Dr. Ernest Small makes the case for increasing THC limits for hemp to 1%
The scientific research from which the 0.3% D9-THC distinction between hemp and marijuana originated (Small and Cronquist, 1976) adopted that concentration specifically for “young, vigorous leaves of relatively mature plants as a guide to discriminating [the] two classes of plants.” Even though Dr. Small has stated that the 0.3% criterion for THC content in the inflorescence of the plant was strictly a taxonomic consideration, we have been stuck with this arbitrary legal definition ever since.
Our good friends at the Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance reached out to Dr. Small and on June 18, 2021, received the following letter explaining why the Delta-9 levels for hemp should be increased to 1%
Here is an excerpt:
it is extremely difficult to get this criterion (or the even more conservative European criterion of 0.2%) changed because of lingering concern about drug abuse potential of cannabis, and the extremely conservative nature of those involved in drug legislation. I have in fact drawn my concerns to the attention of Health Canada in recent years, while participating in an advisory capacity, but the topic was not considered to merit action. Changing legislation, as has been drawn to my attention, can be a major exercise, especially when there are possibly associated international legislations, so one can understand reluctance to do so. But we both also understand that the current restrictions are handicapping the Canadian hemp industry.
It is well established that the “abuse” potential (i.e. ability to provoke a state of intoxication) in practical terms requires a concentration of approximately 1% THC (strictly, THC + the acidic form, THCA) in herbal material. This is not the only applicable safety consideration, but it is the predominant practical issue. As you are aware, the 0.3% THC criterion is often demanding for breeders to achieve and also produce cultivars with other desirable characteristics. These considerations constitute one reason why I have come to the opinion that 1% THC would be a more suitable criterion.
Dr. Small goes on to point out that society’s evaluation of abuse potential has change greatly and the hypocrisy when we look at how opium poppy (Papaver somniferum) is regulated. Dr. Small says, “Opium poppy – a true ‘narcotic’ pharmacologically unlike marijuana and the world’s most significant drug of abuse – has far more abuse potential than marijuana, but a similar percentage content of chemicals (opioids) as a prohibition criterion has never been instituted. Indeed, ornamental opium poppy plants are widely grown and marketed without legal constraints throughout Canada, although they may have substantial content of opioids, and the same is true in much of the world.”
Thank you Dr. Small for speaking up for the industry and being a voice of reason. Let’s hope our elected officials in the US and Canada listen!