4th Circuit Court Rules THC O Meets Legal Definition Of Hemp, Differing From DEA | How to buy CBD Oil online

Learn how to order marijuana online. TOP QUALITY GRADE A++

Cannabyss Inc. is the best place online to buy top quality weed, cannabis, vape, marijuana and CBD products. Get your borderless orders delivered at the pickup spot with ease. Top Grade products for client satisfaction.

👉 Click here to Visit our shop! 🛒

The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, ruled on Sept. 4, that THC acetate (commonly referred to as THC-O) meets the legal definition of hemp under the 2018 Farm Bill.

This decision contradicts the Drug Enforcement Administration declaration In a letter sent in February 2023 to international cannabis lawyer Rod Kight, THC-O was listed as a Schedule I controlled drug.

THC-O, a semi-synthetic analog, is derived from tetrahydrocannabinol(THC), either from a hemp or cannabis plant. This is done through a chemical reaction using acetic acid. THC-O is up to ten times more potent that delta-9 THC.

Related: Dr. Ethan Russo’s THC-O acetate Q&A: ‘Don’t go there’

The DEA’s interpretation of 2023 is that THC-O, which is derived from delta-9 and delta-8 THC but does not occur in the cannabis plant naturally, does not fall within the definition of hemp.

Similarly, the DEA determined that “all synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols,” such as delta-8 THC and THC-O, “remain Schedule I controlled substances” in its Final Rule: Interim From August 2020

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the DEA’s interpretation first in May 2022 when a federal court applied the DEA’s argument to delta-8-THC in a trademark infringement case and copyright lawsuit. dispute Between AK Futures LLC & Boyd Street Distro LLC, Nevada

The court examined “whether the possession and sales of delta-8-THC are permitted under federal laws and, therefore, whether a trademark used in conjunction with delta-8-THC products can receive trademark protection under federal laws.”

The Ninth Circuit ruled it did not need to consider DEA’s interpretations of synthetically derived chemicals like delta-8 THC, because the definition of hemp in the 2018 Farm Bill was “unambiguous” and “precludes a differentiation based on manufacturing methods.” It also ruled that the Farm Bill definition applies to all such downstream products as long as they don’t cross the 0.3 percent threshold for delta-9 THC.

The Ninth Circuit ruled also that “clear statutory texts override a contrary agency interpretaion,” such as the interim-final rule from the DEA.

On September 4, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals applied many of these same considerations to a The case for a broader view This is a result of a North Carolina resident named Tonya Anderson being fired from her position with Diamondback Investment Group LLC after failing two drug tests.

Anderson claimed that her firing was a violation of state law because she used purportedly legal hemp-derived products during work hours to treat her anxiety, muscle spasms and cramps. She sued Diamondback citing a violation to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Diamondback claims that at least one product, which contained THC, was illegal when Anderson was employed.

Diamondback cited the same interim final rule of the DEA that Boyd Street, a smoke shop accused for selling counterfeit banded ecigarettes and vaping devices containing delta-8 THC, sought to rely on to defend itself before the Ninth Circuit.

The Fourth Circuit ruled on Sept. 4, that “the Ninth Circuit rejected the same argument as applied to delta-8-THC.”

The Fourth Circuit Court’s presiding judge wrote: “Between AK Futures and the DEA’s letter of February 2023 [vs. Boyd Street]We think the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the 2018 Farm Act is incorrect. [Bill] Which is better? We’re free to decide this for ourselves, despite a different interpretation from the DEA. [the 2018 Farm Bill] “It is clear and unambiguous.”

The Fourth Circuit’s ruling, that THC-O is hemp under the law, is the first ruling of this kind in a hemp-related matter since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against what’s known as the Chevron doctrine: a 1984 ruling. The case for a broader view This required federal courts defer to the interpretations of federal government agencies on ambiguous laws.

According to the Chevron Doctrine, federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws are “given a controlling weight, unless they’re arbitrary, capricious or manifestly against the statute.”

The Supreme Court overturned Chevron Doctrine on June 20, 2024 You can also find out more about the decision-making process by clicking here. You can also find out more about the following: Loper Bright Enterprises, vs. Raimondo Secretary of Commerce.

The Fourth Circuit, for example, will no longer be required to weigh the interpretation of a law by a federal agency, such as DEA’s interpretation. The June 2024 ruling applies to both ambiguous and non-ambiguous statutes.

“Even if [the 2018 Farm Bill] We didn’t need to defer to the [DEA’s] According to the Fourth Circuit’s ruling of Sept. 4, “interpretation” is a term that was used by the Fourth Circuit.

Kight, an attorney who received the DEA 2023 letter from the Fourth Circuit Court, said that the ruling was unexpected.

Kight pointed out a line from the ruling stating that the court finds that the DEA’s interpretation of synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols related to the Farm Bill lacks the “power to persuade.”

“Ouch,” he wrote on his “Kight on Cannabis” Blog last week. “I’m sure the DEA didn’t like reading that line. But that’s just the beginning. The court continued to criticize the DEA’s interpretations of the Farm Bill.

The court’s message was clear, even forceful, that the DEA positions on hemp would not be given special treatment by the courts. When interpreting the Farm Bill courts will instead rule in favor of the’most reasonable’ interpretation, even if this interpretation is contrary to DEA’s positions.”

Kight, who maintains the DEA’s interpretation, believes that the Fourth Circuit’s ruling that THC-O is hemp meets the legal definition has implications for other interpretations of Farm Bill. tetrahydrocannabinolic acid’s (THCA) Legal status is incorrect

RELATED: THCA Amendment in Farm Bill: Amendment goes beyond closing ‘Loopholes.’

According to Kight, the only statutory metric that can be used under federal law to determine whether a cannabis material is legal hemp or illegal cannabis are its delta-9 THC (not THCA) levels.

Last month, Sen. Chuck Grassley of the Senate Agriculture Committee said that the future of hemp depends primarily on how federal lawmakers define the plant in the Farm Bill reauthorization. He believes The extension will be extended until 2026.