An Offer .. A "olive Branch"

[peanutbutter]

Well .. to start with I nearly cost BS the election.

 

I've been in his face demanding answers. Behind closed doors.

 

I don't think it's likely he would be willing to help me.

[Highlander]

Well .. to start with I nearly cost BS the election.

 

I've been in his face demanding answers. Behind closed doors.

 

I don't think it's likely he would be willing to help me.

 

Or maybe he'll see you as a force to be reckoned with and respected, especially if he gets a letter signed by several legislators, documenting anecdotal evidene that your oil works for various maladies without a recreational high. Then he'd have the PR problem if he stated that a mixture of herbs without recreational application and near zero THC should be illegal.

[peanutbutter]

Or maybe he'll see you as a force to be reckoned with and respected, especially if he gets a letter signed by several legislators, documenting anecdotal evidene that your oil works for various maladies without a recreational high. Then he'd have the PR problem if he stated that a mixture of herbs without recreational application and near zero THC should be illegal.

 

Possible. I see your point. And doable. I could probably get several congressmen to sign the letter.

 

I haven't thought there was any possibility of benefit from talking to him again.

 

Buy yes .. politics makes strange bed fellows.

[Highlander]

Possible. I see your point. And doable. I could probably get several congressmen to sign the letter.

 

I haven't thought there was any possibility of benefit from talking to him again.

 

Buy yes .. politics makes strange bed fellows.

 

We have a sweet spot right now, with our conservative public servants against the feds on immigration and Obamacare. There is a heightened repulsion for federal rule right now. MMJ falls into the vein. Bill S wants the feds out of healthcare. This effort should garner bipartisan support.

 

You have an easy support system for this effort. Intorduce the idea to a couple of friendly legislators, then come back and ask us all to write letters to our senators and assemblymen supporting introducing this position to AG and asking for his response in support.

[peanutbutter]

Does anyone reading this thread doubt that I could find several congressmen to write such a letter to the AG?

[CedarSpringsCG]

I still fail to see how this oil is legal when made for anyone but a patient. You are protected from prosecution in the making of this oil when you are assisting a MMJ patient with medical use. Sure, 100% agree.

 

But when you start using MJ to create oil for NON-PATIENT use, you are now not using the MJ for medical purposes, and it becomes illegal. If you can cite which cases the supreme court has said that marijuana under 0.1% is OK, I would love to know. I checked google and couldn't find it. Also, you are using product that is MUCH higher then 0.1% when making it. Which means you are manufacturing using illegal source material.

 

Anyway, I would love to hear from an attorney on the legality of this.

 

Cedar

[peanutbutter]

If you harvest a plant, and discover that it results in three oz., what do you do with the excess?

 

Are we not supposed to destroy it?

[Highlander]

I think you'd stand an even better chance if you can represent that the THC and other cannabinoids present are not "derived from" cannabis sativa - that they are present in one or more of the other ingredients. That cannabinoids occur elsewhere....that the THC in your oil is not derived from a regulated source? (if that is true - I'm speculating here) I'm sure you know about that study from, when, 2007? when cannabinoids were isolated in certain other non-cannabis plants?

[peanutbutter]

It was 2008.

 

The same day I started to take advantage of this new medical information.

 

One such cannabinoid has already been accepted by the FDA as a food additive.

[CedarSpringsCG]

But haven't you already admitted that your cannabinoids come from Cannabis Sativa? Since you said ruderalis was so hard to find but Sativa/indica isn't...

 

I 100% agree with highlander, if you can show your thc content came from a non-regulated source then my comments are completely moot. However my impression was that you were using simpson oil created from the buds of Cannabis Sativa.

[peanutbutter]

But haven't you already admitted that your cannabinoids come from Cannabis Sativa? Since you said ruderalis was so hard to find but Sativa/indica isn't...

 

I 100% agree with highlander, if you can show your thc content came from a non-regulated source then my comments are completely moot. However my impression was that you were using simpson oil created from the buds of Cannabis Sativa.

 

Cannabinoids .. not THC from other plant sources.

 

Technically black pepper is now a schedule one drug. It contains a cannabinoid that talks to the CB2 receptor. To be a schedule one substance, something has to interact with those receptors.

 

This is a law that is not capable of keeping up with science.

[Highlander]

It was 2008.

 

The same day I started to take advantage of this new medical information.

 

One such cannabinoid has already been accepted by the FDA as a food additive.

 

So brainstorm - how do you "prove" you don't use cannabis without divulging your secrets? Maybe the answer is to show that cannabinoids exist at <1% in certain other plants, and that the cannabinoids are not synthetic, therefore it can no longer be assumed that a product containing cannabinoids came from cannabis. It would then follow that any product containing cannabinoids below x% and not derived from cannabis would be legal? So there is compelling reason to "decriminalize" products containing low levels of cannabinoids that are not derived from cannabis - to carve out an exception to avoid wasteful law enforcement resources - save $....putting it in terms our lawmakers understand.

 

So, does CSA regulate cannabinoids themselves or the parent material or both? If you are in possesionion of a non-cannabis plant that contains cannabinoids, is it legal to possess that plant? I don't know how CSA handles this, but I can't think of a law that would criminalize a non-cannabis plant that contains cannabinoids. I believe under CSA that cannabis and its derivatives and synthetic equivalents are regulated, but I don't think CSA looks forward and outlaws cannabinoids in other plants. Do you know anything about this?

[Highlander]

Looks to me like pepper is OK??. The CSA deals with cannabis/marijuana, derivatives, isomers, and synthetics, but I don't see how pepper and its cannabinoids would make the list. Paragraph D deals with this but seems to exclude non-marijuana extracts unless they are synthetic. I dunno, I've had too much coffee to wade through CSA right now. Paragraph D is interesting.

 

 

333.7212 Schedule 1; controlled substances included.

Sec. 7212.

 

(1) The following controlled substances are included in schedule 1:

 

(a) Any of the following opiates, including their isomers, esters, the ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters, and ethers, unless specifically excepted, when the existence of these isomers, esters, ethers, and salts is possible within the specific chemical designation:

 

 

Acetylmethadol Difenoxin Noracymethadol

Allylprodine Dimenoxadol Norlevorphanol

Alpha-acetylmethadol Dimepheptanol Normethadone

Alphameprodine Dimethylthiambutene Norpipanone

Alphamethadol Dioxaphetyl butyrate Phenadoxone

Benzethidine Dipipanone Phenampromide

Betacetylmethadol Ethylmethylthiambutene Phenomorphan

Betameprodine Etonitazene Phenoperidine

Betamethadol Etoxeridine Piritramide

Betaprodine Furethidine Proheptazine

Clonitazene Hydroxypethidine Properidine

Dextromoramide Ketobemidone Propiram

Diampromide Levomoramide Racemoramide

Diethylthiambutene Levophenacylmorphan Trimeperidine

Morpheridine

 

(b) Any of the following opium derivatives, their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, unless specifically excepted, when the existence of these salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation:

 

 

Acetorphine Drotebanol Morphine-N-Oxide

Acetyldihydrocodeine Etorphine Myrophine

Benzylmorphine Heroin Nicocodeine

Codeine methylbromide Hydromorphinol Nicomorphine

Codeine-N-Oxide Methyldesorphine Normorphine

Cyprenorphine Methyldihydromorphine Pholcodine

Desomorphine Morphine methylbromide Thebacon

Dihydromorphine Morphine methylsulfonate

 

© Any material, compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances, their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, unless specifically excepted, when the existence of these salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation:

 

 

2-Methylamino-1-phenylpropan-1-one

Some trade and other names:

Methcathinone

Cat

Ephedrone

3, 4-methylenedioxy amphetamine

5-methoxy-3, 4-methylenedioxy

amphetamine

3, 4, 5-trimethoxy amphetamine

Bufotenine

Some trade and other names:

3-(B-dimethylaminoethyl)-5 hydrozyindole

3-(2-dimethylaminoethyl)-5 indolol

N,N-dimethylserotonin; 5-hydroxy-N-dimethyltryptamine

Mappine

2, 5-Dimethoxyamphetamine

Some trade or other names:

2, 5-Dimethoxy-a-methylphenethylamine; 2,5-DMA

4-Bromo-2, 5-Dimethoxyamphetamine

Some trade or other names:

4-bromo-2, 5 dimethoxy-a-methylphenethylamine; 4-bromo

2,5-DMA

Diethyltryptamine

Some trade and other names:

N,N-Diethyltryptamine; DET

Dimethyltryptamine

Some trade or other names:

DMT

4-methyl-2, 5-dimethoxyamphetamine

Some trade and other names:

4-methyl-2, 5-dimethoxy-a-methyl-phenethylamine

DOM, STP

4-methoxyamphetamine

Some trade or other names:

4-methoxy-a-methylphenethylamine; paramethoxy amphetamine;

PMA

Ibogaine

Some trade and other names:

7-Ethyl-6,6a,7,8,9,10,12,13

Octahydro-2-methoxy-6,9-methano-5H-

pyrido (1, 2:1, 2 azepino 4, 5-b) indole

tabernanthe iboga

Lysergic acid diethylamide

Marihuana, except as otherwise provided in subsection (2)

Mecloqualone

Mescaline

Peyote

N-ethyl-3 piperidyl benzilate

N-methyl-3 piperidyl benzilate

Psilocybin

Psilocyn

Thiophene analog of phencyclidine

Some trade or other names:

1-(1-(2-thienyl)cyclohexyl) piperidine)

2-thienyl analog of phencyclidine; TPCP

 

(d) Except as provided in subsection (2), synthetic equivalents of the substances contained in the plant, or in the resinous extractives of cannabis and synthetic substances, derivatives, and their isomers with similar chemical structure or pharmacological activity, or both, such as the following, are included in schedule 1:

 

(i) /\1 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers.

 

(ii) /\6 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers.

 

(iii) /\3,4, cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers.

 

(e) Compounds of structures of substances referred to in subdivision (d), regardless of numerical designation of atomic positions, are included.

 

(f) Gamma-hydroxybutyrate and any isomer, salt, or salt of isomer of gamma-hydroxybutyrate.

 

 

Some trade and other names:

Sodium oxybate

4-hydroxybutanoic acid monosodium salt

 

(g) 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine.

 

 

Some trade and other names:

Ecstasy

MDMA

 

(2) Marihuana and the substances described in subsection (1) (d) and (e) in schedule 1 shall be regulated as provided in schedule 2, if they are dispensed in the manner provided in sections 7335 and 7336.

 

(3) For purposes of subsection (1), "isomer" includes the optical, position, and geometric isomers.

[CedarSpringsCG]

Only a trace of THC and still considered legal.

 

I wish I could work with hemp flowers only. That way the question would be less important.

 

in case you didn't notice, it's hard to find hemp flowers to work with

But it's easy to find cannabis flowers to work with.

 

So with cannabis flowers, I destroy cannabis when this oil is infused. In order to "activate" the oil a quarter oz of marijuana, is destroyed. Any possibility of that quarter oz being used to produce a high is gone forever.

 

Is it OK to destroy cannabis?

In your earlier post you say that you are using Cannabis flowers to make your oil, and try to say that you are destroying cannabis to make it. However you aren't destroying the THC, you are extracting it, making a preparation that is still very much a CS.

 

Cannabinoids .. not THC from other plant sources.

 

Technically black pepper is now a schedule one drug. It contains a cannabinoid that talks to the CB2 receptor. To be a schedule one substance, something has to interact with those receptors.

 

This is a law that is not capable of keeping up with science.

So I think by this Cryptic answer here, he is pulling cannabinoids from other plant sources, but the THC is coming from Cannabis Buds. Plain and simple, marijuana. So my points are valid, that you are creating a mixture or preparation of Cannabis Sativa/Indica, that would be considered to be a controlled substance.

 

You don't have to give away your secrets, but honestly when you first started selling PB oil, when I checked it out you gave instructions that it had no MMJ in it, and then instructions on how to add MMJ to it to make it work better.

 

Anyway, if you want to be stupid with your freedom, be my guest to do so. But don't try to convince people you aren't using MMJ when you are, and think you found a loophole because you are "destroying" MMJ, when you aren't, you are making a preparation of it.

 

Cedar

[peanutbutter]

So brainstorm - how do you "prove" you don't use cannabis without divulging your secrets? Maybe the answer is to show that cannabinoids exist at <1% in certain other plants, and that the cannabinoids are not synthetic, therefore it can no longer be assumed that a product containing cannabinoids came from cannabis. It would then follow that any product containing cannabinoids below x% and not derived from cannabis would be legal? So there is compelling reason to "decriminalize" products containing low levels of cannabinoids that are not derived from cannabis - to carve out an exception to avoid wasteful law enforcement resources - save $....putting it in terms our lawmakers understand.

 

So, does CSA regulate cannabinoids themselves or the parent material or both? If you are in possesionion of a non-cannabis plant that contains cannabinoids, is it legal to possess that plant? I don't know how CSA handles this, but I can't think of a law that would criminalize a non-cannabis plant that contains cannabinoids. I believe under CSA that cannabis and its derivatives and synthetic equivalents are regulated, but I don't think CSA looks forward and outlaws cannabinoids in other plants. Do you know anything about this?

 

If a cannabinoid exists within the cannabis plant, then that compound is a schedule one substance. The source of the material does not matter. That makes synthetically made cannabinoids just as illegal as cannabinoids from the plant itself.

 

beta caryophyllene is a well documented compound. It is found in many herbs and spices. Including the cannabis plant.

 

It was this compound that was discovered to be a cannabinoid in the June 2008 study.

[Highlander]

If a cannabinoid exists within the cannabis plant, then that compound is a schedule one substance.

 

I am trying to frame that legal arguement together. I don't see it. How would a PA construe CSA to regulate cannabinoids from non-cannabis plants? I don't see how one could.....

[peanutbutter]

So brainstorm - how do you "prove" you don't use cannabis without divulging your secrets? Maybe the answer is to show that cannabinoids exist at <1% in certain other plants, and that the cannabinoids are not synthetic, therefore it can no longer be assumed that a product containing cannabinoids came from cannabis. It would then follow that any product containing cannabinoids below x% and not derived from cannabis would be legal? So there is compelling reason to "decriminalize" products containing low levels of cannabinoids that are not derived from cannabis - to carve out an exception to avoid wasteful law enforcement resources - save $....putting it in terms our lawmakers understand.

 

So, does CSA regulate cannabinoids themselves or the parent material or both? If you are in possesionion of a non-cannabis plant that contains cannabinoids, is it legal to possess that plant? I don't know how CSA handles this, but I can't think of a law that would criminalize a non-cannabis plant that contains cannabinoids. I believe under CSA that cannabis and its derivatives and synthetic equivalents are regulated, but I don't think CSA looks forward and outlaws cannabinoids in other plants. Do you know anything about this?

 

chuckle .. the cannabinoid is there in much higher concentrations within the spices themselves.

Many essential oils from these spices are in excess of 50% bata caryophyllene.

[peanutbutter]

It's off topic .. but what would someone have to do to be attempting to make a schedule three substance: marinol.

 

Marinol can now be made from plant material.

[CedarSpringsCG]

If a cannabinoid exists within the cannabis plant, then that compound is a schedule one substance. The source of the material does not matter. That makes synthetically made cannabinoids just as illegal as cannabinoids from the plant itself.

 

beta caryophyllene is a well documented compound. It is found in many herbs and spices. Including the cannabis plant.

 

It was this compound that was discovered to be a cannabinoid in the June 2008 study.

I think your logic is off on that. Just because a cannabinoid is in a food, does not make that food a schedule 1 drug. Marijuana in marijuana form is a schedule 1, all inclusive, as well as Delta-8 and Delta-9 THC, as well as others, but not all cannabinoids fit that. If you were to extract the Beta Caryophyllene in a pure form from a marijuana plant, you would not have schedule 1 drug at all.

 

So unless you are talking about Delta-8 or 9 THC, it isn't inherently a schedule 1 drug. Marijuana the plant is, and Delt-8 and Delta-9 THC is. Other cannabinoids are not listed on the sheet, and Marinol, a synthetic is I think a schedule 3.

[peanutbutter]

I think your logic is off on that. Just because a cannabinoid is in a food, does not make that food a schedule 1 drug. Marijuana in marijuana form is a schedule 1, all inclusive, as well as Delta-8 and Delta-9 THC, as well as others, but not all cannabinoids fit that. If you were to extract the Beta Caryophyllene in a pure form from a marijuana plant, you would not have schedule 1 drug at all.

 

So unless you are talking about Delta-8 or 9 THC, it isn't inherently a schedule 1 drug. Marijuana the plant is, and Delt-8 and Delta-9 THC is. Other cannabinoids are not listed on the sheet, and Marinol, a synthetic is I think a schedule 3.

 

The THC in marinol is no longer required to be synthetic. Recent FDA change. It can now be made from cannabis plants.

 

I would disagree about bce from cannabis. If it was from an extract of cannabis, many officials would call it a schedule one.

[CedarSpringsCG]

The THC in marinol is no longer required to be synthetic. Recent FDA change. It can now be made from cannabis plants.

 

I would disagree about bce from cannabis. If it was from an extract of cannabis, many officials would call it a schedule one.

However the schedule 1 drugs listed on the DEA site lists Marijuana, the plant, and Delta-8 and 9 THC as well as other Tetrahydrocannabinols.

 

It does not list beta caryophyllene which is not a Delta-8 or 9, or even a Tetrahydrocannabinol. It is a cannabinoid, but it is NOT a schedule 1 substance. The DEA does NOT list all cannabinoids as a schedule 1, in fact they don't list cannabinoids blanketly at all.

 

And if the official that would call BCE a schedule 1 drug, he would have the burden of proof that it came from Marijuana, and not from Black Pepper. All you would have to do in front of a jury is get a scientist to say that Black pepper contains it, as well as other plants, and that the same method used to extract it in a pure form from Marijuana could be used to extract it from other sources. That would provide reasonable doubt enough in most people's minds to set you free.

 

In fact if I were in the business of extracting BCE from plants, I would probably pick something besides Marijuana to do it from since I can have as much black pepper as I want with no fear of incarceration, and extract it to my hearts content.

 

THC however, Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol, is marijuana extract, and is a controlled substance.

[peanutbutter]

Between 2005 and 2010 metabolites of THC were considered schedule one substances.

 

That way people were being charged with driving with the presence of a schedule one drug.

[CedarSpringsCG]

Between 2005 and 2010 metabolites of THC were considered schedule one substances.

 

That way people were being charged with driving with the presence of a schedule one drug.

But what does that have to do with BCE? BCE is not a Tetrahydrocannabinol, so it would not create metabolites from THC. You can't create metabolites from THC without ingesting Tetrahydrocannabinols.

 

THC on the other hand, is derived from Marijuana, and is a scedhule 1 substance, and is a Tetrahydrocannabinol.

[CedarSpringsCG]

I am trying to frame that legal arguement together. I don't see it. How would a PA construe CSA to regulate cannabinoids from non-cannabis plants? I don't see how one could.....

They couldn't... I think PB is confusing Cannabinoids like Beta Caryphyllene with THC, a Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol. It's like the whole thing a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square.

 

Delta9 Tetrahydrocannabinol is a cannabinoid, and Delta9 Tetrahydrocannabinol is commonly known as THC and is a schedule 1.

 

Beta Caryphyllene is a cannabinoid, but it is not a Tetrahydrocannabinol, and it is not a schedule 1. The source overall is unimportant since there are legal sources for it, unless they can prove the source, there is no case.

 

NOT all cannabinoids are Schedule 1, in fact I don't see them listed on any schedule. Tetrahydrocannabinols are listed, which are only a few of the cannabinoids available in the marijuana plant. The hundred or so others are not drugs, not on a schedule, and not illegal. Delta-9 THC is not found in other plants.

 

Oh by the way, the hundred or so other cannabinoids that are not Delta9 THC in Marijuana are also found in places like Cow milk, mothers milk, Chocolate, almost all fruits, nuts and berries... I could go on.

[Highlander]

Between 2005 and 2010 metabolites of THC were considered schedule one substances.

 

That way people were being charged with driving with the presence of a schedule one drug.

 

*keep in mind we are not talking about metabolites here*

 

I think we are hitting the target.

 

We have the legal footing to posit the following:

 

A compound extracted from a “legal” source, in spite of any similarity to or consistency with marijuana or a marijuana extract and if not otherwise listed as a CS, does not itself constitute a CS.

 

Think about this. Cannabinoid X as an example.

Cannabinoid X is found in marijuana.

Cannabinoid X is also contained in Skunk Cabbage.

Cannabinoid X is not explicitly listed as a CS.

 

Therefore, cannabinoid X is a CS if derived from marijuana and is not a CS if derived from Skunk Cabbage. There is nothing lead us to believe that the CSA schedules all chemcials found in the MJ plant - just those listed.

 

The burden of proof is on the state to show your cannabinoid X is derived from marijuana in order to establish that the material you have on hand is a CS. For simplicity sake, even use chlorophyll. Chlorophyll as part of a MJ plant is illegal. Chlorophyll extracted from a MJ plant is illegal (as if someone could prove where it came from). Chlorophyll extracted from dandelions is chemically the same as that from marijuana plants. Chlorophyll has no psychoactive properties. Chlorophyll extracted from other plants is legal.

 

And since you can show that at least one cannabinoid is present in other plants at much higher concentration than in mj, it should be a pretty easy sell that the default assumption would be that the material originated from a non-marijuana source.

 

Then you go in front of our lawmakers and:

-Show medical benefit for cannabinoids made from non-mj plant extracts;

- Acknowledge that some of these extracts are the same as compounds found in marijuana;

- show that there are ample opportunities for everyday folks to posses, use, and ingest these legal cannabinoids

-show that these cannabinoids have no recreational value.

 

Maybe what you should be after is an amendment to the CSA, that states something along the lines of

“whereas Cannabinoid X is known to

1. Occur in the cannabis sativa plant;

2. Is not itself listed as a CS;

3. Provides medical benefits x,y,z;

4. Has no psychoactive effect;

5. Has no recreational use;

6. Is chemically dissimilar and readily distinguishable from the psychoactive Delta 9 THC;

7. Is found in other plants and food products at concentrations generally higher than in marijuana; and

8. If the material is construed as a CS, ordinary law-abiding citizens could be found in violation of CSA for possession of ordinary plants, foods and spices

 

Therefore, Cannabinoid X shall not be listed as a CS.”

 

And forget Bill S.