Analog act can’t hit d8 because the farm bill specifically exempts hemp derived CBD isomers from it. The question was whether d8 counted as hemp derived or whether it would be considered synthetic.
1 Like
scroll up
I read somewhere that a judge ruled that since the AA is part of the CSA it derives its power from it so if the substance can’t be schedule (which hemp derived d8 is exempt) then it can’t be considered an analogue
I can’t find where I read that though
I think the big issue is the language surrounding natural THC, cycling CBD>artificial d9>d8 and mother liquor d9>d8 might be treated differently
I would argue that’s a moot argument seeing as MDMA is derived from naturally occurring sassafras oil (MMMA (methylene methoxy methamphetamine) is derived from nutmeg oil… etc etc etc) and yet once it is chemically altered it is no longer sassafras oil (or nutmeg oil etc etc etc).
You guys definitely taught me something new this morning. Thank you.
1 Like
Mdmas scheduling includes synthetic and naturally derived sources
Synthetic thcs and cannabis are scheduled
D8 isn’t specifically, and definitely isn’t when hemp derived
And that’s exactly what I meant when I said “an ambitious us attorney” could take the liberty to interpret the law differently than what is commonly done now. Delta 8 is definitely synthetically made.
Truth.
Technically until someone sues. Or technically until someone complains. Or technically until there is an adverse event which leads to a MedWatch which leads to enforcement action.
Federally - the ingredients are not legal for food, dietary supplements, or cosmetics. Individual states get to have additional regulations AND in fancy situations, the federal government can choose not to enforce certain rules (like not always enforcing MMJ and REC state authorized activities).
But that’s a CHOICE on enforcement. The statutes are still clear - and those statutes have long ass limitations (25+ years…) so even if no one is choosing to enforce today, they could next year or whatever.
Its kind of the world we are choosing to live inside of. The ambiguity upsets members of the court - but the Supreme Court has still decided not to take up the cases, because the lower courts usually seem to be agreeing on this stuff.
At some point - they won’t agree. Because a state law or something will be written with enough ambiguity and a judge won’t want to look to precedent in another appellate district.
That’s just how case law works. I often have to remind myself of this - there are laws written in statutes, there are regulations written with authority from those laws, and then there are rules that comes from case law and how the courts choose to facilitate (or not in some cases…) the enforcement of those statutes.
I feel like this is why there are entire educational tracks dedicated to regulatory compliance and case law. Like I don’t even spend all my time on this and it still takes a fuckton of my time, you know?
Two of the people that got warning letters from the FDA about 2 weeks ago are in the districts where courts have said that D8 is not a Scheduled substance. They still have received warning letters telling them they are in violation of the FD&C Act, you know? The fines from that (an enforcement tactic) can be insane. And they could also seize your stuff or force you into a involuntary recall. They can make you take your website down (by fining you and then fining the web hosting body).
And all of that only happens - if they choose to spend enforcement dollars there they could just as easily decide they don’t care about us and instead spend money on baby formula enforcement. Or raw milk. Or enhanced testing of imported vegetables.
Or they could decide that they want to make a sweeping example (this they have done in the past) pick someone semi-high profile and throw all of the books at them. Kind of like what we are seeing against Purdue Pharma for the last five years.
Such is life in the regulated markets.
3 Likes
Not when hemp derived
A synthetic isn’t derived from a natural source
If this were true there would be no need for congress to schedule synthetic thcs as they’d be covered under Cannabis scheduling and it’s not
No ambitious attorney is going to try a Case like this when theres precedents, they won’t waste there time
Why isn’t the DEA trying this?
Because they know better
Look at what happened with AET above, in the end they took the steps to schedule it when the AA didn’t work.
Why doesn’t the DEA just schedule D8 from hemp or even thcs from hemp?
Because Cannabis shouldn’t be a schedule 1 or 2 to begin with and they’ll loose there ass trying to schedule hemp derived thcs
Why haven’t we seen this in CA with thc drinks?
We’ve had eatables and drinks in the CA market for years and the FDA has never done anything about it
Why?
You really think there going to start going after people for hemp products in states where it’s technically legal when those same states are selling a schedule 1 in food items and they’ve never went after anyone?
If the FDA wanted to get people they’d go after the eatable and drink industry in CA and they’re not. Sierra Nevada is about to open a brewery for thc drinks in Chico CA with licensing. They wouldn’t do this if the FDA was gonna fuck them and they could especially because there infusing drinks with a schedule 1 which is worse then what hemp companies are doing
The FDA is gonna recognize cbd as GRAS, there’s too much big money in this not too it’s only a matter of time.
1 Like
And this is exactly where you’re wrong and where my source of the argument lays. Any molecule once is “altered” can be considered as synthetic. And just because a prosecutor has not taken this type of case on does not mean it will not happen in the future. Now mind you the 9th circuit is probably not going to do anything of that nature but I don’t think you can say the 5th circuit is going to be that lenient all of the time.
I’ve been saying it for years.
Not really, the csa exempts any substance whether growing or not. Like I said if what you said was true why did they have to schedule synthetic thcs specifically if it was covered under Marijuana?
Because it’s not
The 9th circuit Court has ruled the dea can enforce marijuana and sythetic thcs, but not thcs derived from hemp because it’s not scheduled
This is directly from the ruling btw
The dea lost this case btw
Once again this is directly from a court ruling
Marijuana and synthetic thcs are scheduled
Hemp derived thcs are not
I don’t think this. I know this is already happening. 8 warning letters went out for this in LEGAL states about 2 weeks ago now.
We don’t know what’s going to come from it yet - we just know that they have the power to enforce and they have started. There was a bit of a cross fire post about it when I posted that the warning letters came out.
Those lead to other enforcement actions. At a minimum you have to change what you are doing or they can take you to court and take your stuff. 
Oh also - they don’t send out letters for d9 THC because its a SCHEDULE 1 and therefore its the DEA and not the FDA.
2 Likes