I bet people will still argue its illegal though.
It’s not technically on a federal level when derived from hemp
2 Likes
I think it better to look at it through two lenses.
One lens says that its no longer a schedule I narcotic that you can be charged with drug trafficking for.
The other lens says that cannabis and hemp derived products have not been approved for human consumption by the FDA - who gets to decide if things like this are “legally” food, cosmetics, and drugs.
The consequences of the “legality” are different. Warning letters for adulterated products instead of DEA agents and a life sentence.
Two appeals courts at this point have agreed - which is awesome. All it takes is one court disagreeing and on to the Supreme Court it goes. The Supreme Court doesn’t want you to have drugs (in case you didn’t read their overturning Roe draft…which also includes making sure people don’t get to have drugs and says that the precedent of Roe if its not overturned continues to allow people to say that consuming drugs is legal).
So that’s what now - appeals court california and georgia for this stuff? Kind of nice to see this is a non-partisan issue. 
2 Likes
still haven’t addressed WIP or hot d8 yet
DEAvHIA.pdf (2.1 MB)
HIAresonse.pdf (8.9 MB)
^ the most recent stuff from the WIP case against the DEA by HIA/RE botanicals, note the extensive use of the term “natural THC”
This was posted a few days ago.
The court apparently did not buy into the “it’s synthetic” argument and said as long as the starting material was hemp you can do any chemical process you want to it. I was surprised they took that angle. Of course some other court can always disagree later and then we reach further appeals, but for now it looks like a pretty refreshing development for those in the d8 trade.
I was the lab director during their merger with palmetto harmony. They are a bunch of silly gooses over there don’t put too much faith in em
that part applies to the d8, but it fails to take into account the artifically derived d9 that’s an intermediate product in the reaction
I’m not sure how the courts will treat that. US v Nicholas Sands is about ALD-52, the government argued that LSD was an intermediate and that the end product was as a result of that
A precursor is a substance produced at any intermediate stage of production from which an end product is derived. In common experience, for example, dough is a necessary precursor of bread. Proof that the final product exists by necessity implies the existence at some point of the intermediate precursor. The defendants faced a dual problem in this case. First, the government charged them with manufacturing LSD as an end product. Second, it asserted that even if ALD-52 were the intended end product, it was essential to manufacture LSD first in order to produce ALD-52. The government could obtain a conviction on either theory. The defendants argued that they had devised a method of producing ALD-52 without passing through an intermediate stage in which LSD was produced, and disputed that LSD was an intended final product
@ky_cbd at least they’re taking the initiative to fight for it
What is the FDA going to do to people in CA where they’ve said you can now put hemp derived cannabinoids in food and dog treats with the proper licensing? Technically there not in violation of a state law which means as long as they don’t export it out of state they should be good correct?
Itll be interesting to see what happens
the government applies the interstate commerce clause pretty heavily, iirc it’s what they tried to use to shut down mmj programs before the Rohrabacher amendment/Holder memo
Interstate commerce needs be neither interstate nor commerce to be federally regulated as interstate commerce. Seems legit.
https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/ashcroft-v-raich-brief-merits
I thought d9 was legal thanks to the hemp boyz too. And I thought all d9 weed was legal thanks to the hemp boyz. I thought everything is WIP and we can just send it.
Isn’t everything just hemp. That’s what I tell people when asked if I’m smoking weed. Naw….it’s cbd
5 Likes
Holy shit, they try to argue that because a large amount of cannabis is illegally smuggled into the US, that it therefore constitutes an interstate economy, and therefore intrastate trade falls under the jurisdiction of the CSA and congress, regardless of whether they are associated with said import industry or not. These people are literally insane.
1 Like
My favorite part about it all is how well it highlight how ludicrous and absurd the laws surrounding substance control is. Its not THC, its THCa, and its hemp derived by product weight, which they forgot to stipulate on so it also includes the weight of the fucking packaging. Wanna sell straight D9 carts? Just super glue some 32oz iron weights to the box. Congress will close these loop holes, and clever sellers will find an even more retarded way of circumventing this game.
1 Like
growing food to eat by yourself/feed animals at home effects interstate commerce because you don’t buy groceries instead
it’s the bludgeon the feds use to impose themselves in every aspect of your life
I think it’s just a matter of time before an ambitious us attorney realizes that the 1985 amendment to the control substance act (I think it was 85) covers all analogs of psychoactive drugs and starts hammering people.
only analogs of schedule 1 and 2 substances
Marijuana/THC is a schedule 1.
And yes I do remember they made MDMA illegal with the 1984 amendment and then in 1985 they made all of its analogs illegal because everybody started making MDEA MDA MMMA … etc etc but I thought the way it was worded every analog of every psychoactive drug was covered by that amendment.
I guess I have to look it up again because it’s been a few days since that time.
Hemp derived THC has the benefit of the farm bill and this decision. Whether the chemistry routes are legal is TBD.
The RC benzo/arylcyclohexamine wave is because most benzos are schedule 3 or lower, same with ketamine
1 Like
You’d never be able to use the AA act on hemp derived d8 because they’d have to prove you knew you were breaking the law or doing something wrong and with all these rulings it would be hard for them to prove it
United States vs Forbes
“Because the definition of ‘analogue’ as applied here provides neither fair warning nor effective safeguards against arbitrary enforcement, it is void for vagueness.”[1]
The common law principle that the people should have the right to know what the law is, means that the wording of laws should be sufficiently clear and precise that it is possible to give a definitive answer as to whether a particular course of action is legal or illegal.
With the farm bill and all these rulings as long as you didn’t lie to the fbi or dea You’d be able to argue vagueness and win
United States vs Washam
This case they tried to argue vagueness and couldn’t because they lied to the DEA and that showed guilt
they also shut down the chevron deference part I argued before
I still think US v Sands/intermediate products are an issue until HIA v DEA 2 is resolved
Do you have links to these at all?
Haven’t really been following the news much need swamped lately