Definition of edible marijuana debated

THERMOPOLIS – With the legalization of marijuana and marijuana-based products in neighboring Colorado, Wyoming has seen an influx of non-plant contraband, including edibles and oils, often found in candies, sodas and baked goods.

While the state currently has no law governing the prosecution of edibles, or a definition of standard weights for prosecution, and past legislation has failed to be passed due to wording and a broad scope, the House and Senate Joint Judiciary Committee took up the topic on Thursday in Thermopolis, to hear from a wide variety of witnesses regarding future legislation which would regulate the products.

“We are seeing things we’ve never seen before [in Powell] from candy and vaporizers to oils, which are hard to detect,” said Powell Chief of Police Roy Eckerdt, testifying before the committee. “We’re kind of being left to hold the bag while the weight of this bill [to set criminal penalties for edibles] is being debated.”

While Chief Eckerdt noted that the concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, has found to be higher in the candy and liquid form, it still does not meet the states definition of marijuana as being “a leafy plant or parts.”

Wyoming Chief Deputy Attorney John Knepper Jr. testified that the state should determine the appropriate levels of THC for prosecution, before the federal government sets a mandate.

“We need to dete rmine THC levels which would make possession a felony, relevant for state prosecutors to deal with it at a state level without federal intervention from the federal system,” said Knepper. “We are fortunate, however, to have a cooperative relationship with federal law enforcement, for now.”

Byron Oedekoven, executive director for the Wyoming Association of Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police, noted that the state currently defines marijuana as any part of the plant, but with no way to test for THC in edibles, they don’t fall under the definition. Oedekoven recommended to the committee that the legislature first define marijuana, before trying to determine penalties for an undefined product such as edibles.

Senator Larry Hicks (R-Baggs) suggested the committee could change the definition to include any compound derived from the plant, but warned that the danger in creating a new definition is that too many loopholes already exist on the subject.

Frank Latta, state director for the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws (NORML), urged the committee to go slow, and not be in a rush to define penalties when loopholes already exist, creating a budget crisis in the legal system. “I don’t believe this is a public safety issue,” said Latta, noting that THC has not been proven to be toxic, as compared to opioids or other scheduled drugs.

Representative Nathan Winters (R-Thermopolis) challenged Latta’s contention that THC is not dangerous, referencing an increase in emergency room visits in Colorado, and an increase in traffic accidents associated with drivers under the influence of marijuana.

“No one has ever died from THC,” remarked Latta.

“You can talk about revenue increases in Colorado all you want,” said Winters, “but Peter has been robbed to pay Paul … as a matter of fact, he’s been flogged.”

“We can play ping pong all day, but I don’t want to do that,” replied Latta. “The fact remains: we have seen no deaths from THC or edibles or anything else.”

At the conclusion of public comments, Chairman Leland Christensen (R-Alta) noted that the committee has several more meetings on the topic ahead, and that there were simply too many concepts to consider, but that redefining marijuana was a good approach to further creating a set of laws to prosecute the possession of edibles.

“Quite frankly,” said Senator Hicks, “we need a more measured approach to this.”