DEA says D8 from Hemp is not a Controlled Substance

Hempire Building Compliance
, , ,
60

If anyone is familiar with the spice raids a few years ago. That shit is coming.

2 Likes
61

We’re already seeing it at the state/local level - Georgia has been pretty active, Kentucky has quite a few as well. Hard to say if federal legalization won’t come around and make it all moot(unless people were injured by the products)

I feel like the IRS issue is gonna be especially interesting, I wonder how many cart slangers filled out their 280e’s

62

I read the article again and see no guarantees that D8 is legal without a doubt. Merely a re-statement of their firm’s position and reporting on the facts of the DEA’s statements.

Rod is very, very careful with his words. I am one of many on this forum who retain his counsel. I don’t think any of us would say that he does not speak with or advise with an abundance of caution when it comes to this topic.

1 Like
63

Word on the street one of a persistent byproduct thats in all d8 is highly poisonous.

2 Likes
64

Thank you for sharing the letter.

I don’t think it changes much since it talks about naturally derived cannabinoids. No d8 from hemp is natural, it’s (semi)synthetically derived.

2 Likes
65

has anyone ever produced evidence of d8 being in hemp in detectable quantities?

the phosphoric acid mutagens? or is it the stuff that causes all the respiratory complaints I see

66

The heptyl homologs will be prosecuted under the analog/homolog act.

1 Like
67

I wonder how long TX will let purisolabs push out d8-thcp

68

It’s someone’s on here’s research. Idk if he would like me spilling the beans yet.

But it’s really nasty.

2 Likes
69

If you by hemp mean < 3‰ d9-THC cannabis, then I think the levels of d8 is kind of pushing the lower detectable limit.

Is it in there? Absolutely. But it is not a natural product, it is a naturally occurring artifact.

2 Likes
70

Most true, they are just comments. The DEA is a huge operation, they cannot possibly coordinate all their communication to guarantee a single message.

1 Like
71

And now you need a DEA license to buy that standard. That right there ought to tell anyone what’s up.

2 Likes
72

1
The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (AIA), Pub. L. 115-334, § 12619, amended the CSA to remove
“tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp” from control. See 21 U.S.C. § 812, Schedule I(c)(17). As noted, however,
“hemp” is defined to “mean 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-tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” 7 U.S.C. 1639o
(emphasis added). Thus, only tetrahydrocannabinol in or derived from the cannabis plant—not synthetic
tetrahydrocannabinol—is subject to being excluded from control as a “tetrahydrocannabinol[] in hemp.”

“Thus, only tetrahydrocannabinol in or derived from the cannabis plant”

The last sentence is talking about thc derived from hemp/cannabis which is a “semi” synthetic and isn’t scheduled when it falls into the definition of hemp

You’ve seen the court case where the court says cannabis is the only Schedule 1 which synthetics weren’t included in which is why theres a separate scheduling for synthetic thcs.

There’s basically 3 kinds of thcs

Hemp derived thcs
Marijuana derived thcs
Synthetic thcs

Only the top 1 can be excluded from Schedule 1 currently

1 Like
73

nope, never seen the circled screenshots of that one

74

And that only pertains to d9 AND only if the levels are below 3‰.

Derived is not the same as synthesized derivative.

75

Your definition is obviously different then other

A synthetic cannabinoid by the DEAs definition doesn’t ever come from a plant

You do realize Nixon scheduled Marijuana and not thc itself

This is why later they had to add synthetic equivalents because ppl started making it and selling it and it wasn’t legal

I’m pretty sure the whole THC O thing that happened in FL years ago was one of the reasons the analogue act came up

I’m incorrect actually the analogue act was already around when thc o hit FL in 1978

76

D8 from CBD is (semi)synthetic. The “synthetic THCs” you refer to are not THCs, they are molecules that mimic the action of THCs.

What they mean is that if you derive a product from hemp, and you’re not using chemical synthesis doing so, AND, that the product contains less than 3‰ d9 (or any other isomer of THC), then you can still call it hemp.

77

The difference between you and me is that I see things objectively while you are very much influenced by subjective thinking when interpreting this particular subject matter.

78

This was way back when our collective understanding of cannabinoids was still in its infancy and it made more “sense” to not single out particular structures.

79

This is incorrect, I’ve shown you that synthetic thcs are exactly that

Synthetic Equivalents of the Marijuana plant

The other synthetic thcs are JWH compounds like d8 thc p. D8 isn’t a synthetic cannabinoid.

Synthetics by definition cannot come from the plant

Marijuana is scheduled

Synthetic thcs are scheduled

Hemp derived thcs are not which is why there’s an exemption

Thus, only tetrahydrocannabinol in or derived from the cannabis plant

In or derived

If it had to be naturally occuring they wouldn’t have put in OR derived

Also, in another townhall the DEA said

And I quote

1 Like