USDA Final Rule

No doubt. Sometimes agencies fight over who has authority. Seems likely if USDA swept Delta 8 in under the Farm Bill then DEA would be less likely to flex.

nah not necessarily, but as @james2pro mentioned, I wonder if that includes minors as well.

As of right now - the work in progress material is still up in the air. The DEA put their final rule out last year, we all submitted comments, but have not heard yet.

This isnā€™t just about D8. Its about anything that may have more than 0.3% d9THC in it during processing, storage, transportation, or as a finished product. That would include all the other minors - if they ever had more than 0.3% d9THC in them.

We asked them very specific questions. We asked the USDA and the FDA to weigh in. They chose not to do so. And our questions have gone unanswered. :frowning:

Its pretty terrible the position the regulators have put the industry in - when asked about this, the DEA said they didnā€™t really care. While at the same time, performing enforcement actions. x.X So Iā€™ve decided just to not carry any of these products in my shoppe. And Iā€™m not bringing in minors (even though Iā€™d like to) just in case it gets caught up.

My license is too important to me to risk losing it over this kind of risk, you know?

2 Likes

It now takes a deeper background check for a hemp license in Michigan than what they require for an mmj caregiver. Itā€™s now cheaper to pay for the doctor and state fee for 6 patients than it is for a hemp grower license, and the MMJ is good for two years while hemp license is good for one. Hemp license requires you to submit to unannounced inspections without a warrant. Mmj inspection requires a warrant.

And MDARD canā€™t figure out why their hemp program has all but diedā€¦

2 Likes

oh yes of course dude. i feel like them being unresponsive is quite quite intentional. its bullshit for all of those trying to grind in the hemp game.

so now the question is, do they give enough of a fuck to come down on ya? probs.

I didnā€™t realize things were so different on the hemp side. You give them all the information they need to do a thorough FBI background check AND check into your financials.

And the rules clearly say that just to apply for a license you have to consent to inspections, searches, seizures, etc. 420.2 (2)

image

I supposeā€¦ you could be talking about just caregivers and not any other licensed operations? $1250 + $1350 for a hemp grow and process license seems a lot cheaper than the $6,000 application fee plus $40,000 license fee, plus the the on-going annual fees.

Maybe there needs to be an equity program for smaller hemp growers like there is for MMJ/REC growers. But still $2600 seems like just a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of running even a small farm. When I was growing hemp in Colorado - just the land and water rights was so much more than that! That would have been less than a single days rental of planting equipment.

It sucks they are killing things up here. The whole process always seemed like it was going to fail to me. Make something more legal and the same thing that happens to all farmers happens to us. :frowning:

2 Likes

From the farm bill (weā€™ve all read it):

ā€œFor the purposes of 7 CFR part 990, and as defined in the 2018 Farm Bill, the term
ā€˜hempā€™ means the plant species 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-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is the primary
intoxicating component of cannabis. Cannabis with a THC level exceeding 0.3 percent is
considered marijuana, which remains classified as a Schedule I controlled substance regulated by
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) under the CSA.ā€

Then in the same goddamn document:

"Delta-8 THC is unrelated to
the 0.3 percent delta-9 THC limit or the ā€œpost-decarboxylation delta-9 THCā€ that are defined and
required in this final rule."

I would think they would need more specific language related to delta-8 for this to be interpreted as clearly stating an exception to ā€œall isomersā€. As it is written, D8 looks to remains legal under the definition of hemp, which would need a modification of the CSA to alter:

"(16)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the term ā€œmarihuanaā€ means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin.

(B) The term ā€œmarihuanaā€ does not includeā€”

> (i) hemp, as defined in section 1639o (that quote up there from the same-ass document that itā€™s always been in ^^) of title 7; or
>
>
>
> (ii) the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination."

I realize the DEA can basically do whatever and no one will be able to fight them without unlimited resources, but not all hemp farmers/product producers or retailers will be able to discern what in the actual fuck these agencies are saying if what they are saying is ā€œread between the lines, fuckers, youā€™re all actually felons that havenā€™t been arrested yetā€ lol- so itā€™s at a very minimum interpreted to be 100% legal by tons of people- thatā€™s just too confusing to start hauling motherfuckers off to jail over some legislative MC Escher logic

4 Likes

THANK YOUUU I THOUGHT THE SAME GOTDAMN SHIT.

thats why i had said ā€œhuh?ā€

was waiting to see how the rest of yall interpreted it. personally iā€™m in the legal rec markets, so none of this really pertains to me.

1 Like

Michigan caregiver is 72 plants. Yes, the commercial mmj license is more expensive.

My point was that by raising the licensing fee, requiring the fbi fingerprint background check even though the feds put that off for a couple years, and all the other BS they have instituted ahead of time so they can lead the way in compliance, has killed their program.

2 Likes