This is 100% incorrect
Delta 8 isnt synthetic when made from hemp. Marijuana and synthetic thcs are scheduled. D8 derived from hemp isnt and doesnt fall into the category of either. MJ is unlike any other CSA entry as it doesnt include synthetic equivalents which is why they had to make an entry for synthetic thcs so obviously hemp derived d8 from hemp doesn’t fall into either category.
Btw it doesnt matter what the DEA says. They tried to control hemp seeds and lost that court battle. Heres an exert from that ruling btw
" 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"
Heres another excerpt from a copyright case where d8 derived from hemp was found to be not synthetic
Boyd Street argues that, according to the DEA, delta-8 THC remains a schedule I substance because of its method of manufacture. Boyd Street relies on the DEA’s explanation of its implementing regulations. It points to the phrase, “[a]ll synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols remain schedule I controlled substances.” 85 Fed. Reg. at 51,641. According to Boyd Street, delta-8 THC is “synthetically derived” because it must be extracted from the cannabis plant and refined through a manufacturing process. In Boyd Street’s view, “[d]elta-8 [THC] is considered a synthetic cannabinoid by the DEA because, among other things, it is concentrated and flavored.” Although we disagree with Boyd Street on the DEA’s stance, we need not consider the agency’s interpretation because § 1639o is unambiguous and precludes a distinction based on manufacturing method. Clear statutory text overrides a contrary agency interpretation. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984). The Farm Act’s definition of hemp does not limit its application according to the manner by which “derivatives, extracts, [and] cannabinoids” are produced. Rather, it expressly applies to “all” such downstream products so long as they do not cross the 0.3 percent delta-9 THC threshold. 7 U.S.C. § 1639o(1). While this statutory definition is broad, its breadth does not make it ambiguous. See Arizona v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 818 F.3d 549, 557 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[A] word or phrase is not ambiguous just because it has a broad general meaning . . . .”). Consequently, determining the scope of the Farm Act’s legalization of hemp is not a situation where agency deference is appropriate. Even if the relevant portions of the Farm Act were ambiguous, the DEA does not appear to agree with Boyd Street as to what makes a cannabis product synthetic and thus unlawful. In the same passage quoted by Boyd Street, the DEA explains the Farm Act does not affect “the control status of synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols” because hemp, as defined by the statute, “is limited to materials that are derived from the plant Cannabis sativa L.” 85 Fed. Reg. at 51,641. This language suggests the source of the product—not the method of manufacture—is the dispositive factor for ascertaining whether a product is synthetic. A recent agency letter bolsters this understanding. There, the DEA clarifies that “synthetic” delta-8 THC is produced “from non-cannabis materials” and thus remains banned. Letter from Terrence L. Boos, Drug & Chem. Evaluation Section Chief, Drug Enf’t Admin., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Donna C. Yeatman, Exec. Sec’y, Ala. Bd. of Pharmacy (Sept. 15, 2021). In short, the DEA appears to understand the Farm Act’s definition of hemp in the same manner as this Court."
The DEA itself even says synthetic thcs arent derived from the cannabis plant so not sure how you get hemp derived d8 is synthetic
Heres them saying it in a letter they published themselves
But yea the DEA isnt God and over steps there bounds quite often, and they do it because of people like you who get scared and believe them instead of actually reading and understanding the law.
Do you even know whats required to use the analogue act? For 1 the substance in question has to be able to fall into Schedule 1 or 2 which d8 wouldnt especially after the memos about how MJ should be a schedule 3
And the court also has to prove that you knew you were dealing with an analogue which they couldn’t with the definition of hemp.
You should do a little more research before making a bunch of assumptions like you have