RE:RE:RE:Mr. Duck i know you read italian, so take look thisI think some people are taking this article out of context. Easy Joint is not trying to defend the store sales or call into question the final conclusion of the ruling on that law n. 242 of 2016.
They are mentioning how the seizure went down is highly dubious with the government and police using the clarification of law n. 242 of 2016 as their defence or starting point. Some of the weird points were they raided a storage warehouse, it was not actively selling to consumers but rather storing the material; which currently is legal. You can grow it, store it, then sell it via legal means to industrial uses. So to raid a warehouse is odd and has little legal backing to justify the seizure.
Plus they took extra step to identify they also seized smoking paraphernalia, including an emphasis on butane. Butane, pipes etc are also not illegal; so arguably they have no legal ground to seize these stored items as well.
They released names, products, times locations even before a formal law suit or completion of their investigation in an arguably biased article and video. The standard is generally no comments until the investigation is compelte, or the law suit has reached a certain stage. There’s unconfirmed reports that they utilized much larger police and government forces then were actually required for the seizures. There is a fair point to be made that this had an emphasis on making a big scene and news storey out of this, rather then following what the law would generally dictate as reasonable.
So all in all I think Easy Joint has a fair point in saying the seizure didn’t go down in the sense of full legal support; between warehouse storage and seizure of non -illegal paraphernalia. But I don’t see the gov. and police moving in this serious without some form of legal plan or goal to back it up, unless it truly was a fully political gambit which is unlikely at least in my opinion. Better question is if this decree ruling was as closed and shut as duck would like to make it seem,(again it’s not a law only a ruling on a law) why aren’t they systematically closing down the shops instead of raiding a warehouse, that is storing legal product within the confines of the recently clarified laws?
I have a feeling in the coming months this will roll into more setting precedence for the open ended line of “devoid of doping efficacy” and what actual percent 0%, .2% or how to measure it comes into play. They clarify the day after even before pre testing they seem aware most of the hemp was below .2%. But what could come out of these two seizures is a defence the stores are selling products that can be utilized to increase the THC content from .2% to higher; such as butane hash oil?
Oh and the ruling on law n. 242 of 2016 only clarified that law n. 242 of 2016 did not support the sale of inflorescence to consumers. It doesn’t magically supersede all other rulings or laws, just that specific law. The ruling even notes at the bottom under the conclusion “The contested order must be annulled by postponing a new trial to the Court of Ancona,
section of the review.”. Now this goes back to the respective judges who will take this new ruling into consideration. You can still utilize other rulings, previous judgements or laws for example “Section 3, No. 10809 of 7/12/2018, Dep. 2019, Totaro”
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).”
Duck has proven to be a double edge sword on many topics I respect his knowledge on many things as he is very well read on the situation and if pushed can actually provide decent documentation eventually. But he utilizes this to quote potions out of context or make overall statements with leaps of logic, among other questionable tactics.
Decoy_Duck at 12:08PM today. “ There is nothing in this ruling that is vague or unclear.” I think the final keywords from the rulings conclusion of “unless such derivatives are, in practice, devoid of any doping or psychotropic efficacy, according to the principle of offensiveness.” are considerably vague. Does this mean zero tolerance or something akin to de-alcholized beer which is .5% ABV or less; or alcohol free beer which is 0.05% ABV or less? They could have easily said a very specific percentage 0%, .2% or .6% but now it is reliant back on the lower court judges to make this distinction. Unless the higher court comes back and clarifies this statement too but I believe if they were going to they would have made that distinction back in the original ruling from early July.
Or from decoy_ducks same post “99% of all cannabis light products are currently made from illegal ingredients.” While in fact it’s the marketing of cannabis light products in Italy for consumption or ingestion to consumers that is illegal. You can legally sell less then .6% THC cannabis light for industrial purposes still like paper making, animal food stock, etc. The ruling literally clarifies law n. 242 of 2016 was to allow farmers to produce cannabis light from .2 to .6% for industrial purpose, let alone where he pulled 99% out of. The ingredients are fine, it’s selling them that’s the issue.
Or there’s no point in quoting old articles but he loves quoting third party news pieces, or personal tweets as facts unless you mention them.
My favourite still is an older quote along the lines of “Easy joint is done, we’ve been scammed, they have no future”. But even worse case if Italy does go completely zero tolerance. They move their products next door to Switzerland and sell there where cannabis light is legal up to 1%, or Canada where it’s legal, or some other European countries where cannabis light is legal, it’s a brand, not a location.