Difference between revisions of "User:Shawndouglas/sandbox/sublevel10"

From CannaQAWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:Marihuana Test.jpg|left|180px]]One area that continues to expand—while taking advantage of new scientific research and techniques—is the [[laboratory]] sphere, particularly in research, regulation, and standardization activities. According to July 2016 testimony from Susan R.B. Weiss, Division Director at NIDA, the [[National Institutes of Health]] (NIH) alone supported 281 [[cannabinoid]] research projects totaling more than $111 million in 2015.<ref name="WeissTestimony16">{{cite web |url=https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/asl/testimony/2016-09/the-state-of-the-science-on-the-therapeutic-potential-of-marijuana-and-cannabinoids/index.html |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170504180135/https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/asl/testimony/2016-09/the-state-of-the-science-on-the-therapeutic-potential-of-marijuana-and-cannabinoids/index.html |title=Testimony from Susan R.B. Weiss, Ph.D. on The State of the Science on the Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana and Cannabinoids before Judiciary Committee |author=Weiss, S.R.B. |work=ASL Testimony |publisher=U.S. Department of Health & Human Services |date=13 July 2016 |archivedate=04 May 2017 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>
[[File:Dea color logo.svg|right|250px]]On October 27, 1970, the [[Controlled Substances Act]] put into place five schedules or classifications of drugs that would be regulated in some fashion, and drugs were initially classified into those schedules, followed by annual reviews and updates.<ref name="GPO21USC812" /> [[Cannabis (drug)|Marijuana]] was initially placed under Schedule I<ref name="GPO21USC812">{{cite web |url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title21/html/USCODE-2011-title21-chap13-subchapI-partB-sec812.htm |title=§812. Schedules of controlled substances |work=United States Code |publisher=U.S. Government Publishing Office |date=03 January 2012 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref> and remains there today.<ref name="LegerMari16">{{cite web |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/08/11/dea-marijuana-remains-illegal-under-federal-law/88550804/ |title=Marijuana to remain illegal under federal law, DEA says |author=Leger, D.L. |work=USA. Today |publisher=Gannett Company |date=11 August 2016 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="JosephDEA16">{{cite web |url=https://www.statnews.com/2016/08/10/marijuana-medical-research-dea/ |title=DEA decision keeps major restrictions in place on marijuana research |author=Joseph, A. |work=STAT |publisher=Boston Globe Media |date=10 August 2016 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="GrubbsDEA16">{{cite web |url=https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/alex-grubbs/dea-declines-request-reclassify-marijuana-citiing-its-high-potential-abuse |title=DEA Declines Request to Reclassify Marijuana, Citiing Its 'High Potential for Abuse' |author=Grubbs, A. |work=CNSNews |publisher=Media Research Center |date=13 August 2016 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref> As a Schedule I drug, the federal government is indicating marijuana has<ref name="GPO21USC812" />:


While the research, analysis, and processing of cannabis has been ongoing for centuries<ref name="DeitchHemp03">{{cite book |title=Hemp – American History Revisited |author=Deitch, R. |publisher=Algora Publishing |location=New York City |year=2003 |pages=232 |isbn=9780875862262}}</ref>, it wasn't until 1896 that Wood ''et al.'' conducted one of the first documented chemical experiments to determine the constituents of cannabis. Several years later, the researchers were able to correctly identify the extracted and isolated [[cannabinol]] from the exuded [[resin]] of Indian hemp as C<sub>21</sub>H<sub>26</sub>O<sub>2</sub>.<ref name="WoodCann1899">{{cite journal |title=III.—Cannabinol. Part I |journal=Journal of the Chemical Society, Transactions |author=Wood, T.B.; Newton Spivey, W.T.; Easterfield, T.H. |volume=75 |pages=30–36 |year=1899 |doi=10.1039/CT8997500020}}</ref> As of mid-2018, somewhere between 104 upwards to more than 140 of the more than 750 constituents of ''Cannabis sativa'' have been identified as cannabinoids<ref name="RadwanIso15">{{cite journal |title=Isolation and pharmacological evaluation of minor cannabinoids from high-potency ''Cannabis sativa'' |journal=Journal of Natural Products |author=Radwan, M.M.; ElSohly, M.A.; El-Alfy, A.T. et al. |volume=78 |issue=6 |pages=1271-6 |year=2015 |doi=10.1021/acs.jnatprod.5b00065 |pmid=26000707 |pmc=PMC4880513}}</ref><ref name="SolymosiCanna17">{{cite journal |title=''Cannabis'': A Treasure Trove or Pandora's Box? |journal=Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry |author=Solymosi, K.; Köfalvi, A. |volume=17 |pages=1123–91 |year=2017 |doi=10.2174/1389557516666161004162133}}</ref><ref name="MudgeChemo18">{{cite journal |title=Chemometric Analysis of Cannabinoids: Chemotaxonomy and Domestication Syndrome |journal=Scientific Reports |author=Mudge, E.M.; Murch, S.J.; Brown, P.N. |volume=8 |at=13090 |year=2018 |doi=10.1038/s41598-018-31120-2}}</ref>, "a class of diverse chemical compounds that act on cannabinoid receptors in cells that modulate neurotransmitter release in the brain."<ref name="WHOTheHealth16">{{cite book |url=https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241510240 |title=The health and social effects of nonmedical cannabis use |author=World Health Organization |editor=Hall, W.; Renström, M.; Poznyak, V |publisher=World Health Organization |pages=95 |year=2016 |isbn=978921510240}}</ref>
* "a high potential for abuse";
* "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States"; and
* "a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision".


Yet in the United States, when it comes to 1. enacting the broad level of testing required to ensure public safety—whether it be medical, recreational, or industrial use of cannabis—and 2. researching and better understanding the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (medical use and benefit) of cannabinoids in the human population, many have argued that laboratory testing of cannabis is still in its infancy<ref name="HazekampCanna12">{{cite journal |title=Cannabis - from cultivar to chemovar |journal=Drug Testing and Analysis |author=Hazekamp, A.; Fischedick, J.T. |volume=4 |issue=7–8 |pages=660–7 |year=2012 |doi=10.1002/dta.407 |pmid=22362625}}</ref><ref name="BushWorlds15">{{cite web |url=https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/worldrsquos-strongest-weed-potency-testing-challenged/ |title=World’s strongest weed? Potency testing challenged |author=Bush, E. |work=The Seattle Times |publisher=The Seattle Times Company |date=18 February 2015 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="RutschQuality15">{{cite web |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/03/24/395065699/quality-testing-legal-marijuana-strong-but-not-always-clean |title=Quality-Testing Legal Marijuana: Strong But Not Always Clean |author=Rutsch, P. |work=Shots |publisher=National Public Radio |date=24 March 2015 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="KuzdzalUnrav15">{{cite journal |title=Unraveling the Cannabinome |journal=The Analytical Scientist |author=Kuzdzal, S.; Lipps, W. |issue=0915 |year=2015 |url=https://theanalyticalscientist.com/techniques-tools/unraveling-the-cannabinome |accessdate=20 January 2021}}</ref><ref name="CrombieMari16">{{cite web |url=https://www.oregonlive.com/marijuana/2016/07/marijuana_labs_prepping_for_st.html |title=Marijuana labs prepping for regulation and oversight; no lab licenses issued yet |author=Crombie, N. |work=The Oregonian |publisher=Oregon Live LLC |date=25 July 2016 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="KuzdzalACloser16">{{cite web |url=https://www.ssi.shimadzu.com/sites/ssi.shimadzu.com/files/Industry/Literature/Shimadzu_Whitepaper_Emerging_Cannabis_Industry.pdf |format=PDF |title=A Closer Look at Cannabis Testing |author=Kuzdzal, S.; Clifford, R.; Winkler, P.; Bankert, W. |publisher=Shimadzu Corporation |date=December 2017 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref> and evidence-based research of marijuana continues to be slow and bogged down in regulation.<ref name="BajajHowThe14">{{cite web |url=https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/how-the-federal-government-slows-marijuana-research/ |title=How the Federal Government Slows Marijuana Research |author=Bajaj, V. |work=Taking Note: The New York Times |publisher=The New York Times Company |date=30 July 2014 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="CheslerGov15">{{cite web |url=https://weedrush.news21.com/government-restrictions-lack-of-funding-slow-progress-on-medical-marijuana-research/ |title=Government restrictions, lack of funding slow progress on medical marijuana research |author=Chesler, J.; Ard, A. |work=News21: America's Weed Rush |publisher=Carnegie Corporation of New York; John S. and James L. Knight Foundation |date=15 August 2015 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="WeissTestimony16">{{cite web |url=https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/asl/testimony/2016-09/the-state-of-the-science-on-the-therapeutic-potential-of-marijuana-and-cannabinoids/index.html |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170504180135/https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/asl/testimony/2016-09/the-state-of-the-science-on-the-therapeutic-potential-of-marijuana-and-cannabinoids/index.html |title=Testimony from Susan R.B. Weiss, Ph.D. on The State of the Science on the Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana and Cannabinoids before Judiciary Committee |author=Weiss, S.R.B. |work=ASL Testimony |publisher=U.S. Department of Health & Human Services |date=13 July 2016 |archivedate=04 May 2017 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="JosephDEA16">{{cite web |url=https://www.statnews.com/2016/08/10/marijuana-medical-research-dea/ |title=DEA decision keeps major restrictions in place on marijuana research |author=Joseph, A. |work=STAT |publisher=Boston Globe Media |date=10 August 2016 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="RudroffMari17">{{cite web |url=https://www.newsweek.com/marijuana-regulation-blocks-vital-ms-research-544886 |title=Marijuana Regulation Blocks Vital Multiple Sclerosis Research |author=Rudroff, T. |work=Newsweek |publisher=IBT Media, Inc |date=21 January 2017 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref> In regards to the first issue, as some form of [[Legality of cannabis|legalization]] continues to sweep across states, regulators, users, and industry are recognizing the need for improved standardization of the production and testing of medical and recreational marijuana; the current state of improper labeling and potentially harmful contaminants<ref name="HazekampCanna12" /><ref name="BushWorlds15" /><ref name="RutschQuality15" /><ref name="KuzdzalACloser16" /> will only serve to hinder the industry. To the second issue, in 2016 some within the federal government seemed to recognize the roadblocks to improved evidence-based research and began working to slowly improve how researchers can legally acquire and test marijuana in the U.S.<ref name="WeissTestimony16" /><ref name="JosephDEA16" /><ref name="Romza-KutzTheSilver16">{{cite web |url=https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/insights/blogs/tracking-cannabis/post/2016-08-15/the-silver-lining-in-the-dea-s-refusal-to-reclassify-cannabis |title=The silver lining in the DEA’s refusal to reclassify cannabis |work=Tracking Cannabis |author=Romza-Kutz, D.; Roth V., F. |publisher=Thompson Coburn LLP |date=15 August 2016 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>, though those attempts have since been rebuffed by the Justice Department.<ref name="GurmanMari18">{{cite web |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/marijuana-research-applications-go-nowhere-at-justice-department-1536404401 |title=Marijuana-Research Applications Go Nowhere at Justice Department |author=Gurman, S. |work=The Wall Street Journal |publisher=Dow Jones & Company, Inc |date=08 September 2018 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="OrdoñezTrump18">{{cite web |url=https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article221305965.html |title=Trump fired Sessions. Here are four takeaways from the attorney general’s tenure |author=Ordoñez, F.; Kumar, A. |work=Miami Herald |publisher=The McClatchy Company |date=07 November 2018 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>
Then came the Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973, which took existing enforcement entities such as the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and placed them into a new, unified entity called the [[Drug Enforcement Administration]] (DEA).<ref name="GPO5USCApp">{{cite web |url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title5/html/USCODE-2011-title5-app-reorganiz-other-dup96.htm |title=Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 |work=United States Code |publisher=U.S. Government Publishing Office |date=03 January 2012 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="DEAHist7075">{{cite web |url=https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-07/1970-1975 p 30-39.pdf |format=PDF |title=Drug Enforcement Administration: 1970–1975 |work=DEA History In Depth |publisher=U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref> Then President Richard Nixon said of the transition<ref name="GPO5USCApp" />:


Regardless, an excerpt from the previously mentioned testimony of NIDA's Dr. Weiss illustrates the sentiment still felt by many researchers today<ref name="WeissTestimony16" />:
<blockquote>The enforcement work could benefit significantly, however, from consolidation of our anti-drug forces under a single unified command. Right now the Federal Government is fighting the war on drug abuse under a distinct handicap, for its efforts are those of a loosely confederated alliance facing a resourceful, elusive, worldwide enemy.</blockquote>


<blockquote>The current state of the research on marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids suggests the potential for therapeutic value for a number of conditions; however, more evidence is needed before marijuana or cannabinoid products (beyond those already approved through the FDA) are ready for medical use. Promising preclinical findings do not always prove to be clinically relevant, and even fewer lead to new treatments. Moreover, clinical studies of sufficient quality to meet FDA standards for drug approval are currently lacking for most conditions. Among the factors that impact this research are the specific statutory requirements and treaty obligations that govern research on marijuana. NIH is working closely with the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the [[Drug Enforcement Administration]] (DEA), and FDA to explore ways to streamline these processes to facilitate research.</blockquote>  
The DEA was given numerous responsibilities, including but not limited to the development of enforcement strategy; investigation and prosecution preparation of suspects violating federal law; regulation of drugs and other controlled substances; and coordination and cooperation with state and local government drug enforcement efforts.<ref name="GPO5USCApp" /> Since then the DEA has taken various steps—with guidance from the [[Food and Drug Administration]] (FDA)<ref name="HamiltonTheFDA16">{{cite web |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/pa443y/dea-fda-marijuana-schedule-1-status-decision |title=The FDA told the DEA whether pot is medicine — but it won't tell the public |author=Hamilton, K. |work=Vice News |publisher=Vice Media, LLC |date=27 June 2016 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>—to regulate and enforce the availability and use of controlled substances such as marijuana. As the decriminalization and [[Legality of cannabis|legalization]] efforts of states have increased in past decades, this has brought federal regulation and enforcement conflicts to those states that have decriminalized and legalized, largely due to the federal government's insistence on maintaining marijuana as a Schedule I drug.<ref name="Romza-KutzTheSilver16">{{cite web |url=https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/insights/blogs/tracking-cannabis/post/2016-08-15/the-silver-lining-in-the-dea-s-refusal-to-reclassify-cannabis |title=The silver lining in the DEA’s refusal to reclassify cannabis |work=Tracking Cannabis |author=Romza-Kutz, D.; Roth V., F. |publisher=Thompson Coburn LLP |date=15 August 2016 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="HudakTheCon15">{{cite web |url=https://www.newsweek.com/conflict-between-federal-and-state-marijuana-laws-claims-victim-345099 |title=The Conflict Between Federal and State Marijuana Laws Claims a Victim |author=Hudak, J. |work=Newsweek |publisher=Newsweek, LLC |date=20 June 2015 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>


In the meantime, government entities such as the NIH and non-profits such as jCanna push forward with scientific conferences, summits, and roundtables that bring scientists and interested parties together to share existing knowledge and testing techniques.<ref name="NIHMari16">{{cite web |url=https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/meetings-events/2016/03/marijuana-cannabinoids-neuroscience-research-summit |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20210118181842/https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/meetings-events/2016/03/marijuana-cannabinoids-neuroscience-research-summit |title=Marijuana and Cannabinoids: A Neuroscience Research Summit |publisher=National Institutes of Health |date=23 March 2016 |archivedate=18 January 2021 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="jCannaCSC19">{{cite web |url=https://www.cannabisscienceconference.com/ |title=Cannabis Science Conference |publisher=jCanna, Inc |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref> And at least some U.S. lawmakers are further talking about the issue of cannabis research, with an official hearing in January 2020 providing an opportunity to discuss the "catch-22" of regulation and medical research: "Research is restricted because cannabis is currently considered a Schedule I drug under the [[Controlled Substances Act]], yet more research would better determine if marijuana should be rescheduled or descheduled."<ref name="SmithUSHouse20">{{cite web |url=https://mjbizdaily.com/us-house-panel-calls-for-stepped-up-marijuana-research-which-could-prove-critical-to-federal-reform/ |title=US House panel calls for stepped-up marijuana research, which could prove critical to federal reform |author=Smith, J. |work=Marijuana Business Daily |date=15 January 2020 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>
Numerous changes in federal policy, as well as a few controversies, have occurred since the Controlled Substance Act and DEA were implemented. This includes:
 
* 2009's Ogden Memorandum, "intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion" in regards to state-based laws allowing medical cannabis<ref name="OgdenMemor09">{{cite web |url=https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/memorandum-selected-united-state-attorneys-investigations-and-prosecutions-states |title=Memorandum for Selected United State Attorneys on Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana |author=Ogden, D.W. |work=Justice Blogs |publisher=Department of Justice |date=19 October 2009 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>;
* 2011's Cole Memorandum 1, underlining that while the stance of the Ogden Memo still stood, large grow-ops that didn't qualify as "caregivers" had sprung up since, requiring federal enforcement action<ref name="ColeMemo11">{{cite web |url=https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/oip/legacy/2014/07/23/dag-guidance-2011-for-medical-marijuana-use.pdf |format=PDF |title=Memorandum for United States Attorneys |author=Cole, J.M. |publisher=Department of Justice |date=29 June 2011 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>;
* 2013's Cole Memorandum 2, which sought to reduce the emphasis on the size of the grow-op and increase emphasis on—using a case-by-case basis—"whether the operation is demonstrably in compliance with a strong and effective state regulatory system"<ref name="ColeMemo13">{{cite web |url=https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf |format=PDF |title=Memorandum for All United States Attorneys |author=Cole, J.M. |publisher=Department of Justice |date=29 August 2013 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>;
* 2014 and onward's Rohrabacher-Farr/Joyce Amendments, prohibiting the DoJ from spending funds to prevent or enforce against state laws that allow for medical marijuana cultivation, distribution, and use, particularly when those actions are performed consistently with those state laws<ref name="ArmentanoPres14">{{cite web |url=https://norml.org/blog/2014/12/16/president-to-sign-federal-spending-bill-protecting-state-sanctioned-medical-marijuana-programs/ |title=President Signs Federal Spending Bill Protecting State Sanctioned Medical Marijuana Programs |author=Armentano, P. |work=NORML Blog |publisher=NORML Foundation |date=16 December 2014 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>;
* 2016's DEA denial of a petition to reschedule marijuana out of Schedule I, while recognizing the need for further research and the lack of legal marijuana sources for researchers<ref name="LegerMari16" /><ref name="81FR53846">{{cite journal |url=https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/12/2016-17955/applications-to-become-registered-under-the-controlled-substances-act-to-manufacture-marijuana-to |journal=Federal Register |title=Applications To Become Registered Under the Controlled Substances Act To Manufacture Marijuana To Supply Researchers in the United States |volume=81 |issue=156 |pages=53846–8 |year=2016 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>;
* 2018 Farm Bill, which removed industrial hemp from the Controlled Substance Act's definition of "marijuana" and struck it from Schedule I<ref name="CohenWhatDoes18">{{cite web |url=https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/news-insights/what-does-the-2018-farm-bill-mean-for-the-hemp-and-cbd-businesses.html |title=What Does the 2018 Farm Bill Mean for the Hemp and CBD Businesses? |author=Cohen, B.; Bleicher, M.C.; Fortier, D.L. et al. |publisher=Perkins Coie LLP |date=31 December 2018 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>;
* 2020's House Health Subcommittee meetings, the first of their kind, to discuss cannabis research and cannabis' current scheduling, as well as the problems that come from it<ref name="NorwinksiUnited20">{{cite web |url=https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/Cannabis-Hemp/891270/Recent-Congressional-Efforts-To-Address-The-Cannabis-Policy-Gap |title=United States: Recent Congressional Efforts To Address The Cannabis Policy Gap |author=Norwinski, E.J.; Landgraf, L.C.; Blackwood, K. et al. |work=Mondaq |date=10 February 2020 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>; and
* 2020's MORE Act, a continuing effort which would decriminalize "marijuana at the federal level while enabling states to set their regulatory policies without the threat of federal intervention."<ref name="SBAHousePass20">{{cite web |url=https://smallbusiness.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3480 |title=House Passes Legislation to Make Small Businesses in Cannabis Industry Eligible for SBA Lending Programs |work=Committee News |publisher=Small Business Administration |date=04 December 2020 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>
 
At the state level, changing laws and regulation have continued to put pressure on cannabis law at the federal level. As of July 2021, thirty-seven U.S. states and the District of Columbia have put some sort of broad decriminalization or legalization laws for cannabis on the books.<ref name="BerkeMichigan18">{{cite web |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/legal-marijuana-states-2018-1 |title=Marijuana legalization is sweeping the US. See every state where cannabis is legal |author=Berke, J.; Gal, S.; Lee, Y.J. |work=Business Insider |publisher=Insider, Inc |date=06 January 2021 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref> In October 1973, Oregon became the first state to enact decriminalization laws for marijuana, imposing a $100 fine for possession of less than an ounce. Eleven other states followed a similar path within five years.<ref name="SingleTheImp81">{{cite book |chapter=The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization |title=Research Advances in Alcohol and Drug Problems |author=Single, E.W. |editor=Israel, Y.; Glaser, F.B.; Kalant, H. et al. |publisher=Springer US |year=1981 |pages=405–424 |doi=10.1007/978-1-4615-7740-9_12 |isbn=9781461577409}}</ref> The next wave of changes began with the passage of medical marijuana legislation in California—the Compassionate Use Act—in November 1996, followed by similar legislation in Oregon and Alaska in 1998, Maine in 1999, and Colorado, Hawaii, and Nevada in 2000.<ref name="CambronState16">{{cite journal |title=State and National Contexts in Evaluating Cannabis Laws: A Case Study of Washington State |journal=Journal of Drug Issues |author=Cambron, C.; Guttmannova, K.; Fleming, C.B. |volume=47 |issue=1 |pages=74–90 |year=2017 |doi=10.1177/0022042616678607}}</ref><ref name="Alaska98Results">{{cite web |url=https://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/98GENR/results.htm |title=Election Summary Report, State of Alaska 1998 General Election: Official Results |work=Election Results |publisher=State of Alaska Division of Elections |date=01 December 1998 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref> Other states continued to add decriminalization and medical marijuana laws in the 2000s. But it wasn't until 2012 that Colorado and Washington became the first states to make recreational marijuana legal, followed by Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia in 2014.<ref name="CambronState16" /> Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada followed suit in 2016<ref name="BurkeFour17">{{cite web |url=https://www.natlawreview.com/article/four-more-states-pass-new-marijuana-laws-california-maine-massachusetts-nevada |title=Four More States Pass New Marijuana Laws: California, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada |author=Burke, C. |work=National Law Review |publisher=National Law Forum, LLC |date=04 January 2017 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>, with Michigan doing the same in 2018.<ref name="ChappelVoters18">{{cite web |url=https://www.npr.org/2018/11/07/665161814/3-more-states-ok-easing-their-marijuana-laws-michigan-utah-missouri |title=Voters Relax Marijuana Laws In 3 More States: Michigan, Utah, Missouri |author=Chappell, B. |work=NPR |date=07 November 2018 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>
 
As shown by Cambron ''et al.'' in 2016<ref name="CambronState16" />, dispensaries, possession limits, and interstate ID card acceptance can vary significantly among affected states. California, Colorado, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington led in number of dispensaries; Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington in maximum possession limits; and Arizona plus five others allowed ID cards from other states. Yet the number of allowed dispensaries can be in the single digits, possession limits can be as low as one ounce, and numerous states still don't honor ID cards from other states.<ref name="CambronState16" />
 
Then there's the matter of state differences in testing, enforcement, advertising allowances, etc. It helps to turn to professional associations and organizations—who often lead the charge for improved, more relevant standards—to sort through the variances. The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL), for example, has published its ''Guidance for State Medical Cannabis Testing Programs'' to help sort through the confusing tangle of existing testing laws, where they exist. They exemplify this variation of law in their document<ref name="APHLGuide16">{{cite web |url=https://www.aphl.org/aboutAPHL/publications/Documents/EH-Guide-State-Med-Cannabis-052016.pdf |format=PDF |title=Guidance for State Medical Cannabis Testing Programs |author=Association of Public Health Laboratories |pages=35 |date=May 2016 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>:
 
<blockquote>As with most programs in the United States, every state takes a different approach. For example as of January 2016, New Jersey’s Public Health & Environmental Laboratories only test cannabis plant material. Just across the Hudson, however, New York’s Public Health Laboratory will not be testing any plant material, only cannabis extracts. In addition, the New York Department of Health will provide an oversight role for commercial cannabis laboratories that are licensed by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and approved for testing cannabis products. On the other hand, New Jersey state government does all testing in-house for the medical cannabis program.</blockquote>
 
This variation in law also largely mirrors the variation found in laboratory testing methods of cannabis and its constituents. Recognizing this variance in standards and methods, state officials from Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington teamed up to give a presentation called "State Regulatory Approaches to Cannabis Testing, Operations and Product Logistics" at the July 2016 Cannabis Quality, Strategies and Solutions Summit. That presentation focused on the harmonization of regulatory standards and frameworks across states, as well as discussions of what scientific efforts are required to support those standards and frameworks.<ref name="CQSSS16">{{cite web |url=http://chernislaw.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NEW-Cannabis-Quality-Summit-Main-Summit-Agenda.pdf |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170202183410/http://chernislaw.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NEW-Cannabis-Quality-Summit-Main-Summit-Agenda.pdf |format=PDF |title=Cannabis Quality, Strategies and Solutions Summit - Agenda |publisher=Information Forecast, Inc |date=July 2016 |archivedate=02 February 2017 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref> Additionally, organizations such as Americans for Safe Access Foundation (ASAF), American Herbal Pharmacopoeia (AHP), American Herbal Products Association (AHPA), Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC), and the American Oil Chemists' Society (AOCS) have been developing standards, methods, and certifications for analysis, extraction, labeling, and laboratory operations surrounding medical (and recreational) marijuana.<ref name="InfocastNew16">{{cite web |url=https://infocastinc.com/market-insights/new-certification-program-brings-quality-assurance-to-the-medical-marijuana-industry/ |title=New Certification Program Brings Quality Assurance to the Medical Marijuana Industry |publisher=Information Forecast, Inc |date=2016 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="AHPARecomm16">{{cite web |url=https://www.ahpa.org/Portals/0/pdfs/AHPA_Recommendations_for_Regulators_Cannabis_Operations.pdf |format=PDF |title=Recommendations for Regulators – Cannabis Operations |author=Cannabis Committee, AHPA |publisher=American Herbal Products Association |date=02 February 2016 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="AHPCanna14">{{cite book |url=https://herbal-ahp.org/online-ordering-cannabis-inflorescence-qc-monograph/ |title=''Cannabis Inflorescence'': ''Cannabis'' spp. |publisher=American Herbal Pharmacopoeia |editor=Upton, R.; Craker, L.; ElSohly, M. et al. |year=2014 |isbn=1929425333}}</ref><ref name="MarcuJahan16">{{cite web |url=https://www.projectcbd.org/industry/cannabis-lab-testing-safety-protocols |title=Jahan Marcu: Cannabis Lab Testing & Safety Protocols |work=Project CBD |author=Project CBD; Marcu, J. |publisher=Project CBD |date=16 March 2016 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="EricksonCleaning17">{{cite web |url=https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i45/Cleaning-cannabis.html |title=Cleaning up cannabis |author=Erickson, B.E. |work=Chemical & Engineering News |publisher=American Chemical Society |date=13 November 2017 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="CassidayTheHighs16">{{cite web |url=https://www.aocs.org/stay-informed/inform-magazine/featured-articles/the-highs-and-lows-of-cannabis-testing-october-2016 |title=The Highs and Lows of Cannabis Testing |author=Cassiday, L. |work=INFORM |publisher=American Oil Chemists' Society |date=October 2016 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref> More recent efforts from the Foundation of Cannabis Unified Standards (FOCUS), ASTM International, the AOAC's Cannabis Analytical Science Program (CASP), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have, however, furthered attempts to standardize cannabis laboratory testing.<ref name="BirosASTM17">{{cite web |url=https://cannabisindustryjournal.com/news_article/astm-international-launches-cannabis-committee/ |title=ASTM International Launches Cannabis Committee |author=Biros, A.G. |work=Cannabis Industry Journal |publisher=Innovative Publishing Co. LLC |date=02 March 2017 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="ASTMD37">{{cite web |url=https://www.astm.org/COMMITTEE/D37.htm |title=Committee D37 on Cannabis |publisher=ASTM International |date=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="CASP2020Member19">{{cite web |url=https://www.aoac.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/CASP-Prospectus-2020.-11_25.pdf |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200225173719/https://www.aoac.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/CASP-Prospectus-2020.-11_25.pdf |format=PDF |title=CASP 2020 Member Prospectus |author=Association of Official Agricultural Chemists |date=November 2019 |archivedate=25 February 2020 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="NISTToHelp20">{{cite web |url=https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2020/07/nist-help-labs-achieve-accurate-thc-cbd-measurements |title=NIST to Help Labs Achieve Accurate THC, CBD Measurements |publisher=National Institute of Standards and Technology |date=21 July 2020 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="NISTTools19">{{cite web |url=https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/nist-tools-cannabis-laboratory-quality-assurance |title=NIST Tools for Cannabis Laboratory Quality Assurance |publisher=National Institute of Standards and Technology |date=May 2019 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>


==References==
==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}

Revision as of 20:24, 4 February 2022

Dea color logo.svg

On October 27, 1970, the Controlled Substances Act put into place five schedules or classifications of drugs that would be regulated in some fashion, and drugs were initially classified into those schedules, followed by annual reviews and updates.[1] Marijuana was initially placed under Schedule I[1] and remains there today.[2][3][4] As a Schedule I drug, the federal government is indicating marijuana has[1]:

  • "a high potential for abuse";
  • "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States"; and
  • "a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision".

Then came the Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973, which took existing enforcement entities such as the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and placed them into a new, unified entity called the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).[5][6] Then President Richard Nixon said of the transition[5]:

The enforcement work could benefit significantly, however, from consolidation of our anti-drug forces under a single unified command. Right now the Federal Government is fighting the war on drug abuse under a distinct handicap, for its efforts are those of a loosely confederated alliance facing a resourceful, elusive, worldwide enemy.

The DEA was given numerous responsibilities, including but not limited to the development of enforcement strategy; investigation and prosecution preparation of suspects violating federal law; regulation of drugs and other controlled substances; and coordination and cooperation with state and local government drug enforcement efforts.[5] Since then the DEA has taken various steps—with guidance from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)[7]—to regulate and enforce the availability and use of controlled substances such as marijuana. As the decriminalization and legalization efforts of states have increased in past decades, this has brought federal regulation and enforcement conflicts to those states that have decriminalized and legalized, largely due to the federal government's insistence on maintaining marijuana as a Schedule I drug.[8][9]

Numerous changes in federal policy, as well as a few controversies, have occurred since the Controlled Substance Act and DEA were implemented. This includes:

  • 2009's Ogden Memorandum, "intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion" in regards to state-based laws allowing medical cannabis[10];
  • 2011's Cole Memorandum 1, underlining that while the stance of the Ogden Memo still stood, large grow-ops that didn't qualify as "caregivers" had sprung up since, requiring federal enforcement action[11];
  • 2013's Cole Memorandum 2, which sought to reduce the emphasis on the size of the grow-op and increase emphasis on—using a case-by-case basis—"whether the operation is demonstrably in compliance with a strong and effective state regulatory system"[12];
  • 2014 and onward's Rohrabacher-Farr/Joyce Amendments, prohibiting the DoJ from spending funds to prevent or enforce against state laws that allow for medical marijuana cultivation, distribution, and use, particularly when those actions are performed consistently with those state laws[13];
  • 2016's DEA denial of a petition to reschedule marijuana out of Schedule I, while recognizing the need for further research and the lack of legal marijuana sources for researchers[2][14];
  • 2018 Farm Bill, which removed industrial hemp from the Controlled Substance Act's definition of "marijuana" and struck it from Schedule I[15];
  • 2020's House Health Subcommittee meetings, the first of their kind, to discuss cannabis research and cannabis' current scheduling, as well as the problems that come from it[16]; and
  • 2020's MORE Act, a continuing effort which would decriminalize "marijuana at the federal level while enabling states to set their regulatory policies without the threat of federal intervention."[17]

At the state level, changing laws and regulation have continued to put pressure on cannabis law at the federal level. As of July 2021, thirty-seven U.S. states and the District of Columbia have put some sort of broad decriminalization or legalization laws for cannabis on the books.[18] In October 1973, Oregon became the first state to enact decriminalization laws for marijuana, imposing a $100 fine for possession of less than an ounce. Eleven other states followed a similar path within five years.[19] The next wave of changes began with the passage of medical marijuana legislation in California—the Compassionate Use Act—in November 1996, followed by similar legislation in Oregon and Alaska in 1998, Maine in 1999, and Colorado, Hawaii, and Nevada in 2000.[20][21] Other states continued to add decriminalization and medical marijuana laws in the 2000s. But it wasn't until 2012 that Colorado and Washington became the first states to make recreational marijuana legal, followed by Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia in 2014.[20] Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada followed suit in 2016[22], with Michigan doing the same in 2018.[23]

As shown by Cambron et al. in 2016[20], dispensaries, possession limits, and interstate ID card acceptance can vary significantly among affected states. California, Colorado, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington led in number of dispensaries; Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington in maximum possession limits; and Arizona plus five others allowed ID cards from other states. Yet the number of allowed dispensaries can be in the single digits, possession limits can be as low as one ounce, and numerous states still don't honor ID cards from other states.[20]

Then there's the matter of state differences in testing, enforcement, advertising allowances, etc. It helps to turn to professional associations and organizations—who often lead the charge for improved, more relevant standards—to sort through the variances. The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL), for example, has published its Guidance for State Medical Cannabis Testing Programs to help sort through the confusing tangle of existing testing laws, where they exist. They exemplify this variation of law in their document[24]:

As with most programs in the United States, every state takes a different approach. For example as of January 2016, New Jersey’s Public Health & Environmental Laboratories only test cannabis plant material. Just across the Hudson, however, New York’s Public Health Laboratory will not be testing any plant material, only cannabis extracts. In addition, the New York Department of Health will provide an oversight role for commercial cannabis laboratories that are licensed by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and approved for testing cannabis products. On the other hand, New Jersey state government does all testing in-house for the medical cannabis program.

This variation in law also largely mirrors the variation found in laboratory testing methods of cannabis and its constituents. Recognizing this variance in standards and methods, state officials from Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington teamed up to give a presentation called "State Regulatory Approaches to Cannabis Testing, Operations and Product Logistics" at the July 2016 Cannabis Quality, Strategies and Solutions Summit. That presentation focused on the harmonization of regulatory standards and frameworks across states, as well as discussions of what scientific efforts are required to support those standards and frameworks.[25] Additionally, organizations such as Americans for Safe Access Foundation (ASAF), American Herbal Pharmacopoeia (AHP), American Herbal Products Association (AHPA), Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC), and the American Oil Chemists' Society (AOCS) have been developing standards, methods, and certifications for analysis, extraction, labeling, and laboratory operations surrounding medical (and recreational) marijuana.[26][27][28][29][30][31] More recent efforts from the Foundation of Cannabis Unified Standards (FOCUS), ASTM International, the AOAC's Cannabis Analytical Science Program (CASP), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have, however, furthered attempts to standardize cannabis laboratory testing.[32][33][34][35][36]

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 "§812. Schedules of controlled substances". United States Code. U.S. Government Publishing Office. 3 January 2012. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title21/html/USCODE-2011-title21-chap13-subchapI-partB-sec812.htm. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Leger, D.L. (11 August 2016). "Marijuana to remain illegal under federal law, DEA says". USA. Today. Gannett Company. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/08/11/dea-marijuana-remains-illegal-under-federal-law/88550804/. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  3. ↑ Joseph, A. (10 August 2016). "DEA decision keeps major restrictions in place on marijuana research". STAT. Boston Globe Media. https://www.statnews.com/2016/08/10/marijuana-medical-research-dea/. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  4. ↑ Grubbs, A. (13 August 2016). "DEA Declines Request to Reclassify Marijuana, Citiing Its 'High Potential for Abuse'". CNSNews. Media Research Center. https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/alex-grubbs/dea-declines-request-reclassify-marijuana-citiing-its-high-potential-abuse. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 "Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973". United States Code. U.S. Government Publishing Office. 3 January 2012. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title5/html/USCODE-2011-title5-app-reorganiz-other-dup96.htm. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  6. ↑ p 30-39.pdf "Drug Enforcement Administration: 1970–1975" (PDF). DEA History In Depth. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-07/1970-1975 p 30-39.pdf. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  7. ↑ Hamilton, K. (27 June 2016). "The FDA told the DEA whether pot is medicine — but it won't tell the public". Vice News. Vice Media, LLC. https://www.vice.com/en/article/pa443y/dea-fda-marijuana-schedule-1-status-decision. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  8. ↑ Romza-Kutz, D.; Roth V., F. (15 August 2016). "The silver lining in the DEA’s refusal to reclassify cannabis". Tracking Cannabis. Thompson Coburn LLP. https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/insights/blogs/tracking-cannabis/post/2016-08-15/the-silver-lining-in-the-dea-s-refusal-to-reclassify-cannabis. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  9. ↑ Hudak, J. (20 June 2015). "The Conflict Between Federal and State Marijuana Laws Claims a Victim". Newsweek. Newsweek, LLC. https://www.newsweek.com/conflict-between-federal-and-state-marijuana-laws-claims-victim-345099. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  10. ↑ Ogden, D.W. (19 October 2009). "Memorandum for Selected United State Attorneys on Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana". Justice Blogs. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/memorandum-selected-united-state-attorneys-investigations-and-prosecutions-states. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  11. ↑ Cole, J.M. (29 June 2011). "Memorandum for United States Attorneys" (PDF). Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/oip/legacy/2014/07/23/dag-guidance-2011-for-medical-marijuana-use.pdf. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  12. ↑ Cole, J.M. (29 August 2013). "Memorandum for All United States Attorneys" (PDF). Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  13. ↑ Armentano, P. (16 December 2014). "President Signs Federal Spending Bill Protecting State Sanctioned Medical Marijuana Programs". NORML Blog. NORML Foundation. https://norml.org/blog/2014/12/16/president-to-sign-federal-spending-bill-protecting-state-sanctioned-medical-marijuana-programs/. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  14. ↑ "Applications To Become Registered Under the Controlled Substances Act To Manufacture Marijuana To Supply Researchers in the United States". Federal Register 81 (156): 53846–8. 2016. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/12/2016-17955/applications-to-become-registered-under-the-controlled-substances-act-to-manufacture-marijuana-to. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  15. ↑ Cohen, B.; Bleicher, M.C.; Fortier, D.L. et al. (31 December 2018). "What Does the 2018 Farm Bill Mean for the Hemp and CBD Businesses?". Perkins Coie LLP. https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/news-insights/what-does-the-2018-farm-bill-mean-for-the-hemp-and-cbd-businesses.html. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  16. ↑ Norwinski, E.J.; Landgraf, L.C.; Blackwood, K. et al. (10 February 2020). "United States: Recent Congressional Efforts To Address The Cannabis Policy Gap". Mondaq. https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/Cannabis-Hemp/891270/Recent-Congressional-Efforts-To-Address-The-Cannabis-Policy-Gap. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  17. ↑ "House Passes Legislation to Make Small Businesses in Cannabis Industry Eligible for SBA Lending Programs". Committee News. Small Business Administration. 4 December 2020. https://smallbusiness.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3480. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  18. ↑ Berke, J.; Gal, S.; Lee, Y.J. (6 January 2021). "Marijuana legalization is sweeping the US. See every state where cannabis is legal". Business Insider. Insider, Inc. https://www.businessinsider.com/legal-marijuana-states-2018-1. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  19. ↑ Single, E.W. (1981). "The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization". In Israel, Y.; Glaser, F.B.; Kalant, H. et al.. Research Advances in Alcohol and Drug Problems. Springer US. pp. 405–424. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-7740-9_12. ISBN 9781461577409. 
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 Cambron, C.; Guttmannova, K.; Fleming, C.B. (2017). "State and National Contexts in Evaluating Cannabis Laws: A Case Study of Washington State". Journal of Drug Issues 47 (1): 74–90. doi:10.1177/0022042616678607. 
  21. ↑ "Election Summary Report, State of Alaska 1998 General Election: Official Results". Election Results. State of Alaska Division of Elections. 1 December 1998. https://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/98GENR/results.htm. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  22. ↑ Burke, C. (4 January 2017). "Four More States Pass New Marijuana Laws: California, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada". National Law Review. National Law Forum, LLC. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/four-more-states-pass-new-marijuana-laws-california-maine-massachusetts-nevada. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  23. ↑ Chappell, B. (7 November 2018). "Voters Relax Marijuana Laws In 3 More States: Michigan, Utah, Missouri". NPR. https://www.npr.org/2018/11/07/665161814/3-more-states-ok-easing-their-marijuana-laws-michigan-utah-missouri. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  24. ↑ Association of Public Health Laboratories (May 2016). "Guidance for State Medical Cannabis Testing Programs" (PDF). pp. 35. https://www.aphl.org/aboutAPHL/publications/Documents/EH-Guide-State-Med-Cannabis-052016.pdf. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  25. ↑ "Cannabis Quality, Strategies and Solutions Summit - Agenda" (PDF). Information Forecast, Inc. July 2016. Archived from the original on 02 February 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20170202183410/http://chernislaw.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NEW-Cannabis-Quality-Summit-Main-Summit-Agenda.pdf. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  26. ↑ "New Certification Program Brings Quality Assurance to the Medical Marijuana Industry". Information Forecast, Inc. 2016. https://infocastinc.com/market-insights/new-certification-program-brings-quality-assurance-to-the-medical-marijuana-industry/. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  27. ↑ Cannabis Committee, AHPA (2 February 2016). "Recommendations for Regulators – Cannabis Operations" (PDF). American Herbal Products Association. https://www.ahpa.org/Portals/0/pdfs/AHPA_Recommendations_for_Regulators_Cannabis_Operations.pdf. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  28. ↑ Upton, R.; Craker, L.; ElSohly, M. et al., ed. (2014). Cannabis Inflorescence: Cannabis spp.. American Herbal Pharmacopoeia. ISBN 1929425333. https://herbal-ahp.org/online-ordering-cannabis-inflorescence-qc-monograph/. 
  29. ↑ Project CBD; Marcu, J. (16 March 2016). "Jahan Marcu: Cannabis Lab Testing & Safety Protocols". Project CBD. Project CBD. https://www.projectcbd.org/industry/cannabis-lab-testing-safety-protocols. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  30. ↑ Erickson, B.E. (13 November 2017). "Cleaning up cannabis". Chemical & Engineering News. American Chemical Society. https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i45/Cleaning-cannabis.html. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  31. ↑ Cassiday, L. (October 2016). "The Highs and Lows of Cannabis Testing". INFORM. American Oil Chemists' Society. https://www.aocs.org/stay-informed/inform-magazine/featured-articles/the-highs-and-lows-of-cannabis-testing-october-2016. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  32. ↑ Biros, A.G. (2 March 2017). "ASTM International Launches Cannabis Committee". Cannabis Industry Journal. Innovative Publishing Co. LLC. https://cannabisindustryjournal.com/news_article/astm-international-launches-cannabis-committee/. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  33. ↑ "Committee D37 on Cannabis". ASTM International. 7 July 2021. https://www.astm.org/COMMITTEE/D37.htm. 
  34. ↑ Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (November 2019). "CASP 2020 Member Prospectus" (PDF). Archived from the original on 25 February 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20200225173719/https://www.aoac.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/CASP-Prospectus-2020.-11_25.pdf. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  35. ↑ "NIST to Help Labs Achieve Accurate THC, CBD Measurements". National Institute of Standards and Technology. 21 July 2020. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2020/07/nist-help-labs-achieve-accurate-thc-cbd-measurements. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  36. ↑ "NIST Tools for Cannabis Laboratory Quality Assurance". National Institute of Standards and Technology. May 2019. https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/nist-tools-cannabis-laboratory-quality-assurance. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
Retrieved from "https://www.cannaqa.wiki/index.php?title=User:Shawndouglas/sandbox/sublevel10&oldid=17329"