Talk:THC-O-acetate
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the THC-O-acetate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about THC-O-acetate.
|
Untitled
[edit]This article has no cited sources or anything... I highly doubt its existance... Can we please get some evidence? Diizy 18:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
...it is likely that the manufacturer erroneously thought that potency or subjective effects would be increased in an analogous manner to the difference between morphine and heroin
This is purely speculation. No information about the potency of the Acetate is given and there are no references given to confirm the properties of this compound, so no comparison can be made to the unacetylated form. I think there is at least one book that claims the "potency" to be approximately twice that of the unacetylated form, which would contradict that statement, and should be looked into. This whole article seems to focus on some event where someone was caught with it illegally and speculating on what they were trying to do, rather than on the molecule and its properties. --76.123.165.106 (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
i agree, I think this article should be deleted, it is purely speculative and makes no actual sense. DarkShroom (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Original research
[edit]@Gettinglit, please stop adding original research on the legality of this substance.
- You have repeatedly stated the THC-O is legal based on AK Futures, 35 F.4th 682 (9th Cir. 2022). However, the opinion in AK Futures never once mentions THC-O-Acetate, nor do any reliable sources argue that the case applies to this substance, and the only source to back up your claim is your own analysis of the opinion. Beyond this, even giving great lenity your position, the precedential value of AK Futures to THC-O legality is questionable; it's holding on hemp legality is addressed ober dictum (AK Futures was a patent case, where the issue of hemp legality was minor). Moreover, 9th circuit rulings only apply to the 9th Circuit; they are of no salvation to a person within the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, D.C., or Federal Circuits.
- The 4th Circuit opinion, in Anderson, is of similar value. Another case where the issue of hemp product legality is not the main focus of the case and is only addressed ober dictum. To make matters worse for your position, the opinion of the court in Anderson was not a victory for the plaintiff; affirming the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Again, your claims appear to be nothing but original research grasping at any straw available which, to an unwatchful eye, could lend them a veneer of legitimacy.
Before concluding, I would like to mention that neither case granted any form of injunction, vacatur, or restraining order against the applicability of any DEA private letter ruling. Until that day comes, or until the legality of hemp products is tackled directly, the DEA remains free to and will enforce its interpretation. If you have information that is not original research or tabloid reporting to dispute anything aforesaid, please feel free to do so. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Tagging recent editors @Meodipt and @Maxim Masiutin for input. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- My recent edits of this article were technical, I cannot comment on substantive matters :-( Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I edited on substance the articles on hemp protein and hemp#Nutrition, assuming that hemp protein and nutritional hemp seeds contain no or negligible amounts of cannabinoids, therefore, I cannot say anything on THC-O-acetate as it was inapplicable for the articles that I edited on substance. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- -AK Futures case brought up the same letter and argument of being controlled under "tetrahydrocannabinols" which has no merit because a letter from a single person at the DEA based on that persons own opinion is not law.
- Boyd Street relies on the DEA’s explanation of its implementing regulations. It points to the phrase, “[a]ll synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols remain schedule I controlled substances.” 85 Fed. Reg. at 51,641. A federal judge ruled "Although we disagree with Boyd Street on the DEA’s stance, we need not consider the (DEA) agency’s interpretation because § 1639o (farm bill definition of hemp) is unambiguous and precludes a distinction based on manufacturing method. Clear statutory text overrides a contrary agency interpretation....Consequently, determining the scope of the Farm Act’s legalization of hemp is not a situation where agency deference is appropriate.
- [1]
- -Anderson case involved drug testing, the outcome of the case has no merit to the points ruled in it that "Three-judge panel ruled that DEA’s interpretation of what qualifies as illegal marijuana is overbroad and does not apply to THC-O, which can be synthesized from other cannabinoids found in legal hemp." and "we agree with the Ninth Circuit that [the federal definition of hemp] is unambiguous.”" and "The opinion says of the federal hemp definition: “Even if it were ambiguous, we needn’t defer to the agency’s interpretation, see Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo.”[2][3][4][5]
- You're ironically stating I'm producing original research, while you're entire argument is relying on a single letter that is quite literally the personal opinion of one single person who works for the DEA, while ignoring several federal court rulings sustaining that THC-O-Acetate is legal due to the farm bills definition of hemp that removed such things from the CSA.
- That's why the DEA hasn't arrested anyone for THC-O-Acetate after the farm bill was passed, despite THC-O-Acetate being openly sold on a widespread basis in the United States for the past 5+ years.
- I could have a letter from the same person at the DEA stating LSD or Methamphetamine is legal, but that persons individual opinion has nothing to do with the written rule of law and LSD would remain illegal because a letter from a person expressing their opinion isn't law.
- "private letter ruling" Sir there's no such thing, it's just a letter by a single person of their personal opinion, it's not a ruling of any kind and has no legal merit.
- I'm grasping at straws? I think I'm actually just grasping the law. Don't know how many federal judges or how many court rulings we need to cite that confirms the written rule of law and that THC-O-Acetate is legal when apparently all we need is a single DEA agent to pen a letter for you? Gettinglit (talk) Gettinglit (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- 02/05/2025 - Looks like you people are deciding to ignore facts, ignore the law and edit war in bias, AGAIN. Gettinglit (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- 02/09/2025 - Why are we continuing to ignore the talk page but revert edits like that? Gettinglit (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- 02/16/2025 this page continues to be vandalized with false information and the talk page ignored. Gettinglit (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- 02/20/2025 The talk page continues to be ignored. Gettinglit (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- There has been no edit war as there were no edits to the parent article by either me, Maxim, or EW until you began re-editing on the 5th of this month, any assertion to the contrary is in error. Again, Boyd St. was a patent suit that had nothing to with THC-O, notwithstanding that Delta 8 and THC-O both are cannabinoids. Moreover, your conclusions on acetic anhydride are irrelevant as the ketene gas formation study doesn't address that. Thus both materials you have attempted to add are nothing but a third-party synthesis from a secondary source and original research. Once more, I will tag @Extraordinary Writ and @Maxim Masiutin. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Irruptive Creditor I am not familiar with the issues being debated. Probably if someone has a disagreement they should apply for a resolution process as explained in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think we should use words to figure out how we can edit the legality section so that we're both happy with what it says and users can be accurately informed but Irruptive Creditor doesn't seem to care to engage. Gettinglit (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- Glad it has taken you a month to finally reply after edit waring false information all month. Wish I had the Wikipedia clout to confidently tag others to help me control a page after doing that.
- Sorry, didn't know when I make edits somehow has anything to do with validity of information I'm adding to the article. Kinda like how I didn't notice when you did it previously over the summer and you decided to edit war until you've taken it to the talk page here, then seemingly just decided to ignore it and my replies and do your own thing.
- Your points have already been talked about months ago above before you started to edit it again later. Boyd St. wasn't a patent suit as you've stated, it was a federal trademark suit, is relevant because it was about a manufacture who claimed because Delta-8-THC is synthetically made from CBD it's illegal and not hemp and the trademark invalid. A judge ruled despite being synthesized "The Farm Act’s definition of hemp does not limit its application according to the manner by which “derivatives, extracts, [and] cannabinoids” are produced. Rather, it expressly applies to “all” such downstream products so long as they do not cross the 0.3 percent delta-9 THC threshold" which THC-O-Acetate is.
- If you don't like that specific citation, remove that specific citation, instead of removing the entire section along with another again and take it to the talk page to discuss.
- If you have a problem with my mention of acetic anhydride maybe you should edit and ask for a citation for the reaction claim or you could edit that specific part out and take it to the talk page to discuss instead of reverting the entire section again.
- Weird you have a problem with my citations when the letter you keep trying to use as a citation is meritless and was presented in a court case cited and a judge ruled it's completely irrelevant to anything because it's a letter by a person and not law and judges uphold the rule of law.
- How about we use words to figure out how we can edit the legality section so that we're both happy with what it says and users who visit can be accurately informed instead of tagging you friends to beat up that guy for you and walking away.
- Although you seem deadset on ignoring several court cases including ones specifically about THC-O-Acetate with judges ruling it's legal. I don't know how many judges ruling on cases we need to present that but I have a feeling if the judges were saying the opposite you'd be all for adding them and that's called bias and you should leave it at the door when you edit articles. Gettinglit (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, trademark suit, still a blip according to secondary sources. Regardless, I noted that "In September 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected the above DEA interpretation", adding the citation recommended by @Extraordinary Writ. I am not exactly sure as what you have a problem with. I noted DEA's opinion and that at least one circuit has rejected it. Other than wishing to expand a summary-style blurb that uses secondary sources into a wall of text that uses bare-url citations to primary sources, I still am unsure as to your objections regarding legal status.
- Now for the ketene gas claims
- Your first claim is that "This study was unable to identify ketene itself". This is simply untrue and I can refute you with just the abstract alone:
"Ketene was consistently observed in vaped condensates from all three cannabinoid acetates as well as from a commercial Δ8-THC acetate product purchased online"(Munger et al., 2022).
- Your second claim, which is false just like the first, is that based on this follow up "ketene formation should not occur from vaping VEA, cannabinoid, or other acetates at real-world vaping temperature settings", yet even a cursory read of that article remarks the opposite conclusion:
"In conclusion, the studies described herein show that ketene exposure can occur from vaping or dabbing cannabinoid acetates. This is not surprising, considering that ketene was previously shown to form via a structurally related phenyl acetate-containing compound, vitamin E acetate, under e-cigarette vaping conditions" (Munger et al., 2022).
- Your third claim is "that studies have shown that ketene is not expected to form from VEA or EtOAc". In fact, a review found this to be inconclusive:
"Many of the studies assessing VEA aerosolized after pyrolysis report the power settings that were utilized (Bhat 4.8 V, 2.8 Ω coil, 8.2 W, Matsumoto 3.7 V/1.5 Ω coil/9.4 W, Muthumalage 3.8 v Ooze Slim Twist Vape Pen®, coil resistance not reported). Unfortunately, no studies have evaluated temperatures produced while vaporizing VEA at specific power settings. Therefore, no inference can be made regarding whether these experiments reached temperatures adequate to generate ketene" (Feldman et al., 2021).
- Your claims of me being "biased" or having recruited "friends to beat up [you]" are nonsense. This is not the first (in re @Ak543210 and @Drmies), nor the second (in re @WikiLinuz), nor the third (in re @Dcs002), nor even the fourth (in re @Zefr and @Bon Courage) time other editors have expressed disagreement with you about the legal status of psychoactive substances. People have expressed such disagreements not because they are "biased" or united as "friends to beat up [you]", rather it is because your claims were believed in those instances to be either unsupported by reliable sources or outright false. If you have reliable information to dispute what I have written, to demonstrate any hidden bias against you, or illuminate the existence of any shadowy conspiracy against you, I would warmly welcome the opportunity to examine such evidence. Until then, pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Your first claim is that "This study was unable to identify ketene itself". This is simply untrue and I can refute you with just the abstract alone:
- In line with what I have done on past occasions, I will tag other recent editors for their input, if I had not already done so. Namely, @Compassionate727, @Arthurfragoso, and @Kimen8. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- And I think the current "A private letter from a DEA single representative which claimed that THC-O-Acetate met the statutory definition of ‘tetrahydrocannabinol on the basis that THC-O-Acetate is not known to occur in nature. This has been challenged in a federal court which resulted in rulings that THC-O-Acetate is legally derived from hemp" reflects the point.
- So if we are in agreement about that we are just in disagreement about the long blurb why don't we keep it as we currently have it and then just cut out the long blurb you don't like then apparently all your problems are solved.
- I think the current...
- "THC-O-acetate is not listed under the Controlled Substances Act, meaning it is not scheduled substance. A private letter from a DEA single representative which claimed that THC-O-Acetate met the statutory definition of ‘tetrahydrocannabinol on the basis that THC-O-Acetate is not known to occur in nature. This has been challenged in a federal court which resulted in rulings that THC-O-Acetate is legally derived from hemp.
- "(1) HEMP.—The term 'hemp' means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a Δ9-THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis."
- In September 2024, a federal court once again ruled a binding decision that THC-O-Acetate is a legal substance if it's derived from hemp (Cannabis, cannabinoids, cannabinoids under 0.3% D9-THC).
- I think that's fine, we don't need the extra blurb after that, but it seems despite me bringing up the letter and that it was described as meritless as they listen to the definition of the law and not letters in more than 1 court case cited, that you seem to still have some sort of a problem I cannot identify.
- You seem to want to continue to add the claim it's a Schedule I substance and use the letter as a citation for it which it it's clearly not per courts of law.
- Now for the ketene gas claims
- ''"Your first claim is that "This study was unable to identify ketene itself". This is simply untrue and I can refute you with just the abstract alone:
- "Ketene was consistently observed in vaped condensates from all three cannabinoid acetates as well as from a commercial Δ8-THC acetate product purchased online"(Munger et al., 2022)."''
- You should probably take the time to read studies beyond abstract because they did not identify ketene in the condensates, they used reacted N-benzylamide from N-benzylamine to identify what they believe is ketene from the condensates.
- You cannot identify ketene without very special equipment because ketene is too reactive, by the time you analyzed the condensate the ketene would have broken down to other compounds.
- From the article if we bother to read beyond the abstract...
- "The condensate from vaped CBN-OAc was collected in an impinger filled with CDCl3 for seamless transfer to an NMR tube and quantitative NMR (qNMR) analysis. We had previously validated a qNMR technique for identifying and quantifying molecular components of Figure 2. 1 H NMR spectra of: A) unvaped CBN-OAc; B) vaped CBN and C) vaped CBNOAc. All samples contained benzylamine. The star indicates the doublet (4.43 ppm) corresponding to the N-benzylamide methylene peak. N-benzylamide is formed via the reaction of ketene and benzylamine, and is only observed in the vaped CBN-OAc sample. N H O NH2 CO CH2 ketene A B C e-cigarette condensates.13 Ketene was determined via trapping with benzylamine to afford Nbenzylacetamide (Figure 2C).8 As shown in Figure 2, N-benzylacetamide formation was not observed in the NMR spectra of the control solutions of unvaped CBN-OAc or of vaped CBN" (Munger et al., 2022).
- They did provide more in detail behind why they believe the N-benzylamide was not a false positive in another follow-up study which I did edit and add to the article the other day.
- "Your second claim"
- Is a direct quote from the citation..."3.1. Ketene Is Formed under Real-World Vaporization Temperatures Ketene was detectable upon vaping CBN-acetate at vaping temperatures as low as, to date, 250 °C using a dab platform (Figure S1). This is consistent with our prior work, wherein ketene was detectable using a prefilled commercial vape cartridge and a low battery power setting. (7) However, according to theoretical simulations, ketene formation should not occur from vaping VEA, (12) cannabinoid, (5) or other acetates (13) at real-world vaping temperature settings."[6]
- "Your third claim"
- Is a direct quote from the citation..."The results shown in Figure 4 embody strong evidence that ketene emissions are O2-dependent. Dabbing EtOAc as well as geranyl acetate showed clear reductions in ketene yields under anaerobic versus aerobic conditions. As noted above, theoretical studies have shown that ketene is not expected to form from VEA or EtOAc, for example, at vaping temperatures < 700–850 °C, respectively."[7]
- Perhaps you can add in what you'd like to the toxicity section but I'm more concerned we can focus on the legality section to a solution we can both like and give readers and informed outlook on the situation before getting into any issues with toxicity but I don't think I have any major disagreements with you about the toxicity section.
- I don't know how your refusal to interact with the talk page while you edit war for a month while I try to utilize the talk page to speak with you about these edits and then when you do finally respond to the talk page instead of reading points and responding you tag your friends to do something I guess you cannot do like read points and respond so we can work towards a solution of what it should say so everyone is happy?
- In in "re Ak543210 and @Drmies" as a result Clobenzorex still has false information on it's article. Clobenzorex is a structural analog of Amphetamine Sch2 it being an analog of Benzphetamine Sch3 doesn't mean it won't be considered under the federal analog act because it's still an analog of Sch2 Amphetamine and Clobenzorex is not separately scheduled making the analog act apply if sold for consumption so it should say "may be considered under the federal analog act". You can also find a nice Reddit post about a man bragging about adding the statement I had a problem with to the article so they could show their boss the Wiki article to claim it's completely legal after they had a failed drug test for Amphetamine at work from taking Clobenzorex. Oh and what appears there? The same exact photo that is used for the citation posted before the edit was made to Wiki confirming that user made the edit I had a problem with out of personal agenda. Since you care so much and you have edited Clobenzorex I'm sure you will be all over righting that wrong. [8] The citation is a letter from the DEA confirming it's not a controlled substance, which is true it's not a controlled substance, it's just they weren't specifically asked if they consider it an analog of Amphetamine if sold for human consumption under the federal analog act so the citation is out of context and misleading for the statement it's used for. It's also a primary source. Kinda funny. So great example of me being correct and false information infecting Wikipedia from bias sources because users call upon other users to do their bidding to gatekeep articles instead of investigating facts, sources and context to them.
- Your "not the second" is your own account before you changed your name posting on my talk page about THC-O-Acetate so very funny how you bring that up for dramatic effect.
- Your "not the third" is funny enough you again in a talk page where I was having fun debating with you about technicalities, didn't realize you interpreted it as an actual argument, it's something I could see others bringing up and I was curious your response so presented the argument. It's very funny though how you're using these discussions as ammunition as if they have any merit.
- Your "not the fourth" is fair enough because my points about Phenibuts legality as a were overly technical and out of context because it's prohibited in food and a supplement as a dietary ingredient but per the FDAs own words Phenibut can still be used as a non-dietary ingredient within a food or supplement if it's GRAS by the FDA or self affirmed for that condition of use within a specified amount. It's overly technical and not needed for the article but it's not wrong, my point of adding it in was because it's very interesting.
- Zefer and I have had long talks on the CBD page and since we are apparently bringing up history on rights vs wrongs instead of talking about the subject at hand, while Zefer was confidently incorrect about some things and took a very long time to convince eventually they were convinced by talking it out with me and interacting with the talk page which you were not doing. It's just interesting when it's the same 4 users across multiple drug articles constantly backing each other up. Makes things look gatekeepy like we are calling upon our friends to back us up. Nothing weird about 4 users having the final say on seemingly every drug article otherwise they call upon power users. I don't think Zefer and Bon Courage are the best examples to use for your point, but let's be honest that's why you've tagged them here.
- I seemingly don't even have an issue with you about the legality section per what you've said we can leave it as is and just trim up the extra blurbs is that right? Gettinglit (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Now for the ketene gas claims
- Ok, trademark suit, still a blip according to secondary sources. Regardless, I noted that "In September 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected the above DEA interpretation", adding the citation recommended by @Extraordinary Writ. I am not exactly sure as what you have a problem with. I noted DEA's opinion and that at least one circuit has rejected it. Other than wishing to expand a summary-style blurb that uses secondary sources into a wall of text that uses bare-url citations to primary sources, I still am unsure as to your objections regarding legal status.
- @Irruptive Creditor I am not familiar with the issues being debated. Probably if someone has a disagreement they should apply for a resolution process as explained in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- There has been no edit war as there were no edits to the parent article by either me, Maxim, or EW until you began re-editing on the 5th of this month, any assertion to the contrary is in error. Again, Boyd St. was a patent suit that had nothing to with THC-O, notwithstanding that Delta 8 and THC-O both are cannabinoids. Moreover, your conclusions on acetic anhydride are irrelevant as the ketene gas formation study doesn't address that. Thus both materials you have attempted to add are nothing but a third-party synthesis from a secondary source and original research. Once more, I will tag @Extraordinary Writ and @Maxim Masiutin. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- 02/20/2025 The talk page continues to be ignored. Gettinglit (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- 02/16/2025 this page continues to be vandalized with false information and the talk page ignored. Gettinglit (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- 02/09/2025 - Why are we continuing to ignore the talk page but revert edits like that? Gettinglit (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- 02/05/2025 - Looks like you people are deciding to ignore facts, ignore the law and edit war in bias, AGAIN. Gettinglit (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I was asked to comment. This is sufficiently disputed that I don't think we should be taking a position in wikivoice either way. What we can do is summarize the interim final rule/opinion letter, summarize the Fourth Circuit's decision, and summarize the objections to it in Judge Richardson's partial concurrence. (I appreciate that the Fourth Circuit's discussion is probably dicta, but that doesn't prevent us from mentioning what was said, especially since RS say the decision "set a standard for the legality of hemp products" and so on.) I guess we could mention that the Fourth Circuit followed the Ninth Circuit's reasoning (as noted in the Law360 article), but otherwise the Ninth Circuit opinion didn't mention THC-O-acetate specifically and doesn't need to be discussed separately. The legal_US infobox parameter should probably be marked "disputed" or just left blank; again, this is unsettled enough that the article shouldn't be taking a position either way. Feel free to leave a note at WT:LAW if you want others' feedback. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Extraordinary Writ I was pinged here though I have no involvement with this article. You can see that I just reverted an edit because the jokey edit summary was clearly deceptive. It may be that the IP is one of the known players in this old dispute; I don't know. It may be that I reverted to the wrong version--but then, we always do. What I'm seeing is two editors continually disrupting the article; I couldn't tell who's right, but perhaps you do. What I also see is that User:Gettinglit seems to have a habit of uncollegiality and, as far as I can tell, does not really operate based on reliable secondary sources but rather on interpretation of primary sources--that's how I read this talk page section anyway. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Me primary source? Irruptive Creditor was using a screenshot of a letter sent by a single DEA representative for the claim it's a Schedule I substance when more than 1 court case has brought this letter into consideration during hearings and all of them that has been presented with it found it to have no legal merit and that the definition of the law was clear.
- If court cases aren't good citations because they are primary sources how is this letter they're using for the claim it's a Schedule I substance because of the out-of-context wording in the letter any different? It's just weird I'm arguing the point of 3 judges saying the law is clear and the letter means nothing....versus the letter.
- I have no problem with mentioning this letter in legality, I think it's a good idea to have it, and while several judges have ruled it has no merit, it's something that could come up in a court case as it has that someone may need to defend against themselves.
- I just wish that instead of reverting each others edits, we can utilize the talk page here to work torward a conclusion on what the legality section should say that would make everyone happy so readers can accurately be informed. That's why for the past month I have been tagging the talk page with that invitation without response until the end of the month here and instead of deciding to respond to points and work towards a solution.
- I have a feeling if the court cases I cited said it was illegal instead of legal that Irruptive Creditor would have no problem with them and that's called bias and we should leave it at the door when editing articles. That's probably why they repeatedly call out my citation without ironically realizing theirs is considerably worse. Gettinglit (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Extraordinary Writ I was pinged here though I have no involvement with this article. You can see that I just reverted an edit because the jokey edit summary was clearly deceptive. It may be that the IP is one of the known players in this old dispute; I don't know. It may be that I reverted to the wrong version--but then, we always do. What I'm seeing is two editors continually disrupting the article; I couldn't tell who's right, but perhaps you do. What I also see is that User:Gettinglit seems to have a habit of uncollegiality and, as far as I can tell, does not really operate based on reliable secondary sources but rather on interpretation of primary sources--that's how I read this talk page section anyway. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/05/19/21-56133.pdf
- ^ https://www.greenmarketreport.com/federal-circuit-court-rules-all-products-made-from-federally-compliant-hemp-are-legal/
- ^ https://businessofcannabis.com/federal-court-rules-that-thc-o-is-legal-under-2018-farm-bill-in-surprise-win-for-synthetic-cannabinoid-sellers/
- ^ https://www.marijuanamoment.net/thc-o-qualifies-as-legal-hemp-under-federal-law-appeals-court-says-rejecting-deas-restrictive-stance
- ^ https://www.foleyhoag.com/news-and-insights/blogs/cannabis-and-the-law/2024/september/4th-circuit-challenges-dea-s-findings-on-the-legality-of-certain-hemp-derived-cannabinoids/
- ^ https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacsau.4c00436
- ^ https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacsau.4c00436
- ^ https://www.reddit.com/r/Stims/comments/12hxr77/comment/jfrtlbw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button