Yes and then they added synthetic equivalents of the plant
Hemp derived thc isn’t scheduled if it was the DEA could control hemp seeds for the .3% d9 in them and they can’t
If you make it by acid catalyzed ring closure of CBD, it sure as hell is synthetic.
2 Likes
It doesn’t fall into the definition of a synthetic cannabinoid though
When congress scheduled thc it was only synthetic equivalents of the plant
It can’t come from the plant
Hemp seeds contains the genetic information coding for the enzymes that are responsible for the natural biosynthesis of d9-THC, among other things, notably the existence of the life-form itself.
The seeds do not contain anything close to 3‰ of any cannabinoid. They’re a pretty good source for hemp/cannabis/marijuana triglycerides, however. The only source …
The DEA’s Final Rules purport to regulate foodstuffs containing “natural and synthetic THC.” And so they can: in keeping with the definitions of drugs controlled under Schedule I of the CSA, the Final Rules can regulate foodstuffs containing natural THC if it is contained within marijuana, and can regulate synthetic THC of any kind.
But they cannot regulate naturally-occurring THC not contained within or derived from marijuana — i.e., non-psychoactive hemp products — because non-psychoactive hemp is not included in Schedule I.
The DEA has no authority to regulate drugs that are not scheduled, and it has not followed procedures required to schedule a substance.
This was a court ruling which specifically says the DEA can only control synthetic thcs and natural thcs, THEY CANNOT CONTROL THC NOT DERIVED FROM MJ OR SYNTHETICALLY BECAUSE ITS NOT SCHEDULED
Synthetic does not come from the plant!
You just admitted to me the other day that you hadn’t understood that d6(1) [old numbering] is equivalent to d8 [new numbering], very obviously covered by the CSA.
Are you backtracking your admission?
1 Like
you don’t even know what they are
you’ve never responded to this point or the point about cannabimimetics and synthetic THCs being different
They have a special task force at DEA dealing with head in the sand stupidity.
1 Like
No
Are you saying that hemp isn’t exempt from that exact CSA entry?
Because it is and if you say it’s not then there’s no use arguing because the DEA has said itself hemp derived thcs are excluded from from CSA
What is there to respond to?
Synthetic thcs are limited to synthetic equivalents of the plant
Cannabimimetic agents are a certain class of structures they defined which thc does not fall into
This literally has nothing to do with hemp lol which is why I didn’t even need to respond
Lol the fact you think I don’t know how scheduling works when I’ve been schooling you on it for almost a year is funny
Youre just a troll at this point
I’m personally not going to waste my time arguing the finer details of this again. @Kingofthekush420 is way more qualified to be & practiced at squashing this nonsense, anyways.
Every month a new D9 boi not privy to the previous discussions starts it up again so arrogantly. You have to wonder given the revelation of the DEA’s stance, when does it end? Do we call them the alphabet gang because we literally need them to spell out there positions nice & slowly as if communicating it to a 5 yr old?
When does everyone set pride aside and concede the realities that have become evident? Many members in this thread have honorably done so and the conversation is rapidly becoming more productive.
I would just like to remind everyone of a few ideas & principals that make this country great, given the vague language that is keeping this argument in such a constant circular motion…
-
When legal language is vague, it is judged against the writer
-
Innocent until proven guilty
-
Burden of proof falls on the accuser
There have been some interesting articles circulating that quote lawmakers who made the farm bill where they basically say “Well, this is not exactly what we meant for this to lead to but here we are, it’s too far along, we can’t rugpull businesses/consumers/employees, and no one is getting hurt yet (but how can we prevent it in the future?)” Law enforcement would appear to have the same perspective.
And this is a reasonable stance. There is still that other argument that this was not the intent of the language but lawmakers no better than to peddle such utterly transparent nonsense given that the US government has performed & been witness to so much research over decades, and even held relevant patents.
Notice the parties who are taking a more extreme stance against this, still. What are their motives? Heroes fought for years to make cannabis legal and now participants benefiting from the market those heroes created want more badly than law enforcement & lawmakers to restrict the freedoms of their competition & in-market consumers for their own personal gain. It is not that different from how the pharmaceutical companies et al demonized & ultimately effected prohibition of cannabis in the first place.
At some point you have to admit you called it wrong, missed the innovation boat, and hop on it, because even if you are later redeemed in your beliefs, it’s probably too late to do you any good.
I remember when D8 flower started picking up steam and we got in late because we thought it was fucked up. We couldn’t deny consumers what they wanted any longer and found a solution we could live with: solvent-less application. D8 flower is not my cup of tea but I’m still proud to make it because it feels good making something for 10’s of thousands of people who are stoked to have it. Who am I to tell them what they should and shouldn’t want?
Acetates & THCp are a different story with serious & evident health risks.
Again, there are now evidently members on the other side of this argument who are reasonable in their position. Which is fantastic to have. But it is sad to me that KotK still has to Google and share screenshots to dispute such desperate, reaching, nit-picky, behind-the-times, disingenuous arguments over and over and over and over.
cannabimimetic agents are what the binding sites bullshit you’ve been ranting about for a year and a hal came from
I posted the full law related to drug scheduling above, not some highlights and circles
2 Likes
Hemp is most certainly exempt if and only if it contains < 3‰ of any THC isomer.
1 Like
Binding site studies are how they schedule drugs now
This still has nothing to do with d8 
Incorrect, it says delta 9 thc
We will just have to agree to disagree
show me the law, where it says that binding site studies are required to schedule all drugs, and not cannabimimetics specifically