|
salviahead
Stranger
Registered: 04/16/11
Posts: 3
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Possible loophole in marihuana law?
#14299829 - 04/16/11 07:24 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I think I found a loophole in marihuana laws in the US, and I thought I would share it.
How US law is structured, it says things, then people interpret them, then that is the law.
In the controlled substance act, "marihuana" is defined as:
(16) The term ''marihuana'' means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.
The key here is "...all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., ..." which means that, federally, all parts of this one specie (out of 3 species of cannabis, the other 2 being indica and ruderalis) is illegal. Examination of this law, keeping in mind that the law is only what it says, not what it implies, leads me to believe that buying the potentially viable seeds for the species Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis would be clearly legal, in the same way that buying potentially viable spores for psilosybe cubensis (have no idea if that's spelled correctly) mushrooms is legal.
This may also mean that the species Cannabis indica and ruderalis are legal to grow so long as it's not for it's THC content (which is a schedule 1 drug) however, this is more legally dicey because of the fact that there is precedence that states that growing psilosybe cubensis is technically "manufacturing" psilocybin, and the logic could be transferred to all technically legal plants that produce illegal drugs (although there may be precedence that this would be legal, if you look at how we've handled DMT containing plants, so I don't know)
really think this could be big if someone could run it by a lawyer to verify my logic, but sadly, I cannot afford to do this . if anybody out there could, I would be ecstatic to hear the results.
All the lawyer stuff aside, what do you all think, if this is a correct interpretation, it could be that is was legal to grow some species of cannabis in the US all along!
and for those of you who are wondering, yes I'm new to shroomery and yes this is my first post.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Possible loophole in marihuana law? (moved) [Re: salviahead]
#14299847 - 04/16/11 07:32 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
This thread was moved from Political Discussion.
Reason: definition doesnt exclude from prosecution just as the misspellings dont
|
Mad River
Reverend, Churchof Todd


Registered: 04/29/08
Posts: 1,114
Loc: The Great Lakes Region, U...
Last seen: 2 years, 6 months
|
Re: Possible loophole in marihuana law? [Re: salviahead]
#14299867 - 04/16/11 07:42 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Sure. Just explain that to the nice officer when he breaks your door down.
|
Smackshadow
It's Time for Wild Speculation


Registered: 09/27/05
Posts: 575
Last seen: 20 days, 16 hours
|
Re: Possible loophole in marihuana law? [Re: Mad River]
#14310214 - 04/18/11 02:06 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
U.S. v. Moore 330 F.Supp. 684 (D.C.Pa 1970)
Here the prosecution had no duty to show beyond a reasonable doubt whether it was specifically Sativa. The reason is because the legislative history, common usage, and general nature of the plant are for all intents and purposes identical. The court said that by naming one they meant to name all.
Moreover, you would run into the annologue laws, and the production of THC laws that would be equally as applicable.
The reason that people generally don't go to jail for growing poppies or DMT producing plants is because many people like growing these plants and don't understand that they in fact contain illegal chemicals. As such enforcement would not only be unjust, as they would not be arresting people who were trying to produce drugs, but also logistically impossible as they are so wide spread.
Spores are legal because they contain no illegal compounds unlike marijuana seeds.
-------------------- The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. ~H. L. Mencken~
|
salviahead
Stranger
Registered: 04/16/11
Posts: 3
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Possible loophole in marihuana law? [Re: Smackshadow]
#14311019 - 04/18/11 09:05 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks smackshadow, that was driving me crazy, that made sense. the only part that does not really fit is the thing about marijuana seeds containing illegal compounds, which they don't, which is why I can buy them at health food stores, but the way that law is written (coupled with the court backed assumption that it applies to ALL cannabis) that wouldn't make a difference.
|
Smackshadow
It's Time for Wild Speculation


Registered: 09/27/05
Posts: 575
Last seen: 20 days, 16 hours
|
Re: Possible loophole in marihuana law? [Re: salviahead]
#14314896 - 04/18/11 11:56 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
No problem 
It is my understanding that all hemp and marijuana seeds contain trace amounts of THC. Congress exempted, sterilized seed, because it has substantial non-drug industrial use.
Thus the way to frame the question correctly is to ask, does this substance contain a drug:
Spores: No = Legal Hemp Seed: Yes = Illegal
Then ask does this substance fall into an exemption:
Trace THC containing viable Marijuana seed: No = Illegal Trace THC containing non viable hemp seed: Yes = Not illegal
This at least is my understanding of the current law, but by no means should be taken as legal advice.
-------------------- The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. ~H. L. Mencken~
|
Smackshadow
It's Time for Wild Speculation


Registered: 09/27/05
Posts: 575
Last seen: 20 days, 16 hours
|
Re: Possible loophole in marihuana law? [Re: Smackshadow]
#14314937 - 04/19/11 12:03 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
After posting, I did some research. It appears that Marijuana seeds do contain some THC, but agricultural hemp seeds may or may not contain THC. If they don't then I have no persuasive reason as to why spores are legal and viable hemp seeds are not.
-------------------- The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. ~H. L. Mencken~
|
Mad River
Reverend, Churchof Todd


Registered: 04/29/08
Posts: 1,114
Loc: The Great Lakes Region, U...
Last seen: 2 years, 6 months
|
Re: Possible loophole in marihuana law? [Re: Smackshadow]
#14315753 - 04/19/11 05:47 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Because there's no law about how laws are made. They can make anything they want illegal. There doesn't have to be any logic behind it.
|
Doc_T
Random Dude




Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 42,395
Loc: Colorado
|
Re: Possible loophole in marihuana law? [Re: Mad River]
#14315820 - 04/19/11 06:34 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mad River said: Because there's no law about how laws are made. They can make anything they want illegal. There doesn't have to be any logic behind it.
"We", not "they". We the People vote these laws in and we can vote them out.
-------------------- You make it all possible. Doesn't it feel good?
|
Mad River
Reverend, Churchof Todd


Registered: 04/29/08
Posts: 1,114
Loc: The Great Lakes Region, U...
Last seen: 2 years, 6 months
|
Re: Possible loophole in marihuana law? [Re: Doc_T]
#14315824 - 04/19/11 06:37 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Wrong. Legislators vote the laws in.
|
Doc_T
Random Dude




Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 42,395
Loc: Colorado
|
Re: Possible loophole in marihuana law? [Re: Mad River]
#14315828 - 04/19/11 06:39 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
And where do we get legislators?
Kids on this board like to cry that their votes don't matter. They are wrong. Before anybody tells me I'm just sheeple, go google up some stories on Colorado MMJ.
-------------------- You make it all possible. Doesn't it feel good?
|
Mad River
Reverend, Churchof Todd


Registered: 04/29/08
Posts: 1,114
Loc: The Great Lakes Region, U...
Last seen: 2 years, 6 months
|
Re: Possible loophole in marihuana law? [Re: Doc_T]
#14315852 - 04/19/11 06:57 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Sure, we vote for the choice of two guys put forth by two organizations who choose them, whose campaigns are paid for by rich and powerful interests.
I'm not saying voting doesn't matter, but ultimately our government's as corrupt as the worst third world banana republic.
I'm not sure of the history of Colorado MMJ, but in Michigan MMJ was put on the ballot by petition, so sometimes the system works. Ultimately, the laws are still written by the legislators. In most states with legalized medical marijuana, the law is a mess.
|
zgbzgb1
Stranger
Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 50
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
|
Re: Possible loophole in marihuana law? [Re: Mad River]
#14316184 - 04/19/11 09:03 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
If they really want to put you in jail they will find a reason.
|
|