Jump to content

Talk:THC-O-acetate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]



...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tagging recent editors @Meodipt and @Maxim Masiutin for input. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My recent edits of this article were technical, I cannot comment on substantive matters :-( Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
-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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
02/20/2025 The talk page continues to be ignored. Gettinglit (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References