It’s called planting the seed early……lol
2 Likes
Would Katlyn use hemp derived viagra ?
I’m sure.
some cannabinoids do actually have vasodilatory effects. you’re onto something!
4 Likes
Its up to the fda . The dea nforces the rules, not make them
Incorrect.
The DEA/DOJ obtains the delegated power to set the criteria for the classification of substances and interstate commerce laws under 21 U.S.C. 811, not the FDA, USDA or any other government agency.
Both the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are granted power to classify substances under the CSA(controlled substance act) . The attourney general is the don for both organizations. Its a circle jerk lobbyist orgy of a power grab.
2 Likes
No. The DEA is the delegated agency which schedules drugs. The FDA merely approves certain drugs. FDA approval requires DEA scheduling.
Case-in-point;
“With the issuance of this final order, the Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration places certain drug products that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and which contain cannabidiol (CBD) in schedule V of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Specifically, this order places FDA-approved drugs that contain CBD derived from cannabis and no more than 0.1 percent tetrahydrocannabinols in schedule V. This action is required to satisfy the responsibility of the Acting Administrator under the CSA to place a drug in the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out United States obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. Also consistent therewith, DEA is adding such drugs to the list of substances that may only be imported or exported pursuant to a permit.”
It’s funny y’all are taking the guidance of a non profit organization That is a authority of nothing for your legal advice.
So I’m guessing the DEA descheduled hemp then?
Wrong
Youre literally spouting BS left and right thinking it’s correct
1 Like
The first sentence is actually a copy paste from a link you sent me, so yes the fda has the authority shared with the dea. But WHO really has control here?
1 Like
I dont think he realizes the DEA gets all of its information on the drugs it schedules from the FDA
I bet he didn’t even know if the FDA says it can’t be scheduled the DEA can’t schedule it
Let’s see what kind of dumb retort this dude has now
1 Like
R45948 (4).pdf (1.3 MB)
Here’s the document I uploaded the screen shots of above if anyone wants to read what congress says about the CSA
1 Like
Yep, the fda has been around much longer and was originated to control shitty vaccines and snake oil sales. The dea was just created to do their dirty work . Yes the dea shares the power BUT the fda ultimately holds the strings of these puppets. D8 can be either legal or illicit depending on the source .
1 Like
Here’s a theory
The DEA won’t try and scheduled D8 because it knows the FDA has evidence of D8s medicinal powers
How can you schedule a substance schedule 1 when it’s the only substance known to man to completely prevent puking during chemo treatment?
The DEA knows if it trys to schedule D8 it’ll loose the only bit of control it has on it right now which is the “synthetic” fear tactic they’ve been using
Makes sense
“FDAs scientific and medical findings are BINDING to the DEA”
Meaning if they don’t like what they hear it doesn’t matter 
1 Like
Ive said this before … would’nt hire this guy as my lawyer.
1 Like
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/abs/10.7326/0003-4819-91-6-825?journalCode=aim
D9 is also powerfully antiemetic, just gets you high too.
5 Likes
D9 didn’t completely prevent emesis like d8 did though
If you read the sentence before the highlighted section it says in theory D9 should have better anti emesis properties then D8 since it binds to the receptor more but that’s not the case
Pretty interesting
1 Like
I wouldn’t waste any more effort in your responses, as effortless as they may be.
bio_stimz is going to lose this “arguement” until there is further clarification from the govt. entities that have been mentioned. Who may provide that clarification is speculation at this point. (But I believe a majority of us have a solid understanding of who that might be)
I truly believe KotK has laid out a more constructive, reasonable argument — not because they have provided multiple valid counters to @bio_stimz’s thoughts on legality — but because of the nature of the argument. One side of the argument is convinced that these regulations are already set in stone; and that the role of each govt. body concerned with this debate is absolutely predetermined and precedented… @Kingofthekush420 has done a great job of indirectly explaining that there is not enough clarification/precedent from these agencies to classify Delta-8 THC as a scheduled I substance on the CSA — and that if anything, the limited information available at the moment would probably prove otherwise.
6 Likes