> The gummies/edible workaround I can understand, but the THCA flower "workaround" seems like it's skirting really close to the edge of the law.
They both fit the law in the same way; the law defines hemp in an expansive and inclusive way, subject only to the D9 THC limit, so anything not D9 THC doesn’t count against the limit even if it has similar effect. Even the DEA accepts this, though the DEA seems to have adopted a view unsupported by the text of the law that things that don’t naturally occur in cannabis but meet the inclusive description in the law’s text aren’t legalized as hemp, which leads to controversy around some synthetic cannabinoids, where the DEA view and the text of the law (and some emerging case law) seem at odds.
I guess the thing that surprised.me is that I thought the majority of THC in "normal" marijuana was in the form of THCA anyway.
I remember reading an article years ago (well before 2018) that basically said "to make the THC in marijuana available in a way that gives pleasurable effects, it must first be decarboxylated, which is why it needs to be heated before being consumed." So from that I thought that most of the stuff that was sold as weed (again, pre 2018) was in the form of THCA anyway.
They both fit the law in the same way; the law defines hemp in an expansive and inclusive way, subject only to the D9 THC limit, so anything not D9 THC doesn’t count against the limit even if it has similar effect. Even the DEA accepts this, though the DEA seems to have adopted a view unsupported by the text of the law that things that don’t naturally occur in cannabis but meet the inclusive description in the law’s text aren’t legalized as hemp, which leads to controversy around some synthetic cannabinoids, where the DEA view and the text of the law (and some emerging case law) seem at odds.