New DEA Rule Says CBD Oil Is Really Illegal
leafly.com
leafly.com
From the article:
"There is no major change in law brought about by the Register item. Rather, it serves to clarify and reinforce the DEA’s position on all cannabis extracts, including CBD oil."
I was shocked people were selling CBD oils thinking it was okay; that's the only news here for me.
Disclaimer: I think marijuana is great and am from a state where it's blissfully legal ;)
Robert Hoban, a Colorado cannabis attorney and adjunct professor of law at the University of Denver, raised the notion that the rule itself may not be lawful. “This action is beyond the DEA’s authority,” Hoban told Leafly in an interview late this afternoon. “The DEA can only carry out the law, they cannot create it. Here they’re purporting to create an entirely new category called ‘marijuana extracts,’ and by doing so wrest control over all cannabinoids. They want to call all cannabinoids illegal. But they don’t have the authority to do that.”
That said, I'd hope anyone extracting and selling the stuff as a business would do their due diligence.
Science, bitches! Put aside your religious biases and ask: What does science say?
/rant
He didn't just continue it; he doubled down on it.
For some reason, Obama receives credit for relaxing laws on medical marijuana, but the reality is the opposite. Obama actually increased the rate of crackdowns on dispensaries in states with medical marijuana, and spent far more on enforcing federal marijuana laws in these states than either Bush or Clinton did[0].
After Amendment 64/Initiative 501 passed in CO and WA respectively, it's true that he didn't take as strong action against them as he could have. But that's a really low bar to apply to the president who said he "inhaled frequently - that was the point", promised to let states decide their own marijuana laws, and (when he ran for Senate in 2004) advocated decriminalization of marijuana laws.
[0] https://www.greenrushdaily.com/2016/02/24/dispensary-raids-r...
I don't think it's so simple. Big Tobacco also has a lot of money, and they have even more of an incentive for the federal ban on marijuana to be lifted. They can't really touch it while it's in this grey zone, but it's a huge amount of money that they're itching to get their hands on.
Yes, but medical marijuana is a lot less important to pharmaceutical companies than recreational marijuana is to tobacco companies. Pharmaceutical companies care less about medical marijuana these days than you might think.
And it's not so simple, because it's not so easy to see how money gets directed. For example, Altria is a massive, diversified company (albeit less so since Kraft Foods was split off). They likely see their investment in smokeless tobacco ("e-cigarettes") as a lateral move to help them corner the marijuana market once it's legalized. They also see it as a hedge against the decades-long drop in tobacco usage. But which is it? The answer is "both" - weighing those against each other is tough. And it gets even more tough when you try to consider how much they would have considered the loss of the tobacco business to be a threat back in 2006, when their business also included production of cookies and macaroni & cheese.
These incentives are oftentimes conflicting even within the same company, so from the outside, we can't just say "well, industry $X is larger than industry $Y, so they will get their way". They have to decide that the issue at hand is actually more important to them, which isn't so obvious, and that's even before you get into the fact that those industries may actually overlap.
In fact, I'd bet this is exactly what will happen. They're even likely to come to dominate the market, much like Google did the phone market once they came out with Android, and Microsoft did the console market once they came out with the Xbox.
That's exactly what I'm saying. The tobacco industry would love to leverage their existing assets into a lateral move into the marijuana industry. But until it's legal, they have to sit by and watch their lunch get eaten by smaller firms with larger risk appetites because they have less to lose if things blow up in their faces. That's what's already happening.
(Bush second term to Obama first term seems like it would be the better comparison available, unless there were titanic policy shifts in the middle of either or both administrations)
We can lob hand grenades at each other all day - it's not constructive.
For every Fox News, there is an MSNBC. Heck, there's even Huffington Post.
The actual science surrounding cannabis is difficult to sift through. There's decades of pseudoscience and downright fallacies that have been perpetuated by supporters on both sides of this debate.
The reality is, we're only now really starting to do real research on cannabis and it's various effects (short term, and long term). It's foolish to believe we understand everything about it - because up until recently, it was illegal in most places to even conduct research.
Therefore in a more liberal climate I would expect to see progressive access laws continue to be available to non-impoverished white populations, with the federal schedule remaining intact. Now, I simply expect a return to the old strategies for corralling free labor.
Bill Clinton admits that he "tried" to smoke it, I don't think that anyone truly believes that he only made one attempt. George W Bush likely did and at the very least, socialized with people who did.
All three of the Boomer presidents are in the same boat and before them, George HW Bush's life was saved by hemp. It was used in the webbing of the parachute that he used during WWII.
Also, science is pretty broad. I'm guessing you mean medical science. Social science, depending on area, may agree with the keep illegal stance.
Why? Why does religion deserve a reserved spot against criticism that race and gender rightfully share?
It's one thing to berate a religious follower, but another to criticize the religion itself.