What’s everyone’s THCA online vendor?

[General Disaster]

TLR - such a load of bollocks, ya gotta laugh!
(and you can decide whether I mean my post or the hemp laws! )

The difference is not between hemp and cannabis. The difference is between hemp and marijuana. Both are cannabis, but legally the two are different because of how they are defined in the 2018 Farm Bill (mentioned previously) based solely on the THC content. The intent was to allow farmers to grow hemp without the same restrictions as marijuana.

Yes, it doesn't make logical sense but that's because the bill sponsors didn't understand basic cannabis science.

I believe the naming makes no difference (just to split hairs! ). Cannabis is the correct name for the plant, marijuana was a 'nickname' made popular when cannabis laws were first being introduced in the US (I believe) during the 'reefer madness' years (and hence embedded in US culture), but it has no scientific meaning or use, just a nickname. Likewise hemp, although in it's case it comes from the use of cannabis as a resource for cordage and cloth (not to mention oil and other products). In fact hemp has been a critical factor in the advance of civilisation, for instance providing huge military advantage for bowmen who could fire further and faster than those still using strips of bamboo for their bow strings (one of the reasons China was so successful at maintaining and expanding borders in the past).

Anyway, digressing aside, the names simply are used to categorise the legal definitions, the definitions came first and it's the definitions that the names come from rather than visa versa. Why does that matter? It's that the names existed prior but the meanings have been altered by the laws introduced.

What I find even stranger than the perfectly typical incompetence of not understanding the simple pharmacology/chemistry (and presumably being too arrogant to ask the experts), is that there are plenty strains of low THC cannabis (sorry, hemp) that can be grown, as it has for thousands of years, with no need to worry about the presence of a carboxylic acid functional group. China, thousands of years back as mentioned, and more recently the British empire, were built on hemp - in fact in England at times there was a law that forced some farmers to grow it, mainly for sailing ships - cordage and sailcloth. Hemp is one of the most useful plants around and provides far more resources without damaging the land than most other plants can or do. Far better than wood for many things, except for one thing - making more money at our planets expense!
Ah, best pack another bowl and sit back to watch the show!

But bottom line, I have to wonder who it was who was lobbying for this law to come into being, because I'll bet you anything (I'm broke, you won't get much if you win!) that those people knew very well what the difference is! This wasn't some bumbling law maker going off half cocked on their own. That's not how politics works most of the time. But I can promise one thing - it wasn't done with your well being in mind!

 

[zeebudz]

But bottom line, I have to wonder who it was who was lobbying for this law to come into being, because I'll bet you anything (I'm broke, you won't get much if you win!) that those people knew very well what the difference is! This wasn't some bumbling law maker going off half cocked on their own. That's not how politics works most of the time. But I can promise one thing - it wasn't done with your well being in mind!

The 2018 Farm Bill was done to allow industrial hemp growing in the US. Nothing more, nothing less. (It was sponsored by a Texas Republican and passed with bipartisan support.)

 

[General Disaster]

If that was the be all and end all, I have difficulty understanding how it could be so dysfunctional. Some countries simply differentiate between THC(a), and CBD(a), and use the name hemp to label the legal difference for trading.
Maybe you're right and that was the only genuine motive, but if so, it's a scary thought that lawmakers can be so overwhelmingly incompetent with no ulterior motive to explain it. I mean, it's not exactly rocket science.
To be fair, the US takes a different methodology of classifying illegal psychoactive substances and maybe there's something of a cultural difference, but I still fail to see any actual rational to that particular law. I'm only curious as it sounds so mad; does this mean in the US industrial hemp is just as psychoactive as most ordinary cannabis? Or at least can be?

 

[Shit Snacks]

if so, it's a scary thought that lawmakers can be so overwhelmingly incompetent with no ulterior motive to explain it

Unfortunately it is reality, also there actually are a lot of ulterior motives that could explain even further, such as financial interests, like that farm bill was likely driven by hemp lobbyists wanting more money

 

[zeebudz]

To be fair, the US takes a different methodology of classifying illegal psychoactive substances and maybe there's something of a cultural difference, but I still fail to see any actual rational to that particular law. I'm only curious as it sounds so mad; does this mean in the US industrial hemp is just as psychoactive as most ordinary cannabis? Or at least can be?

Industrial hemp hasn't been a thing in the US since the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937. It put a stop to all commercial production with a few exceptions (like WWII) and it essentially ceased in 1957. Meanwhile other countries - especially Canada - started growing and exporting hemp products and farmers in the USA wanted in on the action. The 2018 bill allowed hemp to be grown, defining it only by the THC percentage. So now there are many farms catering to rec & med cannabis consumers producing - for example - high THCA "hemp" which is psychoactive like marijuana. Because it is the same plant.

Unfortunately it is reality, also there actually are a lot of ulterior motives that could explain even further, such as financial interests, like that farm bill was likely driven by hemp lobbyists wanting more money

Of course that was the rationale for the farm bill, to allow hemp farmers to freely grow and sell their product by classifying it in a way to legally distinguish it from marijuana. But the comment implied that the lawmakers knew the difference between THC vs THCA and had some ulterior motive in that respect. All indications are that it was just a fuck up.

 

[General Disaster]

Unfortunately it is reality, also there actually are a lot of ulterior motives that could explain even further, such as financial interests, like that farm bill was likely driven by hemp lobbyists wanting more money

Yeah, that was my suspicion, but then I have a suspicious mind!

Industrial hemp hasn't been a thing in the US since the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937.

I recall reading an article about that, basically working on the premis that cannabis (hemp) was seen as a dangerous challenge to the logging industry because it was a far better source of material than tree's for many of the uses tree's are put to. The newpaper, chemical and logging industries got together to lobby for cannabis to be made illegal (all types) to stifle any possible competition. This spawned the reefer madness propaganda which handily also tried in with racism.
Whether true or not, I can see how it would leave the US in a difficult legal position when people later wanted to legally exploit cannabis farming again, but the idea of that level of dysfunctional law making just boggles me. I'm used to this sort of thing when ulterior motives are in play, but just seems unbelievable this wouldn't be spotted early on in drafting the law (obviously the evidence shows it probably is believable! ).