Couldn’t agree more. if you aren’t ready for the legal rigmarole, choose a different path.
Here’s a real brain twerking question for you…
just for the sake of science…
If I extracted D8 from a fart… wouldn’t it then be closer related to an endocannabinoid? like anandamide from cocao?
Can they really make analogues illegal if it is totally unrelated?
basically, those are just chocolate farts…
is this still cannabimimetic?
real lawyers won’t touch chocolate farts 
Know that I’m just having a poke while enjoying the morning dab… things are very different for everyone on here being an international community. shit, the guy I talked to last night lives in Ecuador where LSD doesn’t even seem to be regulated lmao 
A cannabimimetic substance binds to the CB1 (in order to be considered cannabimimetic binding studies have to be done which the DEA has no done to schedule D8, only D9) WHO has shown d8 binds primarily to the CB2 (cbd receptor)
Even if they did binding studies they couldn’t consider it a cannabimimetic substance (which is a sythetic thc)
My reference to “they can prove it” is in reference to proving D8 binds to CB1. I have no doubts it binds to CB1, even if also CB2.
A cannabimimetic doesn’t have to be synthetic THC, for example THC acetate is a cannabimimetic. As long as the unnaturally produced substance acts on CB1 and is psychoactive (like THC), that’s all that matters.
I like your point at a lot, I just wish it mattered. And I don’t think it does, assuming there’s CB1 binding of course.
Either way, this is the only debate to had IMO. Not if D8 is from CBD.
Happy 2021 all.
He said farts, a lot, lol.
that binding site studies thing is baseless and you’ve refused to substantiate it repeatedly, it just has to fit the specified chemical classes to be considered a cannabimimetic
The term “cannabimimetic agents” means any substance that is a cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1 receptor) agonist as demonstrated by binding studies and functional assays within any of the following structural classes:
(i)
2-(3-hydroxycyclohexyl)phenol with substitution at the 5-position of the phenolic ring by alkyl or alkenyl, whether or not substituted on the cyclohexyl ring to any extent.
(ii)
3-(1-naphthoyl)indole or 3-(1-naphthylmethane)indole by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether or not further substituted on the indole ring to any extent, whether or not substituted on the naphthoyl or naphthyl ring to any extent.
(iii)
3-(1-naphthoyl)pyrrole by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the pyrrole ring, whether or not further substituted in the pyrrole ring to any extent, whether or not substituted on the naphthoyl ring to any extent.
(iv)
1-(1-naphthylmethylene)indene by substitution of the 3-position of the indene ring, whether or not further substituted in the indene ring to any extent, whether or not substituted on the naphthyl ring to any extent.
(v)
3-phenylacetylindole or 3-benzoylindole by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether or not further substituted in the indole ring to any extent, whether or not substituted on the phenyl ring to any extent.
If they could have classified it as a cannabimimetic substance they would have but they haven’t. Binding to the cb1 isn’t enough to be classified as a cannabimimetic substance it has to be a cb1 agonist (who has proved d8 isnt)
This is directly from the FDA
Thc o acetate would only be illegal if it falls under the CSA definition of Marijuana
Anything involving hemp is excluded from the CSA and thus excluded from the analogue act
The problem is hemp is any SUBSTANCE, ISOMER, DERIVATIVE under .3% d9. They need to change it to include all thcs if they want d8 excluded
…they cannot regulate naturally-occuring THC not contained within or derived from marijuana
Your shit isn’t naturally occuring 
Don’t worry bro. The judge and federal attorneys are going to be really impressed by his wikipedia and text highlighting skills.
Key word, hemp isn’t Marijuana
My attorneys stand behind me 100%
You can hate all you want but I’m right
You cant even refute it which is why you try to insult 
…can regulate synthetic THC of any kind.
can you explain how isomerization is never synthesis? In a way that 12 common people would understand and agree?
It doesn’t matter that your lawyers stand behind you, they get paid no matter what. Hell, they honestly have a perverse incentive to let you get into trouble to get some billable hours
You do realize you literally quoted the answer your looking for
D8 isn’t any of those Google them Wikipedia has images of them and I’ve uploaded the 3 illegal thcs specifically outlined in the CSA in another thread. D8 isn’t one of them
My point about the binding study is even if they did one d8 can’t be classified as synthetic when hemp derived
binding studies and functional assays within any of the following structural classes:
Because you’re making it from something naturally occuring that’s excluded from the CSA which is what includes the analogue act which makes isomers of schedule 1s illegal
Hemp isn’t scheduled and has been specifically exempted from the CSA so the analogue act doesn’t apply
Well, to be fair, your attorneys could be correct (or incorrect). That has yet to be found in a court of law. And the evidence (for lack of a better word) thus far isn’t leaning that way IMO.
Soon we will all know. 2021 will be interesting at least.
The attorneys don’t give a shit as long as they get those sweet sweet billable hours and they’ve got a guy that already did phase 1 of their research for them so at the very least they won’t look totally incompetent if they lose the court case.
