i really dont want an honorary one at this point. id like to write some case studies from my perspective in the cannabis industry. Im willing to go back to school at a normal state university and do it in normal business but with my experience on this side.
The actual case study part of this industry really intrigues me. I really like seeing the success stories. One day hopefully my research can be used in a university environment. Im interesting in seeing comparisons to other prohibited then re-allowed chemicals.
I think when people think of cannabis PHd they only think of the chemistry side of the equation. There is also the business side and them chemical compounds dont get sold without the business. Maybe thats why i gravitated to this side of the industry.
The ultimate decision maker (unless Congress creates a new law to clean up the mess) , will be a federal judge ( or group of federal judges depending on the circumstances). Guessing how they rule can be similiar to predicting plinko from the price is right
Been a year since we been saying this. Like the WHO patented and classified all of these decades agoā¦
Here is a write-up from our in-house counsel:
- Regulatory Analysis: āTherefore, DEA is issuing these amendments as an interim final rule, effective upon publication in the Federal Register.ā
This was issued as an interim final rule, its effective date is the date of publication in the federal register which is TODAY. Per pages 10 & 11, the DEA is claiming that this is only incorporating statutory changes made by the AIA. Regardless of the truth of that statement, this is in effect NOW despite the allowed comment period.
-
Statute Change: (ii) Tetrahydrocannabinols does not include any material, compound, mixture, or preparation that falls within the definition of hemp set forth in 7 U.S.C. 1639o.
-
Executive Summary: The AIA does not impact the control status of synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols (for Controlled Substance Code Number 7370) because the statutory definition of āhempā is limited to materials that are derived from the plant Cannabis sativa L. For synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols, the concentration of D9-THC is not a determining factor in whether the material is a controlled substance. All synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols remain schedule I controlled substances.
As you will note, all the state change does is point to the AIA. However, the associated regulatory analysis goes quite a bit further. The major question will be what does āsyntheticā mean. Per the Knight article, he argues it could be applied to any "substance or compound formed under human control by any chemical reactionā, making this extremely broad. I expect the DEA, in their usual fashion, will want to apply this as broadly as possible. This will almost certainly land them in court, with a focus on whether their implementation of this language conflicts with the language legalizing hemp in the AIA. However, if this goes into effect as is, the lack of certainty will have a major chilling effect on all hemp derivatives.
- Executive Summary: In order to meet the AIAās definition of hemp, and thus qualify for the exception in the definition of marihuana, a cannabis-derived product must itself contain 0.3% or less D9-THC on a dry weight basis.
This could be simply interpreted as something that was fairly clear in the AIA. But it should not go without noting that the DEA is clearly saying that any product with a Delta 9 of over 0.3% is Schedule I. I assume this means there is a crackdown coming. The real question will be when does this standard apply. By using the term āproductā I would assume that it would only be applicable once offered for sale. However, there is a major wrinkle in thisā¦
- Statute Change: Marihuana Extract - Meaning an extract containing one or more cannabinoids that has been derived from any plant of the genus Cannabis, containing greater than 0.3% delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol on a dry weight basis, other than the separated resin (whether crude or purified) obtained from the plant.
This represents a major issue for production. If during the process of manufacturing hemp products the processor creates an extract with D9 over 0.3%, they will have created a Schedule I substance. There is no moderating language here (ex. products). Based on the DEAās historic positions, I suspect they will wield this with a heavy hand.
Does that mean THCV isolate and CBN is ok? Is that how Iām reading it?
Government finally is moving at a decent paceā¦
i dont know how thcv would be legal but i think if you can prove you got cbn from non synthesisā¦perhaps.
i just hope you d8 people and cbd hemp people prepare. I hope you all take some precautions as the feds might look for some busts here about 100 days to a national election. i think this opens the door for more prohibition and shitty laws. Please dont listen to a bunch of forum cats. Consult your local lawyer and ask them about your circumstance.
Unfortunately we will have to be more thorough with extracts. Must have a compliant COA of the material being transported. Just another step to keep your product safe while in transit.
Here is what we know:
I will officially call you Dr. Killa from now on.
Were you transporting hot extracts in the past? If so was it just stuff bound for remediation?
No we were not. We had a system in place to ensure that the material was compliant. However, we will be more thorough with our examination going forward.
This seems like the point where we file for an injunction while asking a judge to review the new interim rules? Thatās what happens with every other discrepancy like immigration. That stuff gets fast tracked to an appellate court quick as shit. Seems like a judge in Kentucky might understand the impact this has on the hemp industry.
if thatās the case then smoking is non-chemical synthesis, right?
The best defense is a good offense. If d8 derived from hemp is determined to be legal under the farm bill by a federal court at any level this will force congressās hand and they will pass a new law making it illegal. Simple as that unfortunately
I donāt disagree with that at all regarding d8. That was a loophole thatās just been closed. Itās the effect it has on the processing of hemp that has me concerned. Based on the deaās opinion virtually all the hemp processors in the country are now illegal. Iād love to see a proven way to extract .2%thc biomass without ever exceeding .3
There are several methods described on this forum. 
And to make sure your in compliance the whole time the DEA will be implementing their Assessment of Negligence and Licensure (Anal) Probe which continuously measures your extract to make sure it never goes above 0.3
Better pipe a waste line directly to an incinerator.
Iām not really aware of the US laws, but in EU, there is a Ā± 0.03 RSD to be applied on the analysis results, which means that product should in fact be below 0.33 (0.23 in most strict EU countries). This is to account for the incertitude of the ANAL Probe. So thatās safe.