The defendant was found with pot brownies which he stated qualified as medical marijuana and therefore subject to immunity a card holder. The court found that the act’s definition of useable marijuana in section 3(k) did not contain the extraction of resin language like the PHC definition. This means that the drafters intentionally omitted that phrase and therefore intentionally desired that edibles and extracts do not fall within the definition of medical marijuana. The court recognized that THC extract products have a heightened potency and excluding them from the act protects the public health. The court also found that modern crime labs do not have the reliable ability to effectively measure the amount of THC in edible products would further damage public health and thwart prosecutions of usage outside of the Act’s intended parameters.
Interestingly, the court also authorized the ingestion of edibles which would fall under usage as long as the edibles were a mixture or preparation of dried leaves and flowers as defined in sec 3(k). The court found that sec 4(a) and (b)’s use of the term marijuana and not “usable” marijuana is important.
The court noted that sec 8 uses the term marijuana and excludes “usable” and therefore a person in possession of extracts may assert a sec 8 affirmative defense where they must demonstrate that they were not in possession of more that was reasonably necessary.