UPDATE: Latest Scoop on DEA Action Against CBD
Update December 19, 2017: DEA Classifies CBD as a Schedule 1 substance
On January 13, 2017, the DEA is intending to classify CBD as a Schedule 1 drug – right up there on the same level as heroin, ecstasy, and LSD. Anyone who knows a bit about medicinal marijuana and CBD, will be struck by the absurdity of such a categorization. Reminder: CBD has no psychoactive properties whatsoever.
HoneyColony has a community of thousands of CBD fans who have used Superior CBD successfully against chronic pain, autoimmune conditions, mental disorders, and chronic disease. There are over 1,600 published scientific studies on cannabidiol’s beneficial health effects. So what is really going on here? The threat of criminalizing CBD is part of an old tradition in which the agencies follow the drum beat of the pharmaceutical industry.
This permits Big Pharma to hijack medicinal solutions for patenting, as witnessed by the story of GW Pharmaceuticals below. Another tactic is often to discredit functional solutions that can not be patented, to thwart competition (example being colloidal silver, a natural antimicrobial that could undermine the antibiotics industry).
The purpose of controlling the distribution of medicinal solutions is to make profits, by the same industry that also fleshes out dangerous substances like opiates and amphetamines through “legal” prescriptions.
The hypocrisy won’t go away, unless the institutions are systematically confronted by the people, for the people.
The DEA doesn’t have the authority to make a law and schedule controlled substances without an act of Congress, argues Robert Hoban, managing partner at the Hoban Law Group. The Denver firm has represented various hemp and marijuana businesses since 2008, many of which have told Hoban and his partners that they would be plaintiffs in a lawsuit.
The DEA has exceeded its authority in the past, he says, and now that 28 states allow medical marijuana, “the industry is up for the challenge of litigation against any government agency that operates contrary to prevailing law and enforcement policies,” his firm wrote in a statement.
Because CBD comes from the non-psychoactive parts of the plant, it cannot legally be treated as a marijuana extract. The DEA has sought to unilaterally create laws before and has lost when challenged,” the firm’s statement says.
HoneyColony is dedicated to bringing you this potent and safe and non-psychoactive plant medicine. Our latest reserves are going fast as we near the DEA’s purported effective date January 13, 2017.
You can sign up here for latest news and ideas on how to protect your natural rights to use and purchase CBD.
The Historical Battle
After discovering the potential health properties of Cannabidiols, I delved into the politics and bureaucracy and found the below:
The medicinal properties of cannabidiol (better known as CBD), a compound found in the Cannabis sativa L. plant species, are quickly drawing the attention of scientists, plant-medicine lovers, dietary-supplement companies, venture capitalists, professional athletes, and Big Pharma—not to mention people living with serious, chronic medical conditions. Insiders predict the burgeoning market will be as profitable as the NFL.
Today, if you run a search on PubMed.gov, a medical research database, you’ll find 1,501 academic articles on cannabidiol.
Unlike tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), CBD has no euphoric properties whatsoever, and carries no street value. What it does offer, however, are a host of health benefits.
Despite CBD’s incredible profile there’s a continuing debate over its legal status. Parts of the law are fuzzy and up for interpretation, depending on whom you ask.
“There is this issue of speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth when we discuss CBD,” says Joy Beckerman, president of Hemp Ace International, a Seattle-based consulting firm.
For instance, the jury is still out when it comes to a whole slew of issues surrounding the plant compound: Is CBD truly legal in all 50 states, just some states, or none at all? Meanwhile it’s also unclear as to whether CBD is more legal if it’s being imported into the country compared to being grown on American soil. And finally is it safe to sell across state lines? And how about “CBD-only” medical marijuana laws? (Seventeen states, including Alabama and Florida, have legalized CBD for medical use while keeping THC illegal).
“All of those questions have information but they don’t have answers because [the law is] that gray and it’s that developing,” adds Beckerman who also teaches scontinuing legal education seminar titled The Curious Legal Status of CBD and Industrial Hemp-Derived Cannabinoids.
According to CBD manufacturers, regulatory arms such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), United States Customs and Border Protection (within Homeland Security), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and Department of Justice are making it increasingly difficult for dietary supplements companies to sell CBD. They say the current atmosphere is reminiscent of alcohol prohibition in the 1920s.
Some selling “CBD-rich hemp oil” have experienced significant disruptions to their businesses: big sums of money frozen by credit card companies or PayPal, customs agents seizing products at the border, and FDA-issued warning notices.
“The [FDA’s] punishments for running afoul of their endless regulations (that, often, their reps don’t know well) can range from a mere letter and a fine to complete shutdown of operations without recourse,” says Jennifer Carney, a journalist who is versed in cannabis compliance. “The FDA is the most unforgiving agency with very minimal oversight, and has rules that seem to apply to some (little guys) but not to Big Pharma.”
Big Pharma Moves In
FDA: Thou Shalt Not Market CBD as a Dietary Supplement
On February 4, 2016, the FDA issued at least eight warning letters to dietary-supplement companies, accusing them of making health claims about CBD and warning them that CBD may not be positioned as a dietary supplement.
Because CBD-containing products have not been approved by the FDA, they cannot be marketed for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of any disease. FDA therefore warned the companies that it considers these products unapproved new drugs.
According to the FDA’s website,
CBD products are excluded from the dietary supplement definition under section 201(ff)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(ff)(3)(B)(ii)]. Under that provision, if a substance (such as CBD) has been authorized for investigation as a new drug for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and for which the existence of such investigations has been made public, then products containing that substance are outside the definition of a dietary supplement. There is an exception if the substance was “marketed as” a dietary supplement or a conventional food before the new drug investigations were authorized; however, based on available evidence, FDA has concluded that this is not the case for CBD.
In broad strokes, this means that if a pharmaceutical company has (seemingly) gotten there first in creating a CBD-based pharmaceutical drug, then CBD is off limits to dietary-supplement companies, unless the product existed when those three criteria were met. The scenario doesn’t work the other way around: If a dietary supplement brings a product to the marketplace, this doesn’t prevent Big Pharma from introducing their own version.
“We can question whether we have perfect balance when they [Big Pharma] are being offered exclusivity while we are being offered a shared market place,” says Michael McGuffin, President of American Herbal Products Association (AHPA), a trade association aimed at supporting responsible commerce of herbs and herbal products.
Another point up for debate in the 201(ff) provision is when CBD actually entered the market.
According to Stuart Tomc, VP of Human Nutrition, “CBD has been marketed as a dietary supplement prior to commencement and public notice of any substantial clinical investigations instituted on CBD, thereby rendering the IND preclusion inapplicable.”
And according to Raphael Mechoulam, an 85-year-old Israeli chemist best known for isolating THC, cannabidiol was discovered in the late 1930s, early 1940s, both in the UK and the US. “The structure was not known, the activity was not known, so it was left behind,” he recently told The Wall Street Journal,
In 1980, Mechoulam published the results of a small clinical trial, but no one seemed interested. Speaking to Truthout via email, he noted that he and his team “reported a small anti-epilepsy clinical trial with CBD with positive results 35 years ago. Nobody bothered to expand it or even to repeat it. Thousands of patients, many of them children, could have been helped.”
The Matter of Red Yeast Rice
In 2015, the FDA sent out warning letters to go after six CBD sellers for making unapproved claims, some of whose products contained no CBD at all.
“We’ve seen a lot of fraud in this industry: some of these products contain no CBD, or far less than advertised. It’s basically an uncontrolled experiment that is going on now in the Wild West,” says Ethan Russo, a board-certified neurologist and former Senior Medical Advisor to GW Pharmaceuticals.
“You cannot make a supposed claim on what a product can do without randomized controlled trials and a particular preparation,” adds Russo, who advocates for the legalized production of CBD through a regulated market with standards.
Deceitful corporate schemes do a disservice to quality vendors. That’s why we have the FDA, to assure safety and proper labeling — not to peddle the interests of Big Pharma or deny human beings a micronutrient found in nature.
But wait: Can a natural, non-intoxicating compound really be classified as drug when it’s really a “dietary ingredient”? (The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act defines a dietary ingredient as a “vitamin; mineral; herb or other botanical; amino acid; dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake; or a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of the preceding substances.”) It’s happened before.
In 1987, red yeast rice became the center of what would turn out to be a landmark case, often referenced when discussing the complexities of CBD.
Red yeast rice extract has been used as a traditional Chinese remedy since the Tang Dynasty to improve blood circulation and decrease cholesterol and triglyceride levels, but it was suddenly classified as a drug once the FDA discovered the active ingredient monoacolin K was found to be chemically identical to lovastatin, a compound found in Merk’s patented prescription drug Mevacor.
On this basis, FDA advised that a product called Cholestin was now a drug requiring FDA’s approval for marketing and banned it, even though red yeast rice is an ingredient with a documented history of food use going back nearly a millennium. FDA concluded that Cholestin was therefore excluded from the definition of “dietary supplement.”
A dietary supplement manufacturer can still contain red yeast rice, but cannot manipulate the supplement’s lovastatin content, adds McGuffin.
Instead of allowing beneficial substances found in nature to be responsibly sold, we have a system that operates on loopholes, compromises, inaccuracies, and Big Pharma sway.
Red yeast rice’s case history provides lessons for manufacturers and distributors of dietary supplements containing CBD.
“Ultimately, dietary companies are advocating for the same thing consumers are,” says McGuffin. “Unfettered and informed access to high-quality cannabis-derived products that contain CBD.”
Turning Over A New Leaf
CBD is one of more than 107 active cannabinoids in the cannabis plant that interact with receptors in our body referred to as the “endocannabinoid system,” responsible for maintaining homeostasis in our bodies. As a result, many argue that whole plant synergies are more effective than the isolated single-molecule compounds that Big Pharma tries to capitalize on because of patent-ability. It’s well accepted that CBD and THC work synergistically for therapeutic efficacy — a combination that medical marijuana advocates refer to as the “entourage effect.”
Cannabidiols are actually found in many plants such as such as cacao, black pepper, and Echinacea (whereas THC is only found in cannabis plants), but the highest levels of cannabinoids are found in the plant species Cannabis.
However, when it comes to dietary supplements, companies are only able to arguably dodge the DEA by sourcing CBD from “industrial hemp” plants, which contain lower resin than marijuana. Remember, the DEA still considers cannabis a Schedule I drug, up there with heroin and ecstasy. But for all intents and purposes, hemp and marijuana are the same plant.
The distinction between “industrial hemp” and marijuana was made just a few years ago, for the first time in US history, under the “Legitimacy of Industrial Hemp Research” provision of the 2014 Agricultural Act, otherwise known as the Federal Farm Bill. Almost magically, cannabis was now considered hemp, as long as no part of the plant contains a THC concentration of “more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”
Martin A Lee, author of Smoke Signals: A Social History of Marijuana – Medical, Recreational, and Scientific and Co-Founder & Director of Project CBD, describes the 0.3 percent legal limit as “an absurd, impractical, resin-phobic relic of reefer madness.”
“It has become the lynchpin of cannabis prohibition, a venal, dishonest policy that impedes medical research and blocks patient access to valuable therapeutic options, including herbal extracts with various CBD: THC ratios. For patients struggling with a wide range of conditions, CBD and THC work best together, enhancing each other’s beneficial effects,” he recently wrote.
While Beckerman acknowledges there has been progress, she notes that we wouldn’t be having these discussions regarding low-THC/high-CBD varieties if not for cannabis prohibition.
“If we were free to do what we wanted with this medicine, we would breed for desired therapeutic properties regardless of THC-phobic legal definitions. We wouldn’t be limiting ourselves, we’d want to create the most efficient systems and biggest return on the energy to extract medicine.”
Currently, CBD manufacturers are not permitted to extract CBD from the flowers where the greatest concentrations of THC are found, but many opine it is lawful to extract CBD from stems and stalks.
Fortunately things are evolving, albeit in an unexpected way, adds attorney Rod Kight from Asheville, North Carolina. Based on a 2015 Federal Funding Bill, CBD derived from industrial hemp grown in compliance with the Federal Farm Bill arguably including the flowers (based on the definition of ‘industrial hemp’ in the Federal Farm Bill) — may be processed, transported to, and sold in, any state in the US that does not have laws expressly forbidding it. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 contains the following provision at section 763:
None of the funds made available by this act or any other act may be used… to prohibit the transportation, processing, sale or use of industrial hemp that is grown or cultivated in accordance with section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, within or outside the State in which the industrial hemp is grown or cultivated.
Although this language does not explicitly amend the Farm Bill, it does forbid the DEA’s and DOJ’s use of Federal funds to enforce any law that would otherwise prohibit transporting, processing, (arguably includng extracting CBD), selling, or using hemp in any state so long as it was cultivated pursuant to the provisions of the Farm Bill. The practical effect of this clause is that it makes CBD legal on the federal level throughout the US, says Kight.
According to the DEA Office of Diversion Control, parts of the cannabis plant are exempt from being listed as a Schedule I Substance: “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.”
Meanwhile, the only reason hemp food products aren’t off limits altogether is because of the Hemp Industries Association’s victorious lawsuit in 2004, in the 9th Circuit Court against the DEA.
In the ruling Judge Betty Fletcher wrote:
They [DEA] cannot regulate naturally-occurring THC not contained within or derived from marijuana — i.e., non-psychoactive hemp products — because non-psychoactive hemp is not included in Schedule I. The DEA has no authority to regulate drugs that are not scheduled, and it has not followed procedures required to schedule a substance. The DEA’s definition of “THC” contravenes the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress in the [Controlled Substances Act] and cannot be upheld.
CBD hemp oil purveyors often cite the ruling when explaining why their products are “legal in all 50 states.” Others say the court decision never mentions CBD, and yet others say “naturally occurring” means just that – occurring naturally within the raw material and its final products, as opposed to the result of being manipulated from the raw material and concentrated.
“I get into debates all the time with people who say that case legalized CBD,” says Beckerman. “I am not arguing with them other than to say, ‘Jesus Christ, it was a case about oil pressed from a hemp seed. At no point did they discuss cannabinoids in the spirit of plant material collection other than when the poor justices had to spell it concerning THC for the ignorant DEA.”
However, Kleidon along with many others, who have consulted with attorneys and experts, maintain that as long as their product is not a psychoactive concentration of THC, and it is derived from stalk and stem, there is no federal violation.
“Many times the raw materials have been imported, declared at customs [and] taken out by FDA agents who legally report and prevent illegal substances from entering the country,” says Kleidon. “It’s been declared as CBD-rich hemp stalk oil, and it’s been tested and pulled for. If it was a controlled substance, they would be committing a federal crime. And that is not the case.”
“Dietary supplements are currently selling CBD with a Sword of Damocles hanging over their head,” says Marc Ullman, an attorney at Rivkin Radler who represents clients in matters relating to all aspects of Food and Drug Administration and Drug Enforcement Administration matters.
If the production and use of all Cannabis-derived products (including recreational marijuana, medical marijuana, and non-psychoactive compounds like CBD) were decriminalized entirely, as many activists have called for, many of the unnecessary restrictions on CBD’s production would immediately lift.
“While there are currently three competing federal bills that specifically seek to define “cannabidiol” and remove it from the Controlled Substances Act (S.683, H.R. 1635, and S.1333), if the Feds would simply deschedule “marijuana” from the Controlled Substances Act, then all forms of Cannabis — whether marijuana or industrial hemp — and all of the constituents of Cannabis, including CBD, will be liberated from the displaced control of the DEA. Sen. Bernie Sanders filed the “Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2015” (S.2237) in November of 2015.”
But in the meantime, Russo argues that it’s important to ensure that the criminalization of pot does not spread to CBD.
“The USA is one of the only countries in the world where CBD is illegal,” Russo says. “It has nothing of the features of a Schedule I drug. It’s not addictive. It does not produce intoxication. It’s a matter of guilt by association because of the plant from which it derives.”
“Copyright, Truthout.org. Reprinted with permission.”
*The FDA has not evaluated the validity or truthfulness of these claims; therefore, we encourage you to review published researches relating to the benefits and properties of CBD hemp oils and other CBD products..