|
"Marijuana" vs. "Hashish" vs. "Hashish Oil"
Although the federal statutory definition of "marijuana" appears to make no distinctions, the federal sentencing guidelines subdivide Cannabis preparations into three categories for the purpose of calculating the punishment for a federal Cannabis crime. The federal sentencing guidelines distinguish: (1) marijuana; (2) hashish; and (3) hashish oil. Until they were revised in 1995, the guidelines failed to define these terms. As a result, the federal courts were left with the job of characterizing Cannabis preparations on a case-by-case basis. This does not always prove easy.
For example, in one case in 1993, a federal court in Florida was faced with a classifying a substance that was a "dark greenish, almost black, tarry, gummy paste which does not flow. The substance has the odor of marijuana." The court was able to determine that the substance had an average THC content ranging somewhere between 16% and 23%, and that it was "made from the left-over portions of marijuana plants, after the useful parts (such as the flowers) have been removed." Under the federal sentencing guidelines the severity of the defendant\' s punishment depended on whether the court classified the paste as marijuana, hashish or hashish oil.
The court accepted the DEA\'s definition of "hash oil," stating: "the name hash oil is used by illicit drug users and dealers but is a misnomer in suggesting any resemblance to hashish other than its objective of further concentration. Hashish oil is produced by a process of repeated extraction of Cannabis plant materials to yield a dark viscous liquid, current samples of which average about 20% THC. In terms of its psychoactive effect a drop or two of this liquid on a cigarette is equal to a single "joint" of marijuana." The court then defined hashish as "the purified extract obtained mainly from marijuana flowers."
Using these definitions, the court determined that the substance in question was not a viscous liquid, but was instead a paste that did not flow, and hence, the substance did not fit the definition of "hash oil" The court also found that because the substance was made from Cannabis plant left-overs rather than the flowers, the substance was not "hashish." By a process of elimination, therefore, the court concluded that the substance was best characterized as simple "marijuana." As a result of this classification, the defendant was subject to the lowest offense level (and hence the least severe punishment) under the federal guidelines. (U.S. v. Gravelle [S.D. Fla. 1993] 819 FSupp. 1076; See also United States v. Schults [SJ). Ohio 1992] 810 FSupp. 230.) |
