Look for federally legal hemp derived delta 9 products. They usually max out at 5 or 10mg per serving
So funny that that law didn't account for how edibles work. If you have a baked good (brownie, cookie, etc.) which weighs 100 grams, and it contains 29mg delta-9 THC, thats below the 0.3% legal threshold, and still a solid dose.
I always try to explain this to people, that the Republicans actually unwittingly legalized weed in 2017, but no one ever gets it. Fact is, delta-9 THC edibles are now federally legal (and can be ordered online) in all 50 states due to the Farm Bill loophole.
Delta 9 is the long-known active ingredient in regular marijuana. You're thinking of delta 8, which is a new isolate.
This is kind of my point though. When I talk about this stuff, people assume I just mean delta 8, or CBD or whatever. Nope. Straight up delta 9 edibles are 100% federally legal now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_Improvement_Act_...
It's the entire reason for the explosion of hemp stores everywhere in the last few years.
That "0.3%" clause is the kicker. Because 0.3% is a long way away from being 0%, it means posession of THC is now federally legal.
CBD has been legal for a while and is completely different than THC products so it shouldn't be compared.
Stating Delta-9 is legal, not Delta-8, is not that big of a difference. If you think it is, you should talk about why it matters because your attitude obviously hasn't worked thus far for dealing with people who just don't understand. Maybe, you're not concerned with people understanding as much as you state.
Here's a commentary by drug policy litigator Matt Zorn: https://ondrugs.substack.com/p/delta-9-thc-gummies
The prefatory text to Schedule I(c) of the Controlled Substances Act removes all doubt: “[u]nless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances” is a Schedule I substance.
A 12 mg THC extract infused into a 4-gram gummy consisting of non-cannabis isn’t a “hemp” gummy. It is a “material,” “mixture,” or “preparation” containing “marihuana,” which is a Schedule I controlled substance.This is the key. Who will ever bring this in front of a judge? The "anti-weed" lobby has all but ceased to exist. Which leaves basically a small handful of deep red state attorney generals that would even have the standing to be able to attempt it.
And which side do you think has the funding (and incentive) to defend it all the way to the supreme court?
The floodgates have opened, and they're never going back. There's simply too much money and momentum behind it. Even the conservatives are on board at this point now that they've seen the tax revenues.
Apparently, an accused trademark violator, in the hopes of proving that, as it was not in legal use in trade, the trademark they are accused of violating was not valid in the first place.
It's been tested somewhat (interestingly, in a trademark case which rested on whether the infringed trademark was for a legal product) and it has succeeded at the Circuit Court level. AK Futures LLC v. Boyd Street Distro, LLC, 9th Cir. No. 2-56113 (May 19, 2022):
Importantly, the only statutory metric for distinguishing controlled marijuana from legal hemp is the delta-9 THC concentration level. In addition, the definition extends beyond just the plant to “all derivatives, extracts, [and] cannabinoids.” 7 U.S.C. § 1639o(1). The use of “all” indicates a sweeping statutory reach. See Lambright v. Ryan, 698 F.3d 808, 817 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The common meaning of the word ‘all’ is ‘the whole amount, quantity, or extent of; as much as possible’ . . . .” (quoting All, Merriam-Webster (online ed., visited Oct. 4, 2012))). This seemingly extends to downstream products and substances, so long as their delta-9 THC concentration does not exceed the statutory threshold.
Of course, as this was on an appeal of a denial of a preliminary injunction, the ruling is framed in likelihood of success rather than absolute terms, but its a pretty strong negative indicator for your argument that this is a clearly incorrect interpretation that no court would take seriously, since both the District Court and the Circuit Court very much took it seriously.
For example, Florida recently was about to pass a state law limiting the total amount of THC in each individual edible, which would have killed the "legal D9 THC" market. They apparently got huge pushback from producers/consumers in the state and dropped any limits: https://floridaphoenix.com/blog/florida-senate-approves-hemp...
Edit: BTW, though, that link from Matt Zorn was great, thanks for posting.
They're swapping out legacy industry worker addiction to opioid and alcohol for cannabis.
Socially, it's done a lot of good in those places.
It's because you're using the word wrong. Weed is illegal federally. The problem is that you think THC is weed, and Delta-9 is weed, and CBD is weed. Words have meaning. A caffeine pill isn't coffee, and beef steak isn't a cow. Something being derived from something doesn't make it that original thing.
//Asking for a friend.
These guys are legit. I just toured their production facility last week and I was impressed enough that we chose them as our contract manufacturer for gummies.