuss in this blog post. Topical treatments as well as concentrated products meant for ingestion via inhalation methods are widely used and have a extremely well documented roll in our society and culture.
To act as if they were not intended on being included in the intent of prop 203 is comical at best considering the author’s background.

 

You yourself were recently down in Tucson visiting some dispensaries were you not? I believe you made some statements regarding the health benefits of edibles and topicals, did you not Mr Humble??

 

When dispensary owners that have invested large sums of money in “infusion kitchens” start a class action lawsuit against the Police and most likely one against AZDHS as well, what will you say on the stand Mr Humble??

 

Will you say you believed the perceived intent of the proposition was to include concentrated products like hash and hash oil at the time in which the rules package was promulgated by your office and that is why you included the wording you did in the requirements for dispensary owners regarding “marijuana infused edible products” and “marijuana infused non edible products”..?

 

As well as, “Dispensaries must obtain a written authorization along with a Food Establishment License before preparing, selling or dispensing marijuana-infused edible food products.”

Notice the word “preparing” as in “preparation thereof” Mr Humble. Are you familiar with the “preparation process” regarding cannabis infused foods, which includes extracting the desired compounds from the source material, aka the “dried flowers”??

If more examples of how confusing you have made this were needed sir, there are plenty.

 

“A dispensary may obtain edible food products containing marijuana in two ways: it can obtain them from another dispensary or prepare the edible food products itself, following applicable food and drink requirements.” again “prepare” is used.

 

” “Medical use” means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, administration, delivery, transfer or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marijuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient’s debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the patient’s debilitating medical condition.”

 

“manufacture” from Black’s Law, “What is MANUFACTURE?

v. The primary meaning of this word is “making with the hand,” but this definitiou is too narrow for its present use. Its meaning has expanded as workmanship and art have advanced, so that now nearly all artificial products of human industry, nearly all such materials as have acquired changed conditions or new and specific combinations, whether from the direct action of the human hand, from chemical processes devised and directed by human skill, or by the employment of machinery, are now commonly designated as “manufactured.” Carlin v. Western Assur. Co., 57 Md. 526, 40 Am. Rep. 440;
Evening Journal donkey’n v. State Board of Assessors, 47 N. J. Law, 36, 54 Am. Rep. 114;
Attorney General v. Lorrnan, 59 Mich. 157, 26 N. W. 311. 60 Am. Rep. 287;
Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1, 9 Sup. Ct. 6, 32 L. Ed. 346.

I could go on for days.

think I proved my point though.

No person in their right mind could possibly conceive the words above as anything other than there implied and expressed meaning relating to the topic of origin.

In all practical uses and commonly accepted uses, “any” means “any” and “all” means “all” just like “mixture or preparation thereof” has also been well defined via the legal system.

If you need help writing rules that will work, as a professional in the industry next time.

Edited September 27, 2013 by bobandtorey

[cristinew]

http://www.mpp.org/states/michigan/alerts/mich-help-protect-patients.html         

[Highlander]

ALL of the plant is useable,even chewing on a good size branch can help with gut pain. Headache? Go chew on some Black Willow bark. That's what asprin is. Want poison? Lily Of the Valley flowers. Want a burning itching butt? DON'T use poison oak or ivy.

 

You need to understand that the law provides a definition of "usable MJ."  Your definition of "usable" and the Act's definition of usable are two different things, and the courts won't/can't use your definition because the Act already defines what usable MMJ is.

[cristinew]

3. Definitions. MMMA ACT

d) "Marihuana" means that term as defined in section 7106 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7106.

Public Health Code....
333.7106 Definitions; I to M.

(3) “Marihuana” means all parts of the plant Canabis sativa L., growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, 

Edited September 27, 2013 by cristinew

[GregS]

Resins are not to my understanding chemically altered in many, if any, extractions, with the possible exception of decarboxylization. The court should consider, and defense briefs insist, that individual constituent (the operative word here) parts of the leaves and flowers, in this case resin, meet the definition of usable mj. It is likewise no stretch to imagine a judge determining that dried leaves and flowers from which the resin has been extracted and that no longer contain resin are usable mj under the MMA definition and can be counted as such by the same token. Too, because the foodstuffs used to make medibles are not constituent parts of the plant in any sense of the word, they should not be counted toward possession limits.

 

In the final analysis, it can be said that the resin, and only the resin, provides medical relief.

Edited September 27, 2013 by GregS

[ozzrokk]

If the cOA wants to address the dangers of making some extracts then they will have to go to the legislators and seek a change. Same as they always keep telling us we have to do. Fact is their ruling has NOTHING to do with that. They do not mention that one time nor is it something they should be mentioning in this situation. It is a matter of what is usable not how dangerous it is to make.................. Butter carries zero danger yet they said the same thing about butter so lets not mistake what they are trying to do here. They are trying to push their biased and unjust opinions by making ridiculous rulings that they have to know are wrong. And as a bonus for them they are rewriting our law in the process. If you give them this they will take something else next time. Keep giving it to them and they will even take smoking away. I mean they have no problem with taking cancer patients form of medicating away and that is the people that they should be the only ones with a card. They wont even honor that.

[cristinew]

We have to remember BS  sat on that court,. and the BS continues 

 

 

In the final analysis, it can be said that the resin, and only the resin, provides medical relief.

 

That is so true.  The fiber does nothing, but that is their intent,

Edited September 27, 2013 by cristinew

[Spartyon]

They need to ban turkey fryers as well, chemical process changes turkey making said turkey illegal.  lol think im over medicated

[jointedone]

Edited October 16, 2013 by jointedone

[ozzrokk]

Yea get those darn dangerous twinkies too while they are at it......lol......

[cristinew]

 "Marihuana" With the H  they did this with the H because it will  be the same as the public health code,   THE LAW DOES INCLUDE RESIN   The COA is trying to change the law 

 

3. Definitions. MMMA ACT

d) "Marihuana" means that term as defined in section 7106 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7106.

Public Health Code....
333.7106 Definitions; I to M.

(3) “Marihuana” means all parts of the plant Canabis sativa L., growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, 

[mibrains]

that right there bill seems to make things pretty obvious.

 

to me anyways.

 

right there in plain English... from the Act itself by definition the resin is a part of the plant. 

 

not that we didn't already know that.

[cristinew]

That is why the H was put into the law, Now the Attorneys need to present that to the Supreme Court Of Michigan, 

[jointedone]

Edited October 16, 2013 by jointedone

[keylan]

This may be a dumb thought but why cant you use tinctures - to make them is simple and requires no use of dangerous procedures. Basicially you put whatever you want in something like vodka and let it soak. Tinctures work in most anything I don't see why it wont work with mm.

[BirdHunter]

"Marihuana" With the H they did this with the H because it will be the same as the public health code, THE LAW DOES INCLUDE RESIN The COA is trying to change the law

 

3. Definitions. MMMA ACT

 

d) "Marihuana" means that term as defined in section 7106 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7106.

 

Public Health Code....

333.7106 Definitions; I to M.

 

(3) “Marihuana” means all parts of the plant Canabis sativa L., growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture,

You can still use a section 8.

The problem is the coa says you can't use a section 4. They drew a distinction between marihuana and usable marihuana.

[phaquetoo]

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.

Alright here goes, let me try to explain my view on the extracts, all of them!  first off mibrains I agree about the bho, it is not going to fly and not going to ever be legal for a pt or c.g to make it at home, if it is ever allowed again big bro will have their minions making it in a fail proof building where no innocent people can be hurt from the extraction, ive been doing this almost half of my life or longer, I know how dangerious it is, I once said on here i pretty much have to make it with no clothes on, some one asked why lmao,,,,I said because I swet my arse off every time ive made it, and quite a few times over the yrs some one wound up finding me in the processs.  I dont exactly advertise when im going to do it, so even my own family could make my plans go kaboom!

 

You have to make bho in a place where there is no electricity, a fridge kicking on can make it bad, a light flicking on can go bad, an electric hot water tank coming on can make it bad,,,yea so I hear you all saying turn off the main breaker so no juice is going into the house, well what about a key being put in a door to unlock it?  yea that too can make it go boom, it is realy to risky especialy for people who dont believe what ive wrote above!

 

as far as cannabutter, how can that possibly go bad? it is no more dangerious than boiling noodles for pasgetti lol! it isnt how are you going to hurt some one making canna butter?, and yea how are you gonna hurt some one making bubble hash? you make it in bags with filters, ice and a regular mixer that you use to make cake!

 

tinctures  how can that hurt some one, you take your mm (I make tea bags and put mm in it) you pour drinking alcohol over it in a jar, you put it in a paper bag and keep it in a dark cool place, not cold, cool like in your base ment in a dark area, you shake it once a day or more, it takes up to 2 months for some and can be done in 48 hrs for the highest thc tinctures, how is that going to hurt some one, even if they drank the quart jar when finished, the alcohol is legal and the mm wont kill you!

 

I may have left a few things out, but I think I covered most, I have been thinking of how I can make bho w/o the butane! well a freezer cant make it cold enough to do it, it is a frozen extraction but a freezer cant do it, a freezer can help you make keefe hash quicker, but keefe hash dont hold a lite to bho. bubble hash dont hold a light to bho!

 

If you knew some one you loved would die if they could not get bho or rso or what ever you want to call honey oil what would you do?

 

Loose lips sink ships!

 

Peace

Jim

[Hydraulic Jack]

I don't think this is about the safety of doing extractions at all....Do you really think than medical people are the only ones making BHO?....Dabbing isn't going away any time soon...I wish people would quit referencing the bad apples doing unsafe things....HJ

[jointedone]

Edited October 16, 2013 by jointedone

[phaquetoo]

I don't think this is about the safety of doing extractions at all....Do you really think than medical people are the only ones making BHO?....Dabbing isn't going away any time soon...I wish people would quit referencing the bad apples doing unsafe things....HJ

I dont think the guy who had all of the cases of bho in his home with his kids and he blew it up, is not being thought about, do you not think the mm haters are not thinking about that!  I would love to not bring that shtuff up, id actualy realy love if it didnt happen either! bho is definatly about keeping children and others safe!  Them bad apples are making us all look bad, they are hiding behind pt or c.g cards, they need to be weeded out, I would much rather see a person not registered doing that stuff so we dont all look bad!

 

no I think only the crooks are going to be making bho soon, kinda like gun control, take guns from law abiding citizens and only the crooks will have them!

 

Peace

[jointedone]

Edited October 16, 2013 by jointedone

[Hydraulic Jack]

What I'm trying to say here is the fact that they weren't arrested for making extractions....This is all about being able to monitor the amount of cannabis in possession......Leave butane out of the discussion...HJ

[ozzrokk]

What I'm trying to say here is the fact that they weren't arrested for making extractions....This is all about being able to monitor the amount of cannabis in possession......Leave butane out of the discussion...HJ

 

 

Exactly the COA were asked to make a ruling on the law not how safe they thought extracts were to make........ If they have an issue with how dangerous it is to make then they can go the legislative route. But instead they used their own agenda to make a ruling on usable that is absolutely ridiculous............. That agenda could have involved their feelings on the dangers of making bho but they do not have that right........... That is equivalent to them saying the law doesnt count simply because they do not like marijuana. I am sure they would do it if they could but they cant. So they try this route and it will not work for them either.

 

 

The dangers of making bho are a different subject all together and has NOTHING to do with the Carruthers ruling.