Niche decision by several courts you mean which goes against what the DEA has said. If its illegal why are states over turning bans on it? Im sorry you do not understand the law and fall right into the DEAs scare tactic
Yes but that doesnt make it a synthetic thc, by definition synthetic thcs do not come from plant materials which is why they said in that letter
Thc derived from hemp is not controlled as long as its under .3% d9 as stated before
Also
By LEGAL definition these would not fall into the category of a synthetic thc since they are derived from the plant
States are overturning bans because determining the source is nigh impossible. It could have been derived directly, and therefore you have plausible deniability. But it’s not.
No. What the letter says is, "Thus, D8-THC synthetically produced from non-cannabis materials is controlled under the CSA as a “tetrahydrocannabinol… Accordingly, cannabinoids extracted from the cannabis plant that have a D9-THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis meet the definition of “hemp” and thus are not controlled under the CSA.”
Whether using chemicals to turn CBD into D9 and then D8 is considered being “extracted from the plant,” is not clarified by the letter and it doesn’t say anything about whether coming from a plant makes it synthetic or not.
While some legal ambiguity may allow people in more liberal jurisdictions to be able to get away with more than they might otherwise, that same ambiguity can create increased risk, both financial and legal, for people in other jurisdictions.
Which means cannabinoids found IN or DERIVED from the plant are subject to the exemption. It doesnt only say in if it did you would be correct but since it says derived it means conversions are legal.
Arkansas attempted to redefine hemp to be a ratio of CBD:THC, they didn’t make a carve out for interstate commerce, and there was an issue with vagueness as well
Nowhere in the decision was there affirmative language saying conversions, d8 in particular, are legal. There’s still a court case in August of 2024
US v Rice plainly states d8 is a controlled substance
The Georgia case got the injunction because the state conceded that Delta 8 and 10 weren’t controlled substances and the probable cause was invalidated
Maryland was a state level action, it looks like it had to do with an anti-monopoly provision in state law
They say its illegal because of the letter written by the DEA which another court has ruled is incorrect.
“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.”
Finally got back to this and saw you proved my point already, so thank you for that.
Specifically, US vs Rice was in the 3rd Circuit and the Boyd Street Case is from the 9th. Neither overrides the ruling of the other until Congress or the Supreme Court clarifies the matter. Although the production, sale, possession, and consumption of hemp-derived psychoactive cannabinoids like delta-8 may be as good as legal in some areas of the country. A lax legislature and an indifferent judiciary, do not federal legality make. And a different judge in a different jurisdiction could create a different precedent. The matter is still undecided and it’s reckless and misinformed to tell people that delta-8 is legal beyond a shadow of a doubt, because the US vs Rice case shows there’s not just a shadow but a whole doubt.
Clear statutory text overrides a contrary agency interpretation, any judge will agree with that. Rice could have easily challenged the rulling by that court and won since they used an interpretation instead of actually looking at the law.
Like i said just because the DEA says something is illegal doesn’t mean it is they said hemp seeds are illegal in the DEA vs IHA case and they lost that case because
Which hemp derived thcs of any kind fall into the excluded category.
Key words being in OR derived, if they had to be produced by the plant why would it say derived?
