Talk:THC-O-acetate

Untitled

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

@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.

-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.”

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)

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)

References