Our crime lab has encountered marijuana synthetics that would fall in 2-A, but they are not specifically listed in the statute. This is probably a function of clandestine labs adjusting their formulation to avoid the specific language of the statute.

We believe that the phrase in 481.1031 that contains the word “including” should have properly read as “including, but not limited to”.

But, an inquiry to Harris CO. ME office from one of our local analysts resulted in a Harris Co. chemist expressing the opinion that the statute as drafted “was drafted to cover this contingency”.

Our locals are of the opinion that: 1) if there is supporting scientific literature and reference materials that indentify the chemical structure and pharmacological effects of the “new” compounds 2) they will write a lab report indicating “NAME OF COMPOUND, a synthetic chemical compound that is a cannabinoid receptor agonist and mimics the pharmacological effect of naturally occurring cannabinoids”.

Have any of you dealt with this situation yet, or have enough knowledge of the legislative history of this statute section so as to concur with the opinion expressed by the one Harris Co. ME chemist?

quote:

Originally posted by Ramon Rodriguez:
We believe that the phrase in 481.1031 that contains the word “including” should have properly read as “including, but not limited to”.

That phrase is redundant, so the legislative drafters at the Texas Legislative Council do not use it anymore. This is from p. 12 of their drafting manual (PDF) :

quote:

Sections 311.005(13) and 312.011(19), Government Code, which provide rules of statutory construction for codes and other statutes, respectively, specifically define “includes” and “including” as used in drafting:

“Includes” and “including” are terms of enlargement and not of limitation or exclusive enumeration, and use of the terms does not create a presumption that components not expressed are excluded.

These rules of statutory construction make it unnecessary for a drafter to use the phrase “includes but is not limited to” in composing a definition.

Which is why I trust my inquiries to you good folks!!! Thank you, Shannon

quote:

Originally posted by Shannon Edmonds:

quote:

Originally posted by Ramon Rodriguez:
We believe that the phrase in 481.1031 that contains the word “including” should have properly read as “including, but not limited to”.

That phrase is redundant, so the legislative drafters at the Texas Legislative Council do not use it anymore. This is from p. 12 of their drafting manual (PDF) :

quote:

Sections 311.005(13) and 312.011(19), Government Code, which provide rules of statutory construction for codes and other statutes, respectively, specifically define “includes” and “including” as used in drafting:

“Includes” and “including” are terms of enlargement and not of limitation or exclusive enumeration, and use of the terms does not create a presumption that components not expressed are excluded.

These rules of statutory construction make it unnecessary for a drafter to use the phrase “includes but is not limited to” in composing a definition.

any version of synthetic marijuana should be included. The fact is that these synthetic substances are far more dangerous than marijuana itself.