Dec 4, 2015 | Blog, News
At this point, marijuana is legal for medical use in nearly half of the country. But David Casarett, MD, author of the recently-released Stoned: A Doctor’s Case For Medical Marijuana, wants to clear a few things up. Initially skeptical of marijuana’s medicinal value, Dr. Casarett waded through the evidence, spoke to patients, and even tried the drug firsthand to figure out if the hype was warranted. A year and a half later, he’s confident that marijuana has medical value, even though we have a lot left to learn about it. Below, Dr. Casarett busts a few of the biggest marijuana misconceptions out there.
-
MYTH: Medical marijuana always gets you high.
“There are two main ingredients in marijuana: One is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC); the other is cannabidiol (CBD). There are dozens of others, but those are the ones that we know the most about. They’re present in the largest amounts, and they’ve been studied the most. Of the two, it’s THC that has the most brain effects. It’s THC that gets you high. If you feel euphoric, or if you’re unfortunate enough to have bad side effects (like hallucinations), those are due to THC. So, marijuana probably will get you high as long as it’s got some THC in it. “But, CBD, on the other hand, doesn’t have any of those brain effects. In fact, there have been studies using 300, 400, or 600 milligrams of CBD — which is a really whopping dose — with no psychological effects whatsoever. If it has effects, those are probably on the immune system and inflammation, although it may have some effects on neuropathic pain. “So if you’re using marijuana or marijuana products that are low in THC, then no, you won’t get high. That includes, most notably, the concentrated oils that are used [to treat] pediatric seizures.”
-
MYTH: All strains are created equally.
“There are definitely wide differences in strains, most notably with respect to their concentrations of THC and CBD. There are so many differences, and they can be so hard to keep track of, that actually, many people advocate not paying attention so much to what the strain is, but instead asking the dispensary to make sure that whatever they sell is tested for THC and CBD concentrations.
If you feel euphoric, or if you’re unfortunate enough to have bad side effects, those are due to THC.
Dr. David Casarett
“But, there’s another school of thought — which also has some credibility in my book — that says, ‘Sure, THC and CBD are the main ingredients of marijuana, but they’re not the only ones.’ And there are dozens of other cannabinoids present in smaller amounts that may be effective, too. So it’s certainly possible you could have two different strains with equivalent amounts of THC and CBD, but which may have different effects due to other cannabinoids that are in them. The problem is we just don’t know much about what those other cannabinoids do. So at least as a first pass, looking at THC and CBD concentrations is a good way to go. “[Researchers] are becoming interested in the possibility that a lot of the pain relief that you get from marijuana comes less from THC and more from CBD…However, most of the trials that I’ve seen for nausea use either THC or other synthetics that are not available for purchase through dispensaries. That doesn’t mean that CBD is not effective, but it does seem that the evidence is pointing in the direction of THC.”
3. MYTH: Smoking marijuana causes severe lung damage.
“One risk that everybody I’ve spoken with thinks exists is the risk of lung damage. They say, ‘Of course, if you smoke half a joint a day for years, you’re going to end up with lung damage and emphysema, like you do with smoking [cigarettes].’ But, it turns out that’s not true. There have been a couple of very large, controlled studies that have failed to find any long-term pulmonary effects [in] people who are smoking [marijuana]. There might be a few changes in lung function, but there really isn’t any of the change that you see with chronic smoking. “There are two potential explanations for that. One is theoretical: We know that CBD is an anti-inflammatory. That’s important because the way that smoke particulates cause lung damage is by causing inflammation. So it may be that the CBD that’s in marijuana actually protects against some of that inflammation and damage.
It may be that the CBD in marijuana actually protects against some of that damage.
Dr. David Casarett
“The other [explanation] is much more basic and probably the best one: It’s just a matter of dose. Most people who develop emphysema due to tobacco smoking do so after smoking one or two or three packs a day for decades. Think for a moment about what you’d be like if you smoked 40 or 60 joints a day for 20 or 30 years — lung damage would probably be the least of your problems. It could be that if someone were courageous enough to smoke that much marijuana…they would get lung damage. They probably wouldn’t care about that lung damage if they got it. But people generally don’t use that much.”
4. MYTH: You can’t get addicted to weed.
“On the flip side, a risk that many people don’t think about — that I certainly didn’t think about — that turns out to be very real is the risk of dependence and addiction. I honestly didn’t think that marijuana addiction was a real phenomenon, at least not in the same way that addiction to cocaine or heroin or even nicotine is, but it turns out it is. “The same circuits that create addictions to any of those other drugs are also involved in creating addiction to marijuana, with the same syndrome of craving and continued use in a way that’s disruptive to work, relationships, and physical health. There’s also a withdrawal syndrome…for people who use a lot regularly and then suddenly stop. People develop anxiety, agitation, and sometimes aggression in much the same way as somebody who uses alcohol continuously and then stops using. “It’s the same circuit that gets activated, and it works in the same way, but researchers also note that it’s not as likely to be activated. It’s very difficult to pin down the probability of addiction, because so many things determine it, but…somewhere around nine to 10% of regular users of marijuana will become dependent. That’s compared to between 13 and 15% of [regular users] becoming dependent on other drugs, like cocaine. “One lesson seems to be that your likelihood of becoming addicted to marijuana is less than that of [becoming addicted to] other drugs. And, when people do become addicted to marijuana, it’s not necessarily as severe an addiction. Many people are addicted to marijuana using clinical psychiatric criteria, but still manage to function.
Many people are addicted to marijuana using clinical psychiatric criteria, but still manage to function.
Dr. David Casarett
“However, all of the research that I’ve seen on marijuana addiction has been with recreational marijuana. So I don’t know how well that translates to medical [use]. Even if you say there’s a 9% chance that a 22-year-old who uses marijuana at parties is going to become addicted, does that mean that a 55-year-old administrative assistant…who uses it twice a week to get to sleep at night — is she really going to become addicted? Well, I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility, but there’s a big difference between those two people. I just don’t think we know enough about the risk of addiction in medical-marijuana users [to say they have the same risk].”
5. MYTH: Smoking pot causes mental illness.
“Part of the reefer madness message is that marijuana use causes mental illness in general and schizophrenia in particular. That’s not so much a myth, but the truth is more complicated than I thought. I think the jury is still out on this, but what I gleaned from a fairly contradictory set of evidence and studies is that it doesn’t seem that smoking marijuana causes schizophrenia. “On the other hand, there does seem to be an association between marijuana use and psychotic episodes, which consist of some of the symptoms of schizophrenia (including hallucinations and confusion). But unlike schizophrenia, psychotic episodes seem to be pretty acute, are often provoked by some external event, and resolve on their own. I think there’s pretty good data to indicate that marijuana use makes those episodes more likely. And people who are at risk of having them have them sooner if they’re marijuana users. That’s not definite, but that evidence seemed to me to be a little more persuasive. “In general, I think it’s pretty good advice that if you have risk factors for mental illness, you should be careful about using recreational drugs.”
See Original Article Here
Dec 4, 2015 | Blog, Komorn Law Blog, Legalization, News
According to the latest Gallup poll, 58% of Americans think marijuana should be legal. Surveys conducted in March and October found that most Ohioans agree. So why did Ohio voters overwhelmingly reject Issue 3, which would have legalized marijuana for medical and recreational use, in yesterday’s election? Two reasons spring to mind.
Ohio voters do not like crony capitalism.
The campaign against Issue 3, dubbed Ohioans Against Marijuana Monopolies, focused on the initiative’s most controversial feature: a cannabis cultivation cartel that would have limited commercial production to 10 sites controlled by the initiative’s financial backers. As I explained here last week, that aspect of the initiative caused consternation even among people who otherwise support marijuana legalization. Two leading drug policy reform groups, the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), were conspicuously neutral on Issue 3. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) issued a decidedly ambivalent endorsement under the headline “Investor-Driven Legalization: A Bitter Pill to Swallow.” The Republican Liberty Caucus of Ohio and the Libertarian Party of Ohio were opposed.
If your marijuana legalization initiative turns libertarians against marijuana legalization, you probably have done something wrong. As DPA Executive Director Ethan Nadelmann noted last week, “a constitutionally mandated oligopoly for an agricultural product…seems un-American” and “sticks in the craws of both liberals and conservatives.” The ballot description highlighted this aspect of Issue 3, saying the initiative “grants a monopoly for the commercial production and sale of marijuana for recreational and medicinal purposes” and would “endow exclusive rights for commercial marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction to self-designated landowners who own ten predetermined parcels of land.”
Worse, Issue 3 appeared on the ballot right after Issue 2, a measure that was designed to block marijuana legalization by prohibiting the use of initiatives to insert economic privileges into the state constitution. Issue 2 was described as an “anti-monopoly amendment” that “protects the initiative process from being used for personal economic benefit.” It received support from 52% of voters. A Kent State University survey commissioned by WKYC, the NBC station in Cleveland, found that Issue 2 was popular even among supporters of legalization.
The Atlantic’s David Graham rightly highlights voters’ “concerns about monopoly control” but wrongly conflates those concerns with opposition to “Big Marijuana,” the favorite bogeyman of the anti-pot group Project SAM. While anti-corporate attitudes may help explain some progressives’ opposition to Issue 3, conservatives and libertarians who oppose prohibition but nevertheless had qualms about the initiative were not troubled by the prospect that businesses would make a lot of money by producing and selling marijuana products. They were troubled by the prospect that the market would be rigged. Opposition to Issue 3’s crony capitalism should not be confused with opposition to cannabis capitalism.
Ohio State law professor Douglas Berman sees a silver lining for antiprohibitionists in the successful campaign against Issue 3. “That reinforces my sense that actually it’s very hard to defend prohibition on the merits, but it’s much easier to attack any particular plan to get away from prohibition,” Berman told Graham. “To me, the reform community has to be ecstatic to see that even in a purple state like Ohio, the advocacy against reform wasn’t, ‘Marijuana is this evil weed.’ It was, ‘Don’t trust those monopolists to legalize weed.’”
Voters who participate in off-year elections are not very keen on legalization.
The Kent State survey, which was conducted in the first week of October with a sample of 500 registered voters, put support for Issue 3 at 56%. But the pollsters warned that the result could be misleading, since people who cast ballots in years when voters are not electing a president “tend to be older and more Republican than the eligible electorate.” That’s relevant to the fate of Issue 3 because Republicans and older voters tend to oppose legalization. In the Kent State survey, only 45% of Republicans, 46% of 61-to-70-year-olds, and 29% of respondents older than 70 favored Issue 3.
A Bowling Green State University (BGSU) poll conducted in mid-October reinforces the point that off-year elections are not favorable to marijuana legalization. Unlike the Kent State survey, the BGSU poll focused on “likely” voters, and it found less support for Issue 3: 44%, with 43% opposed and 13% undecided. In the end, Issue 3 got just 36% of the vote.
Disappointments like that one convinced Rob Kampia, MPP’s executive director, that legalizers should focus their efforts on presidential election years. His group is backing legalization measures in five states next year: Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada. “When voters in Nevada or Massachusetts get to the ballot box one year from now, they are not going to be thinking about what happened in Ohio a year earlier,” says Mason Tvert, MPP’s communications director. “They are going to be thinking about the problems marijuana prohibition has caused their states for so many years and the benefits of replacing it with a more sensible system. These initiatives will also benefit from heightened voter turnout during a presidential election year. The more voters that turn out, the more support we tend to see for marijuana policy reform.”
While that’s exactly what you would expect a legalization activist to say, that does not mean it isn’t true. Voters have endorsed legalization in four states and the District of Columbia so far, and given trends in public opinion—in particular, the association between prohibitionism and old age—there is no reason to think that will be the end of it.
Although his side won yesterday, Project SAM’s Kevin Sabet is the one who seems to be whistling past the graveyard. “We’ve proven that legalization, even by popular initiative, can be stopped,” he says, “and we intend to build on this momentum.” The fact that anti-pot activists are crowing about winning one out of six battles over legalization—a situation that would have seemed fanciful just a few years ago—tells you all you need to know about the future of marijuana prohibition in America.
Nov 4, 2015 Jacob Sullum – Contributor
See Original Article Here
Nov 24, 2015 | Blog, Komorn Law Blog, Medical Marijuana Attorney Michael Komorn, Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, Michigan Medical Marijuana Criminal Defense, News
On Tuesday, November 10th, the Warren City Council held a public hearing regarding a proposed medical marijuana ordinance being championed by Mayor Jim Fouts. Fouts claims the ordinance is in response to concerns about growing medical marijuana in residential areas, including a house explosion on Harold street on September 28th that was reportedly due to butane hash oil extraction being performed inside of the home.
The Warren ordinance seeks to:
• Prohibit the consumption of marihuana in any area of any property open to the public or in a non-public area of a property where the owner has prohibited it
• Prohibit the transfer of marihuana at a caregiver’s residential dwelling
• Prohibit the odor of marihuana from being emitted beyond the interior of a structure
• Demands ventilation, filtration, and exhaust equipment to control the odor of marihuana
• Prohibits the growing, manufacturing, or processing of marihuana by a caregiver outside of an M-1 or M-2 industrial district. A qualifying patient may grow marihuana in their home, but only after registering and submitting a plan with the city’s building department and allowing inspections by both the building and fire departments
• Demands that, if a fire occurs as a result of the growth, cultivation, or processing of medical marihuana, that the qualifying patient be responsible for all emergency response costs or injuries which result
• Demands that when medical marihuana is transported inside of a motor vehicle, that it only be done in a sealed and locked container which is not readily accessible from the interior of the vehicle.
Violation of the proposed ordinance would be misdemeanors.
During public testimony, Southfield attorney Michael Komorn said, “There is an old saying for lawyers: When you don’t have the facts, argue the law, and when you don’t have the law, argue the facts.” Komorn went on to say, “After reading these proposed amendments, I can tell they have neither.”
Attorney after attorney echoed Komorn’s sentiment, stating the proposed ordinance was unconstitutional and in direct conflict with the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act as well the Supreme Court opinion issued in Ter Beek v City of Wyoming.
In addition, several residents also testified about how they would be negatively affected should the ordinance pass.
After enduring 2 hours of public testimony, of which none was in support of the ordinance, Council President Cecil St Pierre stated that the Council had “received an education” regarding the proposed ordinance and a motion was passed to table the first reading of the ordinance for further discussion by the committee of the whol
e. Several Council members, including Council Secretary Scott Stevens, pressed to have a motion to deny heard – a vote, however, never materialized. It is expected that a revised ordinance will appear on the Council’s agenda sometime in the next several months.
Nov 18, 2015 | Blog, Medical Marijuana Attorney Michael Komorn, Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, News
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. – Big questions are still looming over the controversial Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division marijuana reporting policy change: it’s accused of ambiguous crime lab reporting leading to misdemeanor pot charges trumped for synthetic-THC felonies.
Tuesday MSP-FSD officials responded to FOX 17’s investigation: officials stated they stand by their policy change, but they failed to address some of our biggest questions.
Last month, FOX 17 was the first to show you emails accusing the crime labs of falsely reporting marijuana extracts, leading to trumped up felony charges of synthetic pot possession. Tuesday, state police officials released a seven-paragraph statement which explains their 2013 policy change to write “origin unknown” on lab reports where they said they cannot determine if samples are marijuana or man-made THC (mainly in the case where pot plant material is not present).
However, their statement does not address the concerns FOX 17 revealed in uncovered emails from MSP-FSD’s own crime lab employees who wrote to their peers that they do have the science to prove where pot extracts, like edibles and hash, come from.
Here is the MSP statement in full released to FOX 17 on Nov. 17:
“In 2013, the Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division (MSP-FSD) changed its policy regarding how marihuana and THC are reported in an effort to standardize reporting practices among our laboratories and to ensure laboratory reports only include findings that can be proved scientifically.
With the influx of synthetic drugs into our laboratory system it became necessary to ensure reporting standards were in place across all labs. As is common practice in this division, involved laboratory managers were given the opportunity to discuss the proposed changes and provide their insight before a final decision was made by laboratory command.
After this discussion period, the decision was made to begin using the phrase “origin unknown” for samples in which it is not possible to determine if THC originates from a plant (marihuana) or synthetic means. It should be pointed out that “origin unknown” does not mean the sample is synthetic THC; it only means the lab did not determine the origin and the source of the THC should not be assumed from the lab results.
For example, if a sample is submitted to the lab that is clearly from a plant-based source, the results will indicate the sample is marihuana. If it is not clear that the submitted sample is from a plant-based source because it is an extract, residue or another compound with no visible plant matter, then the report will indicate whether or not THC — the illegal component of the sample — is present, but the source of the THC will not be identified (“origin unknown”) because the source cannot be scientifically established.
This reporting procedure was further clarified in July 2015 with the amended phrase of “The origin of delta-1-tetrahydrocannabinol may be from a plant (marihuana) or a synthetic source.”
The MSP-FSD takes full responsibility for this policy change and stands behind its decision, as being in the best interest of science. The allegation that politics or other influence played a role in this policy change is wholly untrue.
As is the circumstance in all criminal cases, the ultimate charging decision rests with the prosecuting authority that makes their decision based upon all the relevant evidence in a case, of which the laboratory report is but one factor.”
Note that in the first paragraph, state police officials write that their 2013 marijuana and THC reporting change was made in an effort to “standardize reporting practices among our laboratories and to ensure laboratory reports only include findings that can be proved scientifically.”
Officials explain that the crime lab was testing an influx of synthetic drugs. Then, as FOX 17 has been reporting, after a discussion, MSP officials changed policy to write “origin unknown” on lab reports for samples officials said are impossible for their lab employees to determine where the THC originates.
Yet again, writing “origin unknown” on lab reports is a resonating point of contention, attorney Michael Komorn, medical marijuana activists, and even crime lab scientists themselves disagree. This is even evidenced within months of uncovered email chains between MSP-FSD employees where crime lab scientists and directors wrote they can prove where marijuana extracts come from based on science and tests available in the crime labs.
But MSP’s argument appears to remain that because there is no pot plant visible in samples like hash and edibles, their labs cannot determine if the THC is natural or man-made: again, the difference between a misdemeanor and felony.
Ultimately MSP officials wrote, “MSP-FSD takes full responsibility for this policy change and stands behind its decision, as being in the best interest of science.”
As of Tuesday, MSP officials decline on-camera interviews with FOX 17, including an interview with MSP-FSD Director, Captain Greg Michaud.
Although it is up to the prosecutor to file charges, this crime lab reporting change has severely affected people’s lives, including the father in Spring Lake Max Lorincz who is charged with felony possession of synthetic-THC for having butane hash oil.
Lorincz has lost custody of his son since September 2014 as a result, and he is due back in Ottawa County Court Friday. Lorincz and his family have started a GoFundMe page to raise money to continue fighting their case and comply with court’s orders: including money for transportation to drive to drug tests and counseling all because he is a medical marijuana card-carrying patient.
Stay with FOX 17 for the latest on this investigation.
POSTED 6:03 PM, NOVEMBER 17, 2015, BY DANA CHICKLAS
Nov 8, 2015 | Blog, Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, News
DETROIT (AP) >> People fired in Michigan for using medical marijuana can collect unemployment benefits after the state Supreme Court turned down appeals in two cases.
The court declined to hear appeals that could have overturned a 2014 state appeals court decision.
A brief order was released Thursday. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce and Attorney General Bill Schuette’s office had urged the state’s top court to intervene.
It’s a victory for a hospital employee and a furniture repairman who had medical marijuana cards but lost their jobs. The appeals court said there was no evidence they worked under the influence of pot or used marijuana at work.
Michigan employers still can fire workers who use marijuana, even if they have a card. That was settled by a federal court in 2011.
Nov 8, 2015 | Blog, Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Komorn, Medical Marijuana, Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, News
MIRS-Michigan Independent Source Of News and Information
Friday Nov 6, 2015
Maxwell LORINCZ, of Spring Lake, says a fingerprint of oil on an empty plastic container led to his arrest on a drug charge on Sept. 24, 2014. Now, a year later, the case that might have started with a fingerprint has spurred a defense attorney to question the state’s protocol for handling some marijuana-related crimes. The attorney is also alleging that the current system allows some cases to incorrectly be heightened to felonies when they should be misdemeanors.
Lorincz says that because of what happened to him, the lives of he and his wife have been destroyed and his 6-year-old son has been in foster care for a year.
“There couldn’t have been a more terrible thing to happen in my life,” Lorincz said in an interview this week.
Lorincz’s attorney is Michael KOMORN, who specializes in medical marijuana cases. Through investigating Lorincz’s case, Komorn has called in laboratory experts and obtained internal Michigan State Police (MSP) emails between laboratory workers and an employee of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan (PAAM).
The debate focuses on THC, the chemical responsible for many of marijuana’s psychological effects.
The documents show an internal debate between MSP employees about how cases involving THC extracts that contain no visible marijuana plant matter should be handled. And they show a PAAM employee providing guidance to MSP workers on the subject.
The findings, Lorincz’s legal team alleges, show that law enforcement authorities have made a concerted effort to “bend the science.”
The way the science has been bent, the team says, allows THC oils or solids where no plant matter is visible to be considered synthetic, meaning they could bring a felony charge under Michigan law.
Normally, if the THC clearly came from a plant, it would bring a misdemeanor charge.
The allegation is that in some instances where law enforcement isn’t certain whether the THC came from a plant, authorities have been able to use the MSP protocol, which some outside forces had input on, to go ahead and pursue the synthetic felony crime. That’s what Komorn says happened to Lorincz.
But both the MSP and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan (PAAM) deny any concerted effort to heighten criminal penalties has taken place.
Shanon BANNER, spokesperson for MSP, said in a statement that the department “wholly refutes” the claims being made by Komorn.
“Turning an internal debate among colleagues into a multi-level conspiracy is a diversionary tactic used to distract from the facts of the case,” Banner said. “The bottom line is the professionals of MSP-FSD (Forensic Science Division) would never allow politics to trump science.”
Some medical marijuana users prefer to consume marijuana in oil form or in solid foods, involving THC extracts. However, the items aren’t considered usable drugs under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act.
The question that Komorn is focused on is how the MSP crime lab and prosecutors decide whether the THC in those forms is synthetic or from a plant.
In some cases, no plant matter is visible, and, according to emails obtained by Komorn, there’s been a disagreement among MSP lab workers about how to define the drugs in reports in those instances.
In an October court filing, Kormon pointed to an email from Ken STECKER, an employee of PAAM. Stecker advised MSP workers, “That in my opinion, THC is a schedule 1 drug regardless of where it comes from.”
However, one MSP worker, Bradley CHOATE, wrote in 2014 that simply saying that THC was found “without any other statement” would lead a prosecutor to the synthetic portion of state law because that’s the place where THC is listed in state law.
“This could lead to the wrong charge of possession of synthetic THC and the ultimate wrongful conviction of an individual,” Choate wrote. “For the laboratory to contribute to this possible miscarriage of justice would be a huge black eye for the division and the department.”
Eventually, after the internal debate, the department settled on the idea of listing the origin as unknown in situations where no plant matter was visible and the origin couldn’t proven.
That has essentially left the decision up to prosecutors to draw their own conclusions, according to lawyers.
“The new reporting procedures implemented in 2013 ensure that MSP-FSP is only reporting what it can scientifically prove,” Banner said in a statement.
According to a statement from Michael WENDLING, president of PAAM and St. Clair County’s prosecutor, PAAM has already met with staff from the Senate Judiciary Committee to request changes to a medical marijuana bill in the Legislature.
“The change requested by PAAM would decrease the penalty for synthetic marijuana to equal that for plant marijuana,” the statement said. “This request was made prior to recent press coverage on this issue.”
That change would likely settle the dispute.
Wendling also stated that PAAM didn’t direct MSP to change its policy to increase potential charges, as some have alleged.
On why Stecker was emailing MSP workers about the issue in the first place, Wendling said Stecker, a marijuana expert, was simply responding to requests about his opinion.
“It is common practice to consult with prosecuting attorneys to ensure compliance with state law,” Banner said.
Stecker did email from what was apparently an Attorney General (AG)-based email address, according to the documents. But according to the AG’s office, he’s never worked there.
Questions about why he had the email address were referred by the AG’s office to the Department of Technology, Management and Budget.
Komorn himself has questioned why Stecker advised MSP on the subject.
“I’m a lawyer. He’s lawyer. I want to talk to the lab. I want to tell them how I want the results reported,” Komorn said.
As the debate continues, other prosecutors have taken note of what’s happening with the ongoing Lorincz case.
Chris BECKER, chief assistant prosecutor in Kent County, said his county has decided to treat oil cases where there is no plant material visible as plant marijuana, not synthetic.
Counties that see it differently aren’t necessarily doing anything wrong, Becker said.
“There’s different ways to interpret it,” he said. “Different counties can interpret it differently.”
As for the allegation that PAAM was working with MSP to change the policy, Becker said nothing could be further from the truth.
“The state lab is its own entity,” he said. “There is no grand conspiracy.”
