“The presence of these synthetic contaminants in their products is not unknown to
the producer 3Chi, as they highlight on their website the development of their proprietary
chromatographic method aimed at resolving at least one of these contaminants. Their “D-Spec”
method claims to be able to resolve the delta-4(8)-iso-THC from the delta-9, detla-8 and delta-
11-THC isomers. Their included graphical simulation for this method includes three unidentified
signals marked with a “?”, acknowledging these additional unidentified chemical constituents in
their products.”
They knew it was hot garbage, they fucking knew and sold it anyways cause “hemp-derived loophole go brrrr”
For what it’s worth, neither the judge (James Sweeney II) nor the magistrate judge (M. Kendra Klump) were partners at Bose McKinney which represents the plaintiffs in the Indiana action. Sweeney was a partner at Barnes and Thurnberg while Klump was a career AUSA.
The Indiana AG office did a great job asking the 3chi CEO about this very issue at his deposition to set up the argument made in their motion to dismiss. Here’s the deposition transcript if anyone is interested.
I see they used Barnes & Thornburg for a handful of other litigations but for the Indiana litigation 3chi’s attorney of record is Bose McKinney. Could very well be that Bose is working with Barnes behind the scenes to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
All forms of heroin are scheduled Majiuana is different than any other CSA entry as its only the plant itself not synthetic equivalents which is why they scheduled synthetic thcs in a seperate entry
replyinsupport-2.pdf (241.5 KB)
latest Indiana AG filing, reply in support of motion to dismiss.
these are new to me:
There is no legal D9-THC threshold for synthetic derivatives of THC. A gray area is whether Delta-8 THC is legal; it probably is when it occurs naturally in hemp, but this is not clear.
+hemp/drug dog issues
In short, Delta-8 remains a controlled substance. Although Delta-10 was not directly referenced in the DEA’s letter, there is no basis (in the record before the court) to believe that the DEA will treat Delta-10 in a different manner.
here’s the elements distribution decision:
Because the warrant in this case was based on an assertion that Elements was in possession of and selling products containing delta-8-THC and delta-10-THC, which the state concedes are not themselves controlled substances, the warrant was not supported by probable cause. So Elements was entitled to the return of its property and the trial court erred in denying Elements’ petition for that return.
From everything I read, the DEA wants to go after D8 D10 HHC thca ect. And has put out several statements about them being “illegal” but are not winning in court cases when they do, which is insanely costly financially and sets legal precedent that is extremely hard to sway, my honest assumption is they are most likely pushing hard at both the state and fed level to get legislation pushed to make it easier for them to win in court and are being met with canna and hemp legislators doing the same things, America tried prohibition once and it didnt work so in the end they will probably be considered legal but be required to be made under compliance regulations that 99% of this industry couldn’t afford or made into products the require a medical prescription to get
