See that little section of wording where it says "as is hemp that meets certain statutory requirements" … Yeah, those statutory requirements are set forth by 21 U.S.C. 811 and the international treaties which clearly prohibit the introduction of psychotropic substances into interstate commerce, with the exception of such substances used for scientific research purposes and medical product development. As such, -ALL- psychotropic substances MUST be prohibited from being introduced into interstate commerce, irrespective of source. There are no exceptions, as the entire scope of the CSA and aforementioned treaties would be out the window.
Once again… “tetrahydrocannabinols does not include any material, compound, mixture, or preparation that falls within the definition of hemp set forth in 7 U.S.C. 1639o” … INHERENTLY EXCLUDES ALL PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES, AS THE DEFINITION OF HEMP DOES NOT INCLUDE SUBSTANCES WITH PSYCHOTROPIC ACTIVITY DUE TO THE 0.3% THRESHOLD.
As per 21 U.S.C. §802(32)(A), the term “controlled substance analogue” means a substance— (i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II; which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is (substantially similar to) or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.
The ONLY difference between D8 contained within hemp and D8 CSA #7370, is the psychotropic threshold. If manufacturers started extracting D8 from hemp in an effort to obtain D8 that was exempt from the CSA… the finished product would have to reside under the 0.3% threshold in order to be introduced into interstate commerce. And we all know that would be utterly pointless.
With a Ki of 32.9±0.8 nM for D8 and a Ki of 27.3±5.0 nM for D9 … D8 and D9 are substantially similar at CB1. Of course this is a moot point, as D8 from hemp is structurally IDENTICAL to D8 substance #7370.
rofl … Ummmm, no. That’s what you call a dose-dependent threshold, by excluding doses which elicit psychotropic activity and/or CNS toxicity.
This is why the USPTO just granted a patent on ultra-low dose THC as a potential therapeutic and prophylactic agent for Alzheimer’s Disease.
Once again, these are Investigational drugs and are not FDA-approved.
My pleasure. Admittedly however, I am still getting used to this site and I am familiar to responding when someone directly quotes my comments, so bare with me if I’ve missed any other comments/questions that you may have made.
The CSA required a drug to be scheduled to be enforced by the dea. D8 isn’t scheduled it’s illegal do to the AA which is part of the CSA which doesn’t apply to hemp
Really, though, how many times do we need to see the same screenshots and hear the same argument?! How many times (just in this thread) have the same screenshots been posted? I don’t feel like counting, but I can tell you that it’s too many.
We get it. We know where you stand on D8 legality. Hell, you’re apparently even willing to ship it internationally. I don’t, however, believe you will change anyone’s mind that hasn’t already been changed.
Can you both not agree to disagree (at least until some new info comes to light)?
Agreed and until someone else can come in here with a (valid) counterarguement, I’m done traveling in circles in an effort to explain facts to a box of rocks.
I think I’m satisfied in any residual curiousity I had on this argument as well. I’m not sure any additional value can be derived to improve anyone’s arguments at this point, either.
Let’s pack this up until the next newer member decides to bring it up again.
Keep on keeping on y’all, and wishing everyone a good life. (Heh)
