{"id":23722,"date":"2018-02-15T15:18:06","date_gmt":"2018-02-15T23:18:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2018\/02\/15\/hemp-advocates-challenge-the-dea-in-court-over-hemp-extract-ruling\/"},"modified":"2018-02-16T00:45:56","modified_gmt":"2018-02-16T08:45:56","slug":"hemp-advocates-challenge-the-dea-in-court-over-hemp-extract-ruling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2018\/02\/15\/hemp-advocates-challenge-the-dea-in-court-over-hemp-extract-ruling\/","title":{"rendered":"Hemp Advocates Challenge the DEA in Court Over Hemp Extract Ruling"},"content":{"rendered":"<\/p>\n

On Feb. 15, lawyers presented oral arguments in the case, Hemp Industries Association v. DEA<\/em>, which could have national repercussions regarding the legality of hemp-derived extracts.<\/h4>\n
\n

T<\/span>he nation\u2019s leading hemp industry nonprofit went to court with the Drug Enforcement Administration today, challenging a December 2016 move by the federal government that essentially served to put industrial hemp extracts under the same scrutiny as marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is a most significant day for the industrial hemp industry,\u201d Robert Hoban, one of the attorneys representing the Hemp Industries Association, told Cannabis Now. While the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not issue a ruling today, they did hear the oral arguments presented by the Hemp Industries Association<\/a> \u2014 and Hoban said he was hopeful that the court heard their appeal.<\/p>\n

The Hemp Industries Assocation\u2019s fight against the DEA started back in 2016, when the DEA created a new drug code number<\/a> \u2014 which is what the DEA uses to track everything covered by The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 \u2014 for \u201cmarihuana extract.\u201d According to the DEA, a marihuana extract now meant \u201cextract containing one or more cannabinoids that has been derived from any plant of the genus Cannabis,\u201d including hemp-derived CBD oil.<\/p>\n

The folks over at the Hemp Industries Association went to court<\/a> not long after the DEA released what it calls \u201cthe final rule\u201d on cannabis extracts. The HIA argued that the final rule is essentially a scheduling action for substances such as industrial hemp, \u201cand that the final rule contradicts specific Congressional legislation which exempts or legalizes certain parts and varieties of the cannabis plant, such as \u201cindustrial hemp.\u201d<\/p>\n

The HIA is referring to the Farm Act of 2014<\/a>, which made it federally legal for states to set up pilot hemp programs<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The hemp industry has had support from across the government with fighting this final rule. In January, 28 members of Congress submitted an amicus brief<\/a> to the court that called the move by the DEA \u201can abuse of DEA\u2019s administrative rulemaking authority and otherwise not in accordance with the law.\u201d<\/p>\n

When the case was first filed, the HIA stated that they weren\u2019t trying to get involved with the DEA\u2019s conflict with Congress, but rather they were contesting the DEA\u2019s \u201cblatant disregard for the 2004 ruling made by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which permanently enjoined the DEA from regulating hemp fiber, stalk, sterilized seed and oil, which are specifically exempted from the definition of \u2018marijuana\u2019 in the federal Controlled Substances Act.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWe will not stand idly by while the DEA flouts the will of Congress, violates the Ninth Circuit order, and harasses honest hemp producers trying to make a living with this in-demand crop,\u201d Colleen Keahey, executive director of the Hemp Industries Association, said in a statement last year<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Hemp is legally set forth in the Farm Bill of 2014 as cannabis that contains less than 0.3 percent THC, meaning that it has no psychotropic affects.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe DEA must stop treating hemp, hempseed and hempseed oil, which is a nutritious ingredient, as something illicit,\u201d said Keahey. \u201cWe have to address the challenges that thwart the domestic industry\u2019s progress and especially those that mislead state Departments of Agriculture and limit entry of legal hemp products into the marketplace.\u201d<\/p>\n

Since the case was originally filed last year, one of the nation\u2019s leading cannabis industry attorneys has joined the plaintiff\u2019s legal team.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are here because of executive administrative overreach,\u201d Hoban argued to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n

\n

Hoban went on to highlight the four pillars of the HIA\u2019s case. First, this final rule was the aforementioned overreach. Second, the plain and broad language of the final rule itself has room for interpretation. Third, five years elapsed between the initial rule that considered hemp separate from marijuana and final rule. And finally, there is intervening legislation that contradicts the DEA\u2019s final rule.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThere was a seismic shift in U.S. cannabis policy with the enactment of the Farm Bill that seems to have created some confusion perhaps with the Drug Enforcement Administration,\u201d Hoban told the court.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

A member of the court stopped Hoban to ask if this came down to the DEA needing this code to fulfill international drug treaties. Hoban retorted the drug code definition in itself \u201cgoes far beyond the congressional authorization written to the DEA.\u201d<\/p>\n

Hoban said that the hemp industry is afraid because the DEA has been utilizing the final rule \u201cweek after week since its enactment to seize and cause criminal enforcement against lawful operators who require no DEA authorization.\u201d<\/p>\n

The court asked Hoban for an example besides the one he provided from North Dakota. Hoban replied, speaking of almost weekly examples of Customs and Border Patrol agents using the definition to declare legal products controlled substances.<\/p>\n

After the proceedings, Hoban gave Cannabis Now his thoughts on the proceedings via email.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is now in the hands of the esteemed panel of Judges,\u201d said Hoban. \u201cThe good news is that the DEA\u2019s attorneys are aligned with our substantive legal position \u2014 this is a victory in and of itself.\u201d<\/p>\n

Patrick Goggin, the attorney who first filed the case last year on behalf of the hemp industry, told Cannabis Now, \u201cWe are feeling hopeful that the panel will find that the rule was an abuse of discretion by failing to distinguish industrial hemp extracts from marijuana extracts.\u201d<\/p>\n

TELL US, <\/b>do you think that hemp-derived oils are different from marijuana extracts?<\/p>\n

The post Hemp Advocates Challenge the DEA in Court Over Hemp Extract Ruling<\/a> appeared first on Cannabis Now<\/a>.<\/p>\n


\n
\nRead More: Hemp Advocates Challenge the DEA in Court Over Hemp Extract Ruling<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On Feb. 15, lawyers presented oral arguments in the case, Hemp Industries Association v. DEA, which could have national repercussions regarding the legality of hemp-derived extracts. The nation\u2019s leading hemp industry nonprofit went to court with the Drug Enforcement Administration today, challenging a December 2016 move by the federal governmentContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[50,80,848,296,90],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23722"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23722"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23722\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23723,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23722\/revisions\/23723"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23722"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23722"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23722"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}