The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will soon be proposing new rules to clarify that synthetically manufactured cannabinoids like delta-8 THC are prohibited controlled substances.
Well we all knew this was inevitable - it was fun while it lasted!
“I think it continues to be the case that enforcement resources are limited,” Hauser said. It seems likely that FDA will continue to enforce where there’s public safety issues and legality, like they did in the joint enforcement action in Minnesota.”
You’re missing the key language from the article and the DEA’s presentation:
Delta-8 THC does occur naturally in cannabis in trace amounts, and DEA has previously confirmed that. But many products are being produced synthetically, through a chemical process that converts CBD into delta-8 THC. That is not allowed, Boos said, emphasizing that “synthetic tetrahydrocannabinols were not exempted” from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) even though hemp and its naturally produced derivatives were legalized.
“That act of taking that substance in any synthetic step now brings it back under the CSA . . .”
Yes, it’s one statement from one person at the DEA and not binding but it’s a good indication of what a final rule could say. It’s also the clearest language yet from DEA regarding converted cannabinoids.
One could argue that heating/decarboxylating CBDA to convert to CBD is a synthetic step…
One could argue that a ham sandwich is a vegetarian meal but it’s not about one arguing.
I believe that most lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are pieces of shit and only motivated by money and as such I would tend to think that they don’t really care about most drugs legal status. The only thing they care about is making money off of it (taxing it and lobbyist money) and what they are trying to do is close loopholes that let people get away with paying less or nothing at all. Y’all just wait for the day they federally legalize It and the likes of Purdue, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Moderna etc etc etc get in the game and push for regulations that will allow only the really big / massive companies to continue to do business.
The problem with this is that delta 8 isnt scheduled and the upper courts have ruled that synthetics do not come from the plant. The DEA vs IHA over hemp seeds court case says the DEA can regulate thc from MJ and from synthetics source but it cannot regulate thc from any other source as its no scheduled
“The Final Rules therefore may not be enforced with respect to THC that is found within the parts of Cannabis plants that are excluded from the CSA’s definition of “marijuana” or that is not synthetic.”
" The DEA contends that Appellants’ food products may be banned as “any material compound, mixture or preparation” that “contains any quantity of” THC. See 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d). However, the definition of THC under the CSA includes only synthetic THC. 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d)(27) (defining banned THC as “[s]ynthetic equivalents of the substances contained in the plant, or in the resinous extractives of Cannabis, sp. and/or synthetic substances, derivatives, and their isomers…”).[4] As we noted in Hemp I, with a more elaborate explanation than we will provide here:
Notably, if naturally-occurring THC were covered under THC, there would be no need to have a separate category for marijuana, which obviously contains naturally-occurring THC. Yet Congress maintained marijuana as a separate category.
Hemp I, 333 F.3d at 1089. The controlled substances listing of THC is different from the listings for DMT, mescaline, psilocybin, and psilocyn, the definitions for which are not limited to synthetic forms of the drugs. See 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d)."
Did Riff Raff just reply to my comment lol
Leave my people out of this.
I’m not trying to argue with anyone.
Just making a point that “any synthetic step” is shitty phrasing and whatever lawyer decided that was the verbiage to use should pay me to consult for them 
Lawyers gonna be collecting too many failed businesses money to care and finally defend the ones defending themselves. 
Second, hasn’t the DEA already stated that delta-8 THC from hemp and, in fact, all cannabinoids from hemp, are not controlled provided their delta-9 THC concentrations do not exceed 0.3%? Yes, the DEA has stated on multiple occasions that delta-8 THC from hemp is not controlled. Notably, during a a video webinar called a “Town Hall with USDA and DEA” conducted by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services on June 24, 2021, the DEA representative, Sean Mitchell, stated: “I also want to expand beyond delta-8. There’s delta-8, there’s delta-10, there’s all kind of different cannabinoids that are associated with cannabis sativa l that are kind of out there and making the rounds. So what I want to say, and I’ll be very, very deliberate and clear. At this time, I repeat again, at this time, per the Farm Bill, the only thing that is a controlled substance is delta-9 THC greater than 0.3% on a dry-weight basis .”
The issue is not actually delta-8 THC, but rather delta-8 THC that is produced via a chemical conversion from CBD, ie, what is being called “synthetic” delta-8 THC. To this point, Dr. Boos’ slide presentation states the following:
“Whether a cannabinoid product that has been synthetically produced from non-cannabis materials is controlled depends on whether that product contains ‘any quantity’ of a synthetically produced tetrahydrocannabinol. This includes cannabinoids products that are chemically identical to cannabinoids that naturally occur in the cannabis plant but that have been manufactured synthetically rather than by extraction from the plant.” (emphasis added)
Notably, the DEA does not offer any statutory support for this last sentence. It completely ignores the fact that the definition of “hemp” in the 2018 Farm Bill includes the term “derivatives” among the things that qualify as lawful “hemp”. As attorney Philip Snow and I discussed in detail in our June 11, 2021 legal opinion letter regarding delta-8 THC for the Hemp Industries Association (HIA), a “derivative” is, by definition, a synthetic compound. The Chemicool Dictionary defines a “derivative” as “a compound that can be imagined to arise or actually be synthesized from a parent compound by replacement of one atom with another atom or group of atoms.” In other words, delta-8 THC that is derived from hemp (ie, is “synthesized” from hemp) is exempt from control by the DEA. And, just to complete the circle, under the 2018 Farm Bill, CBD from hemp is itself “hemp”. This last point is a little counter-intuitive, but the statute is clear that “hemp” includes not only the plant itself but also its cannabinoids, isomers, extracts, derivatives, etc. In other words, CBD from hemp is lawful “hemp”, and a hemp derivative, such as delta-8 THC made from CBD, is also lawful “hemp”. The DEA cannot sidestep the broad exception that Congress carved out for hemp by simply ignoring one of the words in the definition.
Finally, the DEA’s statements about hemp-derived delta-8 THC also belie the first sentence in the statement above in the slide presentation and in other places, namely, that synthetic THC is the product of “non-cannabis materials”. CBD and other cannabinoids are cannabis materials. So, even by the DEA’s own definition of “synthetic THC”, namely THC derived from non-cannabis materials, delta-8 THC from CBD does not qualify since CBD is a “cannabis material”.
Third, is the DEA about to schedule delta-8 THC and, if so, what can the hemp industry expect? Based on Dr. Boos’ presentation, it does appear that the DEA is poised to propose a rule that places delta-8 THC and other forms of THC that are produced from CBD and other hemp cannabinoids (ie, hemp derivatives) into schedule I. However, as my friends at Vice****nte recently noted, the rule is not likely to be imminent. Additionally, in its article Vicente notes that “there will be a public comment period and an opportunity for interested parties to request on-the-record hearings. ” I agree with this assessment. This means that the hemp industry, already battling efforts by prohibitionists and Big Marijuana to sharply restrict its activities in a state by state ground war, must also be prepared to respond in a strong and unified voice to any proposed rules by the DEA that overstep its legal authority by attempting to interfere with lawful hemp.
Who cares? Not like they’ll stop anyone here…
Just keep swimming.