People v Carruthers - Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (aka MMMA) - Defining "Usable Marihuana" - Criminal Defense Attorney Josh Jones

The Plain-Meaning Definition Of “Usable Marihuana

The Court of Appeal on July 11, 2011, provided an opinion that was high in parts, yet very low in other parts. See People v Carruthers. The court specially and repeatedly stated that resin (or THC extract) based brownies are not considered to be “usable marihuana” as explained in Section 4 (Immunity). However, the court also explained that because resin brownies are not considered to be “usable” an individual in possession of such brownies does not qualify for Section 4.

The court, in essence, found a loophole around qualifying an act, involving marihuana, as being covered by Section 4, similarly as the Michigan Supreme Court in People v McQueen found.

So…. Usable Marihuana is what?

Usable Marihuana is defined as:

“dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant.” MCL § 333.2642(3)(k). 

Therefore, usable marihuana does not include all parts of the marihuana plant, meaning the resins, nor “every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin.” Marihuana on the other hand includes “all parts” of the cannabis plant, as well as “the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin. See People v Carruthers.

The court dealt with the resin based product known as “Cannabutter,” which contained THC extract. The THC extract can be taken from any part of the plant, and it would still, under the Court of Appeals opinion, not be considered “usable marihuana” under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (aka MMMA).

So in the end, the Court of Appeals narrowed the definition of what constitutes “usable marihuana,” and explained that substance must contain plant material in order to be considered or attempting consider it “usable,” as required by Section 4. It also went on to explain that Section 8 (Affirmative Defense) does not maintain a narrow definition for marihuana used to treat or alleviate a medical condition. Therefore, it allows for Section 8 to be used when edibles are involved in the factual basis of the act at issue.

The court, however, did note that the potency of resin brownies, under a Section 8 defense, would come into play when determining whether the individual possessed an amount reasonably necessary to alleviate or treat the medical condition.  The court stated that “[g]iven the unmeasurable nature of the highly potent THC contained in such edibles, the health and welfare of Michigan citizens would be threatened, and prosecutions for possession and use of edibles containing higher-than-allowed quantities of THC would be systematically thwarted.” See People v Carruthers.

It is always necessary to know the law, know your rights, and maintain your ability to fight, especially when dealing with the MMMA. This opinion has made Section 4 narrower and more specific on what you can and cannot do in order to qualify for Immunity. So who has your back when you want to smoke or munch carefree?