Only a judge can decide this interpretation.
Yes the law defines it as legal, that was clearly not its intent and will be fought. If they lose, they will likely just change the law.
Until then, it’s highly risky for anyone selling, legal or not.
Being technically correct won’t help when they raid your facility or home, shoot your dog, and take your product for weeks/months while a judge decides.
you know if you ask an undercover cop if they’re a cop, if they’re a cop… they have to tell you.
I think the intention of the isomers clause was to stop a scenario like “idaho seizes hemp because it contains CBG which is a THC analogue” and other frivolous analogue act prosecutions.
I mean ask yourself, is there a person in America who’s fully thought out opinion is “D9 should be schedule 1 but D8 is not as bad so it’s ok to be legal”? No way was that line of thinking on anyone’s mind.
This is directly from David who works close with the DEA, FDA, and USDA
He already has his plant material approved for food items
Hes ahead of the curve
They meant for this to happen.
You can see even the DEA said what he said is correct
And to change the definition of the farm bill itll take congress and the president
It’s not going to change, think what you want though
I’ll be pumping out liters of d8 from hemp as soon as tomorrow
I’m in Denver for another couple days, hmu I’ll give you some d8 from hemp to try for free
Is D8 in a decarboxolated form?
The law here clearly states it’s D9-THC+(THCAx0.87).
I guarantee most Congress members who approved the farm bill don’t even know what d8 THC even is, most cannabis users don’t, why would congress ?
Im right there with ya. still though, whats the market value of a liter? 4K? 5k? 6k?
3.5 now that everyone is cranking them out
Very true, but under certain circumstances (like being exposed or life is threatened), legally they can say “no”. And your in deep crap.
No this is absolutely untrue I was being very sarcastic
My point is, unless there is some serious legal evidence- do not trust a single thing that someone looking to bust you for perceived crimes tells you
If one were to sell it, a disclaimer stating not for human consumption and research use only may help avoid some of the risk.
Again, it depends on so many factors, the wrong locality deciding they want to bust you could lead to negative outcomes for owners, employees, and their dogs.
Have known many dogs shot, too many people arrested to tell others it’s all good and not to be prepared for the potential of negative outcomes.
Many don’t want even hemp to be legal.
It also depends on users consuming responsibly. Many do not and a single hospital visit by a child could lead to very negative media attention.
same brudduh
Can speak that dabbing cbd isolate will not test you positive on drug tests
Doesnt apply to schedule 4s
As stated above theres loop holes
Please explain how marijuana is hemp
Because even the DEA said hemp isnt there jurisdiction anymore
I understand your concern the law is black and white
See where it says the CSA and drug code 7350 only apply for marijuana extracts?
Hemp isnt marijuana
Are you saying it is?
Because I can show you the definition if youd like
The second paragraph in what I circled even says
“The new drug code includes only those extracts that fall within the CSAs definition of marijuana”
Then right below it it talks about how if your extract didnt come from something that’s considered the CSAs definition of marijuana it doesnt apply
Hemp isnt marijuana man
Idk how you can argue with the fact the CSA specifically talks about Marijuana when it’s right there
You must be in denial
Drug code 7370 is what makes d8 illegal
Heres the loop hole
Not sure how you can argue with this
" However, as indicated above, if a product, such as oil from cannabis seeds, consisted solely of parts of the cannabis plant excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana, such product would not be included in the new drug code (7350) or in the drug code for marijuana (7360), even if it contained trace amounts of cannabinoids. 5"
If you’re product comes from something not considered marijuana then it wont gall under drug code 7350 or 7360 which are the codes for marijuana and marijuana extracts
Now heres where it gets good
Read *5
" Nor would such a product be included under drug code 7370 (tetrahydrocannabinols). See Hemp Industries Association v. DEA , 357 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2004) ( Hemp II )."
This means that delta 8 from hemp would not fall under the CSA if not produced from marijuana
Along with the definition of hemp, which makes isomers and any derivative as long as its under .3% d9 legal, they cant win.
"The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, which was signed into law on Dec. 20, 2018, changed the definition of marijuana to exclude “hemp”—plant material that contains 0.3 percent or less delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis. "
This is the DEA specifically stating hemp is excluded from the definition of marijuana
Link above
I’ve stated numerous times I agree with your reasoning.
Local police in most places won’t know the difference. Most Congress members won’t either.
I’m not sure how else to say it. You can be right and still have your lab raided.
Why is that so hard to get across. It being legal doesn’t mean it’s still not a risk
Are you saying every police department and district attorney are going to be experts on the differences?
Plot twist:
This guy was arrested and jailed for donut glaze then awarded $37.5k for his losses.
What would a licensed lab get back if they were to get raided and won in court?
There is not enough money in the world to go through that stress of that.
Exactly, could post any of the numerous cases of raids causing damage and death, many cases even to the wrong address.
Cannabis is cannabis, many are still strongly against it. They don’t take the time to learn what the law says, a determined cop can easily ruin your day or worse
I’m confused as to why saying it’s a risk means it can’t also be legal. They are not the same thing.
