I’d recommend joining the church and doing it with the natives.
Might learn a thing or two.
2 Likes
If you want to dream while your awake, try fly agaric. it’s basically the d8 of psychedelics
You cant be serious…
What a silly rhetoric. Oh no the black market home grows are eating our lunches.
1 Like
I’m gonna get some black market weed at the gas station or the strip mall or one of 10k websites.
You can also find it at tattoo shops and party stores here.
1 Like
“Eating someone’s lunch refers to aggressive competition that results in one company taking portions of another company’s market share.”
1 Like
Am I wrong in asserting that d9-THC is also schedule I and yet…here we all are buying/selling it all the time in markets around the country? I’m perhaps intentionally making light of this letter, but at the same time has anything really changed with this letter being put out? Did any of us truly think the DEA was previously cool with acetylated THCs and other psychoactive cannabinoids?
5 Likes
There’s certainly a few people that did.
@Kingofthekush420 will argue with you until you don’t care anymore.
3 Likes
Actually ive said that it is an analogue based on the fact its metabolized into the same thing
I do not think it falls into schedule 1 based off the letter above stating d8 found it hemp or derived from it is legal
1 Like
The biggest impact will probably be on wholesale customers/shop owners who are spooked by the letter.
3 Likes
I see. I guess to play devil’s advocate - shouldn’t every dispensary in a rec/legal state be equally spooked because d9-THC is still schedule I on a federal level? I’m really only arguing that the letter officially put THCO into the same category as d9THC, and yet plenty of businesses still do business with d9THC in spite of it.
1 Like
Because there’s a regulatory framework in place for it. The DEA doesn’t go around kicking in the doors of licensed operators as it may result in the state government being at odds with them, conflict of interest, etc.
The feds get tax revenue from state licensed operations. Hemp folks are out here exchanging goods and cash and leaving the feds completely out of it. They want their cut.
3 Likes
Look up the rohrabacher-farr amendment
It’s hemp that has to fear.
Who’s actually surprised about this? Could see this coming a mile away
4 Likes
Nah - there’s some pretty interesting statutes that exist out there for legal state markets regarding enforcement dollars being spent. And that only accounts if you are not involved in interstate commerce.
If people are not in a licensed market then they don’t get the potential enforcement protection AND if they are involved in interstate commerce then they don’t get the potential enforcement protection.
For hemp processors - there was a perception of quite a bit of wiggle room for interstate commerce. Even though the FDA has said it was illegal for 5 years… people were/are still doing it, because until recently the DEA had not been specific about intermediates or derivatives or conversion products.
The letters shared here (there are two) give pretty specific information that was up for debate until these letters came out. Debate for many reasons and mostly because the definitions in the Farm Bill of 2018 were ambiguous and those same definitions were not updated by USDA or DEA - leaving plenty of space for people to stretch out into, until someone asked clarifying questions about how enforcement might be executed.
This doesn’t mean enforcement will actually happen. And it doesn’t actually change the risk that was already present. All it does is clarify the risk that was ambiguous and allow people to choose to operate under those risks or not.
The truth is everyone that works in this industry is accepting that risk. Risk that Congress will decide not to renew the provisions preventing expenditure against licensed operators. Risk that FDA will start enforcing the rules (they started last year, very very slow machine). Risk that consumers will notice that things are actually illegal and just start suing the fuck out of people for selling them products which are not “allowed” or have weird labels or whatever (this is already happening on the West Coast…)
Don’t have to be the devil’s advocate - the government will smile and tell you these things all along. Choosing to do them anyway is what makes it um… fun? exciting? anxiety creating? profitable? If there wasn’t this weird legal landscape - huge companies would already be doing all of this stuff, and all us small fry would be left in the rain.
11 Likes
Butttttttttt this says THCaaaaaaaaaa your honor
I like your aimless shit talking of anything to do with THCA today lol
2 Likes
Same, reminds me of all my bueller quotes
1 Like