Urdedpal
New Member
Federal and state statutes commonly define "marijuana" as "all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not." This includes viable seeds, resin, and any derivatives, mixtures, or preparations of the plant. The only noteworthy parts of the Cannabis plant excluded from the definition of marijuana are the mature stalks of the plant and the sterilized seeds.
The federal definition of "marijuana" reads as follows:
The term "marijuana" 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, fiberproduced 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. (21 USC sec. 802[16].)
Marijuana users have often been more sophisticated than the legislators who I wrote the statutory definition of "marijuana." In several court cases, users! charged with possession of marijuana argued that they possessed the species Cannabis indica, not Cannabis saliva, and that the law, by its own terms, only I outlawed the species Cannabis saliva.
Faced with such arguments, most federal and state courts broadly interpreted I the definition of "marijuana" to include all species of Cannabis. Therefore, I although many statutory definitions of marijuana only mention Cannabis saliva, I all courts will find that all species of Cannabis, including Cannabis indica and I Cannabis ruderalis, are outlawed. Some states, such as New York , have avoided I the entire problem by Grafting their legislation to broadly outlaw "all plants of the | genus Cannabis."
Courts which have faced the issue have ruled that THC content is irrelevant I in defining "marijuana." In one recent Virginia case, for example, a man was I convicted and sentenced to twenty years in prison after harvesting wild Cannabis I that he stumbled upon during a camping trip. In his appeal, he argued that the trial I court unfairly barred him from introducing expert testimony showing that the! "ditchweed" Cannabis was so low in THC content (about .12 percent, by his I expert's calculations) that it was not capable of producing a high if smoked. The! Virginia Court of Appeal rejected the man's argument with the explanation: "a| substance is marijuana because it is a part of a Cannabis plant, not because of the! amount of THC it contains." (Howard v. Com. [VaApp. 1993] 437 S.E.2d420;\ see also, McElroy v. State [Ala.CrimApp. 19921611 So.2d431.}
The federal definition of "marijuana" reads as follows:
The term "marijuana" 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, fiberproduced 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. (21 USC sec. 802[16].)
Marijuana users have often been more sophisticated than the legislators who I wrote the statutory definition of "marijuana." In several court cases, users! charged with possession of marijuana argued that they possessed the species Cannabis indica, not Cannabis saliva, and that the law, by its own terms, only I outlawed the species Cannabis saliva.
Faced with such arguments, most federal and state courts broadly interpreted I the definition of "marijuana" to include all species of Cannabis. Therefore, I although many statutory definitions of marijuana only mention Cannabis saliva, I all courts will find that all species of Cannabis, including Cannabis indica and I Cannabis ruderalis, are outlawed. Some states, such as New York , have avoided I the entire problem by Grafting their legislation to broadly outlaw "all plants of the | genus Cannabis."
Courts which have faced the issue have ruled that THC content is irrelevant I in defining "marijuana." In one recent Virginia case, for example, a man was I convicted and sentenced to twenty years in prison after harvesting wild Cannabis I that he stumbled upon during a camping trip. In his appeal, he argued that the trial I court unfairly barred him from introducing expert testimony showing that the! "ditchweed" Cannabis was so low in THC content (about .12 percent, by his I expert's calculations) that it was not capable of producing a high if smoked. The! Virginia Court of Appeal rejected the man's argument with the explanation: "a| substance is marijuana because it is a part of a Cannabis plant, not because of the! amount of THC it contains." (Howard v. Com. [VaApp. 1993] 437 S.E.2d420;\ see also, McElroy v. State [Ala.CrimApp. 19921611 So.2d431.}
