How have courts interpreted the manufacture statute in the context of cannabis possession cases?

Where a statute is unambiguous, a court need not examine the legislative history and intent in order to interpret the statute. United States v. Bressette, 947 F.2d 1361, 1362 (9th Cir.1991). Rhoades' contention that the manufacture statute is ambiguous is in vain.

Rhoades admittedly grew a large number of marijuana plants, which constitutes production and hence manufacture pursuant to the definitions found at 21 U.S.C. 802(15) and (22). Rhoades' assertion, that possession rather than manufacture is the correct chargeable offense where one grows the marijuana for one's personal consumption, is without merit. See United States v. Roberts, 747 F.2d 404, 405 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867 (1988).