Tag: Hemp

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Memo to Congress: Fix the Farm Bill

Congress

Earlier this year, the Food & Drug Administration disclosed that it would not regulate non-pharmaceutical CBD products, thereby putting the onus on Congress to devise an appropriate regulatory framework for cannabidiol and other hemp-derived cannabinoids. Solicited by a formal Congressional Request for Information (RFI) on ideas for how to regulate hemp-derived CBD, public feedback included a diverse range of perspectives from businesses, trade associations, and other stakeholders. But today’s “hemp” market has moved way beyond CBD, as noted by several commentators who expressed concerns about the unregulated proliferation of high-dose THC consumables and novel synthetic intoxicants thanks to loopholes in the 2018 Farm Bill, which is up for revision and renewal in the coming months. What follows are comments recently submitted by Tiffany Devitt, a longtime Project CBD contributor, in response to the Congressional RFI on a potential regulatory pathway for hemp-derived CBD. A leading California cannabis industry policy influencer, Devitt is currently Director of Regulatory Affairs at CannaCraft & March and Ash.

Current Market Dynamics

Loopholes in the 2018 Farm Bill

The 2018 Farm Bill defines “hemp” as “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.”

Within that definition, are two critical phrases: “all derivatives” and “whether growing or not.”

  • “All derivatives” is currently being misinterpreted to encompass any compound that can theoretically be chemically synthesized from CBD, even wholly novel compounds not found in the plant in commercially meaningful quantities (if at all).
  • “Whether growing or not” is being misconstrued to mean that the 0.3 percent THC limit applies to the plant biomass and the final product, resulting in THC levels in consumer products labeled as “hemp” that substantially exceed THC limits set in state-regulated cannabis markets.
  • Lastly, the omission of THCA, a natural compound that converts to THC when heated, is causing further confusion.

Collectively, this language has fostered a regulatory gap that companies are taking advantage of to sell highly intoxicating products, colloquially and misleadingly referred to in the national unregulated hemp marketplace as “legal cannabis.”1

The “Hemp” Market Has Moved Way Past CBD

In the federal discussion about hemp, “hemp” and “CBD” are often conflated. The reality is that the commercial market has largely shifted away from non-intoxicating CBD wellness products to highly intoxicating recreational products. Pseudo-hemp companies with brand names like Fuked Up2 and Clusterf*ck3 make no pretense of selling nutritional supplements. Instead, they market THC-like products that are far stronger than anything found in state-regulated cannabis markets, where the maximum dose of THC per serving is commonly capped at five to 10 milligrams.4 In the unregulated “hemp” market, brands like Chapo Extrax sell products with hundreds of milligrams of synthetic THC per serving.5 The so-called “hemp” market is no longer predominantly a wellness market. It is, in the words of Chapo Extrax, “the newest drug cartel in town.”6

Synthetic Compounds & Escalating Potencies

While the recreational hemp market started with delta-8 THC, we’re now seeing pseudo-hemp companies in an all-out race to synthesize new compounds that are significantly stronger than anything naturally occurring. In this respect, the so-called hemp market has much in common with the illicit opiate market. This trend has given rise to a new generation of designer drugs with astonishingly high potencies. For example, one of the most recent synthetic cannabinoids to come to market, “delta-9P,” is 35 times more potent than the natural THC found in cannabis.7

The argument that anything that can be synthesized from hemp-derived CBD is legal is flat-out wrong. Methamphetamines can be synthesized from over-the-counter cough medicine, but that doesn’t make meth legal. In a shocking sign of just how far hemp purveyors are willing to take this thinking, the CEO of the hemp company 3Chi recently asserted in a legal proceeding that if heroin could be synthesized from CBD, it would be exempt from the Controlled Substances Act.8

Safety Issues Associated with Synthetic Cannabinoids

This new generation of designer drugs is reminiscent of “Spice,” “K2,” and other synthetic cannabinoids that emerged in the illicit drug market in the early 2000s.9 We cannot assume that these novel compounds are safe based on the safety profile of natural cannabinoids. On the contrary, there is significant evidence that synthetic cannabinoids are dangerous.10 They have been linked to seizures,11 acute respiratory failure,12 heart attack,13 stroke,14 lung injury,15 kidney damage,16 psychosis,17 and even death.18

Many “Hemp” Cannabinoids Are Made in a Lab – Not from Hemp or CBD

Synthesizing new compounds from hemp-derived CBD requires an enormous amount of biomass. Thus, it’s reasonable to assume that, as the “hemp” product market is exploding, the agricultural market should also be booming. But the opposite is true. The amount of hemp under cultivation in the U.S. has shrunk by 48 percent since 2021.19 This is in part because most of the new compounds being sold as hemp simply cannot be synthesized from CBD.20 They are “man-made chemicals produced in underground labs, often in China, and then shipped to the United States in powder or crystal form.”21

Manufacturing Impurities & Byproducts

Equally important, in the stampede to market “legal cannabis,” so-called hemp companies are willfully ignoring safety issues related to the acid-catalyzed conversion of CBD into THC-like compounds. According to experts, the conversion process can produce numerous additional THC isomers with unknown pharmacological and safety effects.22 These non-natural THC-like isomers are difficult to measure and almost impossible to remove from the end product.23 Yet this conversion is occurring without regulatory oversight to ensure process standardization, product specification, and accurate third-party testing, all of which are mandated in state-licensed cannabis programs.

Marketing to Minors

Unlike state-regulated cannabis, this new wave of acutely intoxicating substances is easily accessible to minors. These products are sold online, in convenience stores, gas stations, smoke shops, and vending machines across the country. A recent study in the Journal of Cannabis Research revealed that around 85 percent of intoxicating hemp brands lack substantial age verification at checkout.24 Over 80 percent did not have child-resistant packaging.25 Additionally, these brands often use child-friendly marketing strategies, such as cartoons and mimicry of popular candies and snacks, practices prohibited in most regulated cannabis markets. Some actively advertise their “discreet” shipping with no adult signature required.26

Capt’n Chronic27 Delta-8 Oreos28 Jolly Rancher29 Skittles30
Examples of intoxicating hemp products that appeal to children.

Notably, since Congress passed the 2018 Farm Bill, there has been a significant increase in reported cannabinoid poisonings among children and teens, an uptick that parallels the proliferation of intoxicating “hemp” products.31 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that cannabinoid-related emergency department visits among young people also increased during this period.32

Pathways

The hemp framework under consideration today must prioritize consumer safety, provide a stable agricultural market for hemp farmers, and respect states’ rights to regulate intoxicating cannabinoid products. To achieve this, two things need to happen. First, Congress needs to close the loopholes in the Farm Bill, which was never intended to open the floodgates for intoxicating, synthetic products. Second, appropriate regulatory pathways (under FDA authority) must be defined for three distinct classes of cannabinoid products:

  1. Non-intoxicating naturally derived cannabinoid products
  2. Intoxicating naturally derived cannabinoid products
  3. Synthetic designer drugs

Step 1: Fix the Farm Bill

Based on the realities of the CBD/hemp market described above, it is imperative that the definition of hemp in the Farm Bill be amended to:

  • Include THC-equivalent compounds within the THC threshold.
  • Clarify that the THC percentage threshold applies strictly to hemp biomass, not finished goods.
  • Explicitly exclude novel synthetic compounds from the hemp definition and subject them to FDA oversight.

Step 2: Regulatory Pathways

Considering the public health crisis posed by the proliferation of intoxicating synthetic drugs sold as hemp, we believe that Congress and the FDA must utilize existing pathways to regulate hemp-derived cannabinoid products under FDA and state authorities, as described below. Concurrently, Congress must work with the FDA to develop a much-needed regulatory framework for the unique cannabinoid marketplace.

  1. Non-Intoxicating Naturally Derived Cannabinoid Products
    This category includes non-intoxicating natural cannabinoids that can be extracted from hemp (or cannabis), such as CBD, CBDA, and CBG. These compounds should be authorized as food additives consistent with state law and regulated appropriately under federal and state authorities based on the product’s end use, i.e., topicals, ingestibles, and inhalables. To mitigate toxicological concerns, the FDA might consider including a warning about the importance of consulting with one’s doctor on potential CBD-drug interactions. (It is worth noting that CBD is not the first natural compound to be used as an ingredient in both prescription drugs and foods, cosmetics, and over-the-counter medications. Caffeine can also be found in pharmaceutical33 and non-pharmaceutical products.)
  2. Intoxicating Naturally Derived Cannabinoid Products
    This category includes traditional delta-9 THC and other naturally occurring and intoxicating cannabinoids. These compounds (including delta-8) are molecularly similar to THC and arguably are THC analogues, as defined in the Federal Analogue Act, 21 U.S.C. § 813. As such, they should be treated in a manner that aligns with state-regulated cannabis products. All intoxicating cannabinoid products – whether derived from cannabis or hemp (which are the same plant) – should fall under the jurisdiction of state cannabis programs and be subject to the same sales and marketing restrictions and safety standards.
  3. Synthetic Designer Drugs
    This category includes cannabinoids that are chemically synthesized from hemp or other materials. They are not found in the plant in commercially meaningful quantities (if at all). As these compounds are new and distinct from natural plant cannabinoids, they should be subject to FDA oversight and undergo toxicology studies. This category includes THCO, THCB, THCP, delta9P, THCX, THCH, THCjd, HHCO, HHCP, HXCP, and numerous other new compounds being brought to market at an alarming rate.

In summary, we urge Congress to immediately rectify the loopholes in the Farm Bill and employ established regulatory structures to enable the sale of non-intoxicating CBD products as health supplements – not as starter material for concocting unregulated THC analogues and synthetics.

Safety

The Problem with Percentages

As mentioned earlier, the 0.3 percent delta-9 THC threshold for hemp is currently being misapplied to manufactured products. This is especially troubling in the edible market, where other non-hemp ingredients are present. THC is a potent compound – a dose is typically measured in milligrams (thousandths of a gram), not grams.

As shown in the table below, applying the THC percentage threshold to the final product means that hemp-infused edibles and beverages could have 100 times the amount of THC allowed in most state-regulated cannabis products.

PRODUCT TYPE 2 GUMMIES 1 COOKIE 1 BROWNIE 1 BEVERAGE
UNIT WEIGHT 5.8g 16g 70g 340g
ALLOWABLE THC (0.3%) 17.4mg 48mg 210mg 1020mg

(Unsurprisingly, a recent study found that 26.5 percent of so-called hemp delta-9 products are illegally sourced from marijuana plants.)34

The Need for THC Caps in Hemp Products

Since using a percentage threshold is not a workable regulatory strategy, hemp products must have THC caps to ensure that routine use of these products does not cause intoxication. Moreover, we must bear in mind that how product makers define a serving size often differs from how consumers define it. (Ben & Jerry’s can claim that a single serving of ice cream is just over a half cup, but many of us are eating a lot more.) Thus, the federal standard must specify the maximum THC per serving and package. A typical sub-intoxicating dose of THC for most people is between 0.5 and 2.5mg, depending on the person’s THC tolerance.35 Accordingly, several states36 have adopted the standard of 0.5mg of THC per serving and 2.5mg per package for hemp products. Others, like Washington state, restrict products with any THC to the state cannabis market.

Does CBD Really Have a “THC-Sparing” Effect?

Some hemp marketers have misleadingly argued that CBD has a “THC-sparing” effect. The implication is that CBD neutralizes or counteracts the intoxicating effect of THC,37 and therefore, THC limits can be higher if the two compounds are combined. Not so, according to a recent study in Neuropsychopharmacology that assessed the psychotropic effects of co-administering 10 mg of THC with 0, 10, 20, and 30 mg of CBD. The conclusion: “CBD did not impact THC-induced cognitive impairment, psychotic-like experiences, or ratings of intoxication, anxiety, or drug liking at any dose. These findings do not support the hypothesis that CBD has THC-sparing effects when co-administered according to commonly used doses and routes of administration.”38,39 Other studies suggest that low doses of CBD can amplify THC’s intoxicating effects, while very high amounts (400 or more milligrams) may reduce the THC high somewhat but extend its duration.40 In other words, the quantity of CBD in a hemp product is irrelevant to the question of how much THC is appropriate.

What About THCA?

Another emerging category in the unregulated hemp market is “smokable hemp” or “THCA flower.” THCA hemp flower has high concentrations of THCA and less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC. However, when THCA is heated – as when smoked – almost 90 percent41 of it converts to traditional THC. In other words, THCA flower is essentially old-fashioned weed that’s been rebranded. Its existence rests entirely on the spurious argument that the Farm Bill doesn’t explicitly mention THCA. Here is a comparison of “hemp THCA flower” and cannabis flower from Cannabis Law:42

“Hemp THCA Flower” Cannabis Flower
THCA 25% 24%
Delta-9 THC 0.18% 1.24%
Total THC when heated 22% 22%

There is no meaningful difference.

It should be self-evident that the total amount of THC in hemp products must account for all potentially intoxicating cannabinoids, including THCA. Indeed, in state cannabis markets, THCA is always included in the definition of THC and the calculation of total THC.

Federal-State Interaction

Mixed Messages & Enforcement Failures

The sale and proliferation of pseudo-hemp designer drugs and “THCA hemp flower” have gone virtually unchecked. Some states have banned these substances, but enforcement has generally been anemic and unsuccessful in the face of an onslaught of online, direct-to-consumer mail-order businesses.

Moreover, several states have been stymied by the conflicting messages from the federal government. The Federal Analogue Act states that any substance that “has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in Schedule I or II” must be treated like a Schedule I substance.43 That would imply that intoxicating THC analogues synthesized from hemp warrant the same restrictions as marijuana. But in May 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upended the Federal Analogue Act when it ruled that products containing delta-8 THC are lawful under the Farm Bill because they meet the statutory definition of industrial hemp – even though they can get consumers high.44

This contradictory and controversial decision has been cited in several lawsuits45 aimed at overturning state laws restricting the sales of intoxicating products that product-makers claim to be derived from hemp. A Kentucky court referenced the Ninth Circuit’s decision when it rejected an argument that delta-8 is a derivative of a derivative and is, therefore, synthetic and illegal under the Farm Bill. A Georgia state court46 and the Minnesota legislature47 recently enacted similar positions.

Conclusions & Recommendations

The 2018 Farm Bill was enacted to legalize wildly popular, non-intoxicating CBD products. Instead, it inadvertently opened a Pandora’s Box of high-potency edibles, sketchy vape products, and the cannabis equivalent of bathtub gin. These products are rife with contaminants and chemical byproducts,48 easily accessible and sold without age gates,49 testing standards, packaging and labeling requirements, marketing limitations, or even a proper understanding of their potential effects on consumers. Otherwise put: In 2018, Congress set out to legalize the equivalent of kombucha (CBD) and accidentally appeared to legalize moonshine instead – all the while maintaining the prohibition on traditional THC, the wine or beer equivalent in this analogy.

Four things are needed to rectify this situation:

  1. The Farm Bill needs to be amended to close the unintended loopholes. Specifically, Congress needs to clarify that (i) the 0.3 percent THC threshold applies only to hemp biomass, not finished goods; (ii) “THC” legally refers to all forms of tetrahydrocannabinol, including THCA, delta-8 THC, and other natural THC analogs; and (iii) novel synthetic compounds are excluded from the definition of hemp and subject to FDA oversight.
  2. Until cannabis is legalized at a federal level, and to avoid undermining states’ rights to regulate intoxicating cannabinoid products, Congress must apply a cap on the amount of THC and THC-equivalent compounds in hemp consumer products to ensure they are non-intoxicating.
  3. A pathway needs to be established to sell CBD and other natural non-intoxicating cannabinoids as food additives and nutritional supplements.
  4. There must be a concerted effort by the FDA and DEA to address the public health crisis spawned by the proliferation of unregulated designer drugs being sold under the guise of hemp.

Lastly, in the long term, Congress should lay the groundwork for a unified regulatory framework for intoxicating cannabinoids, irrespective of whether they’re source from cannabis or hemp.

Tiffany Devitt heads up regulatory affairs for CannaCraft and March and Ash and sits on the board of the California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA). May not be reprinted without permission.

Footnotes

  1. https://www.instagram.com/p/CszDtayPScA/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
  2. https://fukedup.com/
  3. https://hionnature.com/products/3000mg-knockout-gummy-bites-clusterf-cks
  4. https://www.marijuanaventure.com/edibles-regulations-vary/
  5. https://chapoextrax.com/product/very-berry-live-resin-3500mg-gummies/
  6. https://chapoextrax.com/
  7. https://hightimes.com/sponsored/what-is-delta-9p-everything-you-need-to-know/
  8. 3C, LLC d/b/a/ 3Chi and MIDWEST HEMP COUNCIL, Plaintiffs, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD ROKITA, in his official capacity, and STATE OF INDIANA, Case No. 1:23-cv-01115-JRS-MKK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION.
  9. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/synthetic-cannabinoids-k2spice
  10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5999798/
  11. https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/14002/Study-Seizures-coma-more-common-with-synthetic
  12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9875316
  13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4826922/
  14. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3863350/
  15. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00170
  16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9033635/
  17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4939204/
  18. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31389266/
  19. https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/gf06h2430/76538f824/w9506f61g/hempan23.pdf
  20. https://projectcbd.org/hemp/expert-gives-delta-8-thc-a-thumbs-down
  21. https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/initiatives/synth/Synthetic_drug_factsheet_accessible.pdf
  22. https://cen.acs.org/biological-chemistry/natural-products/Delta-8-THC-craze-concerns/99/i31
  23. https://projectcbd.org/hemp/expert-gives-delta-8-thc-a-thumbs-down/
  24. https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42238-023-00197-6
  25. https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42238-023-00197-6
  26. https://shop.cookies.co/pages/shipping-policy
  27. https://deltadreamz.com/shop/ols/products/cap-n-chronic-1000mg
  28. https://www.kratomstoresohio.com/delta-8-products/
  29. https://dazeddragons.com/store/delta-8-jolly-rancher/
  30. https://www.cbdsupplymd.com/shop/skittles-wild-berry-delta-8-400mg-20-count/
  31. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/151/2/e2022057761/190427/Pediatric-Edible-Cannabis-Exposures-and-Acute
  32. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7228a1.htm?s_cid=mm7228a1_w
  33. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=c018be7d-f7b8-45e2-97b8-8e7a71740657
  34. https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42238-023-00197-6
  35. https://weedmaps.com/learn/products-and-how-to-consume/decide-how-much-to-take
  36. Including Maryland and Montana.
  37. https://sensiseeds.com/en/blog/can-cbd-counteract-the-effects-of-thc/
  38. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-022-01478-z
  39. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36380220/
  40. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30661105/
  41. https://www.conflabs.com/why-0-877/
  42. https://cannabusiness.law/thca-flower-the-next-big-thing-in-hempland
  43. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/813
  44. See AK Futures, LLC v. Boyd Street Distro, LLC, 35 F4th 682 (9th. Cir. 2022)
  45. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Indiana-hemp-AG-opinion-lawsuit.pdf
  46. https://cannabislaw.report/lawsuit-filed-in-georgia-argues-delta-8-and-delta-10-products-are-legal-under-state-law/
  47. https://mjbizdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/HF3595.2.pdf
  48. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36264171/
  49. https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42238-023-00197-6

The post Memo to Congress: Fix the Farm Bill appeared first on Project CBD.

Original Article

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Memo to Congress: Fix the Farm Bill

Congress

Earlier this year, the Food & Drug Administration disclosed that it would not regulate non-pharmaceutical CBD products, thereby putting the onus on Congress to devise an appropriate regulatory framework for cannabidiol and other hemp-derived cannabinoids. Solicited by a formal Congressional Request for Information (RFI) on ideas for how to regulate hemp-derived CBD, public feedback included a diverse range of perspectives from businesses, trade associations, and other stakeholders. But today’s “hemp” market has moved way beyond CBD, as noted by several commentators who expressed concerns about the unregulated proliferation of high-dose THC consumables and novel synthetic intoxicants thanks to loopholes in the 2018 Farm Bill, which is up for revision and renewal in the coming months. What follows are comments recently submitted by Tiffany Devitt, a longtime Project CBD supporter, in response to the Congressional RFI on a potential regulatory pathway for hemp-derived CBD. A leading California cannabis industry policy influencer, Devitt is currently Director of Regulatory Affairs at CannaCraft & March and Ash.

Current Market Dynamics

Loopholes in the 2018 Farm Bill

The 2018 Farm Bill defines “hemp” as “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.”

Within that definition, are two critical phrases: “all derivatives” and “whether growing or not.”

  • “All derivatives” is currently being misinterpreted to encompass any compound that can theoretically be chemically synthesized from CBD, even wholly novel compounds not found in the plant in commercially meaningful quantities (if at all).
  • “Whether growing or not” is being misconstrued to mean that the 0.3 percent THC limit applies to the plant biomass and the final product, resulting in THC levels in consumer products labeled as “hemp” that substantially exceed THC limits set in state-regulated cannabis markets.
  • Lastly, the omission of THCA, a natural compound that converts to THC when heated, is causing further confusion.

Collectively, this language has fostered a regulatory gap that companies are taking advantage of to sell highly intoxicating products, colloquially and misleadingly referred to in the national unregulated hemp marketplace as “legal cannabis.”1

The “Hemp” Market Has Moved Way Past CBD

In the federal discussion about hemp, “hemp” and “CBD” are often conflated. The reality is that the commercial market has largely shifted away from non-intoxicating CBD wellness products to highly intoxicating recreational products. Pseudo-hemp companies with brand names like Fuked Up2 and Clusterf*ck3 make no pretense of selling nutritional supplements. Instead, they market THC-like products that are far stronger than anything found in state-regulated cannabis markets, where the maximum dose of THC per serving is commonly capped at five to 10 milligrams.4 In the unregulated “hemp” market, brands like Chapo Extrax sell products with hundreds of milligrams of synthetic THC per serving.5 The so-called “hemp” market is no longer predominantly a wellness market. It is, in the words of Chapo Extrax, “the newest drug cartel in town.”6

Synthetic Compounds & Escalating Potencies

While the recreational hemp market started with delta-8 THC, we’re now seeing pseudo-hemp companies in an all-out race to synthesize new compounds that are significantly stronger than anything naturally occurring. In this respect, the so-called hemp market has much in common with the illicit opiate market. This trend has given rise to a new generation of designer drugs with astonishingly high potencies. For example, one of the most recent synthetic cannabinoids to come to market, “delta-9P,” is 35 times more potent than the natural THC found in cannabis.7

The argument that anything that can be synthesized from hemp-derived CBD is legal is flat-out wrong. Methamphetamines can be synthesized from over-the-counter cough medicine, but that doesn’t make meth legal. In a shocking sign of just how far hemp purveyors are willing to take this thinking, the CEO of the hemp company 3Chi recently asserted in a legal proceeding that if heroin could be synthesized from CBD, it would be exempt from the Controlled Substances Act.8

Safety Issues Associated with Synthetic Cannabinoids

This new generation of designer drugs is reminiscent of “Spice,” “K2,” and other synthetic cannabinoids that emerged in the illicit drug market in the early 2000s.9 We cannot assume that these novel compounds are safe based on the safety profile of natural cannabinoids. On the contrary, there is significant evidence that synthetic cannabinoids are dangerous.10 They have been linked to seizures,11 acute respiratory failure,12 heart attack,13 stroke,14 lung injury,15 kidney damage,16 psychosis,17 and even death.18

Many “Hemp” Cannabinoids Are Made in a Lab – Not from Hemp or CBD

Synthesizing new compounds from hemp-derived CBD requires an enormous amount of biomass. Thus, it’s reasonable to assume that, as the “hemp” product market is exploding, the agricultural market should also be booming. But the opposite is true. The amount of hemp under cultivation in the U.S. has shrunk by 48 percent since 2021.19 This is in part because most of the new compounds being sold as hemp simply cannot be synthesized from CBD.20 They are “man-made chemicals produced in underground labs, often in China, and then shipped to the United States in powder or crystal form.”21

Manufacturing Impurities & Byproducts

Equally important, in the stampede to market “legal cannabis,” so-called hemp companies are willfully ignoring safety issues related to the acid-catalyzed conversion of CBD into THC-like compounds. According to experts, the conversion process can produce numerous additional THC isomers with unknown pharmacological and safety effects.22 These non-natural THC-like isomers are difficult to measure and almost impossible to remove from the end product.23 Yet this conversion is occurring without regulatory oversight to ensure process standardization, product specification, and accurate third-party testing, all of which are mandated in state-licensed cannabis programs.

Marketing to Minors

Unlike state-regulated cannabis, this new wave of acutely intoxicating substances is easily accessible to minors. These products are sold online, in convenience stores, gas stations, smoke shops, and vending machines across the country. A recent study in the Journal of Cannabis Research revealed that around 85 percent of intoxicating hemp brands lack substantial age verification at checkout.24 Over 80 percent did not have child-resistant packaging.25 Additionally, these brands often use child-friendly marketing strategies, such as cartoons and mimicry of popular candies and snacks, practices prohibited in most regulated cannabis markets. Some actively advertise their “discreet” shipping with no adult signature required.26

Capt’n Chronic27 Delta-8 Oreos28 Jolly Rancher29 Skittles30
Examples of intoxicating hemp products that appeal to children.

Notably, since Congress passed the 2018 Farm Bill, there has been a significant increase in reported cannabinoid poisonings among children and teens, an uptick that parallels the proliferation of intoxicating “hemp” products.31 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that cannabinoid-related emergency department visits among young people also increased during this period.32

Pathways

The hemp framework under consideration today must prioritize consumer safety, provide a stable agricultural market for hemp farmers, and respect states’ rights to regulate intoxicating cannabinoid products. To achieve this, two things need to happen. First, Congress needs to close the loopholes in the Farm Bill, which was never intended to open the floodgates for intoxicating, synthetic products. Second, appropriate regulatory pathways (under FDA authority) must be defined for three distinct classes of cannabinoid products:

  1. Non-intoxicating naturally derived cannabinoid products
  2. Intoxicating naturally derived cannabinoid products
  3. Synthetic designer drugs

Step 1: Fix the Farm Bill

Based on the realities of the CBD/hemp market described above, it is imperative that the definition of hemp in the Farm Bill be amended to:

  • Include THC-equivalent compounds within the THC threshold.
  • Clarify that the THC percentage threshold applies strictly to hemp biomass, not finished goods.
  • Explicitly exclude novel synthetic compounds from the hemp definition and subject them to FDA oversight.

Step 2: Regulatory Pathways

Considering the public health crisis posed by the proliferation of intoxicating synthetic drugs sold as hemp, we believe that Congress and the FDA must utilize existing pathways to regulate hemp-derived cannabinoid products under FDA and state authorities, as described below. Concurrently, Congress must work with the FDA to develop a much-needed regulatory framework for the unique cannabinoid marketplace.

  1. Non-Intoxicating Naturally Derived Cannabinoid Products
    This category includes non-intoxicating natural cannabinoids that can be extracted from hemp (or cannabis), such as CBD, CBDA, and CBG. These compounds should be authorized as food additives consistent with state law and regulated appropriately under federal and state authorities based on the product’s end use, i.e., topicals, ingestibles, and inhalables. To mitigate toxicological concerns, the FDA might consider including a warning about the importance of consulting with one’s doctor on potential CBD-drug interactions. (It is worth noting that CBD is not the first natural compound to be used as an ingredient in both prescription drugs and foods, cosmetics, and over-the-counter medications. Caffeine can also be found in pharmaceutical33 and non-pharmaceutical products.)
  2. Intoxicating Naturally Derived Cannabinoid Products
    This category includes traditional delta-9 THC and other naturally occurring and intoxicating cannabinoids. These compounds (including delta-8) are molecularly similar to THC and arguably are THC analogues, as defined in the Federal Analogue Act, 21 U.S.C. § 813. As such, they should be treated in a manner that aligns with state-regulated cannabis products. All intoxicating cannabinoid products – whether derived from cannabis or hemp (which are the same plant) – should fall under the jurisdiction of state cannabis programs and be subject to the same sales and marketing restrictions and safety standards.
  3. Synthetic Designer Drugs
    This category includes cannabinoids that are chemically synthesized from hemp or other materials. They are not found in the plant in commercially meaningful quantities (if at all). As these compounds are new and distinct from natural plant cannabinoids, they should be subject to FDA oversight and undergo toxicology studies. This category includes THCO, THCB, THCP, delta9P, THCX, THCH, THCjd, HHCO, HHCP, HXCP, and numerous other new compounds being brought to market at an alarming rate.

In summary, we urge Congress to immediately rectify the loopholes in the Farm Bill and employ established regulatory structures to enable the sale of non-intoxicating CBD products as health supplements – not as starter material for concocting unregulated THC analogues and synthetics.

Safety

The Problem with Percentages

As mentioned earlier, the 0.3 percent delta-9 THC threshold for hemp is currently being misapplied to manufactured products. This is especially troubling in the edible market, where other non-hemp ingredients are present. THC is a potent compound – a dose is typically measured in milligrams (thousandths of a gram), not grams.

As shown in the table below, applying the THC percentage threshold to the final product means that hemp-infused edibles and beverages could have 100 times the amount of THC allowed in most state-regulated cannabis products.

PRODUCT TYPE 2 GUMMIES 1 COOKIE 1 BROWNIE 1 BEVERAGE
UNIT WEIGHT 5.8g 16g 70g 340g
ALLOWABLE THC (0.3%) 17.4mg 48mg 210mg 1020mg

(Unsurprisingly, a recent study found that 26.5 percent of so-called hemp delta-9 products are illegally sourced from marijuana plants.)34

The Need for THC Caps in Hemp Products

Since using a percentage threshold is not a workable regulatory strategy, hemp products must have THC caps to ensure that routine use of these products does not cause intoxication. Moreover, we must bear in mind that how product makers define a serving size often differs from how consumers define it. (Ben & Jerry’s can claim that a single serving of ice cream is just over a half cup, but many of us are eating a lot more.) Thus, the federal standard must specify the maximum THC per serving and package. A typical sub-intoxicating dose of THC for most people is between 0.5 and 2.5mg, depending on the person’s THC tolerance.35 Accordingly, several states36 have adopted the standard of 0.5mg of THC per serving and 2.5mg per package for hemp products. Others, like Washington state, restrict products with any THC to the state cannabis market.

Does CBD Really Have a “THC-Sparing” Effect?

Some hemp marketers have misleadingly argued that CBD has a “THC-sparing” effect. The implication is that CBD neutralizes or counteracts the intoxicating effect of THC,37 and therefore, THC limits can be higher if the two compounds are combined. Not so, according to a recent study in Neuropsychopharmacology that assessed the psychotropic effects of co-administering 10 mg of THC with 0, 10, 20, and 30 mg of CBD. The conclusion: “CBD did not impact THC-induced cognitive impairment, psychotic-like experiences, or ratings of intoxication, anxiety, or drug liking at any dose. These findings do not support the hypothesis that CBD has THC-sparing effects when co-administered according to commonly used doses and routes of administration.”38,39 Other studies suggest that low doses of CBD can amplify THC’s intoxicating effects, while very high amounts (400 or more milligrams) may reduce the THC high somewhat but extend its duration.40 In other words, the quantity of CBD in a hemp product is irrelevant to the question of how much THC is appropriate.

What About THCA?

Another emerging category in the unregulated hemp market is “smokable hemp” or “THCA flower.” THCA hemp flower has high concentrations of THCA and less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC. However, when THCA is heated – as when smoked – almost 90 percent41 of it converts to traditional THC. In other words, THCA flower is essentially old-fashioned weed that’s been rebranded. Its existence rests entirely on the spurious argument that the Farm Bill doesn’t explicitly mention THCA. Here is a comparison of “hemp THCA flower” and cannabis flower from Cannabis Law:42

“Hemp THCA Flower” Cannabis Flower
THCA 25% 24%
Delta-9 THC 0.18% 1.24%
Total THC when heated 22% 22%

There is no meaningful difference.

It should be self-evident that the total amount of THC in hemp products must account for all potentially intoxicating cannabinoids, including THCA. Indeed, in state cannabis markets, THCA is always included in the definition of THC and the calculation of total THC.

Federal-State Interaction

Mixed Messages & Enforcement Failures

The sale and proliferation of pseudo-hemp designer drugs and “THCA hemp flower” have gone virtually unchecked. Some states have banned these substances, but enforcement has generally been anemic and unsuccessful in the face of an onslaught of online, direct-to-consumer mail-order businesses.

Moreover, several states have been stymied by the conflicting messages from the federal government. The Federal Analogue Act states that any substance that “has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in Schedule I or II” must be treated like a Schedule I substance.43 That would imply that intoxicating THC analogues synthesized from hemp warrant the same restrictions as marijuana. But in May 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upended the Federal Analogue Act when it ruled that products containing delta-8 THC are lawful under the Farm Bill because they meet the statutory definition of industrial hemp – even though they can get consumers high.44

This contradictory and controversial decision has been cited in several lawsuits45 aimed at overturning state laws restricting the sales of intoxicating products that product-makers claim to be derived from hemp. A Kentucky court referenced the Ninth Circuit’s decision when it rejected an argument that delta-8 is a derivative of a derivative and is, therefore, synthetic and illegal under the Farm Bill. A Georgia state court46 and the Minnesota legislature47 recently enacted similar positions.

Conclusions & Recommendations

The 2018 Farm Bill was enacted to legalize wildly popular, non-intoxicating CBD products. Instead, it inadvertently opened a Pandora’s Box of high-potency edibles, sketchy vape products, and the cannabis equivalent of bathtub gin. These products are rife with contaminants and chemical byproducts,48 easily accessible and sold without age gates,49 testing standards, packaging and labeling requirements, marketing limitations, or even a proper understanding of their potential effects on consumers. Otherwise put: In 2018, Congress set out to legalize the equivalent of kombucha (CBD) and accidentally appeared to legalize moonshine instead – all the while maintaining the prohibition on traditional THC, the wine or beer equivalent in this analogy.

Four things are needed to rectify this situation:

  1. The Farm Bill needs to be amended to close the unintended loopholes. Specifically, Congress needs to clarify that (i) the 0.3 percent THC threshold applies only to hemp biomass, not finished goods; (ii) “THC” legally refers to all forms of tetrahydrocannabinol, including THCA, delta-8 THC, and other natural THC analogs; and (iii) novel synthetic compounds are excluded from the definition of hemp and subject to FDA oversight.
  2. Until cannabis is legalized at a federal level, and to avoid undermining states’ rights to regulate intoxicating cannabinoid products, Congress must apply a cap on the amount of THC and THC-equivalent compounds in hemp consumer products to ensure they are non-intoxicating.
  3. A pathway needs to be established to sell CBD and other natural non-intoxicating cannabinoids as food additives and nutritional supplements.
  4. There must be a concerted effort by the FDA and DEA to address the public health crisis spawned by the proliferation of unregulated designer drugs being sold under the guise of hemp.

Lastly, in the long term, Congress should lay the groundwork for a unified regulatory framework for intoxicating cannabinoids, irrespective of whether they’re source from cannabis or hemp.

Tiffany Devitt heads up regulatory affairs for CannaCraft and March and Ash and sits on the board of the California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA). May not be reprinted without permission.

Footnotes

  1. https://www.instagram.com/p/CszDtayPScA/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
  2. https://fukedup.com/
  3. https://hionnature.com/products/3000mg-knockout-gummy-bites-clusterf-cks
  4. https://www.marijuanaventure.com/edibles-regulations-vary/
  5. https://chapoextrax.com/product/very-berry-live-resin-3500mg-gummies/
  6. https://chapoextrax.com/
  7. https://hightimes.com/sponsored/what-is-delta-9p-everything-you-need-to-know/
  8. 3C, LLC d/b/a/ 3Chi and MIDWEST HEMP COUNCIL, Plaintiffs, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD ROKITA, in his official capacity, and STATE OF INDIANA, Case No. 1:23-cv-01115-JRS-MKK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION.
  9. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/synthetic-cannabinoids-k2spice
  10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5999798/
  11. https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/14002/Study-Seizures-coma-more-common-with-synthetic
  12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9875316
  13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4826922/
  14. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3863350/
  15. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00170
  16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9033635/
  17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4939204/
  18. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31389266/
  19. https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/gf06h2430/76538f824/w9506f61g/hempan23.pdf
  20. https://projectcbd.org/hemp/expert-gives-delta-8-thc-a-thumbs-down
  21. https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/initiatives/synth/Synthetic_drug_factsheet_accessible.pdf
  22. https://cen.acs.org/biological-chemistry/natural-products/Delta-8-THC-craze-concerns/99/i31
  23. https://projectcbd.org/hemp/expert-gives-delta-8-thc-a-thumbs-down/
  24. https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42238-023-00197-6
  25. https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42238-023-00197-6
  26. https://shop.cookies.co/pages/shipping-policy
  27. https://deltadreamz.com/shop/ols/products/cap-n-chronic-1000mg
  28. https://www.kratomstoresohio.com/delta-8-products/
  29. https://dazeddragons.com/store/delta-8-jolly-rancher/
  30. https://www.cbdsupplymd.com/shop/skittles-wild-berry-delta-8-400mg-20-count/
  31. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/151/2/e2022057761/190427/Pediatric-Edible-Cannabis-Exposures-and-Acute
  32. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7228a1.htm?s_cid=mm7228a1_w
  33. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=c018be7d-f7b8-45e2-97b8-8e7a71740657
  34. https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42238-023-00197-6
  35. https://weedmaps.com/learn/products-and-how-to-consume/decide-how-much-to-take
  36. Including Maryland and Montana.
  37. https://sensiseeds.com/en/blog/can-cbd-counteract-the-effects-of-thc/
  38. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-022-01478-z
  39. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36380220/
  40. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30661105/
  41. https://www.conflabs.com/why-0-877/
  42. https://cannabusiness.law/thca-flower-the-next-big-thing-in-hempland
  43. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/813
  44. See AK Futures, LLC v. Boyd Street Distro, LLC, 35 F4th 682 (9th. Cir. 2022)
  45. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Indiana-hemp-AG-opinion-lawsuit.pdf
  46. https://cannabislaw.report/lawsuit-filed-in-georgia-argues-delta-8-and-delta-10-products-are-legal-under-state-law/
  47. https://mjbizdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/HF3595.2.pdf
  48. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36264171/
  49. https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42238-023-00197-6

The post Memo to Congress: Fix the Farm Bill appeared first on Project CBD.

Original Article

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Expert Gives Delta-8 THC Thumbs Down

Bad Chemistry

Dr. Mark A. Scialdone, a recognized expert in the field of organic chemistry who specializes in natural product chemistry, is an inventor of 37 issued US patents and the author of 17 peer-reviewed articles in science publications. From 1994 to 2013, he was employed as a principal investigator at DuPont Central Research and Development. Dr. Scialdone is a founding member of the Cannabis Chemistry Subdivision of the American Chemical Society from which he received the 2018 CANN-CHAS Heidolph Award for Excellence in Cannabis Chemistry. Scialdone is currently founder and president of BetterChem Consulting, which provides consulting services worldwide in the chemical, food, plant essential oil, and cannabis industries. He has guided clients on license applications, facility design and build out, equipment installation and optimization, and plant oil extraction for cannabis and hemp processing facilities.

Project CBD: Your presentation with Allyn Howlett at the International Cannabinoid Research Society conference in Toronto (June 2023) discussed the chemical conversion of CBD into Δ8-THC (delta-8 THC) and “numerous additional THC isomers . . . with unknown pharmacological and safety profiles.” Explain what an isomer is and why the lack of information regarding novel THC isomers is problematic.

Dr. Mark A. Scialdone: Isomers are similar molecules having different discrete arrangements of the same atoms creating molecules with different chemical and physical properties. The Δ8-THC being produced from the acid-catalyzed conversion of CBD is an unpurified reaction mixture that contains multiple, non-natural THC isomers, including Δ8-iso-THC and Δ4(8)-iso-THC. These are not present in cannabis and are only formed in the chemical conversion, whose impact on human health is unknown. What’s more, these non-natural THC isomers are difficult to measure — and they are also difficult, if not impossible, to remove from the reaction mixture to purify the Δ8-THC that’s produced. You need access to sophisticated analytical methods to discern product purity from the isomeric byproducts formed, which is why production from hemp-derived cannabinoid products needs to be done under the appropriate FDA regulations for API [active pharmaceutical ingredient] synthesis and manufacturing.

Project CBD: Are there other byproducts from CBD conversion to Δ8-THC that we should be concerned about in addition to these THC isomers?

Scialdone: In addition to the iso-isomers of THC, there are also abnormal isomers called regioisomers that are formed in the conversion reaction. Recently, degradation products such as olivetol as well as chlorinated compounds, have been found in commercial Δ8-THC products tested. The conversion of hemp-derived CBD into Δ8-THC and other synthetic compounds such as HHC (hexahydrocannabinol) occurs without proper regulatory oversight to ensure process standardization, product specification, and accurate third-party testing, all of which are mandated in state-licensed cannabis programs.

Project CBD: What comes to mind when you see an ad for “Δ8-THC pre-rolls” given that the plant doesn’t actually produce the Δ8-THC in the joint?

Scialdone: Did they spray or dip the flower or whole joint with synthetic Δ8-THC? How much Δ8-THC was added to the pre-roll? Did the manufacturers use a solvent to treat the flower? If a solvent is used, does it dissolve the phytocannabinoids and terpenes? What’s the actual Δ8-THC purity of what’s being applied to the flower? How much cheaper is it to produce Δ8-THC-pre-rolls than real cannabis pre-rolls? How much money are Δ8-THC producers making?

These non-natural THC isomers are difficult to measure, and they are also difficult, if not impossible, to remove from the reaction mixture to purify the Δ8-THC that’s produced.

Project CBD: Δ8-THC has proven to be a gateway drug of sorts for a new generation of unregulated, synthetic designer compounds — Δ10-THC, Δ12-THC, THCP, THCO, THCX, etc. — that are widely available. At issue are potent, intoxicating cannabinoids other than cannabis-derived Δ9-THC. Are these compounds actually derived from hemp? Does their greater cannabinoid receptor binding affinity translate into increased risk?

Scialdone: Only Δ8, Δ9, and Δ10 THC can be synthesized from hemp-derived CBD. All the others are made by chemical conversion. Producing and selling psychoactive products outside the regulatory auspices of the FDA or a state-regulated cannabis program is not ethical. These hemp hustlers are in it for the money, making active pharmaceutical ingredients using process chemistry and producing formulated end-products like vape pens, gummies, and sodas in garages, airplane hangars, basements, and warehouses. These products are sold over the internet, at gas stations, and in smoke shops to anyone with a credit card. Of course, the market for Δ8-THC and other recreational synthetics is only made possible by the ridiculousness of cannabis prohibition. End cannabis prohibition, the market for these products will go away and these compounds will be relegated to research labs, where they belong, not the marketplace.

Project CBD: What do you anticipate regarding the next iteration of the Farm Bill in terms of the legality of Δ8-THC and other synthetic intoxicants?

Scialdone: Unfortunately, I believe that this is a red herring since the USDA’s regulatory authority over hemp ends at harvest. The FDA is supposed to regulate hemp-derived CBD products. The FDA recognizes the need for a different regulatory pathway to properly regulate cannabis/hemp. But the FDA has failed to adopt a regulatory strategy to address this issue. The next version of the Farm Bill should clearly and concisely differentiate high Δ9-THC cannabis from industrial hemp. In no uncertain terms, the Farm Bill must be amended to close the specious THCA-hemp flower loophole that’s enabling the unregulated sale of concentrated, intoxicating, and synthesized cannabinoids. If farmers and manufacturers want to sell psychoactive cannabinoids, they should get a state-issued license to grow and process cannabis.

© Copyright, Project CBD. May not be reprinted without permission.

Rec reading:

The post Expert Gives Delta-8 THC Thumbs Down appeared first on Project CBD.

Original Article

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Dumpster Fire: What Went Wrong with CA Cannabis?

dumpster fire

Cannabis is supposed to be relaxing and fun. What’s not to like about giggles, munchies, and a brief break from the mundane? Unfortunately, the news from California’s Emerald Triangle is anything but upbeat these days.

Report after report portends doom with headlines like “the world’s largest legal weed market is going up in smoke” (The Economist), “California pot industry facing ‘extinction event‘” (SF Gate), and “Despair in Emerald Triangle as CA legal cannabis collapses” (CalMatters).

Is It Really That Bad?

Yeah, it is.

Legal sales have been on a downward slide for over two years with no signs of relief on the horizon. At its roots, the main cause appears to be the overwhelming dominance of the illicit market, which is estimated to be twice the size of the regulated market (Politico).

The result: Cascading business failures across the industry.

One in five cultivators have voluntarily surrendered their licenses this year. Others are letting their licensed fields go fallow, unable to fund this year’s harvest on the heels of last year’s losses.

Things are no better in other corners of the industry. A year ago, there was a stunningly diverse and innovative brand community. In May 2022, there were close to 1500 brands in the market, according to Headset. A year later, less than a thousand remain.

Supply Chain Woes

Further up the supply chain, distributors are also buckling under. A 2022 report estimated that licensed California cannabis distributors are sitting on over $600 million dollars in aging accounts receivable that retailers are unable or unwilling to pay. One of the industry’s largest distributors appears to be in a full “meltdown” as brands call on retailers to halt payment for fear that they won’t be paid if and when it goes under.

As for California’s cannabis retailers, numerous industry observers are warning that hundreds of dispensaries will be out of cash and credit by the end of the year. The probable closure of a significant percentage of California’s retailers will further destabilize the overall industry as cannabis farmers and manufacturers lose access to legal-market customers.

One in five cannabis cultivators in California have voluntarily surrendered their licenses this year.

And for all the talk of social equity and “righting the wrongs” of the war on drugs, all of this is taking place in an industry where there are no bankruptcy protections, where individuals carry personal liability for business taxes owed regardless of the corporate structure, and where businesses are barred by federal tax law from writing off normal business expenses.

In other words, behind the industry’s imminent demise are thousands of personal stories of financial ruin.

Fatal Flaws

When Proposition 64 passed in November 2016, it established 27 voter-mandated goals. Five of these goals were about getting rid of the illicit market and providing a reasonable pathway to licensure.

From Prop 64: “It is the intent of the People in enacting this Act… to take marijuana production and sales out of the hands of the illegal market… to tax the growth and sale of marijuana in a way that drives out the illicit market….”

The failure to achieve these voter-mandated goals is at the root of much of the industry’s anguish. So, what happened? With the benefit of hindsight, it’s clear that Proposition 64 had two fatal flaws: high taxes and local control.

Just how high are California’s cannabis taxes? For comparison, the State Excise tax on a bottle of wine is a palatable four cents. The state excise tax on an eighth ounce of cannabis is $4.90 or over 100 times greater. Added to that, California products are taxed throughout the supply chain. A single cannabis product can be hit with a local cannabis cultivation tax, a local manufacturing tax, a local distribution tax, and a local retail tax. Heck, we’re even hit with a “road tax” for merely transporting products into some jurisdictions.

These taxes compound throughout the supply chain (meaning our taxes are taxed), resulting in a cumulative burden that goes a long way towards explaining why illegal products are typically half the price of licensed products.

That’s hardly the way to “tax the growth and sale of marijuana in a way that drives out the illicit market….” as required by Prop. 64. In the absence of real tax reform, enforcement against illegal cannabis will continue to be a losing game of whack-a-mole.

Local Control Means No Control

The second fatal flaw is the notion of “local control.” Local control refers to California’s dual approval approach, which means that every cannabis facility must secure local authorization and a state license. In concept, that doesn’t sound so bad. But in practice, it means that over 60% of jurisdictions have banned cannabis retail.

By allowing municipalities to opt-out, California has in effect surrendered most of the state market to illicit operators and criminals. Otherwise put, “local control” means no control. In these (legal) cannabis deserts across the state, unregulated, untaxed, and untested cannabis is king.

Adding to these woes, the face of illegal cannabis has changed in important ways. Thirty years ago, much of California’s underground cannabis economy was represented by off-the-grid, mom-and-pop growers hidden in the backwoods of Humboldt and Mendocino County.

Today, rumors abound about well-capitalized cannabis licensees, like mega-cultivator Glass House Brands, playing both sides of the fence and using massive profits from the illegal sale of cannabis to undercut their competitors in the regulated market or to offset the losses of legal operations.

Over 60% of jurisdictions in California have banned cannabis retail.

The glut of unregulated, intoxicating “hemp” products poses additional challenges. In spite of state prohibitions, a growing number of companies are openly selling highly intoxicating synthetic, lab-made cannabinoids under the guise of hemp. Chapo Extrax, for example – which proudly proclaims itself “the newest drug cartel in town” – sells gummies online with 175mg of uber-potent synthetic THC per piece, making it many times stronger than anything sold in the regulated market (which caps THC at 10mg per serving). These products are undermining the integrity of California cannabis, as well as endangering consumers.

Towards a Solution

There is still an opportunity to make changes that will enable California to build the vibrant, regulated, tax-generating industry Californians asked for in passing Prop 64. But that will require immediate and important changes to ensure that adult consumers across the entire state have access to legal cannabis that’s competitively priced.

It means significantly reducing the state and local taxes and prioritizing sensible law enforcement strategies that keep up with the rapidly changing market. It also means overhauling the dysfunctional two-tiered structure that allows local authorities to ban legal cannabis while unregulated markets flourish.

Cannabis is one of California’s great heritage industries, along with wine, technology, and entertainment – industries we’ve nurtured and fostered with supportive legislation and regulation. By right, we should also have a robust cannabis market that’s poised to be a dominate force in the national and even global markets in a post-legalization world. To ensure that, we need to address the urgent issues at hand.

Tiffany Devitt heads up regulatory affairs for CannaCraft and March and Ash and sits on the board of the California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA).

The post Dumpster Fire: What Went Wrong with CA Cannabis? appeared first on Project CBD.

Original Article

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Cannabis & the Bible

Biblical scholars have written about the role of cannabis as a sacrament in the ancient Near East and Middle East. Archeological evidence confirms the use of the plant in fumigation rituals in ancient Israel. Scriptural references indicate that cannabis was a key ingredient in the holy anointing oil employed in religious rites. But Yahweh, the Almighty Jealous God, frowned upon the idolatrous use of cannabis, the polytheistic drug of choice. The Old Testament chronicles the embrace of One God instead of many, a major shift that coincided with the displacement of cannabis as a ceremonial substance, as Chris Bennett reports in his latest book, Cannabis: Lost Sacrament of the Ancient World.

Humankind’s connection to cannabis reaches back tens of thousands of years. The role of cannabis in the ancient world was manifold: with its nutritious seeds, an important food; with its long, pliable strong stalks an important fiber; as well as an early medicine from its leaves and flowers; and then there are its psychoactive effects . . .

Due to its usefulness, cannabis has a very long history of human cultivation. How long, exactly, remains unknown. “No other plant has been with humans as long as hemp,” says ethnobotanist Christian Rätsch. “It is most certainly one of humanity’s oldest cultural objects. Wherever it was known, it was considered a functional, healing, inebriating, and aphrodisiac plant. Through the centuries, myths have arisen about this mysterious plant and its divine powers. Entire generations have revered it as sacred . . . . The power of hemp has been praised in hymns and prayers.”

The Great Leap Forward

There has been interesting scientific speculation that the psychoactive properties of cannabis played a role as a catalyst in the “Great Leap Forward,” a period of rapid advancement for prehistoric humanity, which started about 50,000 to 65,000 years ago. In their fascinating paper, “The Evolution of Cannabis and Coevolution with the Cannabinoid Receptor — A Hypothesis,” Dr. John M. McPartland and Geoffrey W. Guy explain how ingestion of this plant may have aided prehistoric humans. “In a hunter-gatherer society,” they write, “the ability of phytocannabinoids to improve smell, night vision, discern edge and enhance perception of color would improve evolutionary fitness of our species. Evolutionary fitness essentially mirrors reproductive success, and phytocannabinoids enhance the sensation of touch and the sense of rhythm, two sensual responses that may lead to increased replication rates.”

The authors postulate that plant compounds, which interact with the human body’s endocannabinoid system, “may exert sufficient selection pressure to maintain the gene for a receptor in an animal. If the plant ligand [plant-based cannabinoid] improves the fitness of the receptor by serving as a ‘proto-medicine’ or a performance-enhancing substance, the ligand-receptor association could be evolutionarily conserved.” In essence they are suggesting that there’s a coevolutionary relationship between “Man and Marijuana” — and that somehow as we have cultivated cannabis, it may have cultivated us, as well.

Somehow as we have cultivated cannabis, it may have cultivated us, as well.

McPartland and Guy reference others who propose that cannabis was the catalyst that facilitated the emergence of syntactic language in Neolithic humans: “Language, in turn, probably caused what anthropologists call ‘the great leap forward’ in human behavior, when humans suddenly crafted better tools out of new materials (e.g. fishhooks from bone, spear handles from wood, rope from hemp), developed art (e.g. painting, pottery, musical instruments), began using boats, and they evolved intricate social (and religious) organizations . . . . This recent burst of human evolution has been described as epigenetic (beyond our genes) — could it be due to the effect of plant ligands?”

In his study on the botanical history of cannabis and man’s relationship with the plant, Mark Merlin, Professor of Botany at University of Hawaii, referred to hemp as one of “the progenitors of civilization.” Merlin was not alone in suggesting that hemp “was one of the original cultivated plants.” In The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence, the late Carl Sagan conjectured that early man may have begun the agricultural age by first planting hemp. Sagan, who was known to have a fondness for cannabis himself, cited the pygmies from southwest Africa to demonstrate his hypothesis. The pygmies had been basically hunters and gatherers until they began planting hemp, which they used for religious purposes. The pygmies themselves profess that at the beginning of time the gods gave them cannabis so they would be both “healthy and happy.”

Gift of the Gods

Professor Richard E. Schultes, of Harvard University, considered the father of modern ethnobotany, believed it was likely in the search for food that humanity first discovered cannabis and its protein-rich seeds. Today, hempseed products are touted as a modern “super food” due to their richness in essential fatty acids.

“Early man experimented with all plant materials that he could chew and could not have avoided discovering the properties of cannabis (marijuana), for in his quest for seeds and oil, he certainly ate the sticky tops of the plant,” Schultes has written. “Upon eating hemp, the euphoric, ecstatic, and hallucinatory aspects may have introduced man to the other-worldly plane from which emerged religious beliefs, perhaps even the concept of deity. The plant became accepted as a special gift of the gods, a sacred medium for communion with the spiritual world and as such it has remained in some cultures to the present.”

Archaeological evidence attests to this ancient relationship as well. A hemp rope dating back to 26,900 BC was found in Czechoslovakia; it’s the oldest evidence of hemp fiber. Hemp fiber imprints over 10,000 years old in pottery shards in Taiwan, and remnants of hemp cloth from 8,000 B.C. have been found at the site of the ancient settlement Catal Hüyük in Anatolia (modern day Turkey). Much older tools for breaking hemp stalk into fibers indicate humanity has been using cannabis for cloth “since 25,000 B.C. at least,” according to prehistoric textiles expert Elizabeth Wayland-Barber.

Cannabis was also among our first medicines. A recent study by Washington State University scientist Ed Hagen suggests that our prehistoric ancestors may have ingested cannabis as a means of killing of parasites, noting a similar practice among the primitive Aka of modern-day central Africa. We do know that references to cannabis medicine appear in the world’s oldest pharmacopeias, such as China’s Shennong Ben Cao Jing, in ancient Ayurvedic texts, in the medical papyrus of Egypt, in cuneiform medical recipes from Assyria, first on a list of medicinal plants in the Zoroastrian Zend Avesta, and elsewhere.

Holy Smokes!

Evidence of cannabis being burnt ritually is believed to date as far back as 3,500 BCE based on archaeological finds in the Ukraine and Romania. In Incense and Poison Ordeals in the Ancient Orient, Alan Godbey attributes the genesis of the concept of “divine plants” to “when the primeval savage discovered that the smoke of his cavern fire sometimes produced queer physiological effects. First reverencing these moods of his fire, he was not long in discovering that they were manifested only when certain weeds or sticks were included in his stock of fuel. After finding out which ones were responsible, he took to praying to these kind gods for more beautiful visions of the unseen world, or for more fervid inspiration.”

Various Biblical scholars have written about the role of cannabis as a sacrament in the ancient Near East and Middle East. The ancient Hebrews came into contact with many cultures — the Scythians, Persians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Greeks — that consumed cannabis. And these cultures influenced the Hebrew’s use of the plant in fumigation rituals and as a key ingredient in the holy anointing oil applied as a topical to heal the sick and reward the righteous.

There’s compelling evidence that in ancient Israel cannabis was used in fumigation rituals and as an ingredient in the holy anointing oil.

Compelling evidence of the ritual use of cannabis in ancient Israel was reported in a 2020 archaeological study, “Cannabis and Frankincense at the Judahite Shrine of Arad,” by the Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. The authors noted that two altars with burnt plant residues had been found in a shrine at an ancient Hebrew outpost in tel Arad. One of the altars tested for frankincense, a well-known Biblical herb, and the other altar tested positive for cannabis resin.

The research, expectedly, caused a storm of controversy, with Biblical historians, religious authorities, and other parties weighing in. An article in Haaretz, headlined “Holy Smoke | Ancient Israelites Used Cannabis as Temple Offering, Study Finds,” raised a key question: “If the ancient Israelites were joining in on the party, why doesn’t the Bible mention the use of cannabis as a substance used in rituals, just as it does numerous times for frankincense?”

The Disappearance of “Kaneh Bosm”

Actually, several scholars have drawn attention to indications of cannabis use in the Bible. Polish anthropologist and etymologist Sula Benet contends that the Hebrew terms kaneh and kaneh bosm refer to cannabis. Benet identified five specific references in the “Hebrew Bible” (aka the Old Testament) — Exodus 30:23, Song of Songs 4:14, Isaiah 43:24, Jeremiah 6:20, and Ezekiel 27:19 — that mention kaneh and kaneh bosm. However, when one reads these passages individually and compares them, a stark contrast emerges.

In Exodus 30:23, the reference is to an ingredient in the Holy Oil, which was used in the Holy of Holies, the inner chamber of the Temple in Jerusalem, whereas in Jeremiah 6:20, this same previously sacred substance is wholly rejected as an item of foreign influence and disdain. It appears that Yahweh, the Jealous God, frowned upon the idolatrous use of cannabis, the polytheistic drug of choice.

The identity of kaneh and kaneh bosm has long been a topic of speculation. Benet’s view was that when the Hebrew texts were translated into Greek for the Septuagint, a mistranslation took place, deeming it as the common marsh root “calamus.” This mistranslation followed into the Latin, and then English translations of the Hebrew Bible. It should be noted that other botanical mistranslations from the Hebrew to Greek in the Hebrew Bible have been exposed.

Buy Book

This article is adapted from Cannabis: Lost Sacrament of the Ancient World by Chris Bennett (TrineDay, 2023). Bennett is the author of several books, including Liber 420 and Cannabis and the Soma Solution.

The post Cannabis & the Bible appeared first on Project CBD.

Original Article

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Ode to a Vanishing Handcraft

At first glance, Cannabis Textiles is a quiet, unassuming book, without slick, staged photos or superlative descriptions of indigenous cultures. Such simplicity reflects the book’s inner beauty, which documents the history of a disappearing handcraft, that of traditional hemp cultivation and fabric production.

hempcraft

Skoglund’s book focuses primarily on indigenous hemp cultures in Europe and Asia. Her passion for hemp was lit while pursuing her Master’s thesis studies at the Swedish School of Textiles, University of Borås and in Uppsala, Sweden in the 1970s, when she discovered a significant absence of recorded information on traditional hemp craft.

“It was almost taboo to talk about hemp, because it was intimately connected to drugs and was banned in Sweden [until 2003],” she told Project CBD.

Skoglund began to weave with hemp yarn herself, while scouring the historical record for mentions of the craft. She used DNA and microscopic testing methods to determine the fiber content of a number of antique textiles kept in museums and archives, and found many that were made completely or partially from hemp fibers.

A Bast Fiber Plant

Long before 1842, when William O’Shaughnessy brought psychoactive cannabis indica from India to the West, a type of cannabis commonly known as hemp was grown in kitchen gardens across Europe and East Asia, “near castles and monasteries, mansions and simple farms,” writes Skoglund. Hemp, a bast fiber plant, was cultivated for its seeds and medicinal properties, but mainly for its fiber. Fiber from other bast plants, such as flax and hops, was often blended with hemp fiber.

Skoglund details how hemp fabrics have been made as far back as neolithic China, and for centuries were used in Europe and Asia to make everyday clothing, as well as for ritual purposes such as religious ceremonies, weddings, funerals, etc. Hemp cottage industries were popular in medieval Europe, and were often overseen by professional craft guilds.

“Textile production is about botany,” says Skoglund, “and is based on interdisciplinary research between horticultural and textile history.” The history of hemp textile craft, she says, is one of many examples of how domestic work, especially that done by women, was considered trivial and was not well-documented. Priests or other prominent men, she writes, “recorded our history, but they had no insight into the household production of textiles at all. Instead, they focused on economics and the goods they wanted to produce.” Skoglund is dedicated to changing that oversight, at least as it concerns hemp fiber.

“A Hundred Operations”

In medieval Italy, hemp fabric was known as quello dello cento operioni, or “that of a hundred operations,” an apt name given the many steps it took to make it. Skoglund’s straightforward descriptions of growing, harvesting, drying, soaking, retting, pounding, scutching, hackling, spinning, weaving, bleaching, mangling, and dyeing have a strangely calming effect. Each step is visceral and earthy, part of a complex, intimate human relationship with plants rarely seen in the post-industrial 21st century.

Contrary to prevailing assumptions that hemp-fiber fabric is universally heavy and coarse, homespun hemp linen can be quite fine, with a high thread count and a soft hand. The key to quality is the knowledge and skill of the producer. Skoglund describes how in Europe, only young male hemp plants were chosen for producing high-quality fabric. They were grown in sunny, sheltered locations, often in kitchen gardens, under conditions that kept the plants thin and spindly, with flexible stalks that yielded the finest fibers. Taller, denser female hemp plants were grown for seeds, their coarser fiber made into rope, sacks, sailcloth, rugs, tarps, saddlebags, etc. The word canvas comes from the French canvasse, meaning “cannabis cloth.”

Skoglund explains how after harvest, hemp stalks are retted, typically by leaving them lying in the field or soaking for a couple of weeks in the clear water of a lake, pond, or stream, where naturally-occurring anaerobic bacteria loosens and separates the fibers from the woody core. The hemp fibers are then dried and bleached in the sun, broken by beating them with a mallet or scutching knife, hackled to comb and align them, and given a last brushing to remove any rogue stems or other debris before twisting them into roving to be spun by hand, often with a drop spindle. The finished hemp yarn is traditionally woven into fabric on treadle, frame or backstrap looms.

Cotton & Synthetic Fiber

Hemp grows in most climates but thrives in the fertile soil found in river valleys, especially near limestone outcroppings. This fast-growing botanical needs only moderate water and nitrogen, helps remediate contaminated soils, and absorbs CO2. Hemp fabric is resistant to stain and rot, naturally antibacterial, UV protective, and biodegradable.

Hemp is also stronger and more durable than cotton, now the most widely-produced non-food crop in the world. Cotton, historically a slave-labor crop, has had a devastating social and environmental impact, requiring vast amounts of water, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides. In contrast, hemp’s many sustainable, eco-friendly attributes make it a valuable ally in the climate crisis era.
Prior to the invention of the cotton gin in New England in 1793, American wives and mothers organized spinning bees with hempen thread to clothe the revolutionary army. Despite its impeccable patriotic pedigree, industrial hemp became collateral damage in the US government’s war on drugs. Since the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, which re-legalized US hemp cultivation, there has been renewed interest in hemp textiles and other hemp fiber products. But compared to growing hemp for CBD extraction, hemp textiles have gotten short shrift in the US and Europe. And much of the hemp clothing that’s currently mass manufactured in Asia is artificially retted and drenched in noxious chemicals.
For thousands of years, humans covered their bodies with plant and animal fibers. Yet now, many of us walk around literally clothed in petrochemicals. According to a 2022 report by Changing Markets Foundation, 69% of the fiber in today’s fabrics (polyester, acrylic, nylon, spandex, etc.) are synthetically produced from fossil fuels.

Much of this fabric is made by exploited labor into “fast fashion” garments that shed synthetic microfibers, wreaking havoc as they sneak into our bloodstream and lodge in our bodies while making their way to the furthest reaches of the planet. Fiber-shedding from fossil fabrics is responsible for a significant percentage of the microplastics that have been polluting our environment, causing particle toxicity, oxidative stress, and inflammation.

Cannabis Textiles in Hemp Garden Cultures reads like a dreamy, slow-fashion antidote to the “fossil-fabric” pandemic.

A Living Tradition

With the advent of cheap industrial cotton and synthetic fibers, the craft of domestic hemp fabric nearly disappeared during the 20th century. Today, traditional hemp fabric is only produced by women in isolated pockets of Thailand, Vietnam, China, Turkey, and Romania — all places where Skoglund has traveled and researched.

Skoglund’s study of hemp fabric history continues. Currently, she is analyzing the hemp fibers of religious textiles found in an old Icelandic church and plans to use Strontium Isotope testing to determine their origin. But aside from the curious hobbyist trying her hand at making homegrown hemp clothing, why should we care about an ancient craft that requires so much labor?

Without banging us over the head with a drop spindle, Skoglund’s book gives us clues. By bringing to life the slow, tangible, mindful construction of garden hemp fabric, she suggests the intangible — the straw-into-gold enchantment of handcrafts and the value of everyday things measured by an algorithm that honors nature, creativity, and longevity. Skoglund’s book is a bittersweet elegy to traditional hemp cultures, yet it also challenges us to ask whether a world poisoned by plastic can make space once again for the manifold magic of this amazing plant.

Buy book

Melinda Misuraca is a Project CBD contributing writer with a past life as an old-school cannabis farmer specializing in CBD-rich cultivars. © Copyright, Project CBD. May not be reprinted without permission.

The post Ode to a Vanishing Handcraft appeared first on Project CBD.

Original Article

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Celtic Hemp

Have you heard of Celtic Hemp? In a recently published paper in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, Dr. John M. McPartland and Saoirse E. O’Sullivan trace hemp’s prehistoric journey from Asia to Hibernia — now modern-day Ireland. Like much of Europe, cannabis arrived in Ireland when written records were scarce.

The authors rely on archeological, linguistic, and pollen analyses as they document the migration of cannabis across Europe. Ancient pollen, extracted from mud, contains signals from cannabis’s past. Seeds from crops and rare archeological artifacts provide additional clues attesting to hemp’s intimate relationship with humankind.

Thousands of years ago, the medicinal properties of cannabis were remarked in ancient texts. At this time, humans living closer to the plant’s area of origin on the Tibetan plateau relied on fibers from cannabis stalks for textiles. By 400 BCE, humans left evidence of cannabis where Celtic culture is thought to have originated.

The Birthplace of Celtic Culture

People of the Yamnaya culture, encompassing modern Ukraine, utilized cannabis crops earlier than the Celtic culture that emerged in Europe during the Iron Age (1200-550 BC). Cannabis fibers and water-logged seeds first appeared in Hallstatt, a region near modern Austria, which is considered the birthplace of the Celtic peoples.

But the words used for cannabis and hemp were all borrowed from another culture. The lack of an ancestorial word for hemp or cannabis in Proto-Celtic implies that the inhabitants of Halsttatt spoke a language unrelated to early precursors of the Celtic lexicon.

The Celtic people did not record their earliest history. Druids, religious figures in the Celtic political system, instead memorized large volumes of oral history.

The Roman Conquest

By the first century BC, when Romans had conquered much of Europe, Celtic peoples settled in parts of France, Spain, and Ireland. Peoples of Brittany in France spoke Old Breton, which included the word coarch to describe hemp fiber. Iunobrus, a Breton Monk, used the word canap to describe cannabis in 848 AD, borrowing the word from Roman Latin. (The Romans, in turn, had borrowed the Latin phrase from the Greek kannabis, which the Greeks got from the Scythians.) Words describing “hemp” or “cannabis” eventually became part of the Middle Irish tongue.

McPartland and O’Sullivan note that Roman-British missionaries brought cannabis to the Galleic Celts in Hibernia. The onset of hemp cultivation in Hibernia correlated chronologically (and proximally) with the founding of Romano-British monasteries.

The people of Hibernia wrote with the Celtic Tree Alphabet, known formally as Ogham. They carved symbols in a vertical line, indicating letters in a word. Around 400 Ogham examples remain throughout Ireland, which are mostly carved into stone monuments.

The full scholarly report on the origins of cannabis in Ireland by John M. McPartland and Saoirse E O’Sullivan can be accessed here.

Travis Cesarone is a freelance writer and communicator focusing on medical cannabis sciences. © Copyright, Project CBD. May not be reprinted without permission.

Reference

McPartland, J. M., & O’Sullivan, S. E. (2023). Origins of Cannabis sativa in Ireland and the Concept of Celtic Hemp: An Interdisciplinary Review. Cannabis and cannabinoid research, 0.1089/can.2022.0263.

The post Celtic Hemp appeared first on Project CBD.

Original Article