Texas smoke shop owner accused of selling MJ says products were legal hemp

A coastal Texas smoke-shop owner facing criminal marijuana charges after a police raid Tuesday says the cannabis flower, vapes, gummies and other products taken were legal hemp, not illegal marijuana.

Faded Smoke Shop owner Alexandra Degollado faces charges of manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance, the Victoria Advocate reported.

One of her store employees was also charged during the Tuesday raid in Port Lavaca, a town of about 12,000 on the Texas coast southwest of Houston.

Degollado’s attorney, Lisa Pittman, told the newspaper that the store owner relied on legal certificates of analysis that showed the products were made legally.

Texas allows the production and sale of hemp, but not high-THC cannabis. The shop had a current license to sell edible CBD products, a requirement under Texas law, the newspaper reported.

Local police have said the seized products contained elevated THC levels.

“People have to understand that, right now, (marijuana) is still illegal. I realize it might be legalized in a few years, but it is still illegal here,” Port Lavaca Police Chief Colin Rangnow told the paper.

3 comments on “Texas smoke shop owner accused of selling MJ says products were legal hemp
  1. Ray on

    I realize it might be legalized in a few years, but it is still illegal here,” Port Lavaca Police Chief Colin Rangnow told the paper.

    Translation: “We know our marijuana cash cow is coming to an end soon so we need to pad our overtime to make sure our retirement pensions are as large as possible.”

    “Also it’s safer for us to bust non violent marijuana users than the crazy violent people out there, we might get hurt.”

    Reply
  2. YearofAction on

    Cannabis plants are versatile, valuable plants. Originally, marijuana meant cannabis smoke, hemp meant cannabis fibers. Some cannabis plants were more valued for their smoke, so the rhetoric of metonymy is how those plants became known as marijuana plants. Some cannabis plants were more valued for their fibers, so the rhetoric of metonymy is how those plants became known as hemp plants.

    At the Federal level, inaccurately defining all cannabis plants as marijuana, without regard to THC content, then inaccurately defining some cannabis plants as hemp, based on THC content, are legislated abuses of the original rhetoric. Many states like Texas have adopted those Federal abuses of rhetoric into their own cannabis laws, so shop owners get needlessly harassed over THC content.

    When people contact their members of Congress, such predicaments at the state level could be lawfully resolved. Since all cannabis plants have fibers and may be smoked, they could be carefully descheduled for citizens, simply by reconstructing the current malformed Federal definition of marijuana so that it:

    removes the features of racism, duplicity, and circumlocution that have malformed every Federal definition of “marihuana” since 1937;

    and unambiguously describes how “marijuana” is actually derived from any cannabis plant that is included under the archetypal designation of Cannabis sativa L;

    and specifies the perimeter of Federal prohibitions of cannabis use that respect the original intent, common sense, context, and promise of the 2nd, 4th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments;

    to circumscribe and disencumber the ratified Power of each state to make fair laws to control the use of cannabis plants by its citizens;

    and to restore and protect the ratified Liberty rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of voting age to grow cannabis plants, lawfully engage in cannabis commerce, and carefully use cannabis products;

    while retaining the Schedule 1 status of marijuana itself, until the adulterated medical value and nuisance value of cannabis smoke is separately reconsidered for descheduling or rescheduling;

    thereby rendering superfluous the definition of hemp, by making the definition of marijuana conclusively uphold the Constitution, like this:

    (21 U.S.C. 802(16)) The term “marijuana” means all parts of the smoke produced by the combustion of the plant Cannabis sativa L., which is, as are the viable seeds of such plant, prohibited to be grown by or sold by any publicly traded corporation or subsidiary company, and such smoke is prohibited to be inhaled by any child or by any person bearing any firearm, as is their intake of any part or any product of such plant containing more than 0.3% THC by weight unless prescribed to such child by an authorized medical practitioner.

    Reply
    • Ray on

      @YearofAction Yes Yes Yes you are 100% correct on everything. The 2nd amendment gives us rights that will not be infringed upon but possession or use of marihuana takes away that right to own a firearm. I explained this to my NY senator and he had no answer for me other than a “your right” statement. He also said he will absolutely consider this when presenting/voting at the state level.

      Who ever is reading this please Call, write and/or meet with your local, state and federal government officials and use YearofAction’s talking points before this article pages down into obscurity.

      Reply
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *