EQUALITY vs. E QUITY:  WHY IT MATTERS

Suppose for a moment that your state is offering qualified students financial aid for college or graduate school.  If you could not afford to attend higher education on your own and qualified for this resource, would you rather have your financial aid distributed equally or equitably?  And how would society benefit from such a policy?

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines equality as “the quality or state of being equal.”  In the example above, if student aid was distributed equally, all qualified individuals would receive an equal amount of financial aid regardless of need and in the exact same measure, quantity, amount, and kind.

Equity, on the other hand, is defined as “dealing fairly and equally with all concerned.”  Equitable policies are targeted to address the unequal needs, conditions, and positions of people and communities affected by institutional and structural barriers.  Using our example above, colleges or universities may decide to allocate financial aid based upon need.  Under this policy, for example, schools would intentionally reserve a larger amount of the overall student financial aid specifically for low-income students. Although this final distribution may be unequal, it is considered equitable because such a re-allocation of resources provides access to higher education for low-income students.

Similarly, Maryland’s Medical Cannabis Commission has recently stepped into this equality versus equity divide with mixed results.  Maryland, like many other states, launched its  medical cannabis program in 2016, which included a provision for licensing cultivators, processors, and dispensaries.  To ensure that there was no bias or favoritism, the Commission designed a “double-blind” application process where they sought to license fifteen licensed cultivators and processors.  All identifying information was supposed to be removed from the applications.  And all the applications, minus identifying information, were graded by neutral students from Towson’s RESI school of economic studies.

When the dust finally settled after the initial applications period, minority-owned or women-owned businesses accounted for only 3 out of 15 grower pre-approvals and 3 out of 15 processor pre-approvals.  Of these awardees, only one processor pre-approval was awarded to a Black-owned business.  As women represent over 50 percent of the population in Maryland and Blacks comprise nearly 30 percent of the population, clearly something was amiss.  In response to the uproar, Governor Hogan and the Maryland General Assembly sought to address discrimination and increase diversity among licensees.  They passed emergency legislation increasing the number of cultivator and processor licenses, and required the Commission to evaluate whether minorities and women were disadvantaged in the medical cannabis industry.

Based on those recommendations, the Commission adopted emergency regulations creating a new application process which reserved 15 percent of the total points on the license applications to diversity-related provisions. These regulations did not allocate or “set-aside” licenses for minority-owned and women-owned businesses.  Rather, the added points bonuses in the new application were meant to incentivize the Commission to select Black-owned and minority-owned businesses for the medical cannabis grower and processor licensees, and remedy the traditional barriers to entry within the medical cannabis industry.

In 2019, the Commission received more than 200 applications for up to four additional grower and 10 additional processor licenses.  More than 90 percent of the applications were submitted by disadvantaged equity applicants — meaning applicants who provided supporting documentation that at least 51 percent of the ownership interest in the business was held by a member of a qualifying minority group.  Announcements regarding pre-approval awards were supposed to be announced at a Commission hearing on September 26, 2019.

In February 2020, following concerns regarding the impartiality of the evaluation process and at least one judge’s issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order preventing the announcement of the new pre-approvals, the Commission committed to engage an independent firm to evaluate these concerns that all applicants were not treated equally and to verify material aspects of the highest-ranking applications.

Whether Maryland can truly create an equitable medical cannabis licensing process remains to be seen.  As the State’s survey on diversity has shown, Black and minority-owned businesses in the medical cannabis industry have barriers to entry limiting their access to ownership that are not faced by their White competitors.  Similarly, Blacks and other minorities have been disproportionately harmed by the War on Drugs, and specifically the mass incarceration for cannabis offenses.  It would be inequitable to discount the harm that has come to minority communities from those law enforcement policies.  The route to achieving equity will not be accomplished through treating everyone equally. It will be achieved by treating everyone equitably or justly according to their circumstances.

Extracts vs. Concentrates :  The Big Difference

Crumble. Budder. Batter. Dabs. Oils. Rosin. Shatter. Wax. Hash.

You may recognize these forms of cannabis extracts and concentrates from your local dispensary products list. There are so many cannabis products on the market today that some confusion is inevitable. One of the points of confusion is over the distinction between cannabis concentrates and extracts. While the terms “concentrate” and “extract” are often used interchangeably, the differences between the two are actually very important.

Extracts are made using solvents to chemically extract the THC, the CBD, or the terpenes.  Some of the solvents commonly used to create cannabis extracts are butane, propane, carbon dioxide and ethanol.  Concentrates, on the other hand, are made through mechanical processes that isolate the resin heads.  Concentrate processors create products such as hash using fine screens, “bubble hash” using water, or rosin using heat and pressure.

Regardless of these distinctions, concentrates and extracts have emerged over the last couple years as the fastest-growing category of the legal cannabis market.  Consumer point-of-sale tracking service data shows that consumers, particularly those in adult-use markets, are gravitating toward this stronger, discrete, portable product category.  Once these items were fairly rare and were considered a specialty item.  Now, concentrates and extracts make up over 27% of all cannabis products sold in all categories.

Waxes and shatters are an extract commonly known as butane hash oil (BHO) — a term that refers to the butane solvent poured over the cannabis buds. Once the solvent has extracted the THC, cannabinoids, and terpenes, the resulting slurry is “purged” in an oven or vacuum at room temperature to remove the hydrocarbons.

Live resin is also an extract and a type of BHO. The difference between shatter and live resin is how the cannabis flowers are handled pre-extraction.  Shatter is made from cannabis flowers that have gone through the typical drying and curing process.  Live resin is made from fresh flowers that have been flash frozen after being harvested. The result is a sticky extract that preserves more of the natural terpene flavor profile.

Other extracts such as THC oil, use carbon dioxide as the solvent to strip out the desired THC, cannabinoids, and terpenes.  The carbon dioxide is then used to chemically strip the THC, the CBD, and the terpenes from the trichomes of the original plant matter. The resulting liquid THC oil is commonly used to create vaporizer cartridges.  Although THC is created using carbon dioxide as a solvent, nevertheless it is still considered an extract.

Rosin on the other hand, is considered a concentrate.  Rosin is made by applying heat and pressure to the cannabis buds, kief, or trim to remove the plant resin.  The resulting resin pressed from the plant is a concentrate with a consistency ranging from a butter to a viscous sap.  Because no solvent is used during the extraction process, the rosin contains many of the aromas and terpenes present in the plant itself.

Regardless of whether a product is considered an extract or a concentrate, the resulting cannabis byproduct created by such a chemical or mechanical process is still considered to be illegal to possess or sell both under Maryland law (if you are not a registered medical cannabis patient) as well as under federal law.  But does the law treat a concentrate or extract the same as the whole cannabis plant?  Strangely, the answer is no.

Under Maryland law, cannabis is still known as “Marijuana,” which is defined as “all parts of any plant of the genus Cannabis, whether or not the plant is growing . . . and each compound, manufactured product, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant.”

Under federal law, the Controlled Substances Act defines “Marihuana” as “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin.”

But Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is also listed as a prohibited substance under both Maryland law as a controlled and dangerous substance and under federal law under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.  As a result, police often charge defendants with possession of extracts or concentrates under the prohibition against possession of THC rather than the prohibition against the possession of Marijuana.  This alternate THC charge deprives Maryland medical cannabis patients of their rights under Maryland law.

This legal peculiarity means that a card-carrying Maryland medical cannabis patient who is stopped while in possession of a cannabis concentrate or extract that they were legally permitted to purchase from a dispensary could result in the crime of possession of THC rather than possession of Marijuana.  Even worse, by definition the legal safe harbor granted by Maryland’s medical cannabis laws for possession of Marijuana by a registered medical cannabis patient would not apply to the patient charged with possession of THC.

At the very least, Maryland needs to harmonize its laws to permit medical cannabis patients to possess extracts and concentrates without the fear of incurring a criminal charge.  This legal impediment represents yet another hurdle in the normalization and regulation of the cannabis plant.

INDOOR CULTIVATION:  THROWING SHADE

For more than ten-thousand years, humans have cultivated the Cannabis plant for its wide-ranging benefits.  Whether it was for medicinal uses or fiber for building materials, the Cannabis plant has proven to be a hearty plant with a complex chemical makeup that can vary tremendously in physical size, chemistry, and appearance.  Furthermore, these physical and chemical signatures of a plant’s genetics can be expressed by a knowledgeable cultivator through the various conditions under which the Cannabis is grown.  This is the essence of the indoor cultivation revolution.

Nearly all of the Cannabis consumed in the medical dispensaries, especially the flower, are grown indoors under artificial lights.  This is mainly because the Cannabis grown indoors from cultivars has “bag appeal,” with the right combination of appearance and smell that resonates with consumers.  But the majority of the Cannabis grown in this country is grown outdoors due to the prohibitive costs of indoor cultivation.  This is especially true when certain organic chemicals are being stripped out of the biomass to be used in another product such as concentrates, edibles, or tinctures.  In such cases, growers are concerned with obtaining the greatest amount of Cannabis at the least expensive price to create the desired product potency.

But cost isn’t the only reason why the cultivation of Cannabis has come indoors.  Cannabis, as an agricultural commodity, has unique attributes that distinguish it from alcohol and tobacco.  It is relatively easy to grow and does not require industrial processing.  Cannabis can be produced anywhere by just about anyone.  It is grown throughout the country, in backyards, closets, attics, basements, and warehouses.  In fact, growing Cannabis indoors has never been easier.  The technology and equipment needed to grow Cannabis is legal and widely available, and the information about how to grow is equally so.

Which brings us to the elephant in the room.  Why hasn’t home cultivation of Cannabis been permitted or encouraged by States more widely.  Thirty-three States and the District of Columbia have adopted some form of medical Cannabis legislation.  Eleven States have outright legalized the use of Cannabis by adults over 21 years of age.  But only sixteen States and the District of Columbia permit some form of home cultivation – even for medical patients.  Maryland specifically does not permit home cultivation – even for medical patients.  Why is the simple act of planting a Cannabis plant that grows virtually anywhere so controversial?

Most agricultural crops throughout the world are grown solely outdoors (e.g., grapes, grain, etc.). In fact, it wasn’t so long ago that cannabis was exclusively grown outside as well.  That changed, in part, because of the “War on Drugs” launched in the 1980’s and the need for illicit growers to avoid detection by surveillance helicopters and police.  Indoor cannabis cultivation took root in the United States during the 1980s when the Reagan administration committed money and resources to federal Cannabis raids.  Frequent law enforcement raids that targeted outdoor gardens inadvertently helped to jump-start a cottage industry of innovative products for growing marijuana indoors—including nutrients, soil amendments, special lights, and various equipment to control temperature and moisture.  Cannabis, a versatile botanical that can thrive under a 24-hour light cycle, adapted well to the new indoor environment.

But don’t take my word for it.  The Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) own data from 2018 confirms it.  According to the DEA’s Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Statistical Report from 2018, the agency and its law enforcement partners confiscated an estimated 2.82 million marijuana plants nationwide– a 17 percent decline from the agency’s totals and a 66 percent decline since 2016.  On the other hand, while the total number of Cannabis plants seized by the DEA fell in 2018, the seizures of indoor cannabis plants nearly doubled – rising from 304,000 plants in 2017 to just under 600,000 in 2018.

Regardless, it is clear that indoor cultivation offers benefits to consumers that cannot be obtained from an outdoor grow.  These benefits are crucial for anyone seeking to use Cannabis as a medicine.  These benefits include the ability to cultivate year-round free from weather and adverse conditions (e.g., cold, bugs, rot, etc.); control over growing conditions (e.g., light, soil, nutrients, CO2, etc.); product standardization and uniformity; and “bag appeal.”  And while indoor growing may continue to be more expensive, current trends seem to indicate that it will continue to have a significant impact on the world’s cultivation of the Cannabis plant.

IS MARYLAND’S MARIJUANA LAW ENFORCEABLE NOW THAT HEMP IS LEGAL?

When President Trump signed the 2018 Farm Bill into law, few could have realized the broad ramifications that it would have on marijuana laws nationwide.  The Farm Bill is usually where agricultural farm subsidies, crop insurance, and nutritional priorities are set by the federal government.   But this year’s bill contained some surprises.  Thanks to Senator Mitch McConnell this year’s Farm Bill created a new process for legally growing and selling hemp (a close relation to marijuana).  This, in turn, has created a current reality where law enforcement may not be able to distinguish between the illegal Schedule I narcotic referred to as  marijuana and the now legal related plant known as hemp.

Hemp is defined in the new Farm Bill as cannabis with one key difference —  hemp cannot contain more than 0.3 percent of THC (the compound in the plant most commonly associated with the psychoactive effect).   As a result, hemp cannot make one feel “high” because it lacks any significant amount of THC.  But for decades, federal law did not differentiate hemp from other cannabis plants, which were effectively made illegal in 1937 under the Marihuana Tax Act and formally made illegal in 1970 under the Controlled Substances Act.

Although Congress has recently enacted legislation permitting the cultivation, processing, and distribution of hemp for a limited purpose under pilot programs to study hemp (often labeled “industrial hemp”) that were approved by both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the various state departments of agriculture.  This allowed small-scale expansion of hemp cultivation for limited purposes.  But now, the 2018 Farm Bill permits hemp cultivation broadly rather than on a limited basis.   It explicitly allows the transfer of hemp-derived products across state lines for commercial or other purposes. It also puts no restrictions on the sale, transport, or possession of hemp-derived products, so long as those items are produced in a manner consistent with the law.

MARYLAND’S HEMP STATUTE

This past legislative session Maryland created a new definition of marijuana that excluded hemp.  See Maryland Code Ann., Criminal Law, Section 5-101(r)(2)(vi).  When read in conjunction with the new 2018 Farm Bill, this now means that hemp can now be grown, processed, and distributed in Maryland, provided that it is done under the process outlined in the law.  This also means that at a traffic stop or anywhere else marijuana is allegedly identified, Maryland law enforcement will now need to distinguish between marijuana and hemp at the stop and seizure.  This may not be currently possible.

Hemp can have up to .3% of THC in the plant.  Marijuana has decidedly more THC than that.  Regardless, Maryland’s forensic crime labs, like many others across the country, crime labs do not currently have the equipment to distinguish between .3% or more of THC.  This means that functionally hemp (lawful) and marijuana (unlawful) will be indistinguishable given the current lab equipment possessed by Maryland forensic labs.

OTHER MYTHS DISPELLED

One big myth that exists about the Farm Bill is that cannabidiol (CBD)—a non-intoxicating compound found in cannabis—is legalized.  It is true that the Farm Bill removes hemp-derived products from its Schedule I status under the Controlled Substances Act, but the legislation does not legalize CBD generally.   As discussed last month, CBD generally remains a Schedule I substance under federal law.  The Farm Bill ensures that any cannabinoid that is derived from hemp will be legal, if and only if that hemp is produced in a manner consistent with the Farm Bill, associated federal regulations, association state regulations, and by a licensed grower.  All other cannabinoids, produced in any other setting, remain a Schedule I substance under federal law and are thus illegal. This prohibition, of course, does not apply to the pharmaceutical-grade CBD products that have been approved by FDA, which currently includes one drug:  GW Pharmaceutical’s Epidiolex.

GLOBAL ISSUE “WE ARE THE WORLD:  THE UNITED COLORS OF CANNABIS” MARYLAND LEAF JUNE 2021

On 2nd December 2020, the United Nation’s Commission on Narcotic Drugs (“CND”), the drug policy making body of the United Nations, voted to re-classify Cannabis and Cannabis resin from its current listing in Schedule IV (alongside dangerous drugs such as heroin, fentanyl analogues and other opioids) to Schedule I (which are drugs still subject to international control, but which have demonstrated therapeutic uses, such as heroin, morphine, opium and cocaine).  This proposal was finally presented for vote at the United Nations more than two years after the World Health Organization (“WHO”) first presented its recommendations to alter the status of Cannabis in global drug control treaties in January 2019.

Consequently, Cannabis and its derivatives will soon be listed as a Schedule I controlled substance (least dangerous category) of international treaties rather than being listed in both Schedules I & IV (the most dangerous category).  Although the vote was largely symbolic and had very few practical implications, this vote represented a major win for Cannabis advocates around the world. The removal of Cannabis from Schedule IV meant that the United Nations finally accepted the proposition that Cannabis is not “liable to produce ill-effects” on the scale of other drugs in Schedule IV, and that Cannabis has significant potential therapeutic value.

Despite this hopeful news, Cannabis still remains a Schedule I substance under international treaties.  And this vote to re-schedule Cannabis does not immediately legalize or de-schedule the plant or its derivative substances anywhere in the world.  However, the United States representative to the United Nation’s Commission on Narcotic Drugs Ethan Glick summed up the potential for the symbolic vote this way:

This action has the potential to stimulate global research into the therapeutic potential and public health effects of Cannabis and to attract additional investigators to the field including those who may have been deterred by the Schedule IV status.

For more than 60 years, Cannabis and its related extracts, tinctures, isomers, and analogues have been subject to international control by member states by way of inclusion in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, as amended by the 1972 Protocol (Schedules I & IV); the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 (Schedule I & II), and the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988.  The inclusion of a substance in a specific schedule mandates the control measures that member-countries must apply when handling the respective substances.

Reclassification of Cannabis and its resin will remove some international procedural barriers to research and development of Cannabis-based medical products.  However, the change in status of Cannabis will not affect its non-medical use or promote legalization.  Cannabis and Cannabis resin will still be carefully controlled by international law and is still classified as having a similar degree of abuse and dependence potential as medicines such as morphine and oxycodone.  Despite such concerns, more than 50 countries have medicinal Cannabis programs, and Canada, Uruguay, Portugal and 15 states within the United States have legalized its adult use.

PROPOSED CHANGES REJECTED BY THE UNITED NATIONS

While the CND voted to accept the WHO’s primary recommendation on the reclassification of Cannabis and resin, they did not accept further recommendations to change the classification of other Cannabis-related substances.  These proposals included the following:

• Rejected a proposal to move THC & Dronabinol (synthetic Delta 9 THC) and its stereoisomers, from Schedule I.
• Rejected a proposal to delete extracts and tinctures of Cannabis from Schedule I.
• Rejected a proposed footnote to Schedule I to define preparations containing predominantly Cannabidiol (a non-psychoactive substance) or less than .2 percent Delta-9 THC as non-controlled substances under international law.

As a side note, the United States maintains that neither CBD nor Hemp (Cannabis containing less than .3 percent of THC) should be controlled by international treaties.  In 2018, the United States Department of Justice’s Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) placed a Marijuana-derived drug Epidiolex in Schedule V of the Controlled Substances Act.  The medication is an oral solution containing purified cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive ingredient in cannabis. It was approved as a treatment option for severe forms of epilepsy by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2018.

The FDA has also previously approved drugs that contain synthetic THC, or dronabinol, including Marinol and Syndros. The DEA classified those prescription medications as Schedule III and Schedule II, respectively.  But Epidiolex is unique because its primary ingredient is a natural component of cannabis — CBD.

Last year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that CBD does not meet the criteria for federal control—except for the fact that international treaties to which the U.S. is party could potentially be construed as requiring it.

Are Terpenes Legal?

Terpenes are nature’s fungicide.  Plants produce terpenes to protect them from hostile enemies ranging from grazing animals, insects, microscopic bacteria and fungi, and high temperatures.  Terpenes provide the orange color to carrots (beta-carotene) as well as the citrus smell to oranges and lemons (limonene).  At last count, scientists had identified more than 15,000 different terpenes created by plants.

Monoterpenes, which are more volatile, repel insects.  Sesquiterpenes, which are more bitter, are more abundant on leaves acting against herbivorous animals. Some terpenes can act as a decoy in some plants, attracting either pollinating insects or predatory ones that feed on herbivorous insects, which are beneficial for the plant. As plants sense a temperature rise, they begin synthesising more terpenes and under high temperatures during night or day, more terpenes are released. Terpenes evaporate at high temperatures, producing airflows that cool the plant and lessen transpiration, preventing the plant from drainage.

While these aromatic, organic hydrocarbon compounds are toxic to insects, recent studies have shown that some terpenes, when taken in moderation, produce side benefits for humans.  Terpenes, it turns out, are healthy for people as well as plants.  A September 2011 report by Dr. Ethan Russo in the British Journal of Pharmacology discussed the wide-ranging therapeutic attributes of terpenes, which are typically lacking in “CBD-only” products.

For example, terpenes such as limonene have shown promise in improving pain tolerance.  Beta-Caryophyllene, another terpene found in Cannabis, is a sesquiterpene found in the essential oil of black pepper, oregano, and other edible herbs, as well as in various cannabis strains and in many green, leafy vegetables. It is gastro-protective, good for treating certain ulcers, and offers great promise as a therapeutic compound for inflammatory conditions and auto-immune disorders because it binds directly to the peripheral cannabinoid receptor known as “CB2.”  Dr. Russo reported that cannabinoid-terpene interactions “could produce synergy with respect to treatment of pain, inflammation, depression, anxiety, addiction, epilepsy, cancer, fungal and bacterial infections.”

In fact, there are over 140 known terpenes found in Cannabis.  Each Cannabis strain can be recognized and identified by its unique “signature” of terpenes contained in the plant in varying concentrations.  These terpene concentrations can even vary from plant-to-plant, as there are many factors that influence a plant’s development of terpenes, including climate, weather, age and maturation, fertilizers, soil type, and even the time of day.  But while Cannabis plants contain terpenes that provide each strain its signature aroma, there are no known terpenes that are specific to Cannabis.  So if terpenes are not unique to Cannabis and are fairly common in the plant kingdom, can isolated terpenes be a prohibited Schedule I drug in Maryland and under federal law?  Sadly, the answer is probably that it depends upon the source of the terpenes.

Marylanders, like the residents of so many other states, are still living under the dual “Twilight Zone” existence created by our system of federalism.  Maryland, like many other states, has created a state-wide intrastate exemption for the production, distribution, possession, and use of medical Cannabis by its growers, its processors, its dispensers, its patients, and its caregivers.  On the other than, the federal government maintains its strict position that cannabis is a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 that has no accepted medical use and carries a high likelihood for abuse.

Under Maryland law, Cannabis is still known as “Marijuana,” which is defined as Marijuana is defined as “all parts of any plant of the genus Cannabis, whether or not the plant is growing . .  the seeds of the plant . . . the resin extracted from the plant . .  and each compound, manufactured product, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or its resin.  Marijuana does not include the mature stalks of the plant . .  fiber produced from the mature stalks . . . oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant . .  except for resin, any other compound, manufactured product, sale, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, fiber, oil, or cake, or . .  the sterilized seed of the plan that is incapable of germination . . . hemp as defined by the Agricultural Article.” (emphasis added).

Under federal law, the Controlled Substances Act defines “Marihuana” as “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin.  Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.” (emphasis added).

Terpenes form in the Cannabis plant’s glandular trichromes of leaves and flowers, which are specialized to produce and accumulate these hydrocarbon molecules.  Terpenes accumulate in the exuded resin of the plant, and are secondary metabolites that provide the plant with its organoleptic characteristics (aroma and flavor) and that constitutes most of the essential oil produced by aromatic plants.  In the Cannabis plant, terpenes provide the plant with the sticky and viscous quality that will get some insects trapped and immobilized, thus, acting as a protection against insects and high temperatures.  The proportion of terpenes in the plant is normally less than 1%, potentially achieving up to 10% of the resin composition.

So are terpenes derived from Cannabis lawful to possess for a non-medicinal patient in Maryland?  The definitions of Marijuana in Maryland and Marihuana under federal law would seem to indicate that the answer would be no.  Cannabis terpenes are chemical compounds derived from the resin of the plant.  This would place Cannabis terpenes as a controlled and dangerous substance in Maryland.  Yet the same organic chemicals would be perfectly lawful to possess and use in their distilled form when derived from non-Cannabis sources.  These are the same terpenes that humans rely upon every day to provide flavor their food, scent to cleaning products, flavor to tea, and scent to their perfumes.

Sadly, this same “is it or isn’t it” discussion mirrors the controversy surrounding another compound created by the Cannabis plant.  Cannabidiol (or CBD) is also a molecule created by Cannabis Plant that is non-psychotropic.  Last year in the 2018 Farm Bill, lawmakers removed hemp — defined as cannabis and cannabis derivatives with very low concentrations (no more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis) of THC — from the definition of marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act.   However, as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to reiterate, CBD products are still subject to the same laws and requirements as FDA-regulated products that contain any other substance.  But without formal guidance from the FDA, state and local officials from New York to Nebraska have started cracking down on manufacturers and distributors that market CBD as a food additive or supplement.

Despite all we have learned about terpenes (or even CBD), the world will not learn any more about the benefits of these wondrous natural compounds produced by Cannabis plants so long as the federal prohibition continues to exist.  Will Cannabis-derived terpenes ever be available as a commercial product to non-medical patients in Maryland?  For now, the answer will have to be, “It depends.”

MD Cannabis Commission Warns Patients That Program Not Operating Yet

Behind the Debate About Medical Marijuana Dispensary Locations

A Look at Patient Eligibility for Medical Marijuana Access

Formation Tips for Your New Cannabis Business