Connect with us

Cannabis News

Intoxicating Hemp Product Laws are More Complicated Than They Seem

Published

on


When Congress passed the 2018 Farm Bill, did it intend to legalize intoxicating hemp products? If it did, why didn’t it just legalize marijuana? And why didn’t it address the manufacture or sale of intoxicating hemp products?

I think the answer to all of these questions is clearly “no.” Congress did not intend to open Pandora’s Box to any form of legal intoxicating hemp product. But does what I think – or what Congress intended – even matter? Not to some courts, who think that the 2018 Farm Bill is so patently clear that it really doesn’t even matter what Congress intended.

These issues are admittedly very complicated. There are plenty of folks out there who claim that intoxicating hemp products are completely legal with no caveats. That in my view, is wrong. The law is not settled, the text of the 2018 Farm Bill is anything but clear, and whole lot can (and probably will) change with the upcoming Farm Bill. Let’s take a look at some of the issues below.

The Ninth Circuit didn’t legalize delta-8 nationally

A few years back, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held as much in AK Futures v. Boyd Street Distro (we wrote about that case here). That case is widely misquoted as having declared delta-8 THC legal nationwide. It did not. The Ninth Circuit is the appellate court for a group of western states and its rulings have no binding precedential value elsewhere.

What AK Futures actually did was affirm a preliminary ruling in a trademark dispute where legality of delta-8 products was one of a number of issues at play. In order to have a protectible trademark, the good or service must be lawful in commerce. The infringer argued that delta-8 products were not lawful. As part of the preliminary injunction, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the plaintiff was “likely” to succeed in establishing that the products were lawful, if they came from hemp and if they contained under 0.3% delta-9 THC. This was a preliminary ruling, but it’s likely that the court would rule similarly on some sort of final ruling. However, to claim that this case is the be-all-end-all for delta-8 is just, well, wrong. The case is not precedential anywhere outside of the Ninth Circuit.

An Arkansas District Court didn’t legalize intoxicating cannabinoids nationally, either

More recently, hemp attorney Rod Kight posted a blog post entitled “DID A FEDERAL COURT ORDER JUST LEGALIZE THCA AND DELTA-8 THC IN ALL 50 STATES?” Rod referred to Bio Gen LLC v. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a district (lower) court decision out of the Eastern District of Arkansas that only ruled on a specific Arkansas law. So to answer the titular question, no, the court did not legalize anything in all 50 states. The court did, however, strike down a rather poorly drafted Arkansas law that restricted intoxicating cannabinoids on a number of grounds. (As an aside, I think Rod’s analysis is often right, but in this case we diverge.)

Most relevant to this post was the Bio Gen court’s “conflict preemption” analysis. Conflict preemption is a doctrine that finds a state law invalid if it contradicts federal law – i.e., when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law. Imagine a state law that said you did not have to comply with a federal law. You get the idea.

Now in Bio Gen, the court took the position that the state and federal definitions of “hemp” were in conflict. The court recognized that “Clearly, under the 2018 Farm Bill, Arkansas can regulate hemp production and even ban it outright if it is so inclined.” But while the state could ban hemp production, the court thought that bans on intoxicating hemp products were legal. I don’t get it either. And for some reason, the court forgot to cite the following 2018 Farm Bill provision in its conflict preemption analysis, even though it cited it elsewhere in the opinion: “No preemption. Nothing in this subsection preempts or limits any law of a State or Indian Tribe that . . . regulates the production of hemp . . . and is more stringent than this subtitle.”

While I think the Bio Gen court still had ample reasons to strike down the Arkansas law on different grounds, I just don’t get the conflict preemption argument, and I don’t think an appellate court would agree that states could not enact more stringent laws or prohibit intoxicating cannabinoids. Taking this case to its logical end point would likely result in massive re-writes of hemp laws in all states.

So are intoxicating hemp products legal?

This is not an easy thing to answer and depends on many factors. What intoxicating hemp cannabinoid are we talking about? How is it produced? Is it “synthetic” (and what does “synthetic” even mean)? And what state are we talking about?

Let’s take delta-8 as an example. Delta-8 is generally not expressed in high quantities naturally and is created by converting CBD via a chemical or similar process. The Controlled Substance Act prohibits synthetic THCs, and DEA’s 2020 interim final rule stated that any quantity of synthetic THC is controlled. So according to DEA, delta-8 is illegal. On the other hand, I’ve long argued that under the text of the 2018 Farm Bill, there’s a good argument that delta-8 is legal – even in spite of what seems like clear Congressional intent to the contrary. That’s because the 2018 Farm Bill defines “hemp” as follows:

The term “hemp” means 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.

In other words, if you take hemp and make something with it, that thing is legal. This is not the position of DEA, but is evidently the opinion of the aforementioned three-judge Ninth Circuit panel. I tend to think that court was right, but at the end of the day, this is by no means a conclusive ruling. Other courts of appeal or the Supreme Court may disagree.

Let’s take another common intoxicating hemp product: THCA flower. I wrote a longer post about that recently here. In a nutshell, people argue that because THCA flower has less than 0.3% delta-9 THC, it is “hemp” even if it has 5% or 20% THCA – even though THCA converts into delta-9 THC. DEA has pretty vocally disagreed with this. In this case, I think the THCA advocates are wrong. I outlined my position in the prior post and we’re well over 1,000 words by now so I won’t recite it again.

Moreover, for any intoxicating cannabinoid or intoxicating hemp product, we also need to look at state law. A number of states outright ban smokable hemp or delta-8 products. Other states (like California) have total THC limits that de facto ban many intoxicating hemp products. No matter what you may think about federal law, those states have their own laws. And unless and until courts in those states start issuing conflict preemption rulings, those laws will be upheld.

Is it wise to sell intoxicating hemp products?

This is a hard question to answer but there is no way to be 100% safe or 100% legal. If someone is in a state that allows such products, and has a good federal law argument, the risks are lower. If someone sells THCA flower online in all 50 states, for example, the risks are very high. Moreover, there are a million different practical risks that people almost never consider when looking at the laws. As I mentioned in my THCA post:

[P]ractically speaking, claiming that THCA products are legal is a tough sell to law enforcement or a court that is not familiar with the nuances of federal hemp laws. Imagine a truck driver gets pulled over with a car full of THCA products with 25% THCA. Those products, when tested, will have levels of THC in the double digits. That driver is going to jail, and will have to do their best to persuade a court that a gap in testing requirements under the 2018 Farm Bill makes their product lawful. Even assuming that argument is solid, there are just too many possibilities that law enforcement won’t agree. This is an issue that would likely need to be resolved in the appellate courts, which would be expensive, time consuming, and risky.

Even if someone has what they believe are airtight legal arguments why their intoxicating hemp product is legal, they often fail to consider how costly it would be to get a court to agree. And how long it would take. And how hard it would be to explain to a court or jury. Thinking about the law is not sufficient. You have to consider reality. And reality isn’t cheap or easy.

Indeed, this kind of thing seems to keep happening. Take this example, where a South Carolina man was reportedly arrested for allegedly selling THCA flower that tested over 0.3%. Or this similar example out of Texas. These are just a few reported examples. The point is that being on the right side of the law doesn’t mean you won’t have to pay a boatload of money to be proven right.


When it comes to intoxicating cannabinoids, nothing is easy. Be very skeptical of folks who say that X is legal in all 50 states or that there is no risk with Y. Stay tuned to the Canna Law Blog for more updates on intoxicating hemp products.



Source link

Cannabis News

America’s Constitutional Conundrum: Guns and Ganja

Published

on

By


gun rights and medical marijuana

Of Guns and Ganja: America’s Constitutional Conundrum

 

If there’s one thing America is famous for, it’s guns – and lots of ’em! In the land of the free and home of the brave, firearms aren’t just a right, they’re practically a national pastime. With over 400 million firearms floating around a nation of 330 million people, it’s safe to say that guns are as American as apple pie and baseball.

But you know what else Americans love? Drugs. The US remains the world’s largest drug market, with an particularly passionate affair with cannabis. Mary Jane has come a long way since the “Just Say No” propaganda of the D.A.R.E. days. Now, millions of Americans legally light up in their home states, transforming from “criminals” to “consumers” faster than you can say “tax revenue.”

Here’s where things get sticky though. Despite the Biden administration’s vague promises of reform, cannabis remains stubbornly classified as a Schedule I substance at the federal level. This creates a peculiar predicament for freedom-loving Americans who appreciate both their Second Amendment rights and their evening toke.

You see, there’s this obscure interpretation of federal law that says if you consume cannabis – even legally in your state – you’re technically not allowed to own firearms. Let that sink in for a moment: in a country with more guns than people, where cannabis is legally sold in most states, you’re forced to choose between your constitutional right to bear arms and your state-sanctioned right to consume a plant.

As you might imagine, telling Americans they can’t have their guns AND their ganja isn’t exactly going over well. It’s a uniquely American saga that pits state rights against federal law, personal freedom against bureaucratic overreach, and common sense against, well… whatever you’d call this situation.

Let’s dive into this bizarre legal battleground where constitutional rights and cannabis collide.

As America’s cannabis landscape evolves, we’re witnessing a fascinating legal tug-of-war between state sovereignty and federal authority. The latest battleground? The constitutional rights of cannabis consumers to bear arms.

In a groundbreaking decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reaffirmed that banning occasional marijuana users from owning firearms is unconstitutional. The case, known as U.S. v. Daniels, centers around a man who was sentenced to four years in prison after police found trace amounts of cannabis and firearms during a routine traffic stop. Talk about wrong place, wrong time!

The federal government, particularly under the Biden administration, has been performing some impressive mental gymnastics to justify their position. Their argument? Cannabis users with guns “endanger public safety,” “pose a greater risk of suicide,” and are more likely to commit crimes “to fund their drug habit.” They’ve even argued that cannabis consumers are “unlikely to store their weapons properly.” I guess they never met my ex-military uncle who meticulously organizes his gun safe while enjoying his evening edible.

But here’s where it gets really interesting. The Department of Justice claims the restriction is perfectly constitutional because it aligns with the nation’s history of disarming “dangerous” individuals. They’re essentially putting cannabis users in the same category as folks with domestic violence restraining orders. As someone who’s spent considerable time around both cannabis users and domestic abusers (professionally, of course), I can tell you there’s a slight difference in temperament.

The courts, however, aren’t buying it. As the Fifth Circuit pointed out, the government failed to prove that Daniels was “presently or even regularly intoxicated at the time of arrest.” They noted that even if the government had proven frequent intoxication, they offered “no Founding-era law or practice of disarming ordinary citizens ‘even if their intoxication was routine.'”

The ruling doesn’t completely invalidate the federal statute (known as § 922(g)(3)), but it does expose its shaky constitutional foundation. As the court stated, “This is not a windfall for defendants charged under § 922(g)(3),” but rather a recognition that the government’s enforcement approach is fundamentally flawed.

Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association (NRA) – not exactly known for their progressive stance on substances – acknowledges the absurdity of the situation. They point out that “marijuana use is no longer limited to the domain of indigenous religious customs or youth-oriented counterculture and now includes a wide variety of people who use it for medicinal or recreational reasons.” When even the NRA is suggesting your gun control measure might be a bit extreme, you know something’s amiss.

The result of all this legal wrangling? A patchwork of confusion where state-legal cannabis users must choose between their Second Amendment rights and their medicine or recreational preference. It’s a prime example of how federal prohibition creates more problems than it solves, forcing otherwise law-abiding citizens to become unwitting criminals simply for exercising multiple legal rights simultaneously.

Welcome to America, folks, where you can have your guns or your ganja, but apparently not both – at least until the courts finish sorting out this constitutional cannabis conundrum.

Let me be blunt – we’re caught in a classic American political pretzel. The Biden administration dangles the carrot of rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III, making vague promises that sound good on the campaign trail but do little to address the fundamental issues plaguing cannabis consumers, including their right to bear arms.

While some celebrate these baby steps toward reform, I’ve been around this block enough times to know that rescheduling is like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It might stop some bleeding, but it doesn’t address the underlying trauma. The gun rights issue is just one of many complications that arise from cannabis’s continued inclusion in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: there’s only one real solution, and it runs straight through the halls of Congress. The same body that created this mess with the CSA in 1971 is the only one with the power to truly fix it. Congress needs to completely remove cannabis from the CSA – not reschedule it, not modify its status, but fully deschedule it.

Think about it. Rescheduling to Schedule III would still leave cannabis in a weird legal limbo. Sure, it might make research easier and give Big Pharma more room to play, but what about the millions of Americans who use cannabis medicinally or recreationally in their state-legal markets? They’d still be federal criminals, still banned from purchasing firearms, still caught in the crossfire between state and federal law.

The only path forward is complete removal from the CSA, coupled with a federal framework that respects state markets while establishing basic national standards. This would resolve the gun rights issue overnight – no more choosing between your Second Amendment rights and your medicine or recreational preference.

Would I love to see Congress completely overhaul the CSA? Absolutely. The entire scheduling system is based on outdated science and political theater rather than actual harm reduction principles. But let’s be realistic – that’s about as likely as finding bipartisan agreement on… well, anything these days.

Instead, we need to focus on what’s achievable: complete cannabis descheduling. This isn’t just about guns and ganja – it’s about fixing a broken system that’s created countless legal paradoxes and unnecessary criminal penalties. It’s about acknowledging that the emperor has no clothes, that cannabis prohibition has failed, and that it’s time to move forward with a sensible federal policy.

Until Congress acts, we’ll continue to see these legal battles play out in courts across the country, watching judges try to reconcile constitutional rights with outdated federal drug laws. It’s a waste of judicial resources, taxpayer money, and most importantly, it’s a waste of Americans’ time and freedom.

The solution is clear. The only question is: how many more Americans need to get caught in this legal crossfire before Congress finally does its job?

 

Inspiration:

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/federal-court-reaffirms-that-ban-

on-gun-ownership-for-people-who-occasionally-use-marijuana-is-unconstitutional/

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/nra-says-federal-ban-on-

marijuana-amid-state-level-legalization-has-created-confusing-legal-landscape-for-gun-owners/

 

CANNABIS AND GUN RIGHTS, READ ON…

CANNABIS USERS GUNS RIGHT

WHY CAN’T MMJ PATIENTS OWN GUNS, AGAIN? READ THIS!



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

MLK Day 2025: Cannabis and Civil Rights

Published

on

By


It’s MLK Day once again.

I’ve been writing an MLK Day post on this blog for eight consecutive years. The theme of my posts is that cannabis is a civil rights issue, and that Dr. King would have advocated for ending prohibition based on that fact.

Each year, I have demonstrated with facts (upon facts upon facts) that the War on Drugs continues in insidious ways. In, 2023, which is the most recent year that FBI data is available, law enforcement officials made over 200,000 arrests for marijuana-related convictions. Those 200,000 arrests constitute roughly 25% of all drug-related arrests.

Sadly, arrests of black people constituted 29% of all drug arrests in 2023, although only 13.6% of Americans are black.

Heading into MLK Day weekend, President Biden announced that he is commuting the sentences of nearly 2,500 people convicted of non-violent drug offenses. The focus was predominantly on individuals “who received lengthy sentences based on discredited distinctions between crack and powder cocaine…”, as opposed to cannabis-related crimes. According to the Last Prisoner Project, “the total number of those incarcerated for cannabis who received commutations is not knows, but nine LPP constituents will be free.”

For all that Biden promised as to cannabis, it’s the least we could have asked. Under the new Trump administration, attention will quickly return to the frustrating marijuana rescheduling process. If cannabis ends up on Schedule III, criminal penalties for traffickers may soften, but make no mistake: possessing and distributing cannabis will still be a federal crime.

At the state level, where most arrest occur, progress has slowed in the last few years. Out here where I live in Oregon, with our 800 cannabis stores, it’s astonishing to think of 200,000 annual cannabis arrests– most for simple possession, no less.

There is a lot of work to do. Here are a short list of organizations if you’d like to get involved:

For prior posts in this series:



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

No Smoking, No Vaping – What’s the Safest Way to Consume Cannabis Based on Your Genetics and Science?

Published

on

By


safest way to consume cannabis

The Safest Way To Consume Cannabis For Health, According To Science and Genetics

 

Marijuana legalization continues to help thousands of people.

Most especially those who need marijuana to treat conditions in a safer, more natural, and more cost-effective manner compared to pricey, addictive, and dangerous pharmaceutical medications. That said, not all weed is made the same: depending on where you get your weed, some of it may be grown using pesticides, which can be bad for your health especially when smoked. So yes, it does matter what kind of weed you’re smoking and where you got it from.

In addition, not all methods of consumption are also the same. Many consumers, particularly extremely health-conscious individuals, prefer not to smoke weed. Smoking weed that’s been grown with pesticides can also be dangerous for one’s health. It’s especially not recommended if you are immunocompromised,

 

That’s why a growing number of consumers prefer to explore the variety of other consumption methods available these days, such as edibles, tinctures, beverages, and cannabis oil to name a few.

Now, the results of a new study have just been published, suggesting that cannabis oil extracts may be the safest way to consume weed. Researchers studied MCT oils that contained high concentrations of CBD with some THC.

 

“Several studies have found damage to various chromosomal associated with cannabinoid use,” said the researchers. “Considering numerous studies demonstrating the genotoxicity of cannabis, it is noteworthy that many of these investigations have focused on individuals who consume cannabis through smoking or in cigarette form, normally rich in THC,” they said.

 

The researchers specifically found that extracts of cannabis sativa don’t exhibit genotoxic or mutagenic potential in doses that are commonly used by patients to manage anxiety, pain, epilepsy, and other conditions. “Although the current literature on cannabis sativa extract remains inconsistent, most evidence suggests that these extracts are safe for cells and DNA under both acute and chronic experimental conditions, even at high doses, in studies involving both male and female animals,” wrote the researchers.

 

Some consumers were alarmed recently when studies, albeit weak in nature, were published, which suggested that cannabis smoke had the potential to be genotoxic. That said, it still isn’t recommended for individuals who may be immunocompromised but there is no strong evidence that cannabis can indeed cause genetic mutations.

 

Since oral consumption of cannabis oil bypasses the respiratory system and allows patients a more accurate way to dose, it’s become the preferred method of consumption for many medical cannabis patients. Whether you’re young or old, the safety profile of cannabis oil has been proven; this is especially true if you wish to avoid respiratory harm.

 

The Role Of Quality Cannabis In Health

 

As cannabis consumers, there are many ways you can ensure that you’re medicating with clean, safe cannabis that’s free from dangerous contaminants. Pesticides aren’t the only contaminants to be aware of; street cannabis sold by dealers can be laced with toxic additives and even fatal ingredients, such as in the notorious case of the tainted THC vapes containing Vitamin E acetate. Other undesirable ingredients to take note of include residual solvents and heavy metals.

 

It’s also your role as a consumer to do research about the quality of cannabis you buy. Of course, it makes sense to only buy from licensed cannabis dispensaries since they can easily supply laboratory-tested cannabis products. From edibles to oils, flowers and more, licensed dispensaries can provide products that have a Certificate of Analysis or COA, which can either be printed on the packaging itself, accessed online, or via a QR code. A cannabis product with a COA can give you peace of mind that the product meets stringent testing and quality standards.

 

In addition, you can also seek out certified organic cannabis products. Of course, the fact that cannabis still isn’t federally legal means that there is nothing similar to a USDA Organic certification for weed, though some manufacturers make it easier for consumers these days to know if they are buying organic or not. For example, if you live in California, you can look for Clean Green Certified or OCal (weed that has been grown in standard that are comparable to organic).

 

 

Conclusion


If you are older or have pre-existing medical conditions, the best way to medicate with marijuana is by taking cannabis oil orally. It’s also extremely versatile, since it can be used to treat an array of conditions ranging from nausea to chronic pain, headaches, muscle pain, and so much more. While it may have reduced bioavailability compared to smoking, cannabis oil extracts do provide fairly quick relief for several conditions.

 

Smoking weed in any form, whether by flower, vape oil, or concentrates, should be avoided or limited altogether. There are also other potential consumption methods that are safer and more suitable for the immunocompromised, such as sprays, edibles, and topicals.

 

It also helps to carefully consider the type of cannabinoids you are consuming. For patients that need to medicate during the daytime, CBD or high-CBD products are always preferred. One must be careful with THC especially if you are older, operate machinery, or have no previous experience with psychoactive drugs. Always start with the lowest dose possible, and work your way to a higher dose slowly.

 

SAFEST WAY TO USE WEED, READ ON…

SAFEST WAY TO USE WEED

AMERICANS DON’T KNOW THE SAFEST WAYS TO USE WEED!



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media