Riveting. As I’ve mentioned previously within this thread, the rule-making power of the DEA was expressly delegated to it [by] Congress. Nobody was questioning Congressional legislation, as the topic was in regards to the “Its up to the fda . The dea enforces the rules, not make them” comment. The FDA doesn’t acquire the authority to schedule substances, nor does the USDA.
lol … Strong fail. Currently accepted use doesn’t include investigational drugs in the absence of phase 1, 2 and 3 clinical trials. As per 21 C.F.R. 312.21, the DEA requires that to qualify for currently accepted clinical use, a substance must have; “a known and reproducible drug chemistry, adequate safety studies, adequate and well-controlled studies demonstrating efficacy, acceptance of the drug by qualified experts, and widely available scientific evidence.”
You are clueless. Dronabinol and nabilone are both FDA-approved THC’s for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.
Once you’re finished traveling in perpetual circles, you will eventually realize that despite the fact that Congressional legislation vested primary regulatory authority over the production of hemp to the USDA, “It was our intent that derivatives, extracts, and cannabinoids would be legal if these products were in compliance will all other Federal regulations.”
Delta-8 derived from hemp does not meet the definition of hemp set forth in 7 U.S.C. 1639o, as it inherently falls under the definition of a controlled substance analog, under 21 U.S.C. 802(32)(A).
Introducing Delta-8 into interstate commerce, directly violates the CSA, the controlled substances analogue enforcement act, and the international treaties which prohibit such actions and that’s irrespective of source.
“We reiterate that ruling : in accordance with schedule 1, the DEA relevant rules and regulations may be enforced only in so far as they ban the presence of MJ or synthetic THCs”
Is there anything more symbolic of the cesspool that is internet discourse than 2 non-lawyers, not in court, arguing the law on the internet by competing to see who can make circles on cell phone screenshots better?
Yeah I’ve grown bored of this whole thing. It feels like in the past couple of days my entire interest in this site and industry have been waning.
Feels like the whole thing is propped up on drama and bullshit no matter who you are. The only ones not getting dirty are those not participating. Gray markets ain’t my deal. Somehow having the toxic drama of both the black and “green” markets.
Cannabis has many medicines, the experimentation and science done here can be fantastic. But it’s all backed by that sweet sweet profit, and little people filled with big egos. It taints a beautiful thing, but maybe that could be said of society too. Myself included under that description of little person with big ego, I am not one to consider myself above the issues that plague the site.
A lot of you do some good stuff. Rise above it. Some seriously talented and brilliant people here. I’ve decided I’ve had enough of rolling in the mud even if I’m just getting splashed from outside the pen.
To those continuing this argument on the thread, let go. You’ve tied too much of yourselves into this. I know it’s some of your livelihoods but this isn’t going to get anywhere. Not going to do anything besides put a bandaid on your own soul. Rip it off, move on, let it be.
Better than tearing more wounds into each other to no real purpose.
Peace all, let’s ride into the Future towards greener pastures.
I’ll be lurking sometimes, maybe even DMing a few people if I feel up to it, but to help myself, gotta cut this shit outta my life. Takes up too much time and energy.
Title 7 USC Section 6502(22) Synthetic defined as; .… A substance that is formulated or manufactured by a chemical process or by a process that chemically changes a substance extracted from naturally occurring plant
"the statutory definition of “hemp” is limited to materials that are derived from the plant Cannabis sativa L. For synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols, the concentration of D9 -THC is not a determining factor in whether the material is a controlled substance. All synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols remain schedule I controlled substances.”
I’m pretty sure at this point KOTK’s counsel told him to respond to every person who questions the legality of D8 on this forum for plausible deniability in the event there ever were a case.
Calling a cannabinoid minor does not imply that it is not naturally occurring. It means that it is generally present in only minor amounts.
Structures that are caused by environmental factors are called artifacts.
D9-THCa synthetase is a high fidelity enzyme, it doesn’t make any d8-THCa, at least not in amounts that would “lift” it out from its artifact designation.
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
)
