DEA response to HIA & RE Botanical lawsuit

, ,

Here’s a write up with links to the memoradum


gonna be funny when they go after some of these companies as retaliation… We know them boys get hot!


yo but i swear its pure d8 fam


I needed a good laugh intermission in-between calls :joy:


Nah dawg, doesn’t matter how pure it is, you gotta get the plant to make it.

“The AIA does not impact the control status of synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols (for Controlled Substance Code Number 7370) because the statutory definition of “hemp” is limited to materials that are derived from the plant Cannabis sativa L. For synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols, the concentration of Δ9-THC is not a determining factor in whether the material is a controlled substance. All synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols remain schedule I controlled substances.”


Fuck the dea




Really @FamilyFarms! you already know where he is gonna go with this…

“did you read the hemp bill” “it says hemp is legal” “is d8 made from hemp” “well then d8 is legal”

I think we all feel this way but in a way they are making it safer for the consumer and in this case… a lot safer.


off topic
No need to tag him, when the word d8 and dea are said in the same post he knows immediately and starts readying his screenshots!

on topic
that article reads like the DEA is having a major ego trip and is going to flex back harder because someone hurt their feelers.

glad im not in the d8 game.


It’s just meaningless. Literally just “we stand by our original statement”, did anyone expect them to say anything else? Although i did find “we can’t explain hypothetical scenarios” pretty amusing since it’s not hypothetical, it’s happening at every hemp lab in the country.


They sounds like a spoiled rich kid that always gets their way. I bet the guy that made that statement’s name is officer Chad.


At least we know who they’ll randomly select first :eyes:


Interesting legal opinion from the head lawyer at USDA.

Edit: just a little caveat. We talk about the AHJ(authority having jurisdiction) all the time. Some think the dea is the AHJ for hemp. Guess what? It’s actually the USDA…

1 Like

It would’ve been interesting to see a stable organization with a better law firm challenge this.


But the DEA doesn’t think d8 is hemp therefore they believe they have jurisdiction.

1 Like

As I’ve said in past posts, they know they don’t have a foot to stand on if its really compliant so they’re pissed. Whoever is the head of the DEA is super old school and hates this plant.

1 Like

DEA doesn’t care, they just want a probable cause to take your money and let the US District Attorney deal with the rest. By that time they’ve won.


The argument about this is pretty useless outside of a court room. I think the DEA’s hissy fit will probably hold up in court because the people who will end up making the decision will be more concerned with “public safety” and “abuse potential” of the product than the definitions/technicality that absolves those who convert cbd to d8.

How often are supreme court cases decided solely on the defining characteristics of a chemical or the origin of a precursor? How often are Supreme Court cases decided arbitrarily? The way they dealt with gay marriage is a decent example. The fact is that the decision comes down to a few beurocrats who do not have a vested interest in this industry or the people involved. Besides, compartmentalizing and subsequently depriving Americans of their freedoms seems to be all the government is good for.

The arbiters will most likely side with the DEA because of the perceived implications of allowing D8 to remain legal. They wont be thinking about the cancer patients that it may benefit, they will make the decision the way they always do, arbitrarily.


Did you read that opinion, or are you just sharing yours?

:rofl: I’m just waiting for some hempster to pop up with “we fucking showed them!”