Talk:Δ-8-Tetrahydrocannabinol

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Birmaniahern (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Eresha8, Denisej 2, Hkhan11.

— Assignment last updated by Hkhan11 (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Contaminants

Others with more time may want to incorporate some of the info from this article:

• Hemp-Derived Delta-8 Skirts Marijuana Laws and Raises Health Concerns. Sep 23, 2022 article by Eric Berger. Kaiser Health News. Excerpts: A study published in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology last year found lead, mercury, and silicon in delta-8 electronic cigarettes. ... If it were regulated like Massachusetts’ medical and recreational marijuana programs, he said, harmful contaminants could be flagged or removed. ... Christopher Hudalla, chief scientific officer at ProVerde Laboratories, a Massachusetts marijuana and hemp testing company, said he has examined thousands of delta-8 products and all contained contaminants that could be harmful to consumers’ health. ... An analysis of 3Chi delta-8 oil conducted by Hudalla’s firm last year and posted on 3Chi’s website found multiple unidentified compounds that “do not occur naturally” and thus “would not be recommended for human consumption.” Delta-8 oil is still sold on 3Chi’s site. ... To address concerns about delta-8, the federal government should regulate it and make accessing cannabis easier for consumers, said Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

--Timeshifter (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Timeshifter:Remember:

1. WP:SECONDARY, we seek reviews and book references on big topics like this one.
2. We are writing for an international audience. Do you want to hear about regulations from every state in other countries?

--Smokefoot (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time to edit the article. I just wanted to pass on some info. Others will have to dig up the sources used in the article, find further info, etc., etc.

These unregulated, or poorly regulated, electronic cigarettes and edibles that are outside the purview of the much more highly regulated cannabis dispensaries in legal states, have a history of dangerous additives and contaminants that is still being researched. See:

α-Tocopheryl acetate

It follows the path of cigarette additives that were considered GRAS (Generally recognized as safe) as food additives until it was discovered that burning them produced different chemicals that were dangerous, cancerous, etc.. See:

List of additives in cigarettes

E-cigarettes in general have many problems with additives and contaminants:

Electronic cigarette#Safety

Separating all the sources of contamination is a big task. Some of the delta-8 contaminants are created during its production. Due to unsafe production methods. See the original article in this thread. It's complicated. So, good luck. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

"gas stations, convenience stores and corner markets"

Delta-8-Tetrahydrocannabinol#Legality in the United States

Currently only mentions head shops, smoke shops, and dispensaries.

But it is also available in "independently owned gas stations, convenience stores and corner markets across the country,". Quote is from article below. There is a convenience store near me that carries a large selection of Delta-8 products.

Delta-8 THC vape firm signs national distribution deal with convenience store group. Published September 8, 2021.

• https://hempindustrydaily.com/delta-8-thc-vape-company-signs-national-distribution-agreement-with-convenience-store-group

--Timeshifter (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

More recent article. It is from the US FDA. "Content current as of: 05/04/2022":

5 Things to Know about Delta-8 Tetrahydrocannabinol – Delta-8 THC.

Excerpt: "These products may be purchased online, as well as at a variety of retailers, including convenience stores and gas stations."

--Timeshifter (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Subtle, but pretty conventionally strait-laced article there…

It could be called “the Wikipedia Effect,” but “neutrality” tends to fall on the side of convention. It would be good to see things move more back into balance. This is by no means the only article that suffers from the Effect.

In this instance, the excessively cautious tone succeeds in conveying a rather conservative, anti-cannabis, anti-THC message.

Of course, people have different points of view, but this an encyclopedia, seeking respectability. It must strive for true neutrality. Selahw (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Please explain how stating that Delta-8-THC is relatively unknown cannabinoid, with a short marketing history and little research conducted on it, is in any way an example of anti-cannabis bias. JoeBo82 (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any bias. Are we reading the same article? Ashleighhhhh (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable sourcing

Gettinglit why are you repeatedly adding non-WP:MEDRS sources to the article? Bon courage (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You removed it the first time as trimming without context so I added it back because there was no trimming involved you just removed the section almost entirelIt's the smallest section of the article. Each study entry hasa single sentence. There is nothing to trim you'd just be removing legitimate peer reviewed studies that have more than 1 citation. For the ones that did not have more than 1 citation to back up the claims I noted citation requested in the article so they can be added per your request. Gettinglit (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Please find review articles or other WP:MEDRS; without such sourcing this stuff is undue. There is one review article which was not trimmed. Bon courage (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

How many peer reviewed, professionally journal published citations would you find acceptable? Each claim had a citation that meets MP:MEDRS some had 2 citations to support the claim. The only thing removing this information does is hurt open access to legitimste scientifically backed, peer reviewed, journal published, accepted, information. Gettinglit (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Peer-review is not enough to make a source reliable: please refer to WP:MEDRS, and maybe WP:MEDFAQ and WP:WHYMEDRS for background. Bon courage (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

One of the citations removed was of a review article? Gettinglit (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Removed statement regarding sale in recreational and medical use states

Removed statement concerning sale in areas with regulated recreational and medical use for past 2 years (paraphrasing). Cited source does not address sales or proliferation of delta-8 THC in territories permitting medical or recreational use at all. It does not even mention medical use or recreational use, only its dubious legal status and the patchwork of regulations varying by state (though not associated with laws legalizing or decriminalizing any cannabinoid for recreational or medical use). Dcs002 (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The original citations for those statements seemed to have been removed randomly by someone. I have added them back. Gettinglit (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Awesome! It's even got a "since" date. Thanks for fixing that. Dcs002 (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Law cites

Hi,

I’m working in a sandbox on adding some additional information on law - legislative, executive, and judicial.

I’m relying on this Wikipedia essay WP:RSLAW to guide my drafts. Notably, primary sources are allowed (not completely verboten) but with very strict caveats. Namely, you’re not allowed to interpret the text or analyze the text - I think common sense and fair. I will try my best to comply with this if a primary source is included. Furthermore, the legal information must be accurate. For example, in the citation about the civil case in Texas (Hometown Hero) - the OAG asserts that this case is not a criminal case. Thus, we need to be very careful not to mislabel a civil case (Texas or Georgia) as having criminal law implications - if that is not true. We cannot cause societal harm by legal misinformation. If a statement is conclusively not true, it is not reliable. Hypothetically speaking, if you say that all legal Delta 8 criminal cases in Texas or Georgia have been resolved - when many primary and secondary sources are disputing that - that’s not right. It’s also wholly incorrect and contraindicated by primary and secondary sources to say that a civil case regarding only one misdemeanor statute of numerous criminal drug statutes via scheduling trumps active felony criminal cases in determining criminal Delta 8 case law in Texas. (To be sure, this article does not currently do that). WP:MEDRS should be used for the medical side of this article. WP:RSLAW should be used for the legal side of this article.

Let’s all assume good faith (and not make up false allegations against other edits or editors) - but also let’s acknowledge this is a tough article to work on because of the medicine and law intersect. TruthByAnonymousConsensus (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

And crickets from the low key edit warriors - surprise, surprise. TruthByAnonymousConsensus (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear @TruthByAnonymousConsensus,

While I had initially posted this, later removing it in hopes that it wouldn't be needed, I find it necessary to articulate my particular objections to your recent edits removing information reported by the FDA:

1. The fact the FDA is a primary source does not mean it can't be used. You have stated that you "also find it beyond totally hypocritical that primary sources are used by some people when they criticize primary sources being used in other places.". This isn't hypocritical. The FDA states that Delta-8-THC is not approved under the FD&C Act: "Delta-8 THC products have not been evaluated or approved by the FDA for safe use...". Stating that "8-THC has not been evaluated or approved by the FDA" in the article is not WP:SYNTH, there is no room for interpretation in there. Delta-8-THC is not FDA approved, and that's that.
2. You speak of fabricated disinformation, yet I can find no such thing. FDA has indeed taken enforcement action, as is stated by the agency: "FDA, FTC Continue Joint Effort to Protect Consumers Against Companies Illegally Selling Copycat Delta-8 THC Food Products". The article section on FDA action makes no extrapolations.
3. You stated that "FDA regulations are just exactly that", and by that I'm assuming you mean to state that both statutes and regulations have force of law. The mere fact something is a regulation does not deprive it of legal effect. As per the text of the Controlled Substances Act. amphetamine is a Schedule III substance, yet per DEA regulations it is a Schedule II substance. And not once has there been a successful legal challenge to applying Schedule II penalties to illegal amphetamine possession or distribution on these grounds. I would be more forgiving about your dismissiveness towards admin. law if this were the ATF, but it isn't. Even before the landmark (now overturned) Chevron case, FDA's agency action has been routinely afforded broad deference by courts.

Put briefly, "SYNTH is not summary". If you have any evidence to dispute the above, or wish to add clarification, please feel to present it.

Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

there is no room for interpretation in there.

Could be. Delta-9-THC (dronabinol) was approved by the FDA (twice) and it's impossible to synthesize D9-THC without some D8-THC forming as well as D9-THC degrading to it. Delta-8-THC is mentioned by name, by the FDA in a review of dronabinol and it's still approved despite containing Delta-8-THC. In other words, the FDA decided to keep a prescription drug that contains Delta-8-THC approved and, in a way, did approve Delta-8-THC being in it.

yet per DEA regulations it is a Schedule II substance

That would be because the CSA gives the DEA the ability to schedule substance (or deschedule) as they see fit. If the FDA tried to say L-Dopa is a Schedule II substance it would have no merit because the FDA has no legal basis to schedule substances, but if the DEA schedules L-Dopa into schedule II status (or congress) then it does have merit. These aren't "DEA regulations" but rather the DEA having the ability to update/change what's on the CSA. It's still the CSA that Amphetamine is Schedule II under, per your own citation it even mentions the DEA was changing its status on the CSA. Gettinglit (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gettinglit, your D8 FDA approval argument lacks appreciable merit since the FDA has plainly stated that “Delta-8 THC products have not been evaluated or approved by the FDA for safe use”. FDA’s statement that D8 is not approved is from 2023, Marinol was approved by FDA in the 1980s and Syndros in 2016 (before the 2018 Farm Bill even passed); therefore, your claim that Marinol = D8 is FDA approved is anachronistic and doesn’t make any sense. Regards, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gettinglit, I will now address your second and, in my opinion, less confusing claim. While the status of D8 under the FDCA is rather clear (not FDA approved, see above), the status of Delta 8 under the CSA is murky. Although, reports in both mainstream news outlets such as NBC News and in cannabis industry outlets such as Leafly suggest that Delta 8 exists in a grey area with regard to the CSA. Regards, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd disagree and say it's very clear, per court cases of people who sell it getting judgements that its legal. I think truth has a good point that it should be looked as civil vs criminal and state vs federal. There's a fair amount of Delta-8-THC that contains illegal amounts of Delta-9-THC but the legality seems pretty clear in written rule of law as well as court cases. Gettinglit (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Because the FDA could have recalled all dronabinol (Delta-9-THC brand name Marinol and Syndros) for containing Delta-8-THC but said the Delta-8-THC found within every single batch of dronabinol as a result of synthesis is fine and didn't. In a way the FDA approved Delta-8-THC unless you work for the FDA and plan an immediate recall of all dronabinol for containing an unapproved drug?

The dates of it being approved have no relevance, the farm bill has no relevance, my point is clear that all dronabinol contains some Delta-8-THC and the FDA said this is fine, you just decided to ignore the points being made and pretend I wrote something else apparently. Gettinglit (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

FDA has not approved Delta 8. How do I know this? FDA says it themselves: “ Delta-8 THC products have not been evaluated or approved by the FDA for safe use”. End of story. FDA approval by implication is just nonsense. Glad I could clear this up for you. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

FDA approval by implication is just nonsense.

What would you call it? An "allowance of random amounts of pharmacological impurities in a pharmaceutical product"?. But I see your point and say fair enough. Gettinglit (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That's what I would call it (along with WP:synth), only the amounts allowed are not random, but limited. The FDA has standards for how much rodent hair can be present in flour, but that does not mean by extension that rodent hair has been approved by the FDA as a safe food additive or ingredient. All drugs have impurities. Approving a drug that has a certain quantity of impurities does not by extension make those impurities approved by the FDA. Assuming so is WP:synth, which includes "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." - in this case combining FDA has approved marinol with marinol contains small amounts of D8 and arriving at the conclusion that D8 products have been approved by the FDA.

I think the phrase "Delta-8 THC products" is also important here. An impurity that is found in an approved product does not make that impurity, as a product or ingredient of a product, approved for use or sale. It's a matter of practicality at the FDA. You can't mass produce flour without rodent hair or marinol without D8 as an impurity. We have to rely on explicit information from our sources, not what we think is implied. That's my take on this. Dcs002 (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I will respond to this later - but I will make no intervening edits before I comment here. We all need to start using the talk page - myself included. TruthByAnonymousConsensus (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m not going to comment on opinion of the FDA or of Chevron here. It’s not germane at all. I made minor edits to bring this article into compliance with original research and quite frankly I think your opinions are still validated the same with the current edits as they were before - but better since it is within policy of primary sources. I’m not looking for this to be a battleground, and I will thus refrain from sharing my opinions (aside from the article not violating Wikipedia policy and then not causing societal harm by misinformation). However, I do exhort everyone to chill on the edit warring - not threatening to escalate anything - but revert warring is not going to make this a better article (and I kept most of your edits - just cured them to come into compliance on original research without having to revert). TruthByAnonymousConsensus (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

References

In re recent edits

@TruthByAnonymousConsensus, I do not understand the reasoning in your edit that the upholding a conviction involving ineffective assistance of counsel in a case implicating D8 is equivalent to the condemnation of such as illegal. But before that, your source is not a court's opinion. It is an attorney's brief. In fact, when I searched for Texas Court of Criminal Appeals case law, I cannot even find this case. Where is this court decision of which you speak, for an attorney's brief does not count.

Moreover, even from what I can tell, this case was not so much about the legality of delta-8-THC in Texas, but about whether the petitioner's legal counsel was ineffective in recommending he plead guilty to marijuana possession rather than fight the charges. Assuming this case even exists and that it concluded in the way you claim, of course the court would rule Ward's counsel was not ineffective when recommending he plead guilty rather than go to trial. This happens all the time, even when the person is totally innocent, simply because going to trial is complicated and often of uncertain benefit. However, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not the same as claiming actual innocence.

If this information is to be added, I would argue that it should clarify that this was a habeas corpus proceeding involving ineffective assistance of counsel and that the legality of delta-8-THC was never directly addressed. Drawing anything else from this case thus far is too speculative since it did not directly address delta-8-THC legality.

Irruptive Creditor (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The article no longer opines or draws any conclusion (though this case will be mentioned by Texas prosecutors going forward). You are correct that this case is relating to ineffective assistance of counsel relating to a labelled Delta 8 case. That can and should be mentioned. You (I think rightfully) created the precedence here of citing primary sources. An edit can be made explicitly noting this was over ineffective assistance of counsel. That’s fair - but please stop with the revert warring. TruthByAnonymousConsensus (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate collaborating with you and other editors on improving this article. However, I would still like to ask where I can read this unanimous opinion, for the article citation regarding the Ward habeas proceeding links only to an attorney's brief. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s a unanimous denial of the writ on the trial court findings. It is on the Texas CCA website - I can find it shortly - and also I have the offline writ and trial court findings too. The case citation is Ex Parte John Ward and it is the first Delta 8 criminal case adjudicated by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Your last revision is fine until I can provide you your requested information - but I absolutely feel that a US state highest court ruling is absolutely notable (within the confines of summarizing primary sources as you rightfully mention.) This is probably the first case nationally that has hit any state highest court. I agree with you that primary sources can be used within policy in this article, and that is a good precedent. TruthByAnonymousConsensus (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There also are secondary sources for the DA in Brazos County on Delta 8 cases. I will share them too for you. I will not edit the last revision until I get all the requested information over. Pleasant editing too. TruthByAnonymousConsensus (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)