|
'Marijuana"
Defined
"When
I use a word," Humpty Dutnpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it
means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less."
"The
question is," said Alice , "whether you can make words mean
so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty
Dumpty, "which is to be master — that's all."
— Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass
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.}
|
