RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:LG PAID 2ND TRANCHE IN ACQUIRING FREIA FARMACEUTICI ITALYHey Duck
Lots to read, I’m going to focus on the Italian Supreme Court ruling on the illegality of consumer distribution of cannabis/hemp derivatives as the rest of the comments, pages and links in the end really just reference back to this ruling. I hope you hear me out and can provide constructive feedback on Section 3, No. 10809 of 7/12/2018, Dep. 2019, Totaro specifically, we agree on everything except the previous mentioned law which is the only area you and I seem to disagree on our stances.
This ruling came about due to the seizure of cannabis from a shop, the cannabis seized later was shown to exceeded .6% THC. But the defence stated art. 2, of the law n. 242 of 2016 allowed them to sell it if it was between .2 to .6%. The court came back and reviewed all the current laws as laid out on page 3 of the translated pdf subsection 2. And provided this document and ruling in respect to law n. 242 of 2016 with a conclusion as copied below.
But the conclusion; on page 12 has no mention or ruling modifying Section 3, No. 10809 of 7/12/2018, Dep. 2019, Totaro as I will show my position on below. This is to my understanding where easy joint operates, unless you have another ruling or law that supersedes it.
Now this where I slightly deviate from your explanation of the ruling and please hear this out as most of the end result is the exact same.
The final ruling isn’t much different but I must point out. You partially quoted starting on page 5, and ended with another quote ending on page 10, skipping most of the middle but rightfully so. As we can go read that ourselves. But I need to point out this quote only falls under the “CONSIDERED IN LAW” section or consideration of current laws and does not reflect the final ruling. Only explains how they support the final ruling considering previous laws. The final ruling though, agrees with most of your points but does not cover one key law. Which is the one I wish to learn more about if you have documents and again to my understanding that Easy Joint claims to operate in.
On page 12. Subsection 8 is the FINAL RULING as such:
In conclusion, the following principle of law must be affirmed:
"The marketing to the public of cannabis sativa L. and, in particular, of leaves, inflorescences, oil, resin, obtained from the cultivation of the aforementioned variety of hemp, does not fall within the scope of the law No. 242 of 2016, which qualifies as only the cultivation activity of hemp of the varieties accepted and registered in the common catalog of varieties of agricultural plant species is permitted, pursuant to Article 17 of Council Directive 2002/53 / EC, dated 13 June 2002 and which lists strictly the derivatives from the aforementioned cultivation that can be marketed, so that the sale, sale and, in general, the public sale of the derivatives of the cultivation of cannabis sativa L., such as leaves, inflorescences, oil, resin, are conducts that integrate the offense referred to in Article 73, Presidential Decree 309/1990, even with a lower THC content to the values indicated by the art. 4, paragraphs 5 and 7, law n. 242 of 2016, unless such derivatives are, in practice, devoid of any doping or psychotropic efficacy, according to the principle of offensiveness "
So yes, I believe we all agree, you can not point to law n. 242 of 2016 and use it as a defence to market cannabis in Italy to the public. I completely agree it was only for cultivation and do not disagree with most of your statement as such. BUT there has been no clarification and this ruling does not address or modify :Section 3, No. 10809 of 7/12/2018, Dep. 2019, Totaro. I do not have a copy yet, I will look for it and attempt to link, and if you know of rulings or laws that super-cede this law (as I keep asking you to clarify) because as to my knowledge there is no change or clarification yet. You can find it’s definition on page 3 of the above ruling but I have copied it below.
“in fact, the substantial legality of the products derived from the cultivation of hemp allowed by the novel of 2016 was sustained, provided that they present a percentage of THC not exceeding the 0.2 per cent (Section 3, No. 10809 of 7/12/2018, Dep. 2019, Totaro, where it is specified that the criminal relevance of the marketing of inflorescences must be excluded, although not included in any provision of the art. 2, paragraph 2, law No. 242 of 2016, where the active principle is less than 0.2 percent).”
If you have any updates or rulings to this specific law, I would appreciate reading them and will change my stance but until that point there is still a grey area, in which Easy Joint questionably operates. And you’ll notice interesting wordings in the seizure information on Easy Joint from July 23rd I feel because of this distinction in law. They argue that even though the hemp could be below .2% THC (it has yet to be tested) that content could be increased through other means, with one example given as burning with Butane. I wont argue further semantics but hope you can understand; why I disagree with how you present your statements on this ruling. As while it’s partially correct it doesn’t take into account the entire situation as I have shown above unless you have information otherwise.