Pubdate: Wed, 31 Dec 2014
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2014 The Denver Post Corp
Contact:  http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122
Author: John Ingold

COLORADO AG SAYS IT'S ILLEGAL. PERIOD.

By virtue of a single comma, the Colorado attorney general's office 
says making marijuana hash oil at home is still illegal under state 
law, despite other laws legalizing marijuana use, cultivation and possession.

The opinion of the state's top lawyer comes in a brief filed in a 
criminal case against a Mesa County man. The man, Eugene Christensen, 
is charged with arson, reckless endangerment and manufacture of 
marijuana concentrate. The last charge is a Class 3 drug felony, 
punishable by two to four years in prison.

Christensen has argued that the state's law prohibiting manufacture 
of marijuana concentrate is now unconstitutional, after Colorado 
voters passed Amendment 64 in late 2012. The amendment legalizes 
limited possession of marijuana concentrate and also contains a 
provision allowing for "processing" of marijuana plants.

Hash oil is made by dissolving the active chemicals from dried 
marijuana plants then evaporating the sometimes-flammable solvent to 
form a thick, potent glop.

"The clear and unmistakable language of the Colorado Constitution," 
Christensen's attorney wrote in a motion seeking to throw out the 
charge, as quoted in the attorney general's brief, "is that it is 
legal in Colorado to process marijuana and marijuana concentrate and 
that such actions shall not be criminal offenses."

But, in its brief, the attorney general's office argues that 
Amendment 64 specifically exempts hash oil from its protections. The 
argument relies heavily on the amendment's terminology and punctuation.

For instance, the attorney general's brief argues the protection for 
"processing" marijuana does not cover hash oil extractions done at 
home because, in part, the definition of marijuana excludes "oil."

In defining the term "marijuana," Amendment 64 includes the caveat 
that the term"does not include industrial hemp, nor does it include 
fiber produced from the stalks, oil, or cake made from the seeds of 
the plant ..."

It's the comma after "oil" in that sentence on which the attorney 
general's office hangs much of its argument. In a five sentence 
footnote, the attorney general's office argues that the exclusion of 
"oil" stands separately from any reference to industrial hemp or 
marijuana seeds.

"Construing the general term of 'marijuana concentrate' to include 
'oil' would make the provision excluding 'oil' meaningless," the 
office argues in the main body of its brief.

Christian Sederberg, one of Amendment 64's authors, says he 
understands the concern over residential extractions of hash oil - 
which have been linked to a rising number of home explosions in 
Colorado- and agreed they should be banned. But he said the attorney 
general's argument goes beyond what Amendment 64's authors ever 
intended and could be used to ban hash oil possession.

In a statement, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said voters 
wanted Amendment 64 to promote only responsible marijuana use.

"To decriminalize dangerous and unreasonable behavior in which people 
are getting hurt and houses are blowing up defies the intent of the 
voters," Suthers said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom