If you follow cannabis type news you are likely aware the DEA has assigned a separate drug code to cannabis extracts.

The Federal Register

If you follow cannabis type news you’ll know there’s a lot of hoopla over this because some folks are under the impression the DEA just outlawed Cannabidiol (CBD). I would hope, because you are a reader here, you know better. I would hope you are aware CBD always been, and still is a schedule I drug. Anything, any damned thing, having to do with “marihuana” is scheduled; the photons reflected by the leaves; the color green associated with the leaves… Okay, okay … maybe I was going a bit over the top with Sun rays and photosynthesis, but you catch my Drift.

A brief perusal of the inter-tubes indicates folks are going all panicky about the deal. The only periodical I came across with a clear headed piece on the subject was the L.A. Weekly.

Good on ’em.

I wonder if there isn’t more to the story though? Here, I’ll offer up a little something to really get folks in a tizzy.

The L.A. times quotes the DEA spokesman Russ Baer thusly, “However, Baer suggested that the separate tracking for extracts could help researchers who want ‘research protocol waivers” for work on CBD to get them faster. “It allows us to identify those applications from the scientific research community who want to do extract research and give them priority over other applications,’ he said. ‘It allows us to prioritize those to facilitate and support scientific research.'”

That sounds pretty darned good, now doesn’t it? I mean, with extracts coded differently than “marihuana,” then those extracts can be treated differently under the law, right? Hell, The L.A. times even mentions treating pediatric epilepsy with CBD. That’s all good, right?

Whatever happened to the cry about a person being forbidden from growing a cannabis plant between the tomatoes and peppers because of a plot by big pharma. Because a plant growing wild beside the road can’t be patented? What happened to those people?

CBD being rescheduled damn sure isn’t the story here (it hasn’t been). Ease of research? Take a look at the requirements for a university grow facility other than Mississippi. When that change was made everyone was, like “YAY!” Yeah, right.

Now look at this:
A Fortune

Damn, as I’ve written before, I do so wish I’d bought stock in that outfit way back when.

As the old adage goes, “Follow the money.”



  1. James Sr. said,

    January 7, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    I think the DEA overstepped it’s authority ..

    I don’t read the CSA to include CBD.. as it only mentions THC.. regardless of it coming from a cannabis or hemp plant.. 😉

    And I don’t read CBD has always been a schedule I drug..

    By all means, please educate us, your readers how CBD (not the plant it came from) has always been a schedule I drug.. I’m at a lose here Drift ..

  2. James Sr. said,

    January 7, 2017 at 3:05 pm

    The legislative history of the Act indicates that the purpose of banning marijuana was to ban the euphoric effects produced by THC. See Walton, 514 F.2d at 202.

  3. capndrift said,

    January 7, 2017 at 4:21 pm

    I won’t argue law with you here, James. It just becomes so tiresome. I’ll simply quote the DEA’s mouth piece thusly,

    “CBD, because it is derived from the marijuana plant, has been and continues to be a Schedule I substance.”

    Argue with the DEA, not me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: