The DEA distinguishes between the extraction of botanical compounds and the synthesizing of compounds, regardless if a version of those compounds are made naturally by plants. So, it’s likely that botanically produced and extracted d8 is legal because it’s technically hemp, but for botanically produced and extracted CBD (or whatever) which is then converted to d8 to be illegal because, while it may be legally hemp, it’s illegal because the DEA considers this drug synthesis, which requires a whole lot of oversight that isn’t in place.
4 Likes
True, although there are still some naturally extracted products that they must keep away from the public in order to protect us from ourselves. Sassafras is one example. They really hate it.
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/chem_prog/advisories/safrole.htm
Please report all unusual sassafrass activity. The Drug Enforcement Administration thanks you for your cooperation in this matter.
The DEA knows that d8 in hemp is found at about 1/100th of the d9 content (this is in the IFR i believe). They know people are converting it from CBD which is why in that letter i posted above they talk about naturally occuring d8 and hemp derived d8 (i.e them saying d8 found in or derived from the hemp plant. They are obviously not the same as they wouldnt have said in OR derived) for them to allow conversions of cbd into d8 then call d8 thco a synthetic cannabinoid just doesnt work. You cant go from hemp derived to synthetic because you acetylate something (im not talking about d9 thco thats a whole different topic)
We need to think about the schedulings here
Marijuana and synthetic cannabinoids are scheduled and hemp is excluded from the CSA as long as its grown from a legal plant under .3% d9 thc. This includes all extracts, derivative whether growning or not.
I think this is more a ploy to try and get people to stop making thco, i really dont see them having the ability to go after people which such a broad definition of hemp so this is more of a scare tactic. People have been asking for a clarification of the rules for a while and the fact the FDA hasnt done anything is a huge deal. Yes theyre going after people for making claims on cbd but i havent seen anyone get busted for hemp derived d8
Why havent they went after hemp derived d8? Its everywhere. They know it would be a waste of time and resources with the current definition.
I do this we are in for a rude awakening with the next farm bill. Theyll definition make clarifications then. We will have to see where this goes
What did the DEA take from the multistate raid in NC/MS?
Looks a lot like enforcement to me
Link to the article please
Do you have any proof of what was seized? Because every site I just looked at said synthetic cannabinoids but didnt actually define what was taken so its kinda hard to say they’re enforcing hemp derived d8 when we dont know what was taken
This doesnt answer your question but hints at more information. “Bigger and deeper than what we once believed.”
It’s pretty much impossible to get info on open investigations. Davidb’s death/lab fire is still open as well
4 Likes
A smart prosecutor would submit 10000 hemp coas that dont contain d8
Them bring in 5 expert witnesses to testify how to make d8 and submit a copy of this whole site as evidence
Then we would see what is a synthetic cannabinoid and what isn’t
Legal weed states think cbn is synthetic and that can be found on a coa even
CBN can be synthetic or semi-synthetic as people here like to put new words out there to confound us chemists all the time. You can make it out of a lot of things, many of which don’t even start with cannabis sativa. Why you would do so, when its readily available degradant of a readily available commodity boggles my mind. But then people have been converting it and isolating it for a while now - so then there’s always people who will try to figure out ways to do it from even cheaper commodities (usually wastes from other industries) and they have done. -shrug-
The second letter shared here is a bit more important IMO than the first one shared. That second letter clears up the “gray area” that had been the DEA’s interpretation of products which have more than 0.3% d9THC in them during intermediate steps. This was a legal question from the very beginning and some shops got in trouble (enough that I stopped working at them) for having mother liquor that had so much THC in it that it was 100% unlicensed stuff that they wanted to enforce and prosecute against.
This has been a closely watched item for over 4 years. Even back when the farm bill was a draft in committee people asked about these intermediates, of course they didn’t change anything. There’s been a number of letters from Congress on both sides of the issue. Half are saying they didn’t intend for these products and its not following the intent of the statutes for the executive branch to allow these products (which is allowing through limited or non-existent enforcement from the FDA/USDA/DEA). The other half are saying exactly the opposite, that these products 100% were supposed to be allowed and included and the executive branch isn’t doing its job because they have failed to create an effective regulatory environment to allow businesses to thrive and consumers to be safe. This is mostly because the FDA thinks that cannabinoids are drugs - and no one wants to file IND and NDA to get them to market in the next 10 years, most everyone wants to do it RIGHT THE FUCK NOW.
I’m an advocate for access for everyone and regulations that create a marketplace with the normally expected consumer safeguards. Sadly, we still don’t have access or a marketplace with those safe guards.
I’m mildly hopeful that the 2023 Farm Bill will fix this one way or the other. Sadly, with the current control in the House and the mostly anti-hemp anti-cannabis folks that got seated on the Ag committee, I don’t know how much hope there is for it to go in a positive way for the extraction/product side of the industry.
Almost everything that has been discussed is about enforcement and industrial usage (fibers and foods and fuel). Such is life. Sure wish more people voted for people who were positive on our industry, but its just not the case. 
6 Likes
Gonna follow the results of this one for sure.
1 Like
“Hattiesburg Police said the warrants were in connection to synthetic cannabinoids (oils and edibles) that had additional substances added to them, which have led to serious health issues for consumers.”
I’m not putting a ton of weight on the WLOX news team interpreting the details of the investigation 100% correctly, but assuming they did what could the additional substances be?
2 Likes
Thcp, THCb, THCh - stuff like that I’d imagine
Extrax chemical soup
1 Like
Don’t forget thcx 
1 Like
I had the thought that the people probably got sick from any number of non cannabinoid garbage chemicals in their d8 products, then they complained, so the cops tested it for d9.
1 Like
Extra substances would be heavy metal contaminants and/or synthetic catalysts.
1 Like
Got this email today from Vivimu
You’ve likely been made aware of the recent DEA stance regarding THCO that has caused concern across the industry. Vivimu would like to do our part in providing clarity as to how this affects THCO’s legality.
The 2018 Farm Act along with a 2022 case in the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit shows legal precedence for this type of hemp derived product.
“The DEA explains the Farm Act does not affect “the control status of synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols” because hemp, as defined by the statute, “is limited to materials that are derived from the plant Cannabis sativa L.” 85 Fed. Reg. at 51,641. "This language suggests the source of the product—not the method of manufacture—is the dispositive factor for ascertaining whether a product is synthetic. A recent agency letter bolsters this understanding. There, the DEA clarifies that “synthetic” delta-8 THC is produced “from non-cannabis materials” and thus remains banned. ”
It goes on to state, "We need not consider the agency’s interpretation, because [the Farm Act] is unambiguous and precludes a distinction based on manufacturing method. Clear statutory text overrides a contrary agency interpretation. The Farm Act’s definition of hemp does not limit its application according to the manner by which “derivatives, extracts, [and] cannabinoids” are produced. Rather it expressly applies to “all” such downstream products so long as they don’t cross the 0.3% delta-9 THC threshold."
The DEA appears to understand the Farm Act’s definition of hemp in the same manner as the court. Meaning, if the starting material is the hemp plant it is considered legal. This indicates the source of the product, rather than the manufacturing method determines if a product is synthetic.
The 2018 Farm Act permits Tetrahydrocannabinol’s derived from hemp and removed them the controlled substance list. Additionally, section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, states that Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act is amended “after ‘Tetrahydrocannabinols’” by inserting “except for tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp”. This same section defines “hemp” as the plant Cannabis Sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a Delta 9 THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis."
In essence, as long as these products are hemp derived and below the .3% Delta-9 THC threshold then they are 100% legal (including THCO). Each and every product that Vivimu produces follows these guidelines. We will continue to provide our customers with high quality third party tested cannabinoids. If you have any concerns about whether the products you’re selling are derived from hemp, or from non-cannabis materials, please don’t hesitate to reach out for more information. Thank you for your continued support!
3 Likes
Gotta play the game till it’s the 2023 Farm Bill
1 Like
Lsa is always more bitter and makes my bones ache when being consumed
3 Likes