Red d8
Have a good morning everyone
6 Likes
I’d rather deal with none of them lol
All the 3 letter agency’s are power hungry, money driven forces of nature at this point.
The one I say tops the FDA and DEA, the IRS.
1 Like
Only a few things are guaranteed in life. Death and taxes.
1 Like
Nah just death
My name is Michael J. Caboose, and I. Hate. Taxes.
Also valuable lesson Future posted on his story
If you want to avoid/pay less tax, start a business. By this I think he means abuse the fuck out of tax benefits for your business and save as little personal money as possible to prevent taxes from taking it. By a car under your business to avoid taxes type stuff, someone I know did that. But for cannabis? Nah fuckin run and hide the tax man coming for your ass.
2 Likes
I didn’t say that CBG, CBN, CBC, and CBL were scheduled. They aren’t scheduled since they are not tetrahydrocannabinols.
Δ⁸- and Δ¹⁰-THC are scheduled because they are synthetic tetrahydrocannabinols.
1 Like
It is really helpful use the most recent wording of what the DEA has put out. In it all synthetic THCs are singled out.
In the screenshot you share, d1 is actually d8, and d6 is actually d9. The text uses the older numbering for the terpenoid ring and they even say that below what you highlighted.
Finally, d8 is not an optical isomer of d9. It is a positional isomer of d9; the positioning of the double bond is different.
1 Like
If they lost, it must have been over something else. And if they did, that likely doesn’t have any bearing on current litigation.
It gets a little confusing when you mix screenshots of plaintiff’s conclusions together with law text. Up until the case has been ruled on, their conclusions are merely wishful thinking.
I don’t know exactly what date the firmed up DEA language goes into effect and they start dusting off their battering rams, but it will happen.
Your buddies’ case may well be victorious. If so, the government will have lost a battle and be even more hell-bent on winning the overall war against a foe that now has a big bullseye on its back.
Thinks me.
1 Like
D10 is also made from d9, and precedent indicates that schedule 1 intermediates can mean illicit end products. D10 only comes from d9, CBN and HHC can come from d8, but I find those legally questionable as well because of the production pathways
This is incorrect
Delta 8 is not one of the listed thcs banned in the CSA it’s illegal because of the AA (see how it says and there optical isomers?)
The drug code you’re referring to is for THCs (which again doesn’t apply to hemp and only is synthetic thcs not naturally occurring thcs not found in MJ)
Delta 8 DERIVED from hemp which is a source other then MJ cannot be regulated by the DEA unless scheduled and its not
It’s simple
1 Like
I know this is kinda hard to grasp but synthetic thcs DO not include thcs that aren’t found in MJ
Hemp derived doesn’t mean synthetic and d8 isnt scheduled
PLEASE show me where d8 and d10 are SCHEDULED in the CSA, you can show me drug code 7370 but that doesn’t apply to hemp as I’ve shown you 3 times now
2 Likes
It may not apply to non-psychoactive hemp so I guess that would exempt for example d7-THC. Now I am really curious to read the definition they use for psychoactivity. 
If you can find it and share it with me.
1 Like
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/3190/text
This is the closest you can really get IMO to the definition of “synthetic thcs”
They did binding studies and scheduled a bunch if “cannabimimetic” substances
It all comes down to cb1 agonism IMO
Cbg and cbn activate the cb1 but to what level?
1 Like
I would call d8-THC the ultimate cannabimimetic.
Thanks for the link!
1 Like
Agonism.
1 Like
Ty for correcting me
1 Like
No, it comes down to fitting into the 5 defined structural classes
That’s also specifically about cannabimimetics, not synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols
Synthetic thcs code is exactly that for synthetic thcs or equivalents from the MJ plant, the dea cannot enforce thc not from MJ or synthetic
1 Like
That isn’t a response to what I pointed out, the structural classes of cannabimimetics have nothing to do with regulations of synthetically serviced THCs
2 Likes
You’d think they’d have more important things to focus on right now.