You might be onto something here. Forwarding this to my lawyer.
1 Like
Absolutely correct i’ve been saying this over and over and nobody listens.
People ask yourself, has any congressman in the world ever had this thought in their head: “d9 is bad and should be illegal, but d8 should be legal for all”.
No, that specific thought never occurred to people. They had no clue what d8 is and what it does. Even most typical stoners don’t. Congress was not willing to legalize THC federally because, get this, it gets you high.
The thought in their head was “d9 is bad and should be illegal, but CBD and all these other ‘don’t get you high’ cannabinoids should be legal”.
Considering this intention, do you really think they are somehow going to be OK with people selling d8 as a legal high? If you thought this was going to go more than a couple months before getting shut down you are not thinking straight.
8 Likes
This is interesting. No dog in this fight but when reading the bill I just read under another post it seems as this is a clear regulation of the cbd products that are regularly testing over .3 d9. Like I’m either reading the wrong shit or this is a laxing of some regulations to focus their attention on in shelf products for d9.
1 Like
I think missed it. It sounds pretty specific when reading again but then it contradicts itself
any “ause 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
9
-THC is not a determining factor in whether the material is a controlled substance. All
synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols remain schedule I controlled substances. does not include any material,
compound, mixture, or preparation that falls within the definition of hemp set forth in 7
U.S.C. 1639o.”
1 Like
I agree with you, their intention was not to make a mind altering substance like delta 8 legal. That being said, the way the law was written did make derivatives of hemp, like delta 8, legal.
My opinion is that this new guidance from the DEA does not make delta 8 illegal for the reasons listed above.
Intention is important, but the way the law is written is more so.
1 Like
I think they’re gearing up for a Biden win. He’ll make weed a schedule 2 he says and none of us can afford fda trials. It’s like they’re closing the door halfway so everyone’s foot doesn’t get slammed in it come 2021.
In Europe we think that, as soon as he will lose, Trump will declare the election invalid. And remain there for ever. 
12 Likes
Well you took a left turn.
2 Likes
I dunno
Nonsense.
3 Likes
That’s definitely his intention, he’s already hinted towards that multiple times.
13 Likes
All hail King Don. Wouldn’t surprise me at this point
5 Likes
Douche and a turd
4 Likes
Whoever loses is going to do that, even without COVID throwing a wrench into ballot counting remember what happened in 2016.
2 Likes
Doubt the libertarian or any other party outside of the two oligarch / fascist / “whatever the fuck they are” parties would…
7 Likes
Yeah it basically already is
1 Like
Agreed. Whatever, it’s a sunny day here, we’re working on the farm, finalizing some products, people are helping each other on the forum with the fires, we’re good. We’ll all figure this hemp situation out and capitalize no matter what.
6 Likes
I was just wondering if any of you folks and your associated companies are going to put forth the effort to provide formal written comments to the DEA on this? Perhaps you are also aware that the FDA put a guidance out for comment earlier this month?
The DEA never wanted hemp or hemp products to be legal - always their stance, this is them re-iterating that stance. We have 60 days to provide public comment and legal statements back to this specific about the direct impact to existing companies (especially those under state programs which we in effect prior to the Farm Bill 2018 under the previous farm bill).
There’s always this kind of hemming and hawing over legislature that the bureaucrats in the executive branch disagree with. I also think it is quite interesting that they lay out the specific “costs” associated with this. Outlining savings in some places and extra funds in others. Pretty sure the treasury department is still saying no funding for these kinds of enforcement actions in states with legal programs.
I’m putting in comments to the DEA and to the FDA on this subject. I encourage you all do to so as well, or to at least have your company do so. Figuring out just how many jobs are being destroyed, etc is important for this discussion of expected costs.
The intention is to provide them as much information to say why they should stop this and allow things to be successfully descheduled as possible.
I challenge the statement about congress wasn’t thinking that THC should be legal - especially when almost half the people that voted for this have in recent years and months also voted for things like the Safe Banking Act (to legalize banking for MMJ and RMJ) and also have continuously pushed bills to deschedule across the board and have made multiple requests to the DEA to do this rescheduling (which of course the DEA always seems to say, nope immediately then wait 2 years and then say nope formally).
This has always been about states rights at this point because of prohibition. So work with your lawyer on that level AND submit those comments and feedback to the executive branch. Our voice needs to be loud and united.
11 Likes
Hang the pedos.
13 Likes
I have said on here many times that all of this happened in the 1990s with the designer drug fads. Chemists would rearrange a molecule and claim it was no longer illegal. Congress passed the analogue act, making all analogues of controlled substances just as illegal as the original substance. D8 is an analogue of d9 and has always been just as illegal. The supposed hemp loophole never got to play out in court. Without an established court precedent, the loophole idea might as well not exist.
5 Likes