dea cbd oil

Dea cbd oil

“Hence some of those crazy reactions we have read about in regards to using spice and those kinds of things,” Gordons said. “I would highly recommend everybody not to touch that stuff.”

Petrick has come up with what he sees as a unique marketing opportunity. He is out with a new product: Delta-8-THC. All those letters he just mentioned: It’s how the federal government defines what constitutes marijuana. Federal law, says marijuana is anything above .3 Delta-9 and therefore illegal. Petrick’s new product is Delta-8. And he says the two Delta’s are not the same.

But the attempt to ban the high-inducing CBD has run into headwinds. For one, the DEA is trying to ban it by rule, not by law. And That new rule is being challenged by the Hemp Industries Association. Board member Tim Gordon is the Scientific Officer for a CBD and Hemp company. And he says Delta-8 is in no way synthetic.

He says there’s nothing natural about synthetic drugs:

Gordon believes the rule by the DEA will be overturned in court since the Farm Bill legalized all parts of the hemp plant.

“They would have to amend the Controlled Substances Act to include Delta-8 specifically and I can’t see them doing that,” said Gordon. “Number two just like you mentioned we legalized hemp and all the cannabinoids present in hemp so Delta-8 happens to be one of them.”

The product is so similar to marijuana, the federal drug enforcement agency, tried to ban it in August. The agency argues it’s a synthetic drug, and synthetic drugs are also illegal.

“The definition of marijuana is cannabis that is above .3 Delta-9-THC plus THCA times .877,” said Alex Petrick, a hemp distributor.”Delta-8 on the other hand is not mentioned anywhere regarding marijuana in any situation or context.”

Dea cbd oil

The comments will be reviewed by HIA and its legal team and may be included in the lawsuit, but also may remain confidential with HIA. Respondents will be asked permission again if HIA deems the comment worthy of inclusion.

Enter the 43-page HIA lawsuit. HIA is seeking comment from anyone affected as part of the case it is building against DEA.

It’s anybody’s guess which way the court will decide. On the one hand, the 2018 Farm Bill is rather explicit about writing DEA out of the regulation of hemp. But the U.S. Department of Agriculture wrote a rule re-inserting DEA. And the recent hubbub over buzzy delta-8 THC has raised eyebrows that this kissing cousin to get-high delta-9 THC—while technically legal per the farm bill—nevertheless is reason enough to get DEA back in hemp’s business.

Lawsuit issues

The plaintiffs ask the court for a judicial determination that: the definitions of hemp and THC in hemp in the 2018 farm bill includes IHM and WHM; such materials are therefore not controlled substances; and DEA lacks any independent authority to regulate any aspect of hemp production, including IHM and WHM.

“We have a robust case, but we need more documentation for harm,” said HIA president Rick Trojan. “If they call us for evidence, we’d like to have that in our pocket.”

DEA’s interpretation of the farm bill has “serious, immediate, and irreparable consequences,” according to HIA’s complaint. “All hemp processors and manufacturers who work with and/or store IHM and/or WHM must now choose between ceasing to process, manufacture and/or store hemp; obtaining a Schedule I license from DEA; or risk criminal prosecution under the [Controlled Substances Act]. Given the centrality of hemp processing to the hemp industry’s supply chain, forcing processors to choose between the foregoing options would effectively destroy the entire hemp industry.”

Extractors are freaked out that they could now become felons just for doing their job.

As explained in the Final Rule, the creation of this new drug code was primarily intended to give DEA more precise accounting to assist the agency in carrying out its obligations to provide certain reports required by U.S. treaty obligations. Because the Final Rule did not add any substance to the schedules that was not already controlled, and did not change the schedule of any substance, it was not a scheduling action under 21 U.S.C. §§ 811 and 812.

The new drug code is a subset of what has always been included in the CSA definition of marijuana. By creating a new drug code for marijuana extract, the Final Rule divides into more descriptive pieces the materials, compounds, mixtures, and preparations that fall within the CSA definition of marijuana. Both drug code 7360 (marijuana) and new drug code 7350 (marijuana extract) are limited to that which falls within the CSA definition of marijuana.

Note regarding this rule – In light of questions that the Drug Enforcement Administration has received from members of the public following the publication of the Final Rule establishing a new Controlled Substance Code Number (drug code) for marijuana extract, DEA makes the following clarification:

Clarification of the New Drug Code (7350) for Marijuana Extract

Because recent public inquiries that DEA has received following the publication of the Final Rule suggest there may be some misunderstanding about the source of cannabinoids in the cannabis plant, we also note the following botanical considerations. As the scientific literature indicates, cannabinoids, such as tetrahydrocannabinols (THC), cannabinols (CBN) and cannabidiols (CBD), are found in the parts of the cannabis plant that fall within the CSA definition of marijuana, such as the flowering tops, resin, and leaves. 2 According to the scientific literature, cannabinoids are not found in the parts of the cannabis plant that are excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana, except for trace amounts (typically, only parts per million) 3 that may be found where small quantities of resin adhere to the surface of seeds and mature stalk. 4 Thus, based on the scientific literature, it is not practical to produce extracts that contain more than trace amounts of cannabinoids using only the parts of the cannabis plant that are excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana, such as oil from the seeds. The industrial processes used to clean cannabis seeds and produce seed oil would likely further diminish any trace amounts of cannabinoids that end up in the finished product. However, as indicated above, if a product, such as oil from cannabis seeds, consisted solely of parts of the cannabis plant excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana, such product would not be included in the new drug code (7350) or in the drug code for marijuana (7360), even if it contained trace amounts of cannabinoids. 5