When is a cutting legally considered a plant?

[norcalkell]

I believe California will charge you as if your clones are plants and the feds dont count them without roots. Just my take on it.... but I know for a fact that California will charge you as if they are ALL plants roots or no roots. period dot

Prolly has alot to do with what county your in to be truthful. None of them charge you the same ... its changes just driving ten miles down the road if you live by the county line
wish they would just wise up and leave us alone.

YES I wish they would just LEAVE us ALONE!!!

 

[ARTofMAKINGfire]

Really?

Ever seen a fallen tree in the forest, laying horizontally on the ground? One that has broken itself off from its root system.

Notice those new sprouts coming off of it?

Are you saying the broken log is no longer a plant?

In other words, roots are NOT essential for photsynthesis.

"Plants" even without a root system, can survive a period of time on their internal energy reserves alone.

For that matter, how can a seed sprout without roots?

Surely you wouldn't say that a germinated sprout is not a plant because it doesn't have roots.

Seeds are able to germinate off their internal sugar reserves stored in the seed capsule.

I'm not going to argue semantics. I said a root system helps facilitate photosythesis. This is a true statement.

You are missing my point which is that you have a chance to argue all these things later on at a trial as long as you don't sabotage yourself and paint yourself into a corner by giving LE ANY STATEMENT WHATSOEVER.

A cutting is a plant when it has a root system. Case law. Look it up.

 

[B. Self Reliant]

Even if LE "bags n tags" your cuts as plants, during you trial you are allowed to "call witnesses to testify on your behalf". This is where you would hire a professional, preferrably a biologist, to state that a plant is not a plant without a root system. He could argue on your behalf and the jury takes from it what they will. He could simply state from a scientific standpoint that a plant constitutes a way to absorb food to facilitate photosythesis. These are true statements.

I agree, yet anyone's who's been charged with a crime before knows that it can be a painful process. Even of you're found innocent, it can be a long and painful road to travel. Lost time from work, lawyer fees, bail bonds to pay, embarrassment, the gig is kind of up for future grows now that your that guy that got busted for it, etc.

Even though the above statement from ArtofMakingFire is true, I think it's generally better to be on the safe side and run your grow as if LEO/DA will count your clones as plants. I want my freedom too much, I don't want to be a martyr for the grow community by trying to clarify what constitutes a plant in court. . .

 

[opt1c]

as far as the roots equals plant thing don't get too comfy... there is a thing called intent; in the mind of the man if you've got 120 unrooted cuts in an ez-cloner you're intending to create 120 plants in their eyes; if you rip em all out of the cloner you were just pruning some branches off you mom... better safe than sorry

you can have all the seeds you want though

 

[SoCoMMJ]

I had been pondering how to factor clones into the mix in regard to total plant count. This seems to be a recurring question, however the latest I could find considers cuttings as plants once the cutting generates a root ball.

One additional interesting point of note [in the edge case] is that if you have over 50 plants, the federal guidelines consider each plant to be one Kilo of finished product for sentencing purposes. I want to find that strain. Under 50 plants, they consider 100 grams per plant.

http://openjurist.org/30/f3d/134/united-states-v-edge

On cross-examination, Dr. Kral stated that he "wouldn't have any problem" with the following statement: "A cutting becomes a plant when it develops a root system sufficient to allow the cutting to maintain open stomas ... so it can exchange gas and provide for energy requirements."

another case that uses US v Edge as a basis
http://openjurist.org/999/f2d/596

Today we join these circuits. Marijuana plants have three characteristic structures, readily apparent to the unaided layperson's eye: roots, stems, and leaves. Until a cutting develops roots of its own, it is not a plant itself but a mere piece of some other plant. We therefore adopt the rule that cuttings are not "plants" unless there is "readily observable evidence of root formation." Burke, 999 F.2d at 601; Edge, 989 F.2d at 879. We think that requiring readily observable evidence of root formation is a common-sense approach that will prevent the costly and confusing "battle of botanical experts which occurred in this case." Appellee's Brief at 13.
14 Forty-seven of the cuttings seized from Robinson's greenhouse had no root formations. The district court therefore erred in counting them as plants for sentencing purposes. With regard to the forty-eighth cutting, however, we must resolve a borderline issue under the new rule announced above. Specifically, that cutting had a structure which the government's expert characterized as "root primitiae." This structure was undisputedly no more than a swelling of the cambial cells underneath the cutting's outer layer of plant tissue. It was therefore a structure from "which roots will come," Edge, 989 F.2d at 879, not a root structure itself. Since this cutting, like the others, has not yet produced readily observable roots or root hairs, the district court erred in treating it as a plant for sentencing purposes. See id. (rejecting the argument that a "swollen area" or "callus" from which roots would eventually come qualified the cutting as a plant).


Not legal advice by any means, just the data that I came up with when I searched around a bit on the internets.