...any Mixture Or Preparation Thereof...

[GregS]

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.

I am unaware of any oil having been confiscated. Do you have sources? Where can I find that information plz?

[YesMichigan]

I am unaware of any oil having been confiscated. Do you have sources? Where can I find that information plz?

 

There were two or three anecdotal stories in another thread that I am still seeking. A comment from a reputable member corroborated that they had first hand knowledge of an event where the bud was left but the extract was taken and the person was charged with possession of marijuana. It was reading that comment that my advice to someone recommending concentrate made me pause.

 

I can't go by anything except hearsay which was why I started the thread. Perhaps someone else remembers the thread of which I type. It was within the last week.

Edited January 27, 2015 by YesMichigan

[t-pain]

I am unaware of any oil having been confiscated. Do you have sources? Where can I find that information plz?

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/47995-the-agony-of-defeat-what-now/?p=512840

[trichcycler]

I'm betting if we  don't own a dispensary, or drive around at night with our lights off, or carry commercially packaged cannabis treats for sale, we'll be fine.

[Norby]

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.

But doesn't the law have  to be read as reasonable(or whatever the wording is?)?  Is it actually illegal to have seeds?  I've always read it's illegal to sprout them.  They are in birdseed.  If I have birdseed with hemp seeds can they count that in?  Wouldn't they have to try and sprout them to have them count since sterile seeds are allowed in birdseed? It can be reasonably assumed that seeds are necessary for propagation.

  Doesn't it define a plant as anything past cotyledon stage?  I think it's reasonably assumed that seeds aren't useable MJ but necessary for our actions and that they aren't to be measured in with our weight of useable.  I think the incidental seeds, along with stems and roots are so that they aren't counted from a hanging plant and not that it's illegal to have seeds or that store bought ones would be added to your weight.  Whose to say I didn't divide up incidental seeds and put them in fancy packaging?

Not in any way saying they can't because I'm sure they would in certain areas, just saying that's the route I'd take.

[Highlander]

But doesn't the law have  to be read as reasonable(or whatever the wording is?)?  Is it actually illegal to have seeds?  I've always read it's illegal to sprout them.  They are in birdseed.  If I have birdseed with hemp seeds can they count that in?  Wouldn't they have to try and sprout them to have them count since sterile seeds are allowed in birdseed? It can be reasonably assumed that seeds are necessary for propagation.

  Doesn't it define a plant as anything past cotyledon stage?  I think it's reasonably assumed that seeds aren't useable MJ but necessary for our actions and that they aren't to be measured in with our weight of useable.  I think the incidental seeds, along with stems and roots are so that they aren't counted from a hanging plant and not that it's illegal to have seeds or that store bought ones would be added to your weight.  Whose to say I didn't divide up incidental seeds and put them in fancy packaging?

Not in any way saying they can't because I'm sure they would in certain areas, just saying that's the route I'd take.

 

I try to stay on the safe side.  In the past, I believed that a PA could make an argument that "incidental seeds" are unintentional or accidental, using Webster's second definition (#2), "occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation."  Then Zap made the very good point that if intentional seeds were illegal, then that would render the Act absurd in that regard.  So now the definition of incidental "happening as a minor part or result of something else" makes more sense.

 

Here is why I wouldn't assume that you can have unlimited seeds.  Section 4 says "provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount"  Note that it says "marijuana," which is defined in the Act the same as in the Public Health Code (which includes seeds).

 

...an amount of marijuana that does not exceed....

 

Patient A:

12 plants

2.5 oz. dried (usable)

incidental seeds from his grow

 

Patient B:

12 plants

2.5 oz. dried (usable)

10,000 seeds bought from a seedbank (not "incidental")

 

Does Patient B have "an amount of marijuana that exceeds what Patient A has?"  I'd walk on the safe side of the line and say "yes"

 

I suppose you could try to pretend that MJ seeds are actually sterile hemp seeds, and it would be tough for LEO to prove you wrong.  But that kinda reminds me of the guy who suggested he'd carry around a large amount of MJ in a vacuum cleaner bag and claim it was waste.  This gets us to a point where we start asking "what can we get away with" rather than "what is legal?"

[trichcycler]

I've successfully germinated cannabis seeds found inside common birdseed manufactured in China. woooohoooo! giant hermaphroditing

hemp stalks!!!

[trichcycler]

off to weigh seeds now, thanks Highlander!

[phaquetoo]

There were two or three anecdotal stories in another thread that I am still seeking. A comment from a reputable member corroborated that they had first hand knowledge of an event where the bud was left but the extract was taken and the person was charged with possession of marijuana. It was reading that comment that my advice to someone recommending concentrate made me pause.

 

I can't go by anything except hearsay which was why I started the thread. Perhaps someone else remembers the thread of which I type. It was within the last week.

I had an issue on state land, I was camping on state land not at a state park, there were a few others camping near by, po po was called on some one disturbing the peace, me and my lady wound up getting involved, thanks to jager and beer, my lady would not keep her mouth shut, long story short we were all told to put out our campfires and call it a night, and if they were called back some one was going to jail!

 

They got called back and the one with the biggest mouth and her man went to jail (us) lol!  they searched my camper and found about 3 grams of mm and like 4 lil glass vials of bho, the bottles were all but empty, I save them to refill, well po po found them and called it black tar heroin lol, they also took a loaded .22 rifle I had in my camper closet, this was on a friday, monday I was at the po po station requesting my rilfle back, I got it back with the bullets in a plastic bag, and then we seen our charges, disturbing the peace, possesion of mj and possesion of black tar herion, I laughed at the wet behind the ear po po and told him it was thc in the lil jars, he laughed and said we will see, yea he seen it all came back thc, we both had cards and all charges were dropped!

 

roscomon county!

 

Peace

[phaquetoo]

I try to stay on the safe side.  In the past, I believed that a PA could make an argument that "incidental seeds" are unintentional or accidental, using Webster's second definition (#2), "occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation."  Then Zap made the very good point that if intentional seeds were illegal, then that would render the Act absurd in that regard.  So now the definition of incidental "happening as a minor part or result of something else" makes more sense.

 

Here is why I wouldn't assume that you can have unlimited seeds.  Section 4 says "provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount"  Note that it says "marijuana," which is defined in the Act the same as in the Public Health Code (which includes seeds).

 

...an amount of marijuana that does not exceed....

 

Patient A:

12 plants

2.5 oz. dried (usable)

incidental seeds from his grow

 

Patient B:

12 plants

2.5 oz. dried (usable)

10,000 seeds bought from a seedbank (not "incidental")

 

Does Patient B have "an amount of marijuana that exceeds what Patient A has?"  I'd walk on the safe side of the line and say "yes"

 

I suppose you could try to pretend that MJ seeds are actually sterile hemp seeds, and it would be tough for LEO to prove you wrong.  But that kinda reminds me of the guy who suggested he'd carry around a large amount of MJ in a vacuum cleaner bag and claim it was waste.  This gets us to a point where we start asking "what can we get away with" rather than "what is legal?"

I think pt b and pt a would be the same, seeds are not countable, we can have a nice collection of seeds so we can try dif strains to grow for our selves or pt's, so we can try dif strains to try on our ailments,

 

where some people including me make the most mistakes is saving up scraps to make oil, it is all sugar leafs and small buds, I grind mine all up real nice so leo would count that as useable, when you get enough to make your oil just do it, I made some the other day with 3 oz of scraps and 4 cans of butane, I got like 2 1/2 grams back, it was worth it, but it is already almost gone, I would much rather do doses of oil than smoke, I also like to put some oil on my ciggeretts and smoke it that way, its my opin you can beat oil for pain and attitude adjustments, I need an attitude adjustment prob more than most, I believe I let a little bit of the old me out the other day on some one, usualy when some on types something realy stupid I try to answer nice or just dont at all, when I answer like a smart arse I need a tude adjustment.

 

It realy gets old when people keep asking the same questions about legality, all it takes it to go thru some of the older threads that are not on the veiw new topic button to find all of the threads you are looking for!  Any one that gets legal needs to read the law and read it again, it is in plain english and you dont need to be a lawyer to understand it, but if you break the law you will need a lawyer to get you out of trouble you shouldnt have been in in the first place had you read the law and understood it!

 

Peace

[YesMichigan]

Any one that gets legal needs to read the law and read it again, it is in plain english and you dont need to be a lawyer to understand it, but if you break the law you will need a lawyer to get you out of trouble you shouldnt have been in in the first place had you read the law and understood it!

Peace

 

You seem to understand how much rides on one cop at the scene interpretation of the law. The resolution of the oil case referenced here was a plea to illegal transport. Does that mean oil is or isn't legal? Your story illustrated a Department (Roscomon) that understands the law as we read it. The Livingston Department took a different take on the validity of oil as "usable marihuana" and at this time the matter seems unresolved with both sides pointing to a very incomplete Carruthers decision for clarity.

 

The English isn't plain and I would contend a lack of mens rea on the part of many patients and caregivers who are trying to be abide by the Act.

 

1 ounce of marihuana to make brownies, that now count as 5 ounces of marihuana because of the batter. The caregiver has acted in good faith in accordance to Section 4 of the act in manufacturing the brownies but is considered in violation based on the MSC.

 

I'll agree we can create hypothetical arguments all day long that are counter-productive to our intent but the reality on the street today is that there is a critical ambiguity and lack of definition as it applies to concentrates. This is alarming to me because I don't ever want to discuss my medicine with LEO or the Courts.

Edited January 28, 2015 by YesMichigan

[trichcycler]

would the community be satisfied if one 2 ounce brownie was to count towards 2 ounces of possession, regardless of the active ingredient weight?

[YesMichigan]

FYI, the oil case I speak of which was resolved as illegal transport was not automobile related at all. The prosecutor did not want to try the case.

 

I didn't think it was but didn't want to probe too much. It obviously costs money to keep fighting a prosecutor which they know. It is too bad because they had no case. These are the types that I would like to know about and find a way to fund for the precedent.

 

I agree with you. How would you prove it?

 

I would argue that legitimate acts of compliance (locked doors, valid card and within weight) indicate a medical marihuana patient or caregiver making reasonable effort to abide by the Act. The protection is specifically illustrated by the wording of the pertinent section:

 

Section 333.26424

4. Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana.

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

I know you know this better than me so thank you for letting me work through it. The "presumption" is what LEO and Prosecutors are ignoring today. The law is written to provide for the lack of mens rea on the part of medical marihuana patients (and caregivers) who have no intent or other compulsion to break the law.

 

Not sure I answered your question, I don't think I'm equipped to answer it. What avenue would you take to prove it, may I ask?

[YesMichigan]

would the community be satisfied if one 2 ounce brownie was to count towards 2 ounces of possession, regardless of the active ingredient weight?

 

You just described how I read Carruthers. If we make it a beer analogy, you can have 2.5 gallons of beer. They won't weigh out the alcohol in the beer because you can't just drink the non-alcohol part.

 

You can't eat the non-THC part of the brownie so the entire mixture is "usable marihuana". That is how I read their decision and I don't disagree given their lack of knowledge on the topic.

 

I understand Carruthers though saying "I used 1 ounce and now you're telling me I have 5 ounces of usable marihuana?" I also understand the Scientist saying "I can't find any leaf or flower inside of it". I would contend there doesn't have to be leaf and or flower in a preparation made from leaf and flower. If the caregiver says "There can't be any leaf or flower material remaining for this preparation to work for its intended purpose." then the oil is covered because the presumption is that the caregiver is omniscient in the eyes of the state when it comes to determining appropriate medical use for the patient's condition. If neither the State or its Licensed M.D.s can set a standard then it is left to the caregivers and patients. Stay out while they are doing that is what the law says, to this ignorant primate at least.

Edited January 28, 2015 by YesMichigan

[trichcycler]

what is the resin part of ?

 

I wonder if it would have gone differently if resin wasn't mentioned  as a way of explaining the excess weight(of the food).

I've never heard of a court separating a controlled substance from its buffers, but that would be interesting.  Has that happened

in a court you know of , with any drug?

Edited January 28, 2015 by grassmatch

[YesMichigan]

The chief flaw in the Carruthers opinion is that resin is a part of the leaf and flower.

 

what is the resin part of ?

 

I think many would argue that the flaw is "1 ounces of marihuana can't turn in to 5 ounces because of baking" This is where the weights prescribed are prohibitive to the intent of the law which is medicinal relief. This protection should be in Section 4 and not left to chance with the court's admitted "less protective" section 8. There was no mens rea on the part of Carruthers. Not that it is required but referring to the subsection of the law there is a presumption by The People to permit the usage.

 

The 1978 definition of marijuana is what gave them the "resin" clause to throw at Carruthers. As the defense used the term I would have to agree with the Court. What we are calling "concentrate" or "extract" or "oil" is a preparation of the dried leaf and or flower. What Carruther's defense team presented (from my reading of it) was "resin from the plant" which is a known no-no because it COULD come from the stems or stalks which they have defined as off-limits.

 

First google definition of "resin": a sticky flammable organic substance, insoluble in water, exuded by some trees and other plants (notably fir and pine).

 

That is resident in the plant and thus if "not usable marihuana" the concept of medical marihuana can not exist as the primary component of the flower would be by definition not allowed. So any "mixture or preparation" of usable marihuana will utilize this "portion of the leaf or flower material". Making a distinction between the "resin" of the flower and "usable marihuana" is impossible - though I want to figure out how I'm wrong in the statement. It is not for the courts to determine the characteristics of the preparation or mixture.

Edited January 28, 2015 by YesMichigan

[t-pain]

the coa erred on resin. but still contemplated the alternative construction of usable marihuana

 

Defendant indisputably possessed 9.1 ounces of usable marijuana in the form of raw plant

matter. Thus, if the aggregate weight of the brownies (54.9 ounces) were added to that amount,

defendant would have been in possession of 64 ounces, considerably more than the 12.5 ounces

he arguably was allowed to possess under the MMMA. MCL 333.26424(a) and (b)(1).

 

hands up, who here thinks 3 pounds of brownies should be covered by sec4 ?

Edited January 28, 2015 by t-pain

[YesMichigan]

the coa erred on resin. but still contemplated the alternative construction of usable marihuana

 

Defendant indisputably possessed 9.1 ounces of usable marijuana in the form of raw plant

matter. Thus, if the aggregate weight of the brownies (54.9 ounces) were added to that amount,

defendant would have been in possession of 64 ounces, considerably more than the 12.5 ounces

he arguably was allowed to possess under the MMMA. MCL 333.26424(a) and (b)(1).

 

hands up, who here thinks 3 pounds of brownies should be covered by sec4 ?

 

333.26423 Definitions.

3. Definitions.

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

 

1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7106.

(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, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin. It does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin extracted therefrom, fiber, oil or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.

 

333.26423 Definitions.

3. 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.

 

Somewhere in there is the answer to how they put "resin" and "concentrate" together which created my thought process to start this thread.

 

How many think the weight limit is not conducive to effective patient treatment? If I took a 3 pound brick of decarb'd bud and coated it in frosting and said "brownie" who thinks it should be covered?

 

Weight only matters for smugglers and dealers, otherwise leave people the fornicate alone and let them eat an 8 ounce brownie for their pain.

[GregS]

 From Websters:

 

prep·a·ra·tion, noun \ˌpre-pə-ˈrā-shən\

 

 

1:  the action or process of making something ready for use or service or of getting ready for some occasion, test, or duty

2:  a state of being prepared

3:  a preparatory act or measure

4:  something that is prepared; specifically :  a medicinal substance made ready for use

 

See preparation defined for English-language learners »

See preparation defined for kids »

Examples of PREPARATION

1. The festival involves a lot of preparation.
2. To complete this recipe, plan on about 30 minutes of preparation and 40 minutes of baking.

Origin of PREPARATION

Middle English preparacion, from Middle French preparation, from Latin praeparation-, praeparatio, from praeparare to prepare

First Known Use: 14th century

Rhymes with PREPARATION

abdication, aberration, abjuration, abnegation, abrogation, acceptation, acclamation, accusation, activation, adaptation, adjuration, admi...

[+]more

 

It is plain that the fools on the court cannot read.

Edited January 28, 2015 by GregS

[YesMichigan]

It is plain that the fools on the court cannot read.

 

 

That is the classic flaw that Sun Tzu and all great Generals warn against. Don't underestimate your opponent.

 

They have a reason for reading it as they do. For being ignorant to what we see as obvious. Until we can argue their case (regardless of how illogical it appears) then defeating it remains a mystery.

 

I think the one word "resin" was a STOP sign in their brains and allowed them to decide whatever they wanted. Add that in to the "preparation" (if they accept your definition of the brownies) being overweight and they had a good day and are ready for some gin and tonics. They took a path of least resistance because it was offered.

Edited January 28, 2015 by YesMichigan

[YesMichigan]

I feel it is a clear indication of the quality of the Carruthers opinion (the lack of it) that prosecutors don't want to run oil-only cases like this.

 

 

How about the cops interdicting in these scenarios? Would you say you've seen fewer of those as it pertains to oil only?

[GregS]

Most of them don't even differentiate the oil. Rarely is it an issue directly. Not that it is without possible issue if somebody feels like it making it an issue. Usually things are about section 8 pretty quickly and it is no longer an issue.

We've come a long way. There may still be court officers who don't agree, but we are gaining on them every day.

[YesMichigan]

Most of them don't even differentiate the oil. Rarely is it an issue directly. Not that it is without possible issue if somebody feels like it making it an issue. Usually things are about section 8 pretty quickly and it is no longer an issue.

 

Obviously not asking for legal advice but what would you say to a Law Enforcement Officer inquiring about a .5mL oral syringe of extract? Thanks for your angle on this, it is the most important prong of this fight for me as the concentrate has provided the benefit I hoped it would.

[phaquetoo]

one of them bills were supposed to do an adjustment in amount for edibles, oils and tinctures!

 

This was I beleive in h.b 5104

 

1 oz=

 

16 oz's of medibles,

 

7 grams of a gasious form,,,oil

 

72 fluid oz's of liquid,,,tincture extract, cooking oils, salad dressings, etc

 

I think that is a fair equation and would love it if that were to of passed!

 

Peace

Edited January 29, 2015 by phaquetoo

[Highlander]

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. ;-)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb8PcGn-wuM

 

"They gave him ten for two; what else can the gentlemen (Heh - auto correct converts B-tards to "gentlemen") do?"

Edited January 30, 2015 by Highlander