Are THCa Carts Federally Legal?

[sekio]

Someone I know made THC-a crystals, they were dynamite. I didn't know it was really any different from delta-9.

It's basically a heat activated prodrug for d9-THC.

A dispensary I went to months back labeled its stuff as THC-a 28% etc. and low delta-9, which now that I'm reading this thread I don't know is correct or maybe I'm just confused.

The Cannabis plant natively makes only THC-A, CBD-A etc, and any THC/CBD present is from decarboxylation during curing/drying/storage.
This is why you can't just eat fresh/dried weed and expect to get high: most of the cannabinoids are in their inactive acid forms.

The local THCA bud is stupid expensive.

Which is just shrewd marketing on their part. As stated above, most weed has predominantly THCA. Even hash has a significant amount of THCA too.

Also, the isolation of THCA/CBDA from crude Cannabis resin is apparently piss easy: they form salts with e.g. triethylamine that will precipitate from a naphtha solution (or extract into water) and presumably will regenerate pure cannabinoid acids with gentle acidification (excess acid causes decarboxylation/cyclization of CBD).

 

[brokedownpalace10]

Which is just shrewd marketing on their part. As stated above, most weed has predominantly THCA. Even hash has a significant amount of THCA too.

Also, the isolation of THCA/CBDA from crude Cannabis resin is apparently piss easy: they form salts with e.g. triethylamine that will precipitate from a naphtha solution (or extract into water) and presumably will regenerate pure cannabinoid acids with gentle acidification (excess acid causes decarboxylation/cyclization of CBD).

I know. The shrewd marketing is selling this stuff in non-legal states. I got some just to be able to cruise a mile to my local store and get actual pot. Oh well. Hoping our rec campaign works out this time.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

It's basically a heat activated prodrug for d9-THC.


The Cannabis plant natively makes only THC-A, CBD-A etc, and any THC/CBD present is from decarboxylation during curing/drying/storage.
This is why you can't just eat fresh/dried weed and expect to get high: most of the cannabinoids are in their inactive acid forms.


Which is just shrewd marketing on their part. As stated above, most weed has predominantly THCA. Even hash has a significant amount of THCA too.

Also, the isolation of THCA/CBDA from crude Cannabis resin is apparently piss easy: they form salts with e.g. triethylamine that will precipitate from a naphtha solution (or extract into water) and presumably will regenerate pure cannabinoid acids with gentle acidification (excess acid causes decarboxylation/cyclization of CBD).

THCa is absolutely not a prodrug, produgs by definition are transformed into their active counterpart in vivo generally by some enzyme. THCa is technically a precursor to d9THC

Prodrugs: design and clinical applications - Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

The development of prodrugs — chemically modified versions of pharmacologically active agents that must undergo transformationin vivoto release the active drug — is a well-established strategy for improving physicochemical, biopharmaceutical or pharmacokinetic properties of compounds. Rautio and...

www.nature.com

Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I'm also not sure why the reasoning of selling raw THCa seems to elude you, it's pretty obvious that manufacturers are simply trying to get around the wording of the 2018 farm bill by selling something that isn't precisely d9THC. Even if that reasoning is shaky and not totally legally sound, that's literally the reasoning they use

 

[sekio]

THCa is absolutely not a prodrug, produgs by definition are transformed into their active counterpart in vivo generally by some enzyme. THCa is technically a precursor to d9THC

You got me there. That is correct.
I wonder if there could be an enzyme produced that would decarboxylate it for you? A sort of Gas-X or Beano, except making fresh Cannabis active as an edible.

I'm also not sure why the reasoning of selling raw THCa seems to elude you, it's pretty obvious that manufacturers are simply trying to get around the wording of the 2018 farm bill by selling something that isn't precisely d9THC. Even if that reasoning is shaky and not totally legally sound, that's literally the reasoning they use

Right, the same deal as the rise of delta-8-THC. Surprised nobody's pulled any Analogue Act shenaniganery. Where I'm from THC was legalized some time ago and so I don't see the appeal of any of these except as novelty products.

 

[Didgital]

Heh so recently an associate of mine sent 40k worth of THCa somewhere and it got confiscated by postal and since they used GCMS to analyze it they decarbed the THCa into D9.
The guy tried to fight it and get it back. Our labs got inspected by sheriffs and some other state departments. Long story short, he did not get it back, but he did not get into any trouble. This was a cannabis friendly state.

 

[smokeymcpot42088]

^thank you for the real life, anecdotal experience.

He lost his 40k as well I am to assume? shoot so many questions for someone that works in a lab, and im sure your sick of answering all of em lol.

 

[smokeymcpot42088]

Okay, but what advantage does it have over plain ol' THC?

Knowing your exact dosage perhaps? No plus minus 10% nonsense. I may be a bit OCD but I do like to know, or at least be able to figure out my exact dose. But as mentioned it is mainly the same crap as swim or ''these are bath salts", is it going to hold up in court; no probably not.......But they would have to choose you to make an example out of and set precedence; which they usually wait for someone banking a ton off of w/e THCA in this case.

This is just observation and my .02 cents

 

[someguyontheinternet]

You got me there. That is correct.
I wonder if there could be an enzyme produced that would decarboxylate it for you? A sort of Gas-X or Beano, except making fresh Cannabis active as an edible.


Right, the same deal as the rise of delta-8-THC. Surprised nobody's pulled any Analogue Act shenaniganery. Where I'm from THC was legalized some time ago and so I don't see the appeal of any of these except as novelty products.

I think there's no analog act applicability because of the way that the farm bill is worded, (iirc) it explicitly makes everything extracted from hemp and it's derivatives legal as long as there is a low enough concentration of d9THC 0.3% or less. But then people start making actual derivatives from CBD like d8 and THC-o-Acetate which I think is a bit of a grey area because those things aren't found in natural cannabis (d8 a little but not to any appreciable degree)

Personally I like THC-o-Acetate for oral use, it can take a bit longer to kick in but it feels so clean and crisp. I've tried adding other minor cannabinoids to the mix to try and get a feeling closer to cannabis edibles but I could never get the mix right

I don't know if there's an enzyme that can decarb THC but looking at the literature it seems like some does get decarbed from the warmth of the stomach/digestive system but it isn't a meaningful amount

 

[sekio]

Personally I like THC-o-Acetate for oral use,

Now that is a prodrug. As far as I know the phenolic OH is neccesary for activity at cannabinoid receptors.[ref] Actually, more interesting to me would be THC O-phosphate, the phosphate granting enough polarity to make it a water soluble prodrug. Effectively the same principle as psilocybin and its activity as a prodrug for psilocin. So, in principle you could make an injectable THC and finally fulfill the copypasta of overdosing by injecting three whole marijuanas.

Apparently the hemisuccinate ester is also water soluble (presumably as a salt) and active as a high-BA prodrug for THC. This suggests the possibility of other ester prodrugs with enhanced solubility and BA containing polar groups. Maybe amino acid esters? Citrate ester? Sulfonic acids?

Anyway, at least from my POV, there is no reason the DEA couldn't find that such compounds (THC-O-acetate, d8-THC, etc) were analogs of THC under the Analog Act. THC is schedule II in liquid form (somehow also sch.III in capsule though?) and Cannabis is Sch.I. They haven't yet, but there is nothing stopping them from doing so later.

There's a recent Californian paper (pdf) on the problems presented by these non-THC "hemp derived" cannabinoids, it's worth a read.

I don't know if there's an enzyme that can decarb THC but looking at the literature it seems like some does get decarbed from the warmth of the stomach/digestive system but it isn't a meaningful amount

The human body isn't that warm. Any decarboxylation would probably be due to gastric acid, I'd think, and would be limited due to the low solubility of THC-A. Which makes me think, maybe a microemulsion formulation (to enhance the contact between THCA and the dilute HCl) would be interesting to investigate.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

Anyway, at least from my POV, there is no reason the DEA couldn't find that such compounds (THC-O-acetate, d8-THC, etc) were analogs of THC under the Analog Act. THC is schedule II in liquid form (somehow also sch.III in capsule though?) and Cannabis is Sch.I. They haven't yet, but there is nothing stopping them from doing so later.

They have already made the statement that ∆9THC-O is illegal. I think said the same about THCA, not sure. But, they're not enforcing it yet.
I think they don't want the legal battle, especially with pot being legal in many states and Fentanyl being everywhere.
They likely think the new improved farm bill will take care of it for them. That will make all that illegal most likely.

 

[sekio]

I think said the same about THCA, not sure.

Actually, the farm bill does mention "a procedure for testing, using post-decarboxylation or other similarly reliable methods, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration levels of hemp", so the implication is THCA is treated the same as THC.

If they're using gas chromatography of any sort for analysis, THCA will appear as THC by virtue of the sample being introduced to the chromatographic column by vaporization over derivatized (chemically deactivated) silica wool at around 200C or more, which resembles closely what happens in a vaporizer pen, and causes complete decarboxylation. In order to "see" the THCA, the analyte sample must either be reacted with derivatizing agents to mask its reactive/polar groups to stabilize the compounds against thermal decomposition and improve chromatographic peak shape (such as forming trimethylsilyl esters/ethers by reaction with e.g. BSTFA, which is conveniently available in single-dose ampules for preparing small batches of samples), or an alternative method of analysis like HPLC must be used. (I would not consider NMR, UV-VIS, IR or other methods that do not seperate the various components of the sample appropriate for anything more than qualitative analysis: i.e. it will answer "Is there THC-A present?" but not "How much THC-A is present? (either relative to other components, or as absolute concentration)".

Either way, the average drug lab will no doubt identify THC-A as THC (and CBD-A as CBD, CBG-A as CBG, and so on), unless they specifically look for it.

But, they're not enforcing it yet.
I think they don't want the legal battle, especially with pot being legal in many states and Fentanyl being everywhere.

Taking off my chemist hat and putting the tinfoil one on, I think it might be because most "alternative cannabinoid" users are middle- and upper-class White people, presumably with disposable income (read: taxpayers). Probably some significant fraction are even Trump-aligned Republicans (drug use transcends all boundaries, and those people are hypocrites in almost every facet of their life, so of course those campaigning against drug use tend to have prescriptions for Percocet and "medical" cannabis, if they're not outright abusing cocaine or methamphetamine. (You never see them caught with anything really fun though. Though, I guess if you were doing a bunch of acid, mushrooms, ketamine etc. there'd be a good chance you'd no longer be a Trumpite by the time the dust settled.)
If it was Chinese companies supplying the d8-THC and analogues (no doubt some are, under the table - tetrahydrocannabiphorol isn't produced by C. sativa in any more than scant traces, so it is no doubt totally synthetic) or the Mexican cartels pushing THC-A, you'd see a totally different, zero-tolerance, nationwide ban, I think.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

Actually, the farm bill does mention "a procedure for testing, using post-decarboxylation or other similarly reliable methods, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration levels of hemp", so the implication is THCA is treated the same as THC.

If they're using gas chromatography of any sort for analysis, THCA will appear as THC by virtue of the sample being introduced to the chromatographic column by vaporization over derivatized (chemically deactivated) silica wool at around 200C or more, which resembles closely what happens in a vaporizer pen, and causes complete decarboxylation. In order to "see" the THCA, the analyte sample must either be reacted with derivatizing agents to mask its reactive/polar groups to stabilize the compounds against thermal decomposition and improve chromatographic peak shape (such as forming trimethylsilyl esters/ethers by reaction with e.g. BSTFA, which is conveniently available in single-dose ampules for preparing small batches of samples), or an alternative method of analysis like HPLC must be used. (I would not consider NMR, UV-VIS, IR or other methods that do not seperate the various components of the sample appropriate for anything more than qualitative analysis: i.e. it will answer "Is there THC-A present?" but not "How much THC-A is present? (either relative to other components, or as absolute concentration)".

Either way, the average drug lab will no doubt identify THC-A as THC (and CBD-A as CBD, CBG-A as CBG, and so on), unless they specifically look for it.


Taking off my chemist hat and putting the tinfoil one on, I think it might be because most "alternative cannabinoid" users are middle- and upper-class White people, presumably with disposable income (read: taxpayers). Probably some significant fraction are even Trump-aligned Republicans (drug use transcends all boundaries, and those people are hypocrites in almost every facet of their life, so of course those campaigning against drug use tend to have prescriptions for Percocet and "medical" cannabis, if they're not outright abusing cocaine or methamphetamine. (You never see them caught with anything really fun though. Though, I guess if you were doing a bunch of acid, mushrooms, ketamine etc. there'd be a good chance you'd no longer be a Trumpite by the time the dust settled.)
If it was Chinese companies supplying the d8-THC and analogues (no doubt some are, under the table - tetrahydrocannabiphorol isn't produced by C. sativa in any more than scant traces, so it is no doubt totally synthetic) or the Mexican cartels pushing THC-A, you'd see a totally different, zero-tolerance, nationwide ban, I think.

There is also a lot of talk about addressing all the "loopholes" in the 2023 farm bill. (Ya know, the farm bill wasn't 100% about hemp).
I read a while ago about increasing the THC level allowed from .3% to 1%, but also making it specifically applicable to "all isomers of THC".
I guess that would leave the door open for edibles, but it would slam it shut on even ∆8 smokeables.
Anyway, I don't think they know what they will do on the farm bill yet, but they are discussing taking care of all these smoke shop analogs in it.
And, the DEA might be just waiting for that to play out.

And, yes, of course they know cracking down all by themselves would be unpopular with white voters, the ones they want to still allow to vote.

 

[Didgital]

^thank you for the real life, anecdotal experience.

He lost his 40k as well I am to assume? shoot so many questions for someone that works in a lab, and im sure your sick of answering all of em lol.

ask away, i been in legal cannabis labs for like the past 6 years.

 

[Didgital]

They have already made the statement that ∆9THC-O is illegal. I think said the same about THCA, not sure. But, they're not enforcing it yet.
I think they don't want the legal battle, especially with pot being legal in many states and Fentanyl being everywhere.
They likely think the new improved farm bill will take care of it for them. That will make all that illegal most likely.

No. What they said was any synthetic even hemp derived compound is illegal. THC-O is entirely synthetic, meaning its absolutely not found on the plant. THC-O which i hate to call, I will always call it O-Acetyl-THC because the O in THC-O is so vague. To me, its anything that can bind to the lone hydroxy group of THC. THC-O-what? we could put acetoxy groupsl there which is what THC-O has come to mean, or we methylate, ethylate, or do a dumber of chemical substituations on. THC-O was the lazy way to market a new product. I've even seen in marketed as THO, so they didn't have to have THC in the name.

fucking cannabis

He lost his 40k as well I am to assume?

yeah he spent x amount of money, was expecting 40 k, and its gone.
I do give him him props, but initially the DEA was going to come over and I was definitely nervous. That said im currently working for the like the most above board cannabis lab yet, our section had nothing to worry about. We just produce CBD isolate, not huge scale but so efficient.

D8 is arguably hemp derived. Tiny % of D9 on any plant can go to D8, possibly through natural acidic metabolisms. None of the known cannnabis biosynthetic pathways have been found to have the double bond in that location.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

No. What they said was any synthetic even hemp derived compound is illegal. THC-O is entirely synthetic, meaning its absolutely not found on the plant. THC-O which i hate to call, I will always call it O-Acetyl-THC because the O in THC-O is so vague. To me, its anything that can bind to the lone hydroxy group of THC. THC-O-what? we could put acetoxy groupsl there which is what THC-O has come to mean, or we methylate, ethylate, or do a dumber of chemical substituations on. THC-O was the lazy way to market a new product. I've even seen in marketed as THO, so they didn't have to have THC in the name.

fucking cannabis

yeah he spent x amount of money, was expecting 40 k, and its gone.
I do give him him props, but initially the DEA was going to come over and I was definitely nervous. That said im currently working for the like the most above board cannabis lab yet, our section had nothing to worry about. We just produce CBD isolate, not huge scale but so efficient.

D8 is arguably hemp derived. Tiny % of D9 on any plant can go to D8, possibly through natural acidic metabolisms. None of the known cannnabis biosynthetic pathways have been found to have the double bond in that location.

They specifically mentioned THC-O in one letter. Yes, because it is not in hemp. The farm bill gives exclusions for compounds found in hemp, even if synthetically made and even if it is trace quantities. You still see it for sale, although some places have discontinued it. Might be moving old stock, I dunno.

The Drug Enforcement Administration Clarifies That Delta-9-THCO and Delta-8-THCO Are Controlled Substances

On February 13, 2023, the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) declared in a letter that the cannabinoids delta-8 and -9 THCO are both considered controlled substances due to their chemical structures.

www.cannabissciencetech.com

 

[crazyhairman]

Oof . No technically. You can get all kinds of things online that are in a Grey area right now though. The feds typically go after the suppliers. Recently they've gotten into lawsuits against the companies that Supply things they don't agree with basically just putting them out of business.