Source: https://jasonsavela-law.com/criminal-defense/marijuana/medical-hash
Timestamp: 2019-06-25 12:21:13
Document Index: 720521410

Matched Legal Cases: ['§18', 'Art. 18', '§14', 'Art. 18', '§14', '§ 25', 'Art. 18', '§14', 'Art. 18', '§14', '§18']

Some police agencies and prosecutors have arrested and charged medical marijuana patients and caregivers with possession of marijuana concentrate. This is a violation of the Colorado Constitution and quite possibly actionable as harassment.
Colorado’s criminal statutes make possession of any amount of marijuana concentrate a class 5 felony, punishable by a presumptive 1-3 years of prison, with an aggravated maximum of 6 years, and 2 years of parole.[1] Whereas, possession of less than 1 ounce of marijuana is a class 2 petty offense, punishable by a fine of not more than $100.[2] And, possession of less than 8 ounces of marijuana is a class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 18 months in county jail.[3] The medical marijuana provisions of the Colorado Constitution provide for an exemption from criminal laws on possession, cultivation, sale and use of medical marijuana.
The definition provided for marijuana in CRS §18-18-102(18) defines marijuana in all of Colorado law, including for the Constitutional Amendment. As the statute specifically states: “’Marihuana’ does not include marihuana concentrate as defined in subsection (19) of this section.” If so, then marijuana concentrates, such as hashish or hash oil, were not made legal in Art. 18, §14 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Amendment only made traditional, smoked, vegetable marijuana exempt from the criminal laws.
This argument fails for numerous reasons, beginning within the statute they cite. The legislature specifically limited the scope of their definitions to Article 18 of Title 18.[6] As such, these definitions do not apply anywhere in law other than in that specific article. Not found in this specific article, is Art. 18, §14 of the Colorado Constitution. Therefore, these definitions do not apply to the Constitution.
Prior to the Constitutional Amendment, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed whether marijuana concentrate could be treated differently than marijuana under equal protection. The Court in Velasquez found no equal protection violation.[10] The Court analyzed the legislative reason for distinction on a rational basis [11] since possession of illegal drugs is not a fundamental right. [12] The Court found a rational reason to treat the illegal possession of marijuana concentrate more seriously than vegetable marijuana.[13] As indicated above, medicinal marijuana is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Colorado Constitution. Therefore, the equal protection argument needs to be re-evaluated under strict scrutiny.
If there is any ambiguity in the Colorado Constitutional amendment and criminal statutes, under the rule of lenity, a court is required to construe a penal statute in favor of the accused.[14] If a statute is ambiguous, then its application would be unconstitutionally vague in light of the amendment.
The Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, and the Colorado Constitution, Article II, § 25, require specificity in criminal laws so as to give fair warning of the proscribed conduct. Criminal statutes are unconstitutionally vague if they "forbid or require the doing of an act in terms so vague that [persons] of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application."[15] A statute must also articulate definite and precise standards capable of fair application by those who must apply them to avoid arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.[16]
Ultimately, it is not the possession of a certain amount or concentration of THC that is potentially dangerous, but how it is used.[17] It is not the form of medicine, but its user. The People of Colorado addressed this concern in Art. 18, §14 of the Constitution indicating:
(4)(a) A patient may engage in the medical use of marijuana, with no more marijuana than is medically necessary to address a debilitating medical condition
Here, the Constitution states that this is medicine and it should be treated as such. Prior to using medical marijuana, a patient must consult a physician. This means to know how much to use and to only use that much. That is how the law treats all other forms of Constitutional, legal, medicine.
In no way do I argue that disparate treatment of illegal drugs cannot pass constitutional review. But, to say that Hashish or marijuana concentrate is not covered by Const. Art. 18, §14, is to say that a statutory definition of the Legislature, not referred to in or followed by a Constitutional Amendment of the people controls over the plain language of that Constitutional Amendment. This violates statutory and Constitutional rules of interpretation and construction.
As a matter of logic, when the People of Colorado made medical marijuana a Constitutional right, they meant to broadly include all medical use of the marijuana plant. Many people that endure a chronic disease would further suffer if they had to smoke the marijuana to ingest it. Marijuana concentrate is used to make edible medicine that better suits these patients’ medical needs. The People of Colorado tried to simply say that people in need have the option to medicate with marijuana and its products. It is hard to believe this Constitutional Amendment would not cover hashish and all marijuana concentrate, and instead set a trap for the most severely ill and those that help them with this form of medicine.
To argue otherwise is to attempt to subvert the will of the People of Colorado. To prosecute with this argument is to use governmental power to harass.
[1] CRS §18-18-406(4)(b)(I).
[7] People v. Velasquez, 666 P.2d 567 (Colo. 1983) (followed by People v. Siwierka, 683 P.2d 356 (Colo. 1984)).
[8] Velasquez at 569, “To be sure, hashish, which is made from the resin of the marihuana plant, satisfies both the statutory definition of marihuana in section 12-22-303(17), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Supp.) and the statutory definition of marihuana concentrate in section 12-22-303(18), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Supp.). Because hashish is marihuana, however, does not mean that all marihuana is hashish. On the contrary, as the expert witnesses testified in this case, crude or ordinary marihuana consists of ground-up leafy and bulky material from the marihuana plant. Because the leaves secrete the potent resin, crude marihuana undoubtedly will contain some of this resinous material. Hashish, on the other hand, is made directly from the resin secreted by the leaves. This resin is clearly identifiable by microscopic examination and is readily distinguishable from the other parts of the plant.”