2 Comments

Well, you know I disagree, but your article is very well-written and persuasive, as I anticipated it would be.

My point, which you impliedly referenced, is that it does not make sense for Congress to have expressly and broadly removed a compound (or, rather, an entire family of compounds) from the CSA only to have those same compounds remain unlawful under a different statutory scheme that was enacted to capture "designer" compounds that do not exist in nature. As to the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, I think you are right, though the same arguments apply to CBD, which is now an entire industry unto itself. In fact, the same argument applies to the entire panoply of "novel" cannabinoids (CBG, THCV, CBC, etc), but no one- including the FDA- seems to mind that they are being marketed. The only difference with D8 is that it produces intoxicating effects. But so do other products, such as kratom, that are lawful and widely available.

I'm excited about your and Shane's new blog and look forward to thought-provoking and stimulating reads.

Expand full comment

Thanks Rod for the comment and support. I see your point. Obviously, I don’t find it persuasive for the reasons already stated, but I will concede that it is the most persuasive counter-argument and what I’d argue on the other side.

Expand full comment