CBD oil, which is not at all psychoactive (doesn’t make anyone ‘high’) is now specifically listed as a Schedule 1 drug, meaning it has NO medicinal value and a high abuse rate. Lots of people have been using CBD for arthritis pain, migraines, seizures, rheumatism, tendonitis, and other things. For some people, it is the only thing that has helped them, and now, it is going to be illegal, by a rule.
Here is an article on it. This almost seems like a hail Mary attempt at asserting control over people’s right to self-determination on cannabis. Too many people now know that the only reason this is “controlled” is to control the health and -access to- well being that is definitely a human right.For some reason, many people seem to think that only doctors and pharmaceutical companies know how living beings should deal with the rigors of being alive.
It is complete tripe.
Here is the article with links to the rule and additional information:
DENVER — A cannabidiol hemp oil used by some families of children with seizures has been officially named a Schedule I drug by the DEA.
“Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse,” the DEA says on its website.
That puts the oil in the same category as heroin, LSD, ecstasy, meth, peyote and marijuana.
The DEA published the details about the change in the Federal Register.
It applies to any “extract containing one or more cannabinoids that has been derived from any plant of the genus Cannabis,” the Federal Register posting said.
The change explains that the DEA is creating a new Administrative Controlled Substances Code Number for what it calls “Marihuana [sic] Extract.”
During the comment period for the new rule, one person asked for clarification of whether the new drug code would be applicable to cannabidiol (CBD).
The DEA responded to say any cannabis plant extract that contains CBD and no other cannabinoids will still fall within the new drug code.
Read the details about the new drug code here.
****Here is a very interesting and in depth analysis of the rule. The author believes the rule is void: