
Changes to U.S. federal authorities relating to production and marketing of hemp - sahin-boydas
https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm628988.htm
======
nickysielicki
This is an extremely misleading headline for people to read and the mods
should change it. Hemp has been legal for a long time and the DEA has stated
that CBD products produced solely from hemp plants are federally legal.

It is still illegal to produce or own cannabidiol derived from Marijuana.
Emphatically, this statement from the FDA does not mean that cannabidiol as a
chemical is legal.

(2016, usdoj.gov)
[https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/marijuana/m_ext...](https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/marijuana/m_extract_7350.html)

Nothing has changed here except that the FDA is claiming authority to regulate
the small subset of CBD products that are legally produced from hemp. The
above DOJ article goes somewhat into the science of how these products, if
they exist and are produced legally, contain such trace amounts of CBD that
they're surely ineffective. Point being: either it's produced from real
flowers and it's still illegal, or it's produced from hemp and present in such
small amounts that it's of absolutely no benefit. The FDA is merely saying
that they want to regulate the latter case.

~~~
nickysielicki
(My opinion)

I'm generally against any form of regulation, but as long as we live in a
society where drug laws already don't make sense, regulating the headshop CBD
industry is going to do good things.

The industry around cannabidiol is disgusting, particularly when it comes to
products sold outside of states with medical or recreational marijuana.
Outside of your average stoner looking for holistic medicine, a great deal of
people interested in CBD are cancer patients or family of cancer patients. At
best, these companies are making money selling snake oil to dying people. At
worst, they're introducing dangerous toxic chemicals to immunocompromised
individuals and actively harming them.

I can't find the article but there was news a few years ago about a head
chemist stepping down from one of the largest (at the time) legal producers of
CBD. She wrote an exposé about how their leadership was pushing for higher
purity at the cost of safety, and how it forced her to resign.

~~~
howhireable3141
Agreed but the government is to blame for a lot of this. People are super
thirsty for CBD, it is very effective for many people. Especially elderly
people that have been anti-pot most of their lives.

These people don't have any good ways of making good buying decisions, let a
lone having a regulatory body to rely on to test this stuff. So they just
choose stuff with good marketing and high concentrations.

Not to say your article isn't making a good point -- just that these nasty
companies being successful is due to a vacuum created by decades of complete
head-up-our-own-ass marijuana policy.

~~~
dd36
There’s no regulatory body testing most things, especially chemicals. It’s
tragic.

~~~
RA_Fisher
I find the premise that consumers need ahead-of-time protection insulting and
limiting. If wrongs are made, we have a system for remedy: tort. The FDA is an
adjacent regulatory body. Through its risk adverse behavior, the FDA causes
unseen deaths: [https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/12/18/fda-
poli...](https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/12/18/fda-policies-
kill) Also, the FDA performs poor data collection and sharing. When I analyzed
one of the FDA'S most important datasets, I was surprised to find such low
quality: [https://github.com/statwonk/FDA-adverse-drug-
reactions/blob/...](https://github.com/statwonk/FDA-adverse-drug-
reactions/blob/master/drug_analysis.R) What's tragic to me is that so often
folks feel safety or wealth comes from the government rather than our own
minds. Maybe if there's no safety facade they'll demand private labs certify
safety?

~~~
pboutros
What do you think about Thalidomide then?
[http://broughttolife.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/them...](http://broughttolife.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/themes/controversies/thalidomide)

~~~
RA_Fisher
A back pat for a function the market would have provided immediately. Drugs
can definitely be poison. I'd much prefer safety analyses have a GitHub sha1
publicly accessible than secretively behind the FDA's closed doors.

~~~
pboutros
What? The FDA openly publishes stuff. From long before GitHub was around.

Here's a good overview of how they go about making sure that approved drugs
are GRASE (Generally Recognized As Safe and Effective):
[https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm14353...](https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143534.htm)

~~~
bunderbunder
Even more than that, the FDA requires openness in a way that I'm not sure
would be accomplishable without.

Publication bias is a real thing, and drug companies do know how to use it to
their advantage. Take a look at what drug trial results looked like before and
after the FDA started requiring pre-registration. The difference is, to put it
mildly, staggering.

I'm pretty hard pressed to come up with a market equivalent to drug trial pre-
registration. Given everything I've seen of Adam Smith's writings, I'm pretty
sure that, were he alive today, he'd probably say something like, "Duh, of
course. Do that. That is some excellent regulation, and obviously in the
service of the public good."

Tangentially, I'm guessing that, if CBD had to go through pre-registered drug
trials, it wouldn't be such a big deal. The funny thing about things that are
widely believed to help with every last ailment is, they tend to all be about
equally good at treating pretty much everything.

------
athenot
So this means that the FDA is now regulating the chemicals as drugs. The
implications are:

\- you can't claim to cure/heal anything unless your product undergoes FDA
formal approval. Then you can market it as a drug.

\- you can't mix the chemicals into food and call it food. If they are
present, it's classified as a drug.

\- THC and CBD are considered "active" therefore you can't slide them into
supplements or market supplements with those chemicals. The use of those
chemicals as supplements is still being evaluated and they haven't issued a
regulation on it.

\- other subtances of the plant are recognized as generally safe so they can
be used for other food / cosmetic applications

Finally they put out a FAQ:
[https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm421168.h...](https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm421168.htm)

------
INTPenis
It's very interesting how this whole period of cannabis prohibition has played
out. First the UN says cannabis is bad on advice from the US. My country,
Sweden, bans the THC cannabinoid. And institutes a zero tolerance policy.

So CBD was never banned and people have been selling CBD oils in shops, and
even pharmacies, for a while now.

The US leading the way in decriminalization apparently banned CBD on a federal
level.

This just shows how little governments knew about cannabis when it was banned.

And finally; I used to be dependent on cannabis. It has been a very hard
struggle to stop smoking so much cannabis and focus on working, sober instead.
I can't imagine what that struggle would be like if cannabis was being sold
for recreational use where I live.

Someone somewhere once said that cannabis makes it fun to be bored, and that's
the real danger with it. It's not toxic, it's not terribly addictive but you
get addicted to feeling good when doing nothing at all.

Edit: Just to clarify if anyone is curious, CBD was being handled by the
Swedish quivalent of the FDA. While THC was being handled as an illegal
narcotic. So our FDA could approve the use and sale of CBD based products
without affecting the legal ban of THC.

~~~
wslh
> Someone somewhere once said that cannabis makes it fun to be bored, and
> that's the real danger with it. It's not toxic, it's not terribly addictive
> but you get addicted to feeling good when doing nothing at all.

Well, like social media or watching TV. It is not clear what is your point.

~~~
throwanem
Those are also harmful when taken to excess.

~~~
50656E6973
Is there _anything_ that is not harmful in excess?

~~~
hanspeter
Moderation?

~~~
50656E6973
Too much moderation causes atrophy

------
peterwwillis
Topic modification? CBD is not legalized, apparently. Hemp (<0.3% THC) is, but
CBD is not.

 _“It is true that section 12619 of the Farm Bill removes hemp-derived
products from its Schedule I status under the Controlled Substances Act, but
the legislation does not legalize CBD generally. As I have noted elsewhere on
this blog CBD generally remains a Schedule I substance under federal law . . .
The Farm Bill ensures that any cannabinoid — a set of chemical compounds found
in the cannabis plant — that is derived from hemp will be legal, if and only
if that hemp is produced in a manner consistent with the Farm Bill, associated
federal regulations, association state regulations, and by a licensed grower.
All other cannabinoids, produced in any other setting, remain a Schedule I
substance under federal law and are thus illegal. (The one exception is
pharmaceutical-grade CBD products that have been approved by FDA, which
currently includes one drug: GW Pharmaceutical’s Epidiolex.)”_

Source:
[https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/marijuana/2018/12/20/hemp-o...](https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/marijuana/2018/12/20/hemp-
officially-legalized-with-president-trump-signature-farm-
bill/aKmNr3iS2AVJuRUbLPnz6I/story.html)

------
caublestone
“Additionally, it’s unlawful under the FD&C Act to introduce food containing
added CBD or THC into interstate commerce, or to market CBD or THC products
as, or in, dietary supplements, regardless of whether the substances are hemp-
derived. This is because both CBD and THC are active ingredients in FDA-
approved drugs and were the subject of substantial clinical investigations
before they were marketed as foods or dietary supplements. Under the FD&C Act,
it’s illegal to introduce drug ingredients like these into the food supply, or
to market them as dietary supplements. This is a requirement that we apply
across the board to food products that contain substances that are active
ingredients in any drug.”

~~~
chime
I've tried reading this release and this page
[https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm421168.h...](https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm421168.htm)
but still can't figure out if CBD oil is legal or illegal. Are CBD gummies
suddenly illegal? Or are they suddenly 100% legal (and no longer in the gray
area)?

~~~
pmoriarty
Are CBD gummies a food or a medicine? They might be treated differently
depending on how they're classified.

Something else to consider is that there are plenty of products that don't
have to prove their safety -- products which the FDA blesses as "GRAS"
("Generally Recognized As Safe"), though it's unlikely that CBD will fall
under this classification either.

Both alcohol and some medicines (like quinine[1], which is added to tonic
water) the FDA apparently has no problems with, despite some of these
ingredients (like alcohol) being very far from safe, much less proven to be
safe in "substantial clinical investigations".

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinine)

~~~
burfog
Alcohol is special. We didn't merely undo prohibition. With that
constitutional amendment, we removed most federal authority over alcohol. The
commerce clause does not apply anymore ( _State Board of Equalization v. Young
's Market Co._), and thus can't be abused to regulate alcohol. About the only
thing the federal government can do about alcohol is arm-twist the states into
regulating it via things like highway funding being conditional on the
existence of state regulations.

~~~
torstenvl
> _With that constitutional amendment, we entirely removed federal authority
> over alcohol._

Where are you getting that from?

~~~
burfog
OK, _mostly_

Section 2 of the 21st amendment was ruled on in _State Board of Equalization
v. Young 's Market Co._ and shown to give states unusual control of alcohol.

~~~
torstenvl
I think you might be reading _Young 's Market_ a little too broadly. And in
any case, it's questionable whether _Young 's Market_ is still good law after
Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005).

"If a State chooses to allow direct shipment of wine, it must do so on
evenhanded terms. Without demonstrating the need for discrimination, New York
and Michigan have enacted regulations that disadvantage out-of-state wine
producers. Under our Commerce Clause jurisprudence, these regulations cannot
stand." _Id._ at 493.

So yeah, Amd. 21, §2 gives states Constitutional force behind some of their
alcohol laws, but it doesn't usurp the Commerce power entirely.

------
drawkbox
Hemp farming is a win aside from just the CBD product possibilities.

Hemp can be more lucrative for farmers [1] making feed instead of
alfalfa/others.

Hemp also uses less water than other crops [2], it can help with water usage
in agriculture heavy states that are tighter on water in the west (CA, AZ, NV,
UT).

Hemp for textiles is also more efficient than cotton which uses 50% more water
and requires more land [2].

Hemp oil possibilities are also interesting to restart and explore.

Hemp being legal opens up farmers to switching to it more and give them more
markets for a crop that us more lucrative and uses less water. It was used
like this a hundred years ago, sad it was caught up in the drug wars for so
long. Much farther to go on the ending drug wars but this is a welcome market
opening back up that has benefits all around in hemp.

[1] [https://psmag.com/environment/hemp-is-the-future-of-
agricult...](https://psmag.com/environment/hemp-is-the-future-of-agriculture)

[2] [https://slate.com/technology/2011/04/hemp-versus-cotton-
whic...](https://slate.com/technology/2011/04/hemp-versus-cotton-which-is-
better-for-the-environment.html)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
If hemp is widely grown and a part of that is production of widely available
low-level painkillers then there is, I imagine, a massive challenge to the
pharma-corps -- a good deal of their income is probably low-level pain
medications?

FWIW I've had hemp beer (quite good) and used compostable "plastic" cups made
from hemp (no different in appearance or use to regular plastic cups).

~~~
drawkbox
Yeah it was irrational and nonsensical to keep hemp out of markets for so long
in the war on plants, but the upside to that is there are many market uses for
it and will provide explosive growth in lots of sectors and jobs in the
economy. Hemp legalization definitely challenges Pharma a bit but hard to stop
market opportunities and benefits, they will be in on it but hopefully not
cornering the market via bribes/force.

Production (farmers and eventually more products/companies/uses), consumers,
the environment and the market love the product, finally free to innovate.
Hemp shall get its revenge after being thrown in the Château d'If and locked
up for no reason, it is coming back as the Count of Monte Cristo to exact
revenge and take over.

------
mmaunder
For those interested in learning more about CBD use:
[https://www.projectcbd.org](https://www.projectcbd.org)

(I'm not affiliated)

I suffered with seasonal hayfever for 25 years. Cured it completely with CBD
this year. Was inspired to try it after I cured my cats seasonal asthma with a
tiny CBD dose. It was so effective on me I thought the season hadn't started
till it was over. Weirdly effective.

I've been a huge skeptic of medicinal marijuana. I am now a convert and I
think CBD in particular is an exciting area.

Sounds like the headline above may not be entirely accurate. But we will get
there.

In Washington state the FDA came after CBD manufacturers for making miracle
cure claims. As part of the investigation they tested various products. Turns
out many had little or no CBD. The industry is rife with snake oil salesmen.
But in states where it is legal you have the benefit of accurate lab testing
with results published on the packaging.

Source for CBD related warning letters from FDA. The WA cases were 2015.
[https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm484109.h...](https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm484109.htm)

~~~
pattle
Out of interest what CDB product did you use (e.g oil, crystals) and what
strength was it? Did you experiment with dosing to get find what worked best
for you?

------
gdubs
The 2018 Farm Bill made growing hemp legal under federal law. This will allow
farmers to grow hemp and participate in USDA programs, get greater accsss to
banking, etc.

Hemp, specifically “industrial hemp”, is just cannabis that has a THC content
under 0.3%.

There are a lot of products that can be made from hemp; a popular one is CBD
oil. There are different methods of extracting it, CO2 extraction being
popular, but it’s also sometimes done with solvents.

The CBD oil industry is currently unregulated and basically the Wild West.
People make bold claims, and it’s not always clear what you’re buying. Though,
some companies post 3rd party testing results that correlate with batch
numbers on the product label.

What this article is really saying is that now that there will be a lot more
hemp in the US, the FDA will be taking an active regulatory role. This will
likely have a _big_ impact on the CBD oil industry which currently markets as
a cure-all in many health food stores.

This is good for consumer safety in the long run — hemp is an effective soil
cleaner and the heavy metals in the soil can end up in th CBD oil you’re
consuming. But it will likely make it a harder process to legitimately sell
CBD oil, and require going through a more expensive process involving FDA
approval. We’ll see.

------
moonka
Hopefully we'll see some studies about the effectiveness about CBD come soon.
I've heard a lot of anecdotes about it's usefulness for things such anxiety
and minor inflammation, it would be good to learn more.

~~~
adventured
I have a family member that was increasingly crippled with intense joint
related pain. He was eating large quantities of NSAIDs just to get through a
day (up to 10x the suggested dose). CBD oil removed more than 3/4 of the pain,
returned him to normal function with no more pain killers needed. I've heard
people talk about it for years, it was something else to see it dramatically
improve the life of someone I know.

------
honkycat
I have smoked weed since I was 16. Back then, I was just rebelling. Also weed
made me feel good. I took a break from weed from 24 - 30, doing it EXTREMELY
occasionally.

Recently I moved to Oregon and got a vape pen, and I learned something. I
sincerely love how weed makes me feel.

It's not just the taboo of it being illegal. It just feels nice when I want to
take the edge off. It helps me relax in the right dosage. It makes me tired at
the right time of the night so I do not stay up late.

Is vaping weed good for me? Probably not. Is it worse for me than alcohol,
eating too much meat, having a sedentary job, or not doing regular weight
training? Absolutely not.

End the prohibition. Let adults do what they want with their bodies.

------
sahin-boydas
Media News Links:

[https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cbd-and-hemp-are-now-
legal...](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cbd-and-hemp-are-now-legal-in-the-
us-so-what-does-that-mean-for-pot-companies-2018-12-20)

[https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/422356-trump-
off...](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/422356-trump-officially-
legalizes-industrial-hemp)

[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hemp-legal-farm-bill-
st...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hemp-legal-farm-bill-
states_us_5c1c1ac1e4b08aaf7a86ae4f)

------
marris
From the FDA statement:

> This is because both CBD and THC are active ingredients in FDA-approved
> drugs and were the subject of substantial clinical investigations before
> they were marketed as foods or dietary supplements.

Wow, this is unfortunate history. So if someone had marketed CBD as a food
ingredient prior to the FDA's approval of CBD drugs, then putting it in food
now would be OK. Does the FDA even have the facts correct? Were there food
products before the CBD drugs were approved?

------
muterad_murilax
So hemp products such as protein powder weren't legal in the U.S. before?

~~~
j0ba
My mom in California has been buying hemp seeds for the past couple years at
the local health food store, so I'd say no.

~~~
kristofferR
California doesn't care about what's legal or not, they've legalized selling
weed which is still super illegal (federally, which is what we're talking
about).

~~~
moate
Exactly. While someone in CA was probably able to access hemp items (and
straight out pot items obviously) it was still illegal to produce. That
doesn't mean you couldn't obtain it through mail orders or lax enforcement,
but I mean I can go buy heroin from a guy I know, that doesn't make it legal.

------
refurb
_This is because both CBD and THC are active ingredients in FDA-approved drugs
and were the subject of substantial clinical investigations before they were
marketed as foods or dietary supplements._

I would disagree on the term marketed (yes, I know the FDA has a specific
definition). THC and CBD have been used medicinally long before they were
approved by the FDA as drugs.

------
samstave
My issues with CDB/THC legality is that I think its ridiculous that they are
requiring for the cultivation, packaging, sale and consumption of it all to be
limited to local state regions.

Meaning; If you have a legal cultivation license in California - and you grow
or manufacture flower/oil/edibles - you cannot legally transport them A)
THROUGH any federal land (like along HWY 80 between the bay area and Lake
Tahoe) -- as that traverses a federal forest. and B) From California to Nevada
- in which both states THC products are legal now.

Further, if you obtain a license for your cannabis operation in Nevada in
addition to California - you have to fully duplicate your entire operation.

Imagine if every single state required every alcohol manufacturer to have a
full operation in every state in which Whiskey was to be sold. Its an absolute
joke.

Finally - the BCC regulations state that a delivery truck cannot leave the
facility it is licensed at until 6pm, must be tracked by GPS, and must be back
at the same facility by 10PM.

So you cannot manufacture goods in northern california, deliver them to
southern california and be back in your facility on time.

Instead you have to establish licenses POPs along the route / work with other
licensed distributors to hand off between locations.

The local jurisdiction can supercede any BCC state regulation with whatever
they want - which is going to be either the county, or the local city council.
City councils are all duplicating effort to determine what their local tax
requirements will be - spending money on external consultants to help them
figure out tax revenue projections, and then selecting which local parcels are
allowewd to operate a business.

For example - Truckee california has chosen to only allow delivery operations
from a set number of parcels - and rather than the state regulation of 600'
between facilities and schools - they have chosen that your property lines
cannot be within 600' from eachother && your operation must be on a second
story office unit if it is zoned as commercial general.

But in order to get a license from the state you must:

A) Have a sign-off from the property owner that it is OK to have any cannabis
operations from the commercial space you're leasing from (and landlords with
loans from the big banks will not allow this due to the stipulations from the
federal loans that say they cannot operate cannabis businesses if they have a
loan from that bank)

B) You have to be able to get the local city cannabis business license (some
cities charge many thousands, want freedom to fully audit you at any time, and
want $XXX/month or as much as 10% of your revenues whichever is greater.)

There is a bunch more -- but its specifically being regulated to prevent the
small cultivators from getting into the business - and Monsanto is already
secretly operating under shell company names and coming in in a big way. So
are the canadians -- and the canadians are low-balling offers to cannabis
growers here, pretending to do due diligence - then walking away with the
information from the smaller growers and spending money to execute on the
business vision plans they glean from the smaller entities.

~~~
meritt
> Imagine if every single state required every alcohol manufacturer to have a
> full operation in every state.

You should try running a startup that hires remote workers. We already have to
deal with this when it comes to taxation, filings fees, nexus laws, and health
insurance. It makes it extremely difficult to run a "remote only" organization
without utilizing a PEO.

~~~
thestepafter
What is a PEO and have you had this problem with remote workers in other
countries?

~~~
meritt
I didn't want to come across as advertising any particular entity but they are
organizations [1] that are registered in every state, provide benefits,
retirement plans, payroll, etc. They technically hire your employees for you,
and then contract them to you while taking a fee on top. It's a good way for
remote-only companies to expand within the states, or simply companies that
don't want to deal with HR/Payroll/etc.

All of our non-US hires have been as contractors entirely to avoid potential
complexities.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_employer_organiza...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_employer_organization)

------
danschumann
THC is soon to follow, I hope. - From Wisconsin

------
gurumeditations
So CBD and THC products are illegal if they cross state lines unless the FDA
decides otherwise. Wonderful...

~~~
slantaclaus
The FDA also allows Tylenol to be sold OTC

------
Cyclone_
Excited to see CBD since it's been shown to be great for treating pain

~~~
canada_dry
Now that it's legal in Canada I recently used CBD for my back pain... it's
been quite helpful. Whereas THC (smoking pot) does nothing for me.

CBD really needs to be available to anyone with chronic pain (cancer
treatment, epilepsy, etc, etc).

~~~
slantaclaus
Are you using it topically or orally?

~~~
dana321
Not the original poster, but have used CBD - it works both topically and
orally. Shop around, the vast majority of outlets for the paste are rip-off
merchants, so do a deep dive and find one that is "honest"

------
elif
at the very least the title should say "legal in January" instead of "now",
but the CBD part is also a hazardous exaggeration.

------
morpheuskafka
Fast facts:

\- Hemp is defined as Cannabis sativa L., inc. parts and derivatives, with no
more than 0.3% THC on dry weight basis.

\- Hemp is excluded from the definitions of "marihuana" and
"tetrohydrocannabinol" under the CSA. Therefore, it is no longer a violation
of federal _drug (controlled substances)_ laws to produce, distribute, or use
hemp.

\- The THC threshold appears to apply at all times--ie. it is unlawful to
extract and concentrate THC from previously legal low-THC sativa. Conversely,
CBD oil derived from sativa strains would appear to become unscheduled once
concentrated such that the THC content falls below the limit--however, the
interim production and possession would remain unlawful without a DEA license.

\- This Farm Bill will in one year phase out the 2014 FB research hemp
program, and replace it with a full blown legal hemp production program. Under
agriculture laws, the only penalties at hand for negligent violations are CAPs
and program suspension. The law provides that intentional violations are to be
reported by Ag to State/Federal LE.

\- The intentional production of cannabis sativa >0.3% THC would be readily
punishable under state, federal CSA. However, because the definition of hemp,
which is excluded from the CSA, only takes into account the THC content and
_not_ the registration status of the grower, it isn't readily apparent how one
could be punished for commerce in unregistered, but THC-threshold compliant,
Cannabis sativa. However, an unregistered grower has no shield against
accidental/negligent over-THC drug charges.

\- As the linked press release notes, food and drug law will apply to the
interstate commerce in hemp. Thus, it will not be lawful to distribute CBD oil
as a "supplement," for example. While FD&C Act violations can result in
serious charges, they won't be charged as "drug crimes" ie. controlled
substances offenses, and will not have the same impact on federal employment,
student loans, etc.

\- I'm no expert in this, but it seems to me that it would not be possible to
tell legal hemp from >0.3% THC sativa. Thus, it would appear that visual
identification of marijuana may no longer be a valid basis for a
search/detention by law enforcement.

TL;DR: All Cannabis sativa L. is no longer a controlled substance, provided
that it contains no greater than 0.3% THC. States may authorize a legal,
tested method of production, for which no one may be penalized for
accidental/negligent violations. The FDA will regulate the interstate commerce
in hemp products, including CBD oil, because they are considered drug
products. The FDA will not be involved in industrial hemp (ex. hemp ropes)
because they are not marketed as food, drugs, or cosmetics.

edits: formatting. nb, the law text is at
[https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Agriculture...](https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Agriculture%20Improvement%20Act%20of%202018.pdf),
do a ^F for "hemp"

------
mychael
Legalizing CBD, pulling troops from Syria & and it looks like we're leaving
Afghanistan soon too. It's a good week for America.

~~~
canada_dry
With Mattis resigning and Kelly also leaving... I'd argue it's very bad week
for America.

~~~
adventured
They're war hawks, pillars of the military industrial complex, hell bent on
keeping us at perpetual war in places like Syria and Afghanistan. Mattis
resigned because he's at odds with Trump's push toward ending disastrous
foreign military entanglements. In his resignation he openly admitted he was
not aligned with Trump's views on such matters. Mattis was one of the top
representatives for the system of global military deployment that has nearly
bankrupted the US Government after ~50 years of it. If Trump is going to
continue to pull us back from the policy of military involvement everywhere,
then both Mattis and Kelly leaving is a great start. That outrageous $750
billion military spending proposal should go too, we plainly can't afford
anything near that, which also means Syria and Afghanistan should naturally
go, which means Mattis should go.

~~~
wutbrodo
> the system of global military deployment that has nearly bankrupted the US
> Government after ~50 years of it.

Huh?

~~~
adventured
First there was Vietnam, which broke the US Government's finances so badly it
had to abandon the weakened gold peg entirely and shift to fiat only.
Immediately after that, inflation skyrocketed, the price of all commodities
skyrocketed, oil went vertical, the dollar tanked, and the median American
standard of living has never recovered back to where it was before that
erosion began. The US fiscal position has never been sound since then either.

The gold peg stood in the way of the war machine. If you have to actually pay
for your perpetual war with taxes, it's not going to work. You'll never get
the support of the people to fund the insanity. Instead you pay for it all by
not asking permission, you abuse the currency to fund the wars (artificially
low interest rates, so you can afford the debt, which destroys the purchasing
power of Americans by pushing the dollar down over time, so everything they
buy costs them more; all without anywhere near enough of an export increase to
offset it).

The huge pile of debt Reagan ran up - which back then was the largest
accumulation of debt in US history outside of a major war time - is still
sitting on the books effectively, perpetually costing us interest forever.
That spending explosion was partially focused on unnecessary military
spending. Reagan's military spending debt will never be paid off, the true
cost of that over time (it'll still be sitting there costing interest 50+
years after it was first accumulated) will be dramatically beyond what
occurred during his Presidency years.

Then there was the second Iraq war and the spending explosion during the Bush
years. That debased the dollar and spurred an immense commodity bubble. Pick
20 random countries and google "xcountry GDP" and then look at the chart of
each (then match it with gold and oil charts). What you will see is syncronous
soaring of GDP figures and commodities, far beyond anything that is ever seen
in normal terms. Most of that isn't actual GDP growth, what that is, is the
dollar plunging (vs the other currencies) due to idiotic spending policies
during the Bush years, specifically the trillion plus in unnecessary spending
during those eight years. That debasing of the dollar mauled US standards of
living for the middle class, which was then compounded by the housing collapse
and recession.

The $750 billion we're about to spend on the military - while not being at war
with anybody - is a continuation of roughly five decades of failed policy
around our global deployment of military forces and routine foreign
adventurism re military action in places like Syria or Libya.

That $750 billion should be a lot closer to $450 billion instead. We could
just about balance the budget right now, if you combined that with letting the
tax cuts reset, slightly raise taxes on the top 10%, and have the Fed push
interest costs very slightly down. Instead they're going to keep burying us in
mistakes.

So now here we are, looking to spend $8 trillion plus over the next ten years
just on the military budget (again, while not at war). Meanwhile, we've got
about $600 billion per year in debt interest to pay. Soon we'll be paying
interest on $30 trillion in public debt. That's the global military machine
being partially responsible for bankrupting the US Government. We're not
spending $750 billion because we're at war with Nazi Germany or the USSR or
some immense foe, it's because we're deployed globally and that's wildly
expensive to maintain.

------
sathishmanohar
n00b question: Does this make Marijuana legal as well or just hemp?

~~~
adventured
Marijuana remains illegal according to the US Government (even though it's not
being actively enforced against states that have legalized). I'd expect we'll
need to see at least a dozen more states legalize before they're essentially
forced into official national legalization. Every state that legalizes gets us
closer, like dominos falling. Sometime in the next decade, the sooner the
better obviously.

