I grew up in an illegal state where many very much still few cannabis as a gateway to heroin.
I mean THC is scheduled right there beside Heroin as schedule 1 so I think caution is warranted.
I agreed your interpretation is valid however as stated before, precedent and other interpretations may also be valid to a judge.
Neither of us can say for sure, only a judge or new legislation
Thank you, I also want every cannabinoid easily accessible. Many still hold the old negative opinions and will fight progression. Not being prepared for that seems wrong.
And yes, I think most politicians know little about cannabis. Especially Israeli studies on obscure isomers. Most doctors have no clue they exist, why would politicians?
I believe the intent behind explicitly allowing isomers was to try and stop states from fighting hemp on the basis of the analogue act by saying cbn, cbc etc are analogues of THC. i genuinely don’t think the writers were trying to get psychoactive products legalized.
@Kingofthekush420 read what I wrote, I agree most are very weak.
Our perception and public perception are different. Isomers like d8-THC likely won’t be as accepted as we’d like
Are you saying thc is as bad as heroin then since it’s a schedule 1?
i dont think he’s saying that at all. I think he’s saying isomers of THC a schedule 1 substance could clearly be prosecuted under the Federal Analogue Act.
Its a tricky situation. We have 2 federal laws that clearly contradict each other.
Why would a cannabis user think that?
The laws surrounding them are similar enough that the risk involved may not be worth it for most.
Concentrate production in Virginia carries up to forty years in prison for any amount. A hemp processor in Virginia could face those laws if the state or feds decide they interpret the laws differently then you do. This leaves it to a judge , like stated, however it means jail time , lawyer fees and court costs for those taking those risks and their employees
As stated above the CSA applies only to MJ extracts.
The analogue act is part of the CSA
This is right out of the act itself.
(14) The term “isomer” means the optical isomer, except as used in schedule I(c) and schedule II(a)(4). As used in schedule I(c), the term “isomer” means any optical, positional, or geometric isomer. As used in schedule II(a)(4), the term “isomer” means any optical or geometric isomer.
D8 is a geometric isomer of THC, whether its taken from hemp or from MJ, or its completely synthetic
Again, a judge has to decide that, you could be right but they could argue numerous other things that it’s up in the air enough to be a risk.
Maybe, but what if they say d8 is structurally close enough to d9 to be included in the .3 limit?
This is how it will go down.
If KIng is right…whoever is the lucky shit who gets caught first will get off. Everyone else is screwed.
If not, it’s already illegal and treat it as such.
Then you show them the definition of hemp, which they cant debate.
Delta 8 isnt mentioned anywhere in the definition of hemp
Read the bottom star 5
That an exemption from drug code 7370 which makes isomer of d9 illegal
This is one of those things one could argue endlessly because we can’t decide the outcome.
Only a judge can, it’s either risk it and see what happens or don’t.
It’s a personal business decision that needs careful consideration as there’s been no official clarification from the feds
Yet. Remember the law is not black and white. It’s is interpreted
Please also note it’s been stated they can easily amend or make new laws once sale becomes mainstream and a judge rules in its favor
This is why pharma will be given isolate 
I think the law states clearly enough that isomers derived from hemp are legal if below 0.3 d9, and the OHA told me that was correct as well. I’m more concerned about the political fallout than prosecution of the current operators.
What about USDA regs? Did they not combine them all together? Or just the carboxylate form?
