D8 derived from anything is synthetic. D8 derived from CBD is also semisynthetic.
2 Likes
Chemically changes = Making and/or breaking of chemical bonds
2 Likes
It’s not synthetic by the laws definition, there’s no semi synthetic in the hemp bill only hemp derived and synthetic and d8 converted from cbd isn’t synthetic its hemp derived
So decarbing is a synthetic process then?
So we make cbd a into cbd with a synthetic process and it’s legal?
Cool so isomerizing cbd to d8 is legal then
My theory is that d9-THC will soon enjoy full protection. All other THC isomers, even d8, will be explicitly banned and require a DEA license to make.
There’s nothing all these other THC isomers can do, that d9 cannot do better, unless one is splitting hairs.
If there’s a molecule that deserves special treatment, it would be CBN.
2 Likes
Technically, yes, it is a synthetic process. But is can easily be argued that it is also a manufacturing artifact.
1 Like
There’s a huge difference between these two examples; In the first the manufacturer tries to isolate CBD from hemp, one of the anticipated activities under the Farm Bill. The only thing done to extract is applying heat.
In the second example psychoactive d8 is manufactured by the addition of reagents in a conscious attempt to effect the making of a new chemical bond. That was not the intent of the Farm Bill.
1 Like
What about CBN-O?
That’s running wild presently amongst us
What about CBND?
HHC?
The non THC in name isomers?
Look at the CBDA-HQ (hydroxyquinone form)? Just water soluble cbda
We’ve opened pandoras box
Is this the acetate of CBN?
1 Like
Yes correct.
What about d9 isomerizations?
Do none of them potentially have more value for other medical needs?
This is going to be a very real pandoras box that can’t be shut
Is d8 made CBN medically the same as d9 made CBN?
What about delta x thcv/p/o (x = insert number)
Drugs are being made beyond their standards now.
How can we tell people what to do with them?
1 Like
The Farm Bill and at least California’s Cannabis Rules opened Pandora’s Box, somewhat relaxing the rules surrounding doing chemistry.
Overproduction and generous/favorable interpretation of the USDA/DEA confusion by a few hemp processors created the d8 craze resulting in widespread and sometimes questionable manufacturing practices.
This gives the authorities reason to start closing the box.
1 Like
States already are closing the box for d8 sales slowly or accepting it. Federal interpretation continues to allow for anything goes isomerizations.
We literally have chemists making drugs we can’t find standards for from cbd. This albeit alarming is a revolutionary change because they’ll soon be the ones selling the standards.
You can’t write a rule on a drug you can’t identify.
I would say so.
1 Like
Is this something you’re interested in?
1 Like
I’m interested in all of it, but I’ve got access to try it if I’d like. San Antonio keeps an eye on it’s locals (PurIsoLabs)
I’ve tried it, it knocked me out in 10 minutes.
1 Like
The problem with the acetates is that now we are quite a bit removed from the natural/artifact/(semi)synthetic hair splitting, we are now firmly in the territory of derivatives attempting to change pharmacokinetics.
Usually, these kind of undertakings are done by Drug Discovery Companies or clandestine laboratories.
2 Likes
XD whoops
It is
D8 has made the BM even worse
1 Like
Legalization in only Seneca states made the Black market even worse
1 Like