Dea Cannabis Seeds

DEA Confirms Cannabis Seeds Are Considered Legal Hemp If Consisting Less Than 0.3% THC The 2018 Farm Bill removed hemp from the definition of marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has confirmed that cannabis seeds fall outside the realm of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) – regardless of how much THC the plant they turn into could eventually yield – because the seed itself contains less than 0.3% THC on a dry weight basis and thus meets the definition of hemp. Marijuana Clarification of the New Drug Code (7350) for Marijuana Extract Note regarding this rule – In light of questions that the Drug Enforcement Administration has received from members of

Cannabis Regulatory Update: DEA Says Marijuana Seeds Are Considered Legal Hemp If Below THC Limit, New York, South Carolina, Oklahoma

The 2018 Farm Bill removed hemp from the definition of marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

Marijuana, on the other hand, remains federally prohibited, which can’t be said for the plant’s seed, regardless of how much THC might end up being produced in buds when the seeds were cultivated.

In response to an inquiry from attorney Shane Pennington regarding the legality of cannabis seeds, tissue culture, and “other genetic material” containing no more than 0.3 percent THC, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) recently reviewed the federal statute and implementing regulations, reported Marijuana Moment.

“Marihuana seed that has a delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis meets the definition of ‘hemp’ and thus is not controlled under the CSA,” Terrence L. Boos, chief of DEA’ s Drug & Chemical Evaluation Section wrote in the letter, dated January 6.

“Conversely, marihuana seed having a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis is controlled in schedule I under the CSA as marihuana.”

What the DEA agrees upon is that people can possess cannabis seeds no matter how much THC the resulting plant might produce, as long as the seeds themselves have less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC.

“In my view, the letter is significant because we continue to see confusion over the source rule—the argument that the legal status of a cannabis product hinges on whether it is ‘sourced’ from marijuana or hemp—influencing legislative proposals even at the federal level,” Pennington told Marijuana Moment.

New York’s $220 Billion Election-Year Budget Stuffed With (Cannabis) Tax Breaks

New York legislative leaders are poised to vote on a budget proposal that includes provisions to let marijuana businesses take state tax deductions that are available to other industries despite an ongoing federal ban.

On Thursday, a framework on which lawmakers and Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) worked to reach a consensus on unrelated issues was unveiled, following an extension of the budget deadline for a week, reported Marijuana Moment.

Both the Assembly and Senate budget measures were expected to pass in advance of an April 1 deadline.

The proposals would carve out an exemption to allow medical and adult-use marijuana companies to make tax deductions for business expenses and claim credits at the state level.

While being obligated to pay taxes, cannabis companies are currently barred from making certain federal tax deductions under an Internal Revenue Code section known as 280E due to conducting activities that consist of “trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act).”

To help resolve the issue, New York lawmakers in both chambers agreed to include language into their budget proposals and thus oblige the state not to tax cannabis companies for any amount that the federal government disallows under 280E “related to the production and distribution of adult-use cannabis products.”

The move would allow New York marijuana businesses to see significant tax savings.

In anticipation of the launch of New York’s adult-use market, which could happen this year, sales of buds and edibles are already flourishing in Manhattan.

Despite New York cannabis regulators proclaiming marijuana gifting to be illegal in October, stores that sell a product or service to consumers and then giving them cannabis as a “gift” have become a thing in the Big Apple.

This “gifting” practice has come to the attention of the Office of Cannabis Management’s (OCM) Enforcement Unit, which recently sent “cease and desist” letters to more than two dozen businesses it found to be doing just that. Still, unlicensed marijuana dispensaries continue to multiply in New York City.

South Carolina Medical Cannabis Legalization Bill Heads To House Floor Following Committee’s Approval

Considered to be one of the most restrictive medical cannabis laws in the country, South Carolina’s measure that would legalize the plant passed a key House committee on Thursday.

The green light from the lawmakers came days after the panel heard hours of testimony on the reform.

The House Medical, Military, Public, and Municipal Affairs Committee advanced the legislation in a 15–3 vote, which is now heading to the House floor, Marijuana Moment writes.

Sponsored by Sen. Tom Davis (R), the bill was already passed by the Senate in February, on a bipartisan vote.

The Democrat-led committee decided to dismiss several out of over 100 amendments to the bill offered by Rep. Vic Dabney (R) on the grounds of being unfriendly and would likely only stall action on the legalization bill itself. Most of the amendments were subsequently pulled by Dabney himself.

See also  Cannabis Seeds For Sale In Usa

However, the one amendment that the committee passed adds to the measure’s packaging and labeling requirements, requiring that, among other things, marijuana products be labeled as Indica, Sativa or hybrid.

Several Republican members of the panel expressed concerns that legalizing medical marijuana would degrade society.

“My concern is, across the nation, wherever these bills have passed, a lot of problems develop,” Dabney said. A friend in Washington State, he continued, told him that it “ruined” the state, with “people laying around on the streets…just stoned all the time.”

Rep. Ryan McCabe (R) stressed that his “concern with this bill is that it encourages people to use marijuana to deal with their problems.”

Still, another Republican lawmaker, Rep. Jonathon Hill (R), who supported the measure, challenged his colleagues to patients in their districts.

“Just imagine for a moment how much more afraid they must be, and it is literally a choice of life or death for them. Ask yourself: Why are you here if it’s not to do right by them?”

Oklahoma Gives Support To Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Following Legal Challenge By Competing Campaign

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit challenging a marijuana legalization initiative that activists seek to place before voters on the 2022 ballot, reported Marijuana Moment.

New Approach PAC-backed marijuana activists kicked off 2022 by filing a marijuana legalization initiative that would allow adults 21 and older to purchase and possess up to one ounce of cannabis, grow up to six mature plants, and six seedings for personal use.

Jed Green, director of Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action (ORCA) – a separate campaign that filed a pair of 2022 ballot initiatives to legalize adult-use marijuana and remodel the state’s existing medical cannabis program in October – sued the campaign supported by the New Approach PAC.

He claimed that it’s unconstitutional under a single-subject law for ballot initiatives and that the summary that would be presented to voters is misleading.

“State Question No. 820 is legally sufficient for submission to the people of Oklahoma. Petitioner Jed Green has failed to meet his burden in establishing that State Question No. 820 is clearly or manifestly unconstitutional and that the gist of State Question No. 820 is misleading,” a majority of the justices said. “The Court assumes original jurisdiction and denies Petitioner’s challenge to the constitutionality and sufficiency of State Question No. 820.”

© 2022 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

Ad Disclosure: The rate information is obtained by Bankrate from the listed institutions. Bankrate cannot guaranty the accuracy or availability of any rates shown above. Institutions may have different rates on their own websites than those posted on Bankrate.com. The listings that appear on this page are from companies from which this website receives compensation, which may impact how, where, and in what order products appear. This table does not include all companies or all available products.

All rates are subject to change without notice and may vary depending on location. These quotes are from banks, thrifts, and credit unions, some of whom have paid for a link to their own Web site where you can find additional information. Those with a paid link are our Advertisers. Those without a paid link are listings we obtain to improve the consumer shopping experience and are not Advertisers. To receive the Bankrate.com rate from an Advertiser, please identify yourself as a Bankrate customer. Bank and thrift deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Credit union deposits are insured by the National Credit Union Administration.

Consumer Satisfaction: Bankrate attempts to verify the accuracy and availability of its Advertisers’ terms through its quality assurance process and requires Advertisers to agree to our Terms and Conditions and to adhere to our Quality Control Program. If you believe that you have received an inaccurate quote or are otherwise not satisfied with the services provided to you by the institution you choose, please click here.

Rate collection and criteria: Click here for more information on rate collection and criteria.

DEA defines cannabis seeds with less than 0.3% THC as hemp and as legal

The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has confirmed that cannabis seeds fall outside the realm of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) – regardless of how much THC the plant they turn into could eventually yield – because the seed itself contains less than 0.3% THC on a dry weight basis and thus meets the definition of hemp.

The official determination could eventually have widespread consequences, but for now it is most likely going to be limited to easing transportation across state lines and an uptick in the sale of cannabis seeds to consumers. However, companies selling seeds need to be wary about how they market products to consumers in order to avoid falling foul of other cannabis prohibition regulations.

See also  Homegrown Cannabis Seeds

Shane Pennington, a lawyer specialising in cannabinoid regulatory issues, wrote to the DEA in November of last year seeking clarification on product legality. The administration’s response to Pennington’s inquiry acknowledges that, under current rules, the potential amount of THC a cannabis plant might produce is not important; all that matters is that the seed contains less than 0.3% THC on a dry weight basis.

“As soon as the story went out, I got a lot of calls,” Pennington told CBD-Intel. “People are starting to use this letter in various ways, and I am sure changes will be seen pretty soon.”

Pennington expects cannabis companies to start using the DEA’s letter in court and in front of state regulators to prove that what the companies do is legal. Tax implications and intellectual property claims on products which can now be sold legally are among the changes the DEA pronouncement is likely to effect in the industry.

“We are going to see how different regulators and courts will respond,” he said. “I would say we will start seeing this in the next month or so.”

Federal law rules, though states can go further

Currently, transport is the area most affected. The DEA decision means cannabis seeds should be permitted into and out of the US as well as across internal state lines.

“If the DEA decides to treat seeds, extracts and genetic material below 0.3% as hemp, which it logically should, then it should be the case that there are no import/export requirements on this stuff either,” Pennington said. “The question is you just never know until you see it in action.”

We could see seeds follow a similar precedent to the medical drug Epidiolex, which, after it was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the DEA eventually moved from Schedule 1 to Schedule 5 classification before removing it from the schedules altogether following the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill.

At the state level, the official position means there should not be any federal interference with transport of items such as seeds, extracts and genetic material that meet the THC threshold for the hemp exemption.

But states can still forbid a substance that is not regulated by the CSA and is therefore legal under federal law. This means that states will still be able to prevent the transport of what they consider as illegal cannabis material through their territories.

States though, Pennington said, tend to shape their drug laws based on the DEA’s decisions, which will probably lead to eventual changes at the state level. “It’s conceivable that this determination could have some level of influence to change state laws in the not too distant future,” he said.

It may also lead to challenges against protectionist laws that prohibit the import or sale of cannabis material from other states, Pennington said. These technically contravene the Dormant Commerce Clause and discriminate against producers in other states, but there has traditionally been little appetite to challenge them because previously there was no legal commerce of cannabis material whatsoever.

“Now it’s clear that this is legal under federal law, there is a question about whether those laws, the ones that discriminate against other states’ sellers, are constitutional,” Pennington added, citing a recent case in Maine where licences for medical cannabis were subject to residency requirements. “This is something that is being litigated a lot right now.”

Selling seeds while managing marketing

For retailers selling cannabis seeds, the position puts their business practice in the clear. But it could lead to an entanglement under other laws. While the sale of the seeds is legal, participating in the manufacturing of a controlled substance such as cannabis remains illegal, according to cannabis business lawyer Rod Kight.

“As an advocate for cannabis, I think that any development by law enforcement that allows for a broader interpretation of law is generally good,” Kight told CBD-Intel. “But I think the biggest change here is that this is going to be perceived as an open door to companies who are selling cannabis seeds to really advertise them as cannabis seeds with high THC potential, so I think that’s maybe a trap.”

Promoting cannabis seeds’ potential, such as a particular genetic strain which is known to produce plants with high THC levels, would make them more appealing to buyers, but at the same time it may be considered by authorities as conspiracy to commit a crime.

“You can sell cannabis seeds, but of course there is not a very large profit for just cannabis seeds,” Kight told CBD-Intel. “When my clients call me, they are interested in marketing their qualities, and I tell them not to do that as that would get them into trouble.”

According to Kight, given the DEA’s long history of opposing any reforms in the direction of loosening cannabis regulations, the agency’s letter on cannabis seeds should be met with scepticism: “When the DEA says something that appears to be positive for cannabis, you might want to question that.”

Marijuana

Clarification of the New Drug Code (7350) for Marijuana Extract

Note regarding this rule – In light of questions that the Drug Enforcement Administration has received from members of the public following the publication of the Final Rule establishing a new Controlled Substance Code Number (drug code) for marijuana extract, DEA makes the following clarification:

  • The new drug code (7350) established in the Final Rule does not include materials or products that are excluded from the definition of marijuana set forth in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). 1
  • The new drug code includes only those extracts that fall within the CSA definition of marijuana.
  • If a product consisted solely of parts of the cannabis plant excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana, such product would not be included in the new drug code (7350) or in the drug code for marijuana (7360).
See also  Where Do Cannabis Seeds Come From

As explained in the Final Rule, the creation of this new drug code was primarily intended to give DEA more precise accounting to assist the agency in carrying out its obligations to provide certain reports required by U.S. treaty obligations. Because the Final Rule did not add any substance to the schedules that was not already controlled, and did not change the schedule of any substance, it was not a scheduling action under 21 U.S.C. §§ 811 and 812.

The new drug code is a subset of what has always been included in the CSA definition of marijuana. By creating a new drug code for marijuana extract, the Final Rule divides into more descriptive pieces the materials, compounds, mixtures, and preparations that fall within the CSA definition of marijuana. Both drug code 7360 (marijuana) and new drug code 7350 (marijuana extract) are limited to that which falls within the CSA definition of marijuana.

Because recent public inquiries that DEA has received following the publication of the Final Rule suggest there may be some misunderstanding about the source of cannabinoids in the cannabis plant, we also note the following botanical considerations. As the scientific literature indicates, cannabinoids, such as tetrahydrocannabinols (THC), cannabinols (CBN) and cannabidiols (CBD), are found in the parts of the cannabis plant that fall within the CSA definition of marijuana, such as the flowering tops, resin, and leaves. 2 According to the scientific literature, cannabinoids are not found in the parts of the cannabis plant that are excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana, except for trace amounts (typically, only parts per million) 3 that may be found where small quantities of resin adhere to the surface of seeds and mature stalk. 4 Thus, based on the scientific literature, it is not practical to produce extracts that contain more than trace amounts of cannabinoids using only the parts of the cannabis plant that are excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana, such as oil from the seeds. The industrial processes used to clean cannabis seeds and produce seed oil would likely further diminish any trace amounts of cannabinoids that end up in the finished product. However, as indicated above, if a product, such as oil from cannabis seeds, consisted solely of parts of the cannabis plant excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana, such product would not be included in the new drug code (7350) or in the drug code for marijuana (7360), even if it contained trace amounts of cannabinoids. 5

1 The CSA states: “The term ‘marihuana’ means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.” 21 U.S.C. § 802(16).

2 H. Mölleken and H. Hussman. Cannabinoid in seed extracts of Cannabis sativa cultivars. J. Int. Hemp Assoc. 4(2): 73-79 (1997).

3 See id.; see also S. Ross et al., GC-MS Analysis of the Total Δ9-THC Content of Both Drug- and Fiber-Type Cannabis Seeds, J. Anal. Toxic., Vol. 24, 715-717 (2000).

4 H. Mölleken, supra.

5 Nor would such a product be included under drug code 7370 (tetrahydrocannabinols). See Hemp Industries Association v. DEA, 357 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2004) (Hemp II). However, as the Ninth Circuit stated in Hemp II, “when Congress excluded from the definition of marijuana ‘mature stalks of such plant, fiber . . . , [and] oil or cake made from the seeds,’ it also made an exception to the exception, and included ‘resin extracted from’ the excepted parts of the plant in the definition of marijuana, despite the stalks and seed exception.” Id. at 1018. Thus, if an extract of cannabinoids were produced using extracted resin from any part of the cannabis plant (including the parts excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana), such an extract would be included in the CSA definition of marijuana.