Jump to content

Arrested For Cannabis Truffles


Recommended Posts

right, but what about ---Sec. 7. (a) The medical use of marihuana is allowed under state law to the extent that it is carried out in accordance with the provisions of this act.

 

does that negate the word "all" as a preclusion?

 

I thought certainly there could be marijuana charges that could not be defended using the Act?  am I wrong?

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7(b), a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "except as provided in Section 7" came up in A SC case.  I don't remember which once and don't have the energy to search for it.  The PA argued that the clause "except as provided in Section 7" meant that you had to be compliant under Section 7 in order to assert a Sec 8 defense.  The SC ruled that this interpretation would nullify Section 8 and, accordingly, shot that interpretation down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

now just reading the law in plain english means you also have to read the s.c rulings and the coa rulings, add them together and we dont have the law the people voted for, I dont know who to blame the judges who changed our law, or the idiots that got busted doing something just out side the law and had the cases go to the coa and sc, dont get me wrong I would go all the way if I had to, and I believe not all are bad people, but their are some out there that should dig them selves out of the trouble they brought on all of us, and some should get the help they need!

 

I can only think of a few that deserved our community's help, the rest we should have closed our wallets and eyes and acted like it wasnt there! yea sounds stupid, but a few ive donated to I realy regret and a few I didnt I realy regret!

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

now just reading the law in plain english means you also have to read the s.c rulings and the coa rulings, add them together and we dont have the law the people voted for, I dont know who to blame the judges who changed our law, or the idiots that got busted doing something just out side the law and had the cases go to the coa and sc, dont get me wrong I would go all the way if I had to, and I believe not all are bad people, but their are some out there that should dig them selves out of the trouble they brought on all of us, and some should get the help they need!

 

I can only think of a few that deserved our community's help, the rest we should have closed our wallets and eyes and acted like it wasnt there! yea sounds stupid, but a few ive donated to I realy regret and a few I didnt I realy regret!

 

Peace

I can only think of a few that deserved our community's help i also agree Jim there are not as many 

 

 Can we count on your Dollars today Lol  :yahoo-wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just focus on the charge, get the lawyer, read the report and argue the edibles were from flower material, that's what I would do, don't bother thinking about the international drug ring thing. Just get the report.

You two will be fine.

Did you happen to read that Infused Truffles are one of the most imported cannabis medibles? Where the facts of this case intersect with that are not known. But it does get you thinking after you follow this case. Was the raid at the friends house all about imported truffles in the first place? Makes you wonder.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

These people have a very good lawyer two motions for dismissal have been filed one under section 4 of the MMMA and the ruling of the coa in reference to the people vs Carruthers and the other the 4th amendment of the constitutional rights of the defendant were violated in reference to Bailey vs. the United States and People vs. Kazmierczak

People VS Carruthers via COA isn't going to help. That wouldn't be something a very good lawyer would use. The COA ruled infused truffles were illegal. You would have to ride that one up to the Supreme Court before it could be dismissed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correction the reference to Carruthers has not yet been filed only sec. 4 but the items would fall under the COAs ruling on Carruthers as they were from ground flowers not extracts

 

Can you please quote the excerpt from the COA ruling on the Carruthers matter that says medibles made with flowers/leaves are legal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you please quote the excerpt from the COA ruling on the Carruthers matter that says medibles made with flowers/leaves are legal?

 

highlander, page 8 and 9 of the opinion.

http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/People-v.-Carruthers.pdf

 

Our interpretation also does not preclude the medical use of marijuana by ingestion of

edibles;9 to the contrary, such use is authorized by the MMMA, within the statutory limitations,

provided that the edible 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.

Again, we find that judgment of the drafters of the MMMA, in so defining “usable marihuana,”

to be an appropriate exercise of its duty to define the parameters of legal medical marijuana use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

highlander, page 8 and 9 of the opinion.

http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/People-v.-Carruthers.pdf

 

Our interpretation also does not preclude the medical use of marijuana by ingestion of

edibles;9 to the contrary, such use is authorized by the MMMA, within the statutory limitations,

provided that the edible 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.

Again, we find that judgment of the drafters of the MMMA, in so defining “usable marihuana,”

to be an appropriate exercise of its duty to define the parameters of legal medical marijuana use.

 

Thanks for pointing this out.  I guess that is a little gem in an otherwise crappy ruling.

 

As a side note, it is interesting that they even said anything about "more potent THC that is extracted from marijuana resin."  The law says nothing that would lead to an interpretation that legality would be based on potency.  So if we breed an 80% THC plant would the COA say it is too potent to be legal?  Potency is irrelevant under the law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the actual difference if I leave the 1/4 oz in the oil(which would further worsen my stomach problems) or if I take it out?  The only difference is the 1/4oz of flowers in it or not, it's already been extracted and the flowers only serve as a stomach irritant and by-product.

Edited by Norby
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...