Federal Court Rules Concentrates are NOT Cannabis
Don protégé
The definition of cannabis must include resins, rosins and concentrates.
The definition of a word changes everything, especially when it comes to cannabis and our courts. Despite the fact, California, Washington, Oregon and Montana all have state approved cannabis laws allowing for infused and extracted cannabis products, a federal judge in Montana UPHELD the dated “HASISH” definition of cannabis extracts which states “cannabis extracts and its concentrates are in fact NOT defined under the legal definition of cannabis.”
One of the most important federal court proceedings to date, this decision has far-reaching effects on the future of concentrates including implications for the national cannabis industry because it stands to change the definition of cannabis in one of the nation’s highest federal courts. The definition of cannabis must include resins, rosins and concentrates.
From consumers getting arrested for possession of concentrated cannabis, to manufacturers making concentrated cannabis to big pharma’s direct line to federal approval for concentrated cannabis, this ruling affects us all.
Similar to the case heard in the Supreme Court of Arizona which argued that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act referred only to dried flower, not derivatives of the marijuana plant that included concentrates; this lower-level federal court defined infused/extracted cannabis products such as tinctures, ointments and edibles as “hashish,” a dated term used to define all extracts of the cannabis plant, in turn separating dried cannabis flower from its extracted derivatives.
What does this mean?
In laymen’s terms, it means “Cannabis concentrates, and the products made from cannabis extracts are NOT cannabis because extracted/infused products do not contain any flower or leaf-like material.” Cannabis concentrates are defined under the term “HASHISH.”
Why is this important?
Because if this ruling isn’t reversed, then concentrates in edibles, vape pens, ointments, tinctures and other medicinal preparations could remain illegal under the separate hashish definition, rather then the cannabis plant itself.
STATE COMPLIANCE IS NOT A DEFENSE IN FEDERAL COURT.
This means LICENSED extraction labs and infused product providers are at severe risk!
“It is very dangerous to allow a federal court to define cannabis extractions and its infused products NOT as cannabis. By separating extracted THC and other derivatives from the plant itself, it sets a very DANGEROUS precedent allowing the federal courts to IGNORE state laws allowing for the manufacture and preparation of medicinal and recreational products that contain extracted cannabis oil, such as tinctures, ointments and edibles.”
WE NEED YOUR HELP APPEALING THIS RULING IN THE 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Seeking to reverse the federal courts current ruling in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, this appeal will set a new precedent for defining cannabis, its derivatives and the infused products these extracts are used for. This appeal will also no longer allow for misinterpretations of the law or the intent of the law passed by voters. It will further clarify the definition of cannabis to include “ALL plant material FROM the genus cannabis that contains THC and other cannabinoids and its derivatives”
This case is one of the most important court rulings because it stands to change the definition of cannabis in one of the nation’s highest federal courts. The definition of cannabis must include resins, rosins and concentrates.
The war for legalization is not fought in the streets, it is fought in courthouses.
The people involved in this case are fighting the real fight for all of us and making appeals to federal cases are not done for free. Any and all donations are guaranteed to go directly to the law team fighting for our rights to manufacture, prepare and consume cannabis concentrates.
This maybe the last surge from our federal government to keep control of the pharmaceutical side of cannabis. Imagine if the only entities allowed to make concentrations are big pharmaceutical companies.
The case number and attorney are listed below. We hope you are fully aware of the brevity of this case, thank you.
Thank you for your support and consideration on the importance of this case.
MONTANA CASE NUMBER 2:18-cr-00005-dlc
9th CIRCUIT COURT CASE NUMBER (CA):
19-30115
Attorney: Larry Jent, Montana
The definition of a word changes everything, especially when it comes to cannabis and our courts. Despite the fact, California, Washington, Oregon and Montana all have state approved cannabis laws allowing for infused and extracted cannabis products, a federal judge in Montana UPHELD the dated “HASISH” definition of cannabis extracts which states “cannabis extracts and its concentrates are in fact NOT defined under the legal definition of cannabis.”
One of the most important federal court proceedings to date, this decision has far-reaching effects on the future of concentrates including implications for the national cannabis industry because it stands to change the definition of cannabis in one of the nation’s highest federal courts. The definition of cannabis must include resins, rosins and concentrates.
From consumers getting arrested for possession of concentrated cannabis, to manufacturers making concentrated cannabis to big pharma’s direct line to federal approval for concentrated cannabis, this ruling affects us all.
Similar to the case heard in the Supreme Court of Arizona which argued that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act referred only to dried flower, not derivatives of the marijuana plant that included concentrates; this lower-level federal court defined infused/extracted cannabis products such as tinctures, ointments and edibles as “hashish,” a dated term used to define all extracts of the cannabis plant, in turn separating dried cannabis flower from its extracted derivatives.
What does this mean?
In laymen’s terms, it means “Cannabis concentrates, and the products made from cannabis extracts are NOT cannabis because extracted/infused products do not contain any flower or leaf-like material.” Cannabis concentrates are defined under the term “HASHISH.”
Why is this important?
Because if this ruling isn’t reversed, then concentrates in edibles, vape pens, ointments, tinctures and other medicinal preparations could remain illegal under the separate hashish definition, rather then the cannabis plant itself.
STATE COMPLIANCE IS NOT A DEFENSE IN FEDERAL COURT.
This means LICENSED extraction labs and infused product providers are at severe risk!
“It is very dangerous to allow a federal court to define cannabis extractions and its infused products NOT as cannabis. By separating extracted THC and other derivatives from the plant itself, it sets a very DANGEROUS precedent allowing the federal courts to IGNORE state laws allowing for the manufacture and preparation of medicinal and recreational products that contain extracted cannabis oil, such as tinctures, ointments and edibles.”
WE NEED YOUR HELP APPEALING THIS RULING IN THE 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Seeking to reverse the federal courts current ruling in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, this appeal will set a new precedent for defining cannabis, its derivatives and the infused products these extracts are used for. This appeal will also no longer allow for misinterpretations of the law or the intent of the law passed by voters. It will further clarify the definition of cannabis to include “ALL plant material FROM the genus cannabis that contains THC and other cannabinoids and its derivatives”
This case is one of the most important court rulings because it stands to change the definition of cannabis in one of the nation’s highest federal courts. The definition of cannabis must include resins, rosins and concentrates.
The war for legalization is not fought in the streets, it is fought in courthouses.
The people involved in this case are fighting the real fight for all of us and making appeals to federal cases are not done for free. Any and all donations are guaranteed to go directly to the law team fighting for our rights to manufacture, prepare and consume cannabis concentrates.
This maybe the last surge from our federal government to keep control of the pharmaceutical side of cannabis. Imagine if the only entities allowed to make concentrations are big pharmaceutical companies.
The case number and attorney are listed below. We hope you are fully aware of the brevity of this case, thank you.
Thank you for your support and consideration on the importance of this case.
MONTANA CASE NUMBER 2:18-cr-00005-dlc
9th CIRCUIT COURT CASE NUMBER (CA):
19-30115
Attorney: Larry Jent, Montana
Organisateur
Adam Campbell
Organisateur
Los Angeles, CA