An Arizona prosecutor has made one of the most ridiculous comparisons imaginable in a legal brief about keeping certain marijuana products illegal.
The Arizona Supreme Court is currently considering a case that will determine whether or not marijuana extracts are legal under the state's medical marijuana laws. Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk wrote a legal filing in the case arguing to keep extracts illegal. In her filing, she said that just because a substance comes from a plant that is legal doesn't mean that substance is illegal. She then said allowing legal products made from marijuana extracts would be like allowing legal explosives made from fertilizer.
“The AMMA defines ‘marijuana’ as ‘all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant.’ … That non-specific definition does not mean that every conceivable chemical compound extracted from the plant is protected by the AMMA. Such chemicals are not ‘parts’ of the plant, but entirely different substances. A finding that the AMMA protects the narcotic drug cannabis would be akin to a finding that explosives produced from fertilizer are protected by laws allowing the sale of farm products," Polk wrote.
Clearly this is a ridiculous argument. Marijuana extracts are not explosives. Also the analogy doesn't really make sense, because marijuana extracts in this metaphor would be the fertilizer since fertilizer is extracted from other products. And fertilizer is also legal. The attorney who is challenging Arizona's ban on marijuana extracts says a more apt comparison would be like comparing marijuana extracts to orange juice. Both marijuana and oranges are legal, so the products made from extracting parts of them should be legal as well.
But seriously, if you're comparing the dangers of marijuana to bombs, you really should look for a different argument.
(h/t Phoenix New Times)