Green Light Law Group: Exploring THC-O’s Legality

Green Light Law Group: Exploring THC-O’s Legality

For years, the only cannabinoid that anyone seemed to care about was delta-9 THC. Cannabinoids are compounds found in or derived from cannabis (or in some cases, other organic materials). Delta-9 is the component in marijuana that gets users high. However, it is not the only compound in the cannabis plant. Starting in 2016, CBD emerged as a wildly popular, non-psychoactive cannabinoid that could be derived from hemp, which is cannabis with less than 0.3% delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis. Then came delta-8 THC, which has exploded in popularity as the next big thing in cannabis. In light of this, we at the Green Light Law Blog want to inform our readers about other, up-and-coming cannabinoids. Today we will focus on THC-O’s legality and more.

What is THC-O?

THC-O-acetate (THC-O) is a minor cannabinoid that is converted from delta-8 THC (which is usually first converted from CBD) or from delta-9 THC. THC-O is not naturally occurring in the cannabis plant, distinguishing it from many other naturally occurring cannabinoids such as CBD and delta-9 THC. Even delta-8 can be found in trace amounts in the cannabis plant though most delta-8 products contain delta-8 converted from CBD. For more on this, check out this MJBizDaily article. At least one patent has been granted for the process of converting cannabis oil into THC-O: US Patent No. 10,792,584. THC-O is potent. It is described as having three-times the psychoactive effect of delta-9 THC and lasts much longer.

What is the legal status of THC-O derived from hemp?

THC-O derived from hemp is most likely going to be considered an illegal product by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The 2018 Farm Bill amended the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to exempt “tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp” from the CSA. THC-O is not specifically listed as a controlled substance. One would think that this Farm Bill reference would cover THC-O, making it fall outside the confines of the CSA. But the analysis is more complicated because THC-O is not naturally occurring in cannabis, including hemp. Therefore an argument can be made that THC-O is not a tetrahydrocannabinol in hemp despite being derived from cannabinoids in hemp.

The process by which THC-O is manufactured also has legal significance. The DEA has made its position clear when it comes to synthetically-derived cannabinoids in its Hemp Rule, issued in August 2020:

The [2018 Farm Bill] does not impact the control status of synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols (for Controlled Substance Code Number 7370) because the statutory definition of “hemp” is limited to materials that are derived from the plant Cannabis sativa L. For synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols, the concentration of Δ9-THC is not a determining factor in whether the material is a controlled substance. All synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols remain schedule I controlled substances.

Because THC-O is produced in a laboratory, it is likely that it would be considered a “synthetic cannabinoid” by the DEA. The term “synthetic” is not clearly defined in DEA regulations or the CSA. According to a DEA Resource guide from 2017, “Synthetic cannabinoids are not organic, but are chemical compounds created in a laboratory.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines “synthetic” as “[a] product not naturally produced but fabricated through synthesis.” In turn, “synthesis” means the “[p]rocess of combining substances to create a new substance.” Based on these definitions, and the DEA rule, it seems likely that the DEA does or will consider THC-O derived from hemp as a controlled substance.

In addition, there is the Federal Analogue Act. 21 USC 813. The Analogue Act essentially expands the CSA to products that are analogues of a controlled substance. For example, in the mid 2000s, the Analogue Act was used to classify synthetic THC (aka Spice) as a controlled substance. Usually, the DEA must go through a procedure to classify a new controlled substance that requires public comment but if a substance is an analogue then this is not required.

The Analogue Act defines a “controlled substance analogue” as a substance— (i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II; (ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.” 21 USC 802(32). Delta-9 THC is a Schedule I substance and THC-O is chemically similar to delta-9 THC and results in a high that is likely stronger than delta-9. Under the Analogue Act, THC-O would very likely be considered an analogue.

State law may also factor into the question of THC-O legality. I recently wrote about HB 3000’s impact on Delta-8 products in Oregon and the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission’s (OLCC) role in regulating hemp products. HB 3000 defined a new class of products called “Adult Use Cannabis Products” which may not be sold to anyone under the age of 21. The presence of “Artificially derived cannabinoids” makes a product an Adult Use Cannabis Product. According to HB 3000, “Artificially derived cannabinoid” means a “chemical substance that is created by a chemical reaction that changes the molecular structure of any chemical substance derived from the plant Cannabis family Cannabaceae.” In Oregon, THC-O derived from hemp may not be explicitly prohibited, but they would be restricted. Other states may ban all forms of THC from hemp, so it is important to consider how state law plays into the question of legality.

Bottomline

Because THC-O is not naturally occurring in hemp, its legality is highly questionable considering the DEA’s position on synthesized cannabinoids and the Analogue Act. The sale of THC-O opens up all parties involved to criminal risks associated with drug trafficking. While it is unlikely that the DEA will allocate limited resources to THC-O, it is not outside of the realm of possibilities. Be careful out there and feel free to reach out with any questions about THC-O. We will also be writing about other minor cannabinoids so stay tuned to the Green Light Law Blog.

You can contact Daniel Shortt at info@gl-lg.com or (206) 430-1336.

https://greenlightlawgroup.com/blog/the-legality-of-thc-o

New

Cannabis Law Journal – Editorial Board Members

Editor – Sean Hocking

Author Bios

Canada
Matt Maurer – Minden Gross
Jeff Hergot – Wildboer Dellelce LLP

Costa Rica
Tim Morales – The Cannabis Industry Association Costa Rica

Nicaragua
Elvin Rodríguez Fabilena

USA

General
Julie Godard
Carl L Rowley -Thompson Coburn LLP

Arizona
Jerry Chesler – Chesler Consulting

California
Ian Stewart – Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Otis Felder – Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Lance Rogers – Greenspoon Marder – San Diego
Jessica McElfresh -McElfresh Law – San Diego
Tracy Gallegos – Partner – Fox Rothschild

Colorado
Adam Detsky – Knight Nicastro
Dave Rodman – Dave Rodman Law Group
Peter Fendel – CMR Real Estate Network
Nate Reed – CMR Real Estate Network

Florida
Matthew Ginder – Greenspoon Marder
David C. Kotler – Cohen Kotler

Illinois
William Bogot – Fox Rothschild

Massachusetts
Valerio Romano, Attorney – VGR Law Firm, PC

Nevada
Neal Gidvani – Snr Assoc: Greenspoon Marder
Phillip Silvestri – Snr Assoc: Greenspoon Marder

Tracy Gallegos – Associate Fox Rothschild

New Jersey

Matthew G. Miller – MG Miller Intellectual Property Law LLC
Daniel T. McKillop – Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC

New York
Gregory J. Ryan, Esq. Tesser, Ryan & Rochman, LLP
Tim Nolen Tesser, Ryan & Rochman, LLP
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Oregon
Paul Loney & Kristie Cromwell – Loney Law Group
William Stewart – Half Baked Labs

Pennsylvania
Andrew B. Sacks – Managing Partner Sacks Weston Diamond
William Roark – Principal Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin, Maxwell & Lupin
Joshua Horn – Partner Fox Rothschild

Washington DC
Teddy Eynon – Partner Fox Rothschild