If that were true then states wouldnt be creating LAWS to close the loop hole.
Theres certain protocol that needs to be followed when it comes to controling and scheduling drugs you cant just make a “rule” and itll stand
Perfect example is how all the different states are beating the d8 bans because d8 isnt scheduled
regulatory agencies are granted power by congress or state legislatures to enact rules to follow the law
The IRS makes plenty of their own rules, Congress isn’t dictating every detail of their duty to them. All agencies do this, they just have to comply with the law that was passed
it is possible that rules fall outside what is legally permissible, but that’s not always the case. Administrative law has been pretty accepted since the 30s from what I can see
A rule is not the same as a law. We do not have “rules” that we follow we have laws that are enforced we must follow
What is set forth in the interim final rules or final rules is not a law
The irs doesn’t have rules tax code is law… theres a big difference
Exactly ADMINISTRATIVE LAW isnt the same as a rule
Lets look at the example they use in the description of that video
Title IX isnt a rule its a law
Try again
Let’s try again tomorrow! Y’all go enjoy some good food!
Good morning everyone!!!
It’s a common misconception that rules set by federal agencies aren’t enforceable like laws. In fact, these rules are legally binding and carry the weight of law. When a federal agency creates a rule, it’s doing so under the authority granted by laws passed by Congress, in this case, the authority of the 2018 Farm Bill.
These rules are not just suggestions; they are requirements that must be followed. If not, there can be legal consequences, including fines or other penalties. The enforcement of these rules can sometimes vary, depending on resources and in the case of hemp, political will, but it’s incorrect to say they can’t be enforced.
Whether or not Delta-8 THC is a controlled substance has not been clearly defined and it’s incorrect to say that it is not scheduled. The 2018 Farm Bill’s definition of “hemp” includes all cannabinoids with a delta-9 THC concentration that does not exceed 0.3% on a dry weight basis. Delta-8 THC, when directly extracted from legally cultivated hemp, falls under this definition and is therefore legal at the federal level. However, most, if not all, delta-8 THC in the market is derived from chemical conversion of hemp-derived CBD, not direct extraction. The DEA considers synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols, including delta-8 from CBD, as Schedule 1 controlled substances outside the protections of the Farm Bill. This view, however, hasn’t been clearly defined by statute or court ruling, and again, there is not a lot of will to pursue it, given the likelihood of more comprehensive cannabis legislation in the near future (near for Congress).
Outside of the mythical “Farm Bill Loophole,” The Federal Analog Act, aimed at controlling “designer drugs”, bans substances chemically and functionally similar to illegal drugs. Its vague wording has led to uncertainty and varying interpretations. Delta-8 THC could be considered an analog of delta-9 THC under this act, but the act’s vague language and the specific wording of the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp-derived cannabinoids, create a legal grey area. It’s important for people to know that the “Loophole” is not legal immunity.
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
I was not contending that the DEA is hamstrung in its efforts to enforce its rules against legal challenges, which is part of why federal agencies are timid on this because they know it’s going to get them bogged down in the courts.
But your initial claim that delta-8 THC is not by and large chemically derived as a semi-synthetic product is the crux of the legal question. If delta-8 THC could be appreciably harvested from hemp, you would see its acidic form D8 THCa, as that’s how the plant would synthesize it, but you don’t. And that is because most, if not all, delta-8 THC is produced semi-synthetically, converting CBD into D9 THC and then into D8 THC. And the DEA has been very clear that that is illegal and is considered synthetic by the DEA although it involves a plant-compound precursor.
All of the exceptions are for “naturally-occurring” Delta-8 THC, and I invite you to visit a Delta-8 THC processor if you think they are merely extracting and concentrating the “naturally-occurring” Delta-8 THC because you would be surprised.
If you could show me a plant that makes D8 THCa in appreciable quantities, that would be more soundly defendable, but the Federal Government has made it abundantly clear that the production of THC knock-offs was not their intent with the Hemp Bill. While the above-mentioned timidity does exist for now, which, in the same way, allows producers to sort of do what they want with regard to cannabinoids, also gives the regulators a certain amount of breadth in how they carry out the law.
This reinforces my original point; although regulators are largely permissive to questionable behavior regarding hemp production, for now, the legal defense is squishy at best and provides no clear immunity.
I don’t know what hemp lawyer you get your info from, but just remember that those guys are getting paid to make you feel like the system is legally defensible, so maybe not the most unbiased source.
Nobody cares. People are shipping mushrooms lol
Chocolate bars that make you meet God shipped to your door
It doesnt really matter what the DEA thinks, like I said above they like to over step there bounds like they tried to do with hemp seeds. If d8 was scheduled (which its not when derived from hemp) then why are states loosing when there own d8 bans get challenged?
A federal judge issued an injunction because they feel the state is going to loose
Heres another one where a CA appeals court upheld the legality of d8
“The 9th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling and a preliminary injunction against Boyd Street in its opinion that products made with delta-8 are legal under federal law, which defines hemp as “any part of” the cannabis plant, including “all derivatives, extracts, [and] cannabinoids,” as long as they contain no more than 0.3% delta-9 THC by weight, Forbes reported.”
Did you not read the copy right case I posted?
The method of manufacturing doesnt matter its the source of where it comes from that matters. This is also confirmed with the IHA vs DEA case i posted above
But they cannot regulate naturally-occurring THC not contained within or derived from marijuana
Hemp isnt marijuana so not sure why you would think it would be considered synthetic, if synthetics came from a plant then they wouldnt have had to schedule THCs to control them (which the court says in that ruling). The DEA cannot control a drug that is not scheduled and thc from hemp (whether made with a chemical action or not) isnt scheduled. Only cannabis (which has thc in it) and synthetic thcs are.
“The Final Rules therefore may not be enforced with respect to THC that is found within the parts of Cannabis plants that are excluded from the CSA’s definition of “marijuana” or that is not synthetic.”
The dea itself has said that thcs derived from the cannabis plant (which does not fall into the category of MJ) are legal. In or derived from implies you can make it from legal hemp and its legal. If it had to be found in the plant itself why would they have put IN OR DERIVED?
"Thus, only tetrahydrocannabinol in or derived from the cannabis plant—not synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol—is subject to being excluded from control as a “tetrahydrocannabinol in hemp.” "
All of these apply to hemp derived thc whether you think so or not. If d8 was illegal people wouldnt be winning injunctions and shit in federal courts
Not really when there are several federal cases that have said d8 is legal
This is all research I’ve done on my own. I dont need a lawyer to help me interpret something so simple
Not exactly, and no one has really tested the theory as it applies to hot d8 in court or d9 above .3% being diluted/intermediate manufacturer of a controlled substance
What you posted doesn’t change anything with what the upper courts said. If its under .3% d9 even if made through conversions its legal. Were not talking about hot hemp here
And yes there are several federal cases which have said its legal when it falls under the definition of hemp. No ones talking about hot hemp here except you. In order to make any cbd extract you must make an illegal intermediate which was never congresses intention.
The Indiana attorney general brought up unqualified cannabinoids in their most recent filing, I think they’re pushing the hot d8 angle, that or going after the poor/lack of testing method validation. Having hudalla from proverde as their expert witness seems to end credence to that theory
Starting December 31st 2023 all labs who do hemp testing will have to be registered with the DEA, im sure this has to do with testing standards and such. If a lab fails once this protocol is in place its the DEAs fault.
Lololol rise and shine! That food coma didn’t stop y’all one bit
Can we get back on topic of snoop quitting?
Has any new info come about this?
This argument started with you saying that a federal rule did not have the force of law and now you are trying to convince me that a niche decision in the 9th district, historically once of the most liberal, is equivalent to legality?
The problem isn’t whether or not they are synthetic. Everyone agrees if you take CBD and alter its chemical structure in a way that that could not be readily achieved by natural means, you have synthesized a molecule. This is why aspirin is synthetic, although it comes from willow bark. With enough time and chemicals, you could synthesize meth from hemp sources, that would not make it legal. D8 as it’s currently made is semi-synthetic, no doubt. The problem is, how do you verify the source of D8, which you can’t and that is why there is legal contention, and that is how people are:
Not because it is legal.
Yeah. All the people that were gonna quit with snoop are bitch ass fools. Damn sheep! Reminds me of seeing some peoples instagram when someone posts up a stupid meme and then I see it on 15x other ig accts
