Couldn’t tell you because I’m not a lawyer. I thought it was obvious that my position was purely opinion, I have no answers I just like to argue.
3 Likes
It seems there are two possible scenarios.
- DEA warns congress that all Tetrahydrocannabinols should be banned or limited to a total combined .3%, and then congress proceeds to ignore them and do what they wanted to do to spite them.
OR
2) DEA completely dropped the ball and did not mention banning or limiting all Tetrahydrocannabinols in any way shape or form during the legislative process.
Since the farm bill lays out isomers derived from hemp as legal, with the exception of delta 9 thc, then they went back and added thca to the definition of thc, it looks more like these Isomerizations were all specifically allowed versus forgotten about 
2 Likes
U get much better responses when u argue 
4 Likes
It doesn’t though the court ruled that the DEA never followed the correct procedures to schedule hemp, your argument of Chevron deference is invalid as they changed the definition of hemp to include everything BUT D9 thc, this is very specific and there is no room for interpretation
This is directly from that ruling, the court found that under your "Chevron ruling " non psycho active hemp was NOT intended to be a schedule 1 along with cannabis
Your interpretation of the Chevron deference is wrong btw, the court found the opposite of what you think
This isn’t true either
Any THC from hemp they cannot regulate as its not scheduled 1
Under your thinking the .3% thc in hemp is illegal then making all hemp illegal which isn’t the case
Please show me where d8 is explicitly listed in the CSA
Its not, D9 and its ISOMERS from CANNABIS ARE
D8 would need binding studies to be explicitly listed and its not
Marijuana / cannabis and hemp are not the same thing
Per the courts ruling hemp isn’t a schedule 1 so the analogue act does not applies and the DEA cannot regulate a non scheduled substance (which D8 from hemp isn’t because the analogue act doesn’t apply)
Because to do that they’d have to do binding sight studies on anything they wanted to add but precursors
Precursors can be added directly to the CSA without any binding studies (thc a is a pre cursor to thc)
Please find that link for me
Im 98% sure you showed me drug code 7370 which doesn’t apply to hemp
Found it
It doesn’t apply to hemp as 7370 is for cannabis
“The two sides of Delta 8 legality”
One side its legal.
On the other side, it’s not.
Glad we discussed this. Jajajjaa
16 Likes
Congress would not have to do a binding study to make the change as I understand it, hence the reason I brought it up. If the dea had been able to convince congress of the validity of their current position(all Tetrahydrocannabinols should be illegal) congress just changes the law. Done.
I believe you’re correct on the binding study if the DEA is making the change by themselves, but congress doesn’t need a reason to change or amend a law.
Your argument hinges on delta 8 being considered “naturally occurring” THC from hemp with the citation you’re listing(from a cbd hemp case, cbd was never explicitly scheduled)
I still haven’t seen proof of this binding site bullshit you keep yacking, please elaborate on that with specific information, not something that just says they need reports and studies(which isn’t necessary for the ag to do emergency scheduling - which is unnecessary in this case as d8 is explicitly listed insched 1)
1 Like
Does the farm bill say “naturally occurring” isomers? I missed that part…
Show me “naturally occurring isomers” in the farm bill. I see isomers…
Section 1103 of the Farm Bill defines hemp as:
“the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”
Delta 8 is psychoactive…
The language in the farm bill implicitly would allow for d8, if it were not for it being EXPLICITLY listed on the CSA(where it has been for quite some time)
I’m over this arguing in circles, it’s all moot anyways because nobody has compliant d8
Placement on schedules; findings requiredExcept where control is required by United States obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol, in effect on October 27, 1970, and except in the case of an immediate precursor, a drug or other substance may not be placed in any schedule unless the findings required for such schedule are made with respect to such drug or other substance. The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:
(1)Schedule I.—
(A)
The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B)
The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C)
There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
That’s the only provision I can find in the controlled substances act for schedule 1, there’s nothing about binding site studies anywhere
2 Likes
Problem is, the controlled substances act was amended to exclude hemp. That then brings us to the definition of hemp as laid out in the 2018 farm bill.
Section 1103 of the Farm Bill defines hemp as:
“the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”
1 Like
The current list of scheduled drugs published April 2020 explicitly lists Delta 8.
That’s more recent, it’s from the relevant governing body, and it reflects what I believe to be the true intent of the law. But as said multiple times in this thread, we all know it’s not compliant so there’s not much point in arguing it further
4 Likes
The dea is not the governing body for hemp. The USDA is
Who do states call when hemp exceeds 0.3% D9?
2 Likes
Not the USDA
5 Likes
Incorrect
D8 from CBD is hemp derived
I’ve already quoted the definition of synthetic cannabinoid above which proves D8 isn’t synthetic if it comes from hemp (then its hemp derived)
By definition synthetic cannabinoids bind primarily to the CB1 and D8 doesn’t do that
This is the bill that added synthetic cannabinoids to the CSA btw
Bro ONCE AGAIN
D8 ISNT SCHEDULED
Please provide me proof on the CSA showing otherwise because here is the direct list from the CSA on THCs
Delta 8 isn’t any of those THCs
ITS ILLEGAL BY THE ANALOGUE ACT WHICH DOESN’T APPLY TO HEMP
Here is a direct quote from a text you uploaded
In order to get an emergency scheduling (which hasn’t happened as they’d release a notification about it) they must show #s 4, 5, and 6.
6 is an imminent risk to public health
No ones dying from D8 which is WHY THEY CANT GET AN EMERGENCY ORDER
The DEA knows it would be over thrown if they tried this
So there’s still requirements to do an emergency listing
The last emergency listing done was for fentanyl and its analogues because people were dying
People aren’t dying from D8 so they can’t do an emergency ruling
Why haven’t they done an emergency ruling if there so against d8?
Because they can’t
And its not specifically scheduled its scheduled as an isomer of D9 thc