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

From CannaQAWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
[[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" />:
[[File:CCE by Draconis- laboratory work on plant essences and cannabinoid material.jpg|left|240px]]The attempts to legalize, regulate, and standardize cannabis, cannabis products, and all the activities surrounding the industry are apparent, but why is laboratory testing of cannabis important? Why test?


* "a high potential for abuse";
First, from a purely research-based perspective, analytical testing of cannabis helps society learn more about the plant and its constituents, and how they positively and negatively affect human health when ingested. Though research has been difficult to accomplish in the U.S. over the years<ref name="NASEMTheHealth17">{{cite book |chapter=Challenges and Barriers in Conducting Cannabis Research |title=The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research |author=National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine |publisher=The National Academies Press |year=2017 |doi=10.17226/24625 |isbn=9780309453073}}</ref>, the long-term lack of understanding about the plant and its effects of use continues to push researchers forward to expand that societal understanding.<ref name="McKeilCanna20">{{cite web |url=https://www.cannabistech.com/articles/cannabis-researchers-paving-the-way/ |title=Cannabis Research - The Researchers Paving the Way |author=McKeil, J. |work=Cannabis Tech |date=05 June 2020 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="JaegerCongress20">{{cite web |url=https://www.marijuanamoment.net/congress-votes-to-let-researchers-study-marijuana-from-dispensaries/ |title=Congress Votes To Let Researchers Study Marijuana From Dispensaries |author=Jaeger, K. |work=Marijuana Moment |date=02 July 2020 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref> Granted, some countries such as Israel have been at the forefront of cannabis research and testing, with researchers there receiving funding from U.S. companies, as well as the U.S. government.<ref name="SchwartzTheHoly17">{{cite web |url=https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2017-04-11/israel-is-a-global-leader-in-marijuana-research |title=The Holy Land of Medical Marijuana |author=Schwartz, Y. |date=11 April 2017 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="SmithCanna19">{{cite web |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/cannabis-research-pioneer-hopes-latest-discovery-not-overlooked-again-n1059116 |title=Cannabis research pioneer hopes latest discovery is not overlooked — again |author=Smith, N. |work=NBC News |date=26 September 2019 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref> Studies and clinical trials from Israeli researchers on autism<ref name="SchleiderReal19">{{cite journal |title=Real life Experience of Medical Cannabis Treatment in Autism: Analysis of Safety and Efficacy |journal=Scientific Reports |author=Schelider, L.B.-L.; Mechoulam, R.; Saban, N. et al. |volume=9 |at=200 |year=2019 |doi=10.1038/s41598-018-37570-y |pmid=30655581 |pmc=PMC6336869}}</ref> and inflammatory bowel disease<ref name="PicardoInsights19">{{cite journal |title=Insights into the role of cannabis in the management of inflammatory bowel disease |journal=Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology |author=Picardo, S.; Kaplan, G.G.; Sharkey, K.A. et al. |volume=12 |pages=1–13 |year=2019 |doi=10.1177/1756284819870977 |pmid=31523278 |pmc=PMC6727090}}</ref>, as well as the agricultural<ref name="DuchinNew20">{{cite journal |title=New insights on flowering of Cannabis sativa |journal=Acta Horticulturae |author=Duchin, S.; Bernstein, N.; Kamenetsky, R. et al. |volume=1283 |pages=17–20 |year=2020 |doi=10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1283.3}}</ref><ref name="HadadLettuce19">{{cite journal |title=Lettuce Chlorosis Virus Disease: A New Threat to Cannabis Production |journal=Viruses |author=Hadad, L.; Luria, N.; Smith, E.  et al. |volume=11 |isssue=9 |at=802 |year=2019 |doi=10.3390/v11090802}}</ref>, analytical<ref name="BermanANew18">{{cite journal |title=A new ESI-LC/MS approach for comprehensive metabolic profiling of phytocannabinoids in ''Cannabis'' |journal=Scientific Reports |author=Berman, P.; Futoran, K.; Lewitus, G.M. et al. |volume=8 |at=14280 |year=2018 |doi=10.1038/s41598-018-32651-4 |pmid=30250104 |pmc=PMC6155167}}</ref>, and broad medical aspects of the plant<ref name="ZarhinTheTraj20">{{cite journal |title=The trajectory of “medical cannabis” in Israel: Driving medicalization in different directions |author=Zarhin, D. |volume=82 |at=102809 |year=2020 |doi=10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102809 |pmid=32516686}}</ref> continue to move the science forward for everyone. With a new administration steering the helm in the U.S. in 2021, a promise of prioritizing "the research needed to advance science-based federal policies related to the use of marijuana for medical conditions, chronic pain, and disabilities"<ref name="JaegerJoe20">{{cite web |url=https://www.marijuanamoment.net/joe-bidens-new-disability-plan-includes-boosting-medical-marijuana-research/ |title=Joe Biden’s New Disability Plan Includes Boosting Medical Marijuana Research |author=Jaeger, K. |work=Marijuana Moment |date=29 May 2020 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref> remains to be seen, though some in the cannabis industry appear to be cautiously optimistic.<ref name="SacirbeyDEA20">{{cite web |url=https://mjbizdaily.com/dea-might-start-issuing-marijuana-cultivation-permits-in-early-2021/ |title=DEA might start issuing cannabis cultivation permits in early 2021 |author=Sacirbey, O. |work=Marijuana Business Daily |date=24 December 2020 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="KoehnPot21">{{cite web |url=https://www.smh.com.au/business/small-business/pot-stocks-riding-high-on-biden-optimism-20210119-p56v5c.html |title=Pot stocks riding high on Biden optimism |author=Koehn, E. |work=The Sydney Morning Herald |date=19 January 2021 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>
* "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).<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" />:
Second, similar to how we have mechanisms like laboratory testing in place to ensure the safety of medicines, foods, beverages, and cosmetics for human use, we should be performing similar testing for the human and animal use of cannabis and cannabis-related products. Microbes, heavy metals, pesticides, and solvents that are dangerous to consume—particularly for medical marijuana patients with fragile and weak immune systems—must be identified and quantified through quality control in order to protect public health.<Ref name="ShafferMedical19">{{cite web |url=https://www.genengnews.com/insights/medical-cannabi-poses-unique-testing-challenges/ |title=Medical Cannabis Poses Unique Testing Challenges |author=Shaffer, C. |work=Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News |date=01 August 2019 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="MaddoxInto17">{{cite web |url=https://www.aphl.org/aboutAPHL/publications/lab-matters/Pages/into-the-weeds.aspx |title=Into the Weeds: Cannabis Testing and Public Health Labs |author=Maddox, N. |work=Lab Matters |publisher=Association of Public Health Laboratories |date=Spring 2017 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref><ref name="BrownFalse20">{{cite web |url=https://mjbizdaily.com/false-lab-results-lab-shopping-put-cannabis-consumers-at-risk/ |title=False test results, lab shopping put cannabis consumers at risk |author=Brown, R. |work=Marijuana Business Daily |date=09 November 2020 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref> Without quality testing and safety oversight, cannabis products can cause sickness or even death.<ref name="MontoyaCanna20">{{cite journal |title=Cannabis Contaminants Limit Pharmacological Use of Cannabidiol |journal=Frontiers in Pharmacology |author=Montoya, Z.; Conroy, M.; Heuvel, B.D.V. et al. |volume=11 |at=571832 |year=2020 |doi=10.3389/fphar.2020.571832 |pmid=33013414 |pmc=PMC7516211}}</ref>


<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>
Third, growers and sellers of cannabis and cannabis-related products should be held accountable for the claims they make about their products. When growers, sellers, and even the testing laboratories themselves are held accountable, consumer confidence can be gradually built.<ref name="BrownFalse20" /> This can be difficult, however, given a lack of a federal regulatory framework for both THC-containing and low-THC/high-CBD products. For example, independent testing in 2020 of CBD-containing products found an abysmally low 13 percent of products tested matched their label claims, findings similar to those of a 2020 FDA market survey.<ref name="KellerIndep20">{{cite journal |title=Independent Testing of Well-Known Beverages Provides Further Evidence of CBD Products Not Meeting Label Claims for Cannabidiol Content |journal=The National Law Review |author=Keller and Heckman |volume=10 |issue=237 |year=2020 |url=https://www.natlawreview.com/article/independent-testing-well-known-beverages-provides-further-evidence-cbd-products-not}}</ref> Law firm Keller and Heckman warn that "buyers need to be cautious" concerning the purchase of largely unregulated CBD products<ref name="KellerIndep20" />, which highlights the difficulty of improving consumer confidence in the face of little regulation. However, most U.S. states that have legalized some form of cannabis have also mandated laboratory testing, not only for the two prior reasons but also to hold accountable those producers and sellers supplying the legal cannabis market with products containing specific cannabinoid amounts.<ref name="BrownFalse20" /><ref name="PeñaWhy18">{{cite web |url=https://mjbizdaily.com/why-marijuana-infused-businesses-have-experienced-testing-and-labeling-challenges-in-california/ |title=Why marijuana infused businesses have experienced testing and labeling challenges in California |author=Peña, J. |work=Marijuana Business Daily |date=25 September 2018 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref>


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>
When considering these three points, it's easier to understand the "why" of testing. But what gets tested and how? The next chapter addresses this question, as well as the workflows surrounding the "how."
 
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 20:25, 4 February 2022

CCE by Draconis- laboratory work on plant essences and cannabinoid material.jpg

The attempts to legalize, regulate, and standardize cannabis, cannabis products, and all the activities surrounding the industry are apparent, but why is laboratory testing of cannabis important? Why test?

First, from a purely research-based perspective, analytical testing of cannabis helps society learn more about the plant and its constituents, and how they positively and negatively affect human health when ingested. Though research has been difficult to accomplish in the U.S. over the years[1], the long-term lack of understanding about the plant and its effects of use continues to push researchers forward to expand that societal understanding.[2][3] Granted, some countries such as Israel have been at the forefront of cannabis research and testing, with researchers there receiving funding from U.S. companies, as well as the U.S. government.[4][5] Studies and clinical trials from Israeli researchers on autism[6] and inflammatory bowel disease[7], as well as the agricultural[8][9], analytical[10], and broad medical aspects of the plant[11] continue to move the science forward for everyone. With a new administration steering the helm in the U.S. in 2021, a promise of prioritizing "the research needed to advance science-based federal policies related to the use of marijuana for medical conditions, chronic pain, and disabilities"[12] remains to be seen, though some in the cannabis industry appear to be cautiously optimistic.[13][14]

Second, similar to how we have mechanisms like laboratory testing in place to ensure the safety of medicines, foods, beverages, and cosmetics for human use, we should be performing similar testing for the human and animal use of cannabis and cannabis-related products. Microbes, heavy metals, pesticides, and solvents that are dangerous to consume—particularly for medical marijuana patients with fragile and weak immune systems—must be identified and quantified through quality control in order to protect public health.[15][16][17] Without quality testing and safety oversight, cannabis products can cause sickness or even death.[18]

Third, growers and sellers of cannabis and cannabis-related products should be held accountable for the claims they make about their products. When growers, sellers, and even the testing laboratories themselves are held accountable, consumer confidence can be gradually built.[17] This can be difficult, however, given a lack of a federal regulatory framework for both THC-containing and low-THC/high-CBD products. For example, independent testing in 2020 of CBD-containing products found an abysmally low 13 percent of products tested matched their label claims, findings similar to those of a 2020 FDA market survey.[19] Law firm Keller and Heckman warn that "buyers need to be cautious" concerning the purchase of largely unregulated CBD products[19], which highlights the difficulty of improving consumer confidence in the face of little regulation. However, most U.S. states that have legalized some form of cannabis have also mandated laboratory testing, not only for the two prior reasons but also to hold accountable those producers and sellers supplying the legal cannabis market with products containing specific cannabinoid amounts.[17][20]

When considering these three points, it's easier to understand the "why" of testing. But what gets tested and how? The next chapter addresses this question, as well as the workflows surrounding the "how."

References

  1. ↑ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017). "Challenges and Barriers in Conducting Cannabis Research". The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research. The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/24625. ISBN 9780309453073. 
  2. ↑ McKeil, J. (5 June 2020). "Cannabis Research - The Researchers Paving the Way". Cannabis Tech. https://www.cannabistech.com/articles/cannabis-researchers-paving-the-way/. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  3. ↑ Jaeger, K. (2 July 2020). "Congress Votes To Let Researchers Study Marijuana From Dispensaries". Marijuana Moment. https://www.marijuanamoment.net/congress-votes-to-let-researchers-study-marijuana-from-dispensaries/. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  4. ↑ Schwartz, Y. (11 April 2017). "The Holy Land of Medical Marijuana". https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2017-04-11/israel-is-a-global-leader-in-marijuana-research. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  5. ↑ Smith, N. (26 September 2019). "Cannabis research pioneer hopes latest discovery is not overlooked — again". NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/cannabis-research-pioneer-hopes-latest-discovery-not-overlooked-again-n1059116. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  6. ↑ Schelider, L.B.-L.; Mechoulam, R.; Saban, N. et al. (2019). "Real life Experience of Medical Cannabis Treatment in Autism: Analysis of Safety and Efficacy". Scientific Reports 9: 200. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-37570-y. PMC PMC6336869. PMID 30655581. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC6336869. 
  7. ↑ Picardo, S.; Kaplan, G.G.; Sharkey, K.A. et al. (2019). "Insights into the role of cannabis in the management of inflammatory bowel disease". Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology 12: 1–13. doi:10.1177/1756284819870977. PMC PMC6727090. PMID 31523278. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC6727090. 
  8. ↑ Duchin, S.; Bernstein, N.; Kamenetsky, R. et al. (2020). "New insights on flowering of Cannabis sativa". Acta Horticulturae 1283: 17–20. doi:10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1283.3. 
  9. ↑ Hadad, L.; Luria, N.; Smith, E. et al. (2019). "Lettuce Chlorosis Virus Disease: A New Threat to Cannabis Production". Viruses 11: 802. doi:10.3390/v11090802. 
  10. ↑ Berman, P.; Futoran, K.; Lewitus, G.M. et al. (2018). "A new ESI-LC/MS approach for comprehensive metabolic profiling of phytocannabinoids in Cannabis". Scientific Reports 8: 14280. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-32651-4. PMC PMC6155167. PMID 30250104. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC6155167. 
  11. ↑ Zarhin, D. (2020). The trajectory of “medical cannabis” in Israel: Driving medicalization in different directions. 82. 102809. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102809. PMID 32516686. 
  12. ↑ Jaeger, K. (29 May 2020). "Joe Biden’s New Disability Plan Includes Boosting Medical Marijuana Research". Marijuana Moment. https://www.marijuanamoment.net/joe-bidens-new-disability-plan-includes-boosting-medical-marijuana-research/. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  13. ↑ Sacirbey, O. (24 December 2020). "DEA might start issuing cannabis cultivation permits in early 2021". Marijuana Business Daily. https://mjbizdaily.com/dea-might-start-issuing-marijuana-cultivation-permits-in-early-2021/. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  14. ↑ Koehn, E. (19 January 2021). "Pot stocks riding high on Biden optimism". The Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/business/small-business/pot-stocks-riding-high-on-biden-optimism-20210119-p56v5c.html. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  15. ↑ Shaffer, C. (1 August 2019). "Medical Cannabis Poses Unique Testing Challenges". Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News. https://www.genengnews.com/insights/medical-cannabi-poses-unique-testing-challenges/. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  16. ↑ Maddox, N. (Spring 2017). "Into the Weeds: Cannabis Testing and Public Health Labs". Lab Matters. Association of Public Health Laboratories. https://www.aphl.org/aboutAPHL/publications/lab-matters/Pages/into-the-weeds.aspx. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 Brown, R. (9 November 2020). "False test results, lab shopping put cannabis consumers at risk". Marijuana Business Daily. https://mjbizdaily.com/false-lab-results-lab-shopping-put-cannabis-consumers-at-risk/. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  18. ↑ Montoya, Z.; Conroy, M.; Heuvel, B.D.V. et al. (2020). "Cannabis Contaminants Limit Pharmacological Use of Cannabidiol". Frontiers in Pharmacology 11: 571832. doi:10.3389/fphar.2020.571832. PMC PMC7516211. PMID 33013414. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC7516211. 
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Keller and Heckman (2020). "Independent Testing of Well-Known Beverages Provides Further Evidence of CBD Products Not Meeting Label Claims for Cannabidiol Content". The National Law Review 10 (237). https://www.natlawreview.com/article/independent-testing-well-known-beverages-provides-further-evidence-cbd-products-not. 
  20. ↑ Peña, J. (25 September 2018). "Why marijuana infused businesses have experienced testing and labeling challenges in California". Marijuana Business Daily. https://mjbizdaily.com/why-marijuana-infused-businesses-have-experienced-testing-and-labeling-challenges-in-california/. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
Retrieved from "https://www.cannaqa.wiki/index.php?title=User:Shawndouglas/sandbox/sublevel10&oldid=17330"