Talk:THC-O-acetate

Untitled

This article has no cited sources or anything... I highly doubt its existance... Can we please get some evidence? Diizy 18:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

---

...it is likely that the manufacturer erroneously thought that potency or subjective effects would be increased in an analogous manner to the difference between morphine and heroin

This is purely speculation. No information about the potency of the Acetate is given and there are no references given to confirm the properties of this compound, so no comparison can be made to the unacetylated form. I think there is at least one book that claims the "potency" to be approximately twice that of the unacetylated form, which would contradict that statement, and should be looked into. This whole article seems to focus on some event where someone was caught with it illegally and speculating on what they were trying to do, rather than on the molecule and its properties. --76.123.165.106 (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

i agree, I think this article should be deleted, it is purely speculative and makes no actual sense. DarkShroom (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Origi DETAILED legality page

THC-O-acetate is not directly listed under the Controlled Substances Act but is designated as a federally prohibited Schedule I controlled substance in the United States. Despite not being listed in the federal controlled substance act directly by name, Terrence Boos the DEAs Chief Drug & Chemical Evaluation Section Diversion Control Division released a legal opinion in response to a letter asking to clarify legality.

"The CSA classifies tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) as controlled in schedule I. 21 U.S.C. § 812, Schedule I(c)(17); 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(31). Subject to limited exceptions, for the purposes of the CSA, the term "tetrahydrocannabinols" means those "naturally contained in a plant of the genus Cannabis (cannabis plant), as well as synthetic equivalents of the substances contained in the cannabis plant and/or synthetic substances, derivatives, and their isomers with similar chemical structure and pharmacological activity to those substances contained in the plant." 21 CFR §(d)(31).

"Delta-9-THCO and delta-8-THCO do not occur naturally in the cannabis plant and can only be obtained synthetically, and therefore do not fall under the definition of hemp. Delta-9-THCO and delta-8-THCO are tetrahydrocannabinols having similar chemical structures and pharmacological activities to those contained in the cannabis plant. Δ9-THC-O and Δ8-THC-O are tetrahydrocannabinols having similar chemical structures and pharmacological activities to those contained in the cannabis plant. Thus, Δ9-THC-O and Δ8-THC-O meet the definition of "tetrahydrocannabinols," and they (and products containing Δ9-THC-O and Δ8-THC-O) are controlled in schedule I by 21 U.S.C. § 812(c) Schedule I, and 21 CFR § 1308.11(d). The Controlled Substances Code Number (CSCN) assigned to these substances are 7370, which is that of tetrahydrocannabinols, and the conversion factors (CF) are 1.00. Because Δ9-THC-O and Δ8-THC-O are controlled substances, they do not meet the definition of controlled substance analogues under 21 U.S.C. § 813."

Although this may conflict with the federal definition of hemp which includes "(1) HEMP.—The term 'hemp' means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a Δ9-THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis."

ts sudden status in the early 2020s as both a Schedule I and widely commercially distributed chemical is a heavily debated topic, most notably by the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which made an opinion post that stated; products containing hemp-derived Δ8-THC may be lawfully used in commerce and eligible for trademark protection under the Lanham Act. Significantly, the court decided that downstream hemp-derived Δ8-THC products can fit within the legal definition of “hemp” under the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 so long as they consist of less than 0.3% Δ9-THC and are derived from hemp itself consisting of less than 0.3% Δ9-THC. Under the Controlled Substances Act and the 2018 Farm Bill, this would hypothetically make every hemp-derived product fully legal so long as it contained 0.3% or less of Δ9-THC in total, including Δ8-THC-O. Gettinglit (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)