VitaminY Health Boutique

CBD due diligence

CBD due diligence

THIS PAGE DOES NOT PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE

CBD DUE DILIGENCE

This page does not make statements of legal advice. It is provided to show that Hemplucid has performed our due dilligence to provide a helpful product that is produced in accordance with the laws and regulations of the United States. We do this to the best of our understanding. If we err, it will only be due to the ambiguous combination of laws that surround industrial hemp. As far as we can tell, we have succeeded in meeting all of the criteria put forth through the laws, as they are written.

We encourage all those who are wanting to buy any type of industrial hemp products to proceed with caution after they have educated themselves concerning the regulations of hemp on national and local levels.

BECOME AWARE

We encourage all people to become aware of your State's legal stance regarding CBD before you purchase any Industrial Hemp Products. We hope in the near future, that legislators will stop refusing to embrace a plant that shows such promise for the well-being of our country.

Consult your state department of agriculture or a private attorney.

STATE INDUSTRIAL HEMP STATUTES

Hemplucid works diligently to understand the laws and regulations surrounding the emerging industrial hemp industry. We have seen the benefits of the amazing hemp plant firsthand and ensure that we will do nothing to compromise its ability to thrive. FDA guidance prevents us from making any health claims about CBD, so we go to great effort to make no specific health claims.

 

SIGNED INTO LAW BY PRESIDENT NIXON IN 1970

Controlled Substances Act.

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is the statute establishing federal U.S. drug policy under which the manufacture, importation, possession, use and distribution of certain substances is regulated. It was passed by the 91st United States Congress as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.

  • The Act also served as the national implementing legislation for the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The legislation created five Schedules (classifications), with varying qualifications for a substance to be included in each.
  • Two federal agencies, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), determine which substances are added to or removed from the various schedules.
  • Classification decisions are required to be made on criteria including potential for abuse (an undefined term), currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and international treaties.

OPEN CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ACT (pdf)

 

The findings required for schedule I are as follows:

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

 

IMPORTANT POINTS - PUBLIC LAW 91-513-OCT. 27, 1970
Sec. 601. Establishment of Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse.

Schedule I

Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another Hallucinogenic schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, substances. which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances, or which contains any of their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation:

(10) Marihuana

(17) Tetrahydrocannabinols (THC)

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.

Violation and Penalties

Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced as follows:

In the case of a controlled substance in schedule I or II Penalties, which is a narcotic drug, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 15 years, a fine of not more than $25,000, or both. If any person commits such a violation after one or more prior convictions of him for an offense punishable under this paragraph, or for a felony under any other provision of this title or title III or other law of the United States relating to narcotic drugs, marihuana, or depressant or stimulant substances, have become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 years, a fine of not more than $50,000, or both.

Cannabis Sativa L:

The hemp plant—although useless as drug marijuana—is the same species as the marijuana plant, Cannabis Sativa L. Industrial hemp is a commonly used term for non-psychoactive varieties of the species Cannabis sativa L. that are cultivated for industrial rather than drug purposes. CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, HEMP AS AN AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY (July 24, 2013).

 

Sec. 7606. LEGITIMACY OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP RESEARCH

Agricultural Act of 2014

The Agricultural Act of 2014 (H.R. 2642; Pub.L. 113–79, also known as the 2014 U.S. Farm Bill), formerly the "Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013", is an act of Congress that authorizes nutrition and agriculture programs in the United States for the years of 2014-2018.

OPEN AGRICULTURAL ACT (pdf)

IMPORTANT POINTS - Agricultural Act of 2014 Sec. 7606. Legitimacy of Industrial Hemp Research.

Nothwithstanding...

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), chapter 81 of title 41, United States Code, or any other Federal law, an institution of higher education (as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)) or a State department of agriculture may grow or cultivate industrial hemp if—

(1) the industrial hemp is grown or cultivated for purposes of research conducted under an agricultural pilot program or other agricultural or academic research; and

(2) the growing or cultivating of industrial hemp is allowed under the laws of the State in which such institution of higher education or State department of agriculture is located and such research occurs.

"Agricultural Pilot Program"

The term ‘‘agricultural pilot program’’ means a program to study the growth, cultivation, or marketing of industrial hemp—

(A) in States that permit the growth or cultivation of industrial hemp under the laws of the State; and

(B) in a manner that—

(i) ensures that only institutions of higher education and State departments of agriculture are used to grow or cultivate industrial hemp;

(ii) requires that sites used for growing or cultivating industrial hemp in a State be certified by, and registered with, the State department of agriculture; and

(iii) authorizes State departments of agriculture to promulgate regulations to carry out the pilot program in the States in accordance with the purposes of this section.

VIEW OUR STATE LICENSE

"Industrial Hemp"

INDUSTRIAL HEMP.—The term ‘‘industrial hemp’’ means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.

VIEW OUR PRODUCT TESTS

SEC. 7606. LEGITIMACY OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP RESEARCH.

 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 Public Law No: 114-113

Omnibus Law of 2017

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 (H.R. 2029, Pub.L. 114–113), also known as the 2017 omnibus spending bill, is the United States appropriations legislation passed during the 114th Congress which provides spending permission to a number of federal agencies for the fiscal year of 2017. The bill authorizes $1.1 trillion in spending, as well as $700 billion in tax breaks. The bill provides funding to the federal government through September 30, 2017.

OPEN CONSOLIDATION APPROPRIATIONS ACT (pdf)

H.R.2029 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 Sec. 543 & 763. None of the funds made available by this Act or any other Act may be used...

Sec. 543

None of the funds made available by this Act may be used in contravention of section 7606 ("Legitimacy of Industrial Hemp Research'') of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-79) by the Department of Justice or the Drug Enforcement Administration. This division may be cited as the `Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017''.

Sec. 763

(1) in contravention of section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 5940); or

(2) to prohibit the transportation, processing, sale, or use of industrial hemp that is grown or cultivated in accordance with subsection section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, within or outside the State in which the industrial hemp is grown or cultivated.

Industrial Hemp

INDUSTRIAL HEMP.—The term ‘‘industrial hemp’’ means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.

 

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

HIA vs. DEA

BACKGROUND: Appellants' business activities include importing and distributing sterilized hemp seed and oil and cake derived from hemp seed, and manufacturing and selling food and cosmetic products made from hemp seed and oil. On October 9, 2001, the DEA published what it labeled an “Interpretive Rule” stating that “any product that contains any amount of THC is a schedule I controlled substance․” Interpretation of Listing of THC in Schedule I, 66 Fed.Reg. 51530, 51533 (Oct. 9, 2001). This rule would have banned the possession and sale of Appellants' products. On the same day, the DEA proposed two rules that subsequently became final on publication in the Federal Register on March 21, 2003. Clarification of Listing of THC in Schedule I, 68 Fed.Reg. 14114 (March 21, 2003). These rules (“Final Rules”) are the subject of the instant appeal. DEA-205F amends the DEA's regulations at 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d)(27) so that the listing of THC in Schedule I includes natural as well as synthetic THC. DEA-206F exempts from control non-psychoactive hemp products that contain trace amounts of THC not intended to enter the human body. We stayed enforcement of the Final Rules pending disposition of this appeal.

READ THE ENTIRE CASE

HEMP INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION USA LLC v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. Nos. 03-71366, 03-71693. Decided: February 06, 2004

  • "On October 9, 2001, with no opportunity for notice and comment, DEA published an “Interpretive Rule” purporting to “interpret” the CSA and DEA’s own regulations to mean that “any product that contains any amount of THC is a schedule I controlled substance. . ..” 66 Fed. Reg. 51530 at 51533 (Oct. 9, 2001) (emphasis added). This “Interpretive Rule,” made effective immediately upon publication, would have had the effect of instantly transforming Petitioners’ longstanding business activities into a criminal offense."
  • "non-psychoactive hemp is explicitly excluded from the definition of marijuana."
  • "Notably, if naturally-occurring THC were covered under THC, there would be no need to have a separate category for marijuana, which obviously contains naturally-occurring THC. Yet Congress maintained marijuana as a separate category."
  • "We concluded that THC naturally-occurring within non-psychoactive hemp products did not fall under the DEA's regulation"
  • "We held that the imposition of a ban on THC occurring naturally within non-psychoactive hemp products amended the DEA's own regulations, and that doing so could be accomplished, if at all, only by a legislative rule."
  • "Since under the Chevron standard we conclude that Congress did not regulate non-psychoactive hemp in Schedule I, we must consider whether the DEA followed the appropriate procedures to schedule it as a controlled substance. The DEA concedes that it did not use the following procedures spelled out in the CSA to adopt the Final Rules."
  • "Therefore, DEA-205F may ban products that “contain any quantity” of THC only insofar as it does not improperly expand the definition of THC as it is used in the CSA. For the same reason, 21 U.S.C. §§ 823(f) and 841(a)(1), which disallow human consumption of Schedule I controlled substances outside of FDA-approved, DEA-registered research, do not apply to non-psychoactive hemp products: such products do not contain a “Schedule I controlled substance” as the CSA defines it."
  • "Therefore, DEA-205F may ban products that “contain[ ] any quantity” of THC only insofar as it does not improperly expand the definition of THC as it is used in the CSA. For the same reason, 21 U.S.C. §§ 823(f) and 841(a)(1), which disallow human consumption of Schedule I controlled substances outside of FDA-approved, DEA-registered research, do not apply to non-psychoactive hemp products: such products do not contain a “Schedule I controlled substance” as the CSA defines it."
  • "Congress was aware of the presence of trace amounts of psychoactive agents (later identified as THC) in the resin of non-psychoactive hemp when it passed the 1937 “Marihuana Tax Act,” and when it adopted the Tax Act marijuana definition in the CSA. As a result, 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 seeds exception.5  21 U.S.C. § 802(16).   Congress knew what it was doing, and its intent to exclude non-psychoactive hemp from regulation is entirely clear. The DEA's Final Rules are inconsistent with the unambiguous meaning of the CSA definitions of marijuana and THC, and the DEA did not use the appropriate scheduling procedures to add non-psychoactive hemp to the list of controlled substances."
  • "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 CSA and cannot be upheld.   DEA-205F and DEA-206F are thus scheduling actions that would place non-psychoactive hemp in Schedule I for the first time."
  • "The amendments to 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d)(27) that make THC applicable to all parts of the Cannabis plant are therefore void."

 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 Public Law No: 114-113

Do the CBD Research.

You might find differing opinions online, but based on the information we have provided above, and much more, the opinion of Hemplucid is that we exist within the language of the law.

"Industrial Hemp" is legally designated in a unique, and explicitly-defined category, utterly distinct from marijuana, and nowhere to be found on the CSA. We have provided lab tests and licensure which show that our products accord with the laws and regulations of the land, as they are written.

We do not ask that you take our word for it. Dig deeper. Decide for yourself.

GOOGLE IS CBD LEGAL >

 

* The statements found on this website have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease.