|
"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.)
|
