...any Mixture Or Preparation Thereof...

[YesMichigan]

333.26423 Definitions.

(k) "Usable marihuana" means the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant.

 

I find it amazing that extracts are not immediately recognized as a mixture or preparation thereof. I advocate in another thread the use of Co2 extract oil for nausea but see so many threads indicating the number of arrests for it. The definition and practical application of it specifically illustrates it being "usable marihuana" what am I missing because it is too obvious for me.

 

With the definition and the voter approved wording for our agreed findings there is no question the intent was to err on the side of the patient rather than prosecution. How is it possible that a solution that (for me personally) is superior and generated from the defined usable marihuana process while carrying a diminished health risk as it isn't smoked would not be in the scope of what the People of the State of Michigan voted explicitly in favor of?

 

333.26422 Findings, declaration.

2. Findings.

Sec. 2. The people of the State of Michigan find and declare that:

(a) Modern medical research, including as found by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine in a March 1999 report, has discovered beneficial uses for marihuana in treating or alleviating the pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with a variety of debilitating medical conditions.

 

(b) Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports and the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics show that approximately 99 out of every 100 marihuana arrests in the United States are made under state law, rather than under federal law. Consequently, changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill people who have a medical need to use marihuana.

 

© Although federal law currently prohibits any use of marihuana except under very limited circumstances, states are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law. The laws of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Washington do not penalize the medical use and cultivation of marihuana. Michigan joins in this effort for the health and welfare of its citizens.

 

The health is the use of marihuana for sickness the welfare of its citizens is by not arresting them and making them feel unsafe in their person. There is no reason a concentrate user should think they do not possess "usable marihuana" under the law. I don't think Carruthers hits this issue because of the brownie (two step process) and I am curious if anyone is aware of a concentrate case going to the COA.

[cristinew]

this totally suks  for the people that cannot smoke  and are forced into eating leaves that make you sick,

[suneday11]

.

Edited January 19, 2016 by suneday11

[YesMichigan]

333.26423 Definitions.

(k) "Usable marihuana" means the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant.

 

If we are to interpret the law as pedantically as they have then the logical conclusion is that any patient non-grower with seeds or stalks is in possession of "marijuana" which is not covered under the MMMA. This loophole in the wording means a patient could be arrested because the bag from their c.g. had A seed in it. The stem in the center of the bud is "not usable marihuana" and thus also not covered by the MMMA according to the interpretation.

 

Seems they can just gut the hell out of voter intent until High Times Magazine isn't allowed in Michigan anymore if they keep up their lack of reading comprehension.

Edited January 25, 2015 by YesMichigan

[YesMichigan]

I always wondered about juicing as it relates to this. There really is no plant matter left and you have in theory only extracted something absent plant material.

 

Every pipe is a source of "unusable marihuana" under this law as it is not covered by the definition.

[trichcycler]

when I light a joint I'm essentially vaporizing to the point of extraction. The combustion is incidental.

[YesMichigan]

when I light a joint I'm essentially vaporizing to the point of extraction. The combustion is incidental.

 

Seems combustion is the precedent to extraction.

[Highlander]

333.26423 Definitions.

(k) "Usable marihuana" means the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant.

 

If we are to interpret the law as pedantically as they have then the logical conclusion is that any patient non-grower with seeds or stalks is in possession of "marijuana" which is not covered under the MMMA. This loophole in the wording means a patient could be arrested because the bag from their c.g. had A seed in it. The stem in the center of the bud is "not usable marihuana" and thus also not covered by the MMMA according to the interpretation.

 

Seems they can just gut the hell out of voter intent until High Times Magazine isn't allowed in Michigan anymore if they keep up their lack of reading comprehension.

Seeds and stalks are not "usable MJ." True. But section 4 provides protection for seeds, stalks, and roots.

[Wild Bill]

There's not much point trying to make sense of that decision. It is poorly written and totally devoid of logic or common sense. It makes you wonder if English is even the first language of the authors. All they wanted to do was distort the meaning in a blatent attempt to emasculate the law.

 

Take a look at the dictionary definition of preparations. It specifically mentions tinctures. The Supreme Court was remiss in not accepting the appeal and thinking the legislature would fix it. Especially when there was really nothing to fix. They could have given it to third graders and they probably would have been able to interpret the law correctly.

[Wild Bill]

I find it more than a bit sad that some patients and caregivers will latch on to a horrible COA decision, one that should be reevaluated by the Supreme Court, and rather than ignoring, mocking it, or arguing against its "logic,"

I agree it should be mocked and argued against, but what would happen to me if I ignore it and am arrested with a pound of butter here in Oakland county?

[trichcycler]

Seems combustion is the precedent to extraction.

nope, rather heat. The heat hot air of the drag from the flamed end back provides the heat all the way through. Smoking the vegetable matter does cause an effect, albeit likened to smoking dried oak leaves or carrot tops, benzene, carbon monoide, etc...efficient vaporizing extracts all of the active ingredients we generally seek at lower temps than whats needed for combustion.

[suneday11]

.

Edited January 19, 2016 by suneday11

[t-pain]

and the other COA opinion says that any amount of non-usable marihuana is protected by sec4...

[trichcycler]

do it at their house

[YesMichigan]

I find it more than a bit sad that some patients and caregivers will latch on to a horrible COA decision, one that should be reevaluated by the Supreme Court, and rather than ignoring, mocking it, or arguing against its "logic," will (perhaps sarcastically) take the conclusion farther than it was taken in the original crap opinion to restrict and punish their fellow patients and caregivers.

 

It reminds me of how the dispensary contingent pushed the view that everything about the law was gray as the grayness of their business model evaporated in the wake of McQueen.

 

If you listen to some, the law protects nothing, though we know the core of what it protects is unchanged, and has actually been strengthened by a few court rulings. I wonder what motivates this behavior from some patients and caregivers?

 

Perhaps it is meant as sarcasm, to highlight the absurdity of the rulings coming from the Appeals Court, but I am not sure discussing these opinions in this manner has the desired outcome. I have always thought that sarcasm is not apparent in internet postings, and this is perhaps a good example.

 

There is no sarcasm to it. I look to see how the wording of one sentence can mean one thing and examine how the next thing phrase could be interpreted. I am in earnest in my question as I don't think Carruther's addresses it. This is my freedom that I'm discussing so you're search for facetiousness is in error. Were I to be in front of a judge or working with an attorney for my protection I would be contemplating everything I've said here. Perhaps there is someone reading and pondering the same questions or with an approach they have seen in court.

 

If the board isn't for discussion of the MMMA and its impacts and REAL protections then I must have misread the intent.

 

I don't think Carruthers was absurd at all. I can follow the logic that arrived at it, I think your feeling that it is a logical fallacy is the basis for thinking I'm mocking. I'm not. If oil is confiscated from a user then a seed or a stem could be viewed the same way. Many of the people here receive relief from these concentrates, until I hear the story "The cops didn't take his oil" I am going to continue to ask. You can just change or delete them anyway I suppose.

[+Malamute]

It doesn't matter what you, or me, or any of us 'think' it says. The only thing that matters is what the judges think. ;-)

[t-pain]

I don't think Carruthers was absurd at all.

you should take a break from trolling

[trichcycler]

All of our opinions in this social media experiment matter.

[phaquetoo]

I always wondered about juicing as it relates to this. There really is no plant matter left and you have in theory only extracted something absent plant material.

From what I understand when people juice it, they only use a plant that has only been vegged, It dont have any budds on it and they juice it while the vegged plant is fresh picked, so it goes rite from the veg room to blender to belly, they only get the cba and cbn, I may be wrong, but that is what I have read about juicing, no buzz, just medicinal benifits!

 

Peace

[GregS]

Until and unless I hear otherwise, oil and kief are just fine. The thought that the moment I add it to my food makes it illegal needs to be challenged.

Edited January 26, 2015 by GregS

[YesMichigan]

Until and unless I hear otherwise, oil and kief are just fine. The thought that the moment I add it to my food makes it illegal needs to be challenged.

 

Kief is just fine for sure because it is still the usable plant material. If you put kief in to your brownies Mr. (or Mrs.) Scientist would find the obvious plant material. If the brownie weighed more than 2.5 ounces there would be an issues because the entire item is considered "usable marihuana". This makes sense to me instead of saying "just weigh the weed in it" a beer is a beer, it is the hops, barley and water also. You can't eat around the THC part of the brownie.

 

Some of the extracts (True-Labs) have on their packaging that it was produced in accordance with MCL. One step further would be stating that the contents within are a "preparation of dried flower material". It could be this simple to help someone have a retort for an investigating officer.

 

It is like Malamute said "What we say doesn't matter it is what the judge says" I'd like to go back a step further and opine that it matters what the cop on the street says most of all. If more Medicinal users saw fewer trials the law would be working the best.

 

To Greg and others, there are a few stories here of people getting their oil confiscated, I've not heard of anyone losing kief but I suppose if pollen pressed the cop is going to call it "resin". It seems like this can be resolved if the community specifies and labels the process so the people already have the terminology of the law in hand.

Edited January 27, 2015 by YesMichigan

[YesMichigan]

Not trying to mock or use sarcasm (though I'll admit I sometimes reek of sarcasm). I have a patient that wants a plant juiced when I see them. It gets mixed with carrots, cucs, kale, and apples. It smells only of cannabis and would be suspect to Leo. I would do almost anything for the patient and I'm very comfortable with my local municpaility, but is making a 16oz smoothie asking for touble? For what it's worth, it's juiced raw....ripe, but raw.

 

This is a great example of the problem in Carruthers. Wild Bill and T-Pain are awesome but I think many aren't seeing the problem with Carruthers was their use of the word "resin". The COA latched on to it as did the Trial court. That word is bad bad bad and a misnomer for the usable marihuana that was used in the brownies. Understanding your opponent's thought process is as important as knowing your own. Given their limited knowledge if you hand them a forbidden word they won't be able to comprehend anything else.

 

Many people would say "You don't need more than 2.5 ounces" but your query illustrates a perfectly acceptable scenario where a 16oz product is made and would be considered "usable marihuana" in the eyes of LEO and the Court yet is a perfectly viable, beneficial and appropriate use of the medical marihuana the voters approved. I used the "Beer analogy" in my previous response and your question here illustrates why it doesn't work (which I knew) because there is no limit on how much alcohol a person can possess. You could drive a private beer truck around just to make sure you always had 50 kegs and 100 cases on hand and LEO would smile and wave to you, have one open bottle in the cab though and its over.

 

Restricting the amount a patient can have is cruel. They should be allowed to possess whatever is deemed necessary for their condition per the caregiver. If the State doesn't want to help solve the problem then they need to let the people who do want to get to work. THCA smoothies very well may benefit the world.

 

 

and the other COA opinion says that any amount of non-usable marihuana is protected by sec4...

 

Is that for the caregiver or the patient? I think the hair I split here was too fine for most LEO but it only takes one wanting to prove a point to ruin a person's life given the tenuous phrasing.

Edited January 27, 2015 by YesMichigan

[t-pain]

Is that for the caregiver or the patient? I think the hair I split here was too fine for most LEO but it only takes one wanting to prove a point to ruin a person's life given the tenuous phrasing.

more info of that coa case here http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/48146-only-dried-marijuana-counts-says-appeals-court/

[YesMichigan]

MCL 333.26424(a), (b)(3) (allowing registered patients and caregivers to possess an
“incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots”). “Incidental” is an adjective meaning
“1. happening or likely to happen in an unplanned or subordinate conjunction with something
else.

 

Thank you, T - I needed to read that again obviously.

[Highlander]

MCL 333.26424(a), (b)(3) (allowing registered patients and caregivers to possess an

“incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots”). “Incidental” is an adjective meaning

“1. happening or likely to happen in an unplanned or subordinate conjunction with something

else.

 

Thank you, T - I needed to read that again obviously.

Yes. We have discussed this topic here before and the difference between seeds that are incidental vs seeds that are purchased from outside your grow but stockpiled. My unqualified opinion is that seeds resulting from your own grow don't count in your weight limits but seeds purchased elsewhere do. Still, not a lot of weight in seeds, but something to be aware of and account for.