Opinion ID: 785067
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CSA Definitions of THC and Marijuana

Text: 33 Two CSA provisions are relevant to determining whether Appellants' hemp products were banned before the passage of the Final Rules: the definition of THC and the definition of marijuana. Both are unambiguous under Chevron step one: Appellants' products do not contain the synthetic substances or derivatives that are covered by the definition of THC, and non-psychoactive hemp is explicitly excluded from the definition of marijuana.
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.
Under 21 U.S.C. § 802(16): 39 The term marihuana means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination. 40 The non-psychoactive hemp in Appellants' products is derived from the mature stalks or is oil and cake made from the seeds of the Cannabis plant, and therefore fits within the plainly stated exception to the CSA definition of marijuana. 41 Congress was aware of the presence of trace amounts of psychoactive agents (later identified as THC) in the resin of non-psychoactive hemp when it passed the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, and when it adopted the Tax Act marijuana definition in the CSA. As a result, when Congress excluded from the definition of marijuana mature stalks of such plant, fiber ..., [and] oil or cake made from the seeds, it also made an exception to the exception, and included resin extracted from the excepted parts of the plant in the definition of marijuana, despite the stalks and seeds exception. 5 21 U.S.C. § 802(16). Congress knew what it was doing, and its intent to exclude non-psychoactive hemp from regulation is entirely clear. The DEA's Final Rules are inconsistent with the unambiguous meaning of the CSA definitions of marijuana and THC, and the DEA did not use the appropriate scheduling procedures to add non-psychoactive hemp to the list of controlled substances. 42 Although we have determined that non-psychoactive hemp is not banned under Schedule I, we need not determine in this proceeding whether under the current statute it could be listed if the agency were to undertake appropriate rulemaking. We hold only that the DEA did not follow the requisite proceedings for scheduling under 21 U.S.C. §§ 811(a) and 812(b). The Final Rules therefore may not be enforced with respect to THC that is found within the parts of Cannabis plants that are excluded from the CSA's definition of marijuana or that is not synthetic. 43 We find unambiguous Congress' intent with regard to the regulation of non-psychoactive hemp. Therefore, we reject the Final Rules at step one of the Chevron test and need not reach Chevron step two. 6