Posted On: 03/01/2014 6:13:02 PM
Post# of 36729
That court precedent arguably could put Dharmanol on retail shelves nationwide.
The quoted content from the gvt link is half baked. Not surprised, their entire position on cannabis is catastrophically nonsensical.
quote "If, however, the product does not cause THC to enter the human body, it is a noncontrolled substance that may lawfully be sold in the United States. Included in the category of lawful hemp products are textiles, such as clothing made using fiber produced from cannabis plant stalks. Also in the lawful category are personal care products that contain oil from sterilized cannabis seeds, such as soaps, lotions, and shampoos." end quote
The quote omits that the DEA was permanently enjoined (forbidden) by a federal court in 2004 not to regulate the THC in hemp as a controlled substance -- notwithstanding that hemp (Cannabis sativa var. ) is a product that does cause THC to enter the human body, albeit in very small quantities. The gvt take has been that any product that causes THC to enter the body is a controlled substance. About this, the court said to them: Poppycock. Poppy seeds on bagels contain natural opiates, a controlled substance, and are not scheduled as controlled substances by DEA. Please explain that inconsistency. They couldn't.
The quote also ignores the fact that edible products made from hemp seeds (which contain varying amounts, not zero amounts, of THC) are now sold in many US retail stores pursuant to the cited 2004 court decision.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and landmark precedent arguably puts the DEA once again in a box and once again on very shaking legal ground with a product like Dharmanol. Dharmanol's natural THC content certified by an independent laboratory is "Less than 0.3%" and "substantially below international standards for hemp-based products." Dharmanol is a dietary herbal supplement, a category that, legally, is food. If it went to court, the DEA would lose again. Do they risk fighting a losing battle against the tsunami of mmj, getting tarred and feathered by the courts again, and excoriated politically when 85% of the American people embrace medical cannabis and state after state are under tremendous popular pressure to approve mmj?
The quoted content from the gvt link is half baked. Not surprised, their entire position on cannabis is catastrophically nonsensical.
quote "If, however, the product does not cause THC to enter the human body, it is a noncontrolled substance that may lawfully be sold in the United States. Included in the category of lawful hemp products are textiles, such as clothing made using fiber produced from cannabis plant stalks. Also in the lawful category are personal care products that contain oil from sterilized cannabis seeds, such as soaps, lotions, and shampoos." end quote
The quote omits that the DEA was permanently enjoined (forbidden) by a federal court in 2004 not to regulate the THC in hemp as a controlled substance -- notwithstanding that hemp (Cannabis sativa var. ) is a product that does cause THC to enter the human body, albeit in very small quantities. The gvt take has been that any product that causes THC to enter the body is a controlled substance. About this, the court said to them: Poppycock. Poppy seeds on bagels contain natural opiates, a controlled substance, and are not scheduled as controlled substances by DEA. Please explain that inconsistency. They couldn't.
The quote also ignores the fact that edible products made from hemp seeds (which contain varying amounts, not zero amounts, of THC) are now sold in many US retail stores pursuant to the cited 2004 court decision.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and landmark precedent arguably puts the DEA once again in a box and once again on very shaking legal ground with a product like Dharmanol. Dharmanol's natural THC content certified by an independent laboratory is "Less than 0.3%" and "substantially below international standards for hemp-based products." Dharmanol is a dietary herbal supplement, a category that, legally, is food. If it went to court, the DEA would lose again. Do they risk fighting a losing battle against the tsunami of mmj, getting tarred and feathered by the courts again, and excoriated politically when 85% of the American people embrace medical cannabis and state after state are under tremendous popular pressure to approve mmj?
(0)
(0)
