Opinion ID: 785067
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Definition of THC

Text: 34 The DEA contends that Appellants' food products may be banned as any material compound, mixture or preparation that contains any quantity of THC. See 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d). However, the definition of THC under the CSA includes only synthetic THC. 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d)(27) (defining banned THC as [s]ynthetic equivalents of the substances contained in the plant, or in the resinous extractives of Cannabis, sp. and/or synthetic substances, derivatives, and their isomers....). 4 As we noted in Hemp I, with a more elaborate explanation than we will provide here: 35 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. 36 Hemp I, 333 F.3d at 1089. The controlled substances listing of THC is different from the listings for DMT, mescaline, psilocybin, and psilocyn, the definitions for which are not limited to synthetic forms of the drugs. See 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d). 37 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. 38 As we did in Hemp I, we reject the DEA's contention that the Final Rules merely clarify that the longstanding placement of THC in schedule I includes both natural and synthetic THC. 68 Fed. Reg. 14116 (Mar. 21, 2003). The DEA's action is not a mere clarification of its THC regulations; it improperly renders naturally-occurring non-psychoactive hemp illegal for the first time.