Cannabis | Marijuana > Cannabis General
Thoughts on DEA and their recent CBD "statement"
JustSayin:
I guess the DEA stance is that any extract from "marihuana" as they spelled it to defeat search engines (another shady move they just can't help themselves can they) has always been Schedule 1. It's a very unscientific, blanket attempt to lump a variety of products under one easily enforceable and no questions asked category. Which is total bullshit, they know it, we know it.
But I also notice this conflicts with the federal position on hemp products that contain less than .3% THC. So its just an attention grabbing, trying to grasp at straws and be controversial statement. This is one organization that I will not cry over jobs being lost when their leadership takes such an ignorant position that would hurt our citizens. That is not what any government agency is about IMHO.
The cannabinoid CBD by itself is not schedule 1 , like kratom they are attempting to position these products under their radar because of the "other" specific alkaloids they may contain.
Those that do not understand (aka uninformed, old-school, hard-line conservatives types in particular) will attempt to brand every CBD user as criminals, they are just attempting to create a divide that really does not exist in the minds of most Americans if i am gauging the pulse of this country right now..
Interstate sales of CBD products that fall under the national guidelines for hemp products is and has been allowed under Federal law. Not the DEA's call to make a blanket statement like this. Should also be run through the normal channels. So in the loosest terms, Chuck Rosenberg and co. have created a blanket category and statement that they will not or can not expand upon scientifically. Also their statement does not fit the current federal definition to lump hemp products under "marihuana" extracts. You see hemp is not actually defined as "marihuana" anywhere. I am listening if someone has evidence to the contrary. I believe ti would be more technically correct to provide the exact scientific name of the specific species and a strict definition when creating such a category.
Sour grapes, and nice final salvo on the way out there Chuck....
jones:
There is a good article on www.leafly.com that explains how the DEA tried such a move in 2001 and lost, because
the DEA is a regulatory agency, they are not allowed to make new laws, you see, because the making of laws is
only allowed by Congress.
So Fuck the DEA and Free the Plants!! :weed-sign:
orthene:
--- Quote from: jones on December 18, 2016, 04:07:13 PM ---
There is a good article on www.leafly.com that explains how the DEA tried such a move in 2001 and lost, because
the DEA is a regulatory agency, they are not allowed to make new laws, you see, because the making of laws is
only allowed by Congress.
So Fuck the DEA and Free the Plants!! :weed-sign:
--- End quote ---
So when they try to enforce a non-law, they can make arrests based on violations of DEA "policy".
jones:
--- Quote from: orthene on December 20, 2016, 12:26:02 PM ---
--- Quote from: jones on December 18, 2016, 04:07:13 PM ---
There is a good article on www.leafly.com that explains how the DEA tried such a move in 2001 and lost, because
the DEA is a regulatory agency, they are not allowed to make new laws, you see, because the making of laws is
only allowed by Congress.
So Fuck the DEA and Free the Plants!! :weed-sign:
--- End quote ---
So when they try to enforce a non-law, they can make arrests based on violations of DEA "policy".
--- End quote ---
Sad fact is anyone can be arrested at any time for no good reason at all
JustSayin:
:5_1_125:
Here's a good article that clarifies the situation. Once again media fear-mongering and misreporting....
http://www.kratomliteracyproject.com/2016/12/hemp-industries-assoc-responds-dea-final-ruling-cbd-oil/
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version