DEA Clarifies Stance: Not All CBD Is Prohibited

The Drug Enforcement Administration confirmed this month that CBD does not fall under the CSA

Drug Enforcement Administration confirmed this month that CBD does not fall under the Controlled Substances Act

CALIFORNIA: The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has issued a statement further clarifying their interpretation and enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). In their statement, they make clear the critical difference between CBD and THC, a distinction that cannabidiol retailers have been fighting to bring to light.

The DEA agrees that the CSA targets marijuana specifically because of the psychoactive properties found in THC, its primary active ingredient. Because THC is an intoxicating agent, and CBD is not, the DEA now sees fit to clarify that “Products and materials that are made from the cannabis plant and which fall outside the CSA definition of marijuana… are not controlled under the CSA. Such products may accordingly be sold and otherwise distributed throughout the United States without restriction under the CSA.”


“Products and materials that are made from the cannabis plant and which fall outside the CSA definition of marijuana… are not controlled under the CSA. Such products may accordingly be sold and otherwise distributed throughout the United States without restriction under the CSA.”


The statement by the DEA now means that:

  • CBD may be imported/exported to and from the USA without restriction, and;
  • CBD may be lawfully purchased and sold throughout the country

Although in practice this was already the case, there was a perceived gray area due to widespread misunderstanding and conflation of CBD versus THC as well as the effects (or lack thereof) of each compound.

Read full article @ PRN

Comments

  1. Alan says

    Pardon, but if I’m not mistaken, this DEA clarification does not cover CBD made from resin derived from resinous high CBD flower and trim, and only covers CBD derived from stalk. DEA has not change the definition of marijuana.. Hence, This article may be a bit misleading to some.
    I would be thrilled to be incorrect.

  2. Michael Lloyd Whitworth MD says

    I am interested in the source of the DEA statement. There is nothing on the DEA website at this time regarding such a statement as far as I can find and neither is there anything in the Federal Register.

    • says

      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).
      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.

  3. Eric Lee Castillo says

    So the DEA is only saying you can make cbd products out of the stalk and/or seeds of a cannabis plant, and they’re only saying that because it would “produce negligible amounts” of CBD, THC, CBN, etc. It states CBD from a cannabis flower or bud still falls under the DEA’s definition of marijuana. So that article you shared on Slack is a bit misleading I would say. These “MJ News” type sources usually are.

  4. GERONIMO says

    A bunch of nonsense and confusion that means nothing different today than it did yesterday and we still sit here at square one. What a waste of time and energy and I live for the day someone in the high position just simply says “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH” and makes it legal. How stupid to allow Alcohol and tobacco with no worries at all even though we can all see how many lives those two products take before their time. Alcohol causes the user to kill innocent children and adults that have never even touch the stuff. Doesnt anyone care about that, or is this just about the damn money and control?. Anyone who tells me Marijuana is bad in anyway whatsoever is a damn Hypocrite as long as they fail to fight against Alcohol and Tobacco. The producers of those products are legalized KILLERS and they continue to get away with murder because they bring in millions upon millions of tax dollars. They get paid big to kill people. Its a STUPID WORLD we are forced to live in.
    We are dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t.

    • says

      I think you would have a valid argument against the IRS to deduct all valid business expenses because the DEA has publicly stated certain types of CBD doesn’t fall under CSA, which is why 280e applies. Doesn’t mean you won’t get audited. Just means you have a valid argument and justification for your deductions. It’s a win in my book!

Leave a Reply to Eric Lee Castillo Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>