The first argument you’re making is that the DEA can’t unilaterally ban drugs, the citations above say otherwise.
The second argument is that it’s legal because it’s hemp derived. Unless you can prove that nothing you processed was over the .3% THC limit, that seems like a shaky defense at this point. I mean, didn’t the updated rules effectively criminalize WIPHE? If the gov’t actually wants to prosecute you I don’t think your defenses will hold water. If you have the time and money to fight it, by all means
The third argument is that there’s no d9 present, in which case, I think we’d all very much like to see proof of that because that’s a very bold claim to make
If you wanna gaslight people about the legality of this stuff or justify your continued actions you’re probably better off on reddit
Would Isolate to D8 be considered synthetic vs extract from hemp?
Damn…at this point I’m starting to think this ruling was purposefully made murky and confusing so they can just cherry pick whoever they want to fuck over (based on $$$$$ being made).
I don’t mean to make out like its an open and shut case, but I see a quite a few people spending some time in the system until a clear decision is reached.
Under the prevailing argument the D8 folks use, if your isolate was hemp derived then converting it to d8 will be no problem because the feedstock was produced within the guidelines established by the farm bill.
I have no argument one way or the other but consider this… If a company who made a natural cold medicine and grew ephedra (a plant regulated by the DEA) to use the ephedrine in their formulation they wouldn’t be breaking any laws. But I doubt many of the same companies have a DEA license to turn that ephedrine feedstock into meth.
Simplistic argument i know, but the DEA is going to see it as an illegal conversion into a psychotropic substance and in the coming years you will more than likely be required to get a license from the DEA to make conversions from CBD. Bulk CBD orders will be heavily watched as schedule 1 precursor chemical orders and the whole industry will be on a watchlist.
Theres a reason they’re being sued over this ruling by the same group whos already sued them and won
Theyre over stepping their bounds and its only a matter of time before they pick a fight with someone who’s actually making compliant D8 then the fun will begin
Lmao the way you talk about this shit I KNOW you’ve got a lawyer.
But there are smaller folks than you that may think they dont need one and my fear is that its going to be dealt with on a case by case basis, until its been defined by a court. Of course im spittin str8 opinions bro. I think we all are.
D8, being not naturally produced in a growing cannabis plant, will be looked at as an imitation of naturally ocurring d9 at least in effect. This will put it into the category of ‘synthetic’ and thus perfectly regulatable by the DEA.
(A) The term ‘cannabimimetic agents’ means any substance that is a cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1 receptor) agonist as demonstrated by binding studies
D8 hasnt had binding studies done to be scheduled or considered a Sythetic cannabinoid
21 USC § 812(C)(d)(2) explains synthetic cannabinoids (“cannabimimetic agents”) require
"binding studies” and “functional assays” before CSA scheduling. The process for CSA 2 scheduling is explained in Title 21 USC Controlled Substances Act, Part B §811. No such prerequisite scheduling action, binding study or assay exist for Hemp derived cannabinoids (synthetic or otherwise). Absent these prerequisites, and actual CSA listing, no Hemp derived
cannabinoid may be classified as synthetic, or regulated by the DEA.
The analogue act can’t be applied to a hemp derivative dont forget
Wha defines a ‘binding study’?
I would think that a single citable study that reports similar cannabinoid receptor binding affinity in D8 as with D9 would suffice.
Doesn’t state its binding affinity in comparison to D9 but does it really need to? People who decide on the regulations probably don’t even know what an isomer is.
