Please see below, the ruling. The majority of US cannabis media see that this ruling could cause headaches for the state’s cannabis grow industry.
We imagine this will be back and forth for a while with new challenges.
It’s all about precedent !
In this case, defendant possessed a quantity of marijuana that, according to defendant’s
own argument, did not constitute usable marijuana. Consequently, under the plain language of
the MMMA and Carruthers, defendant is not entitled to § 4 immunity.9 The trial court was
correct to follow Carruthers and to deny defendant’s motion to dismiss under § 4 of the
Also our little comment we see two spellings of marijuana in one document “Marijuana” and “Marihuana” we also wonder when court documents will re-define as cannabis.
Here’s the ruling20180719_c342316_29_342316.opn