Marijuana’s War on Hemp-Derived Cannabinoids

The marijuana industry, with its high-dollar lobbyists, is waving the banner of “public health and safety” as they fight to suppress hemp-derived cannabinoid markets throughout the United States. But as any true investigator would say, “I see the smoke, but where’s the fire?”

Even the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) own in silico data suggests that the risks associated with these cannabinoids are not as severe as some claim.¹ And poison control reports—while addressing isolated misuse—highlight that most risks are easily mitigated through regulation, not prohibition. So why the sudden panic? The truth is clear: this isn’t about protecting the public; it’s about protecting profits.

Toxicology Testing: A Selective Concern

The marijuana industry, which has sold its products for years without conducting any toxicology studies, let alone any significant long-term studies, is now claiming that hemp-derived cannabinoids pose a serious public health risk. The irony is palpable. Despite the widespread use of marijuana-derived cannabinoids like Δ9-THC, Δ9-THCV, CBD, and CBN, long-term studies on the safety of these compounds remain lacking. Yet, the marijuana industry has continued to thrive without facing the scrutiny they are now directing toward hemp cannabinoids.

To justify their lack of research, marijuana advocates love to claim that the cannabis plant has been used and “studied by humans” for 14,000 years. But this is a dismissive argument. Comparing ancient hemp fiber, which had a fraction of a percent of THC and was mostly used for clothing and rope, to today’s vaporizing of High Terpene Full Spectrum Extracts (HTFSE) – loaded with THC distillate and volatile hydrocarbon compounds known to form toxicants,² Color Remediation Column (CRC) “bleached” extracts, or 30%+ THCA flower, is ridiculous. The cannabis of the past bears little resemblance to the ultra-potent products flooding today’s regulated marijuana consumer markets. The argument of “it’s been around forever” is a deliberate misrepresentation—high-potency THC and THCA extracts, as well as modern cannabis flower, have only been on the consumer market for a tiny fraction of that time. It’s a weak attempt to deflect real scrutiny from the inherent, yet widely tolerated, risks of today’s marijuana products.

In Silico Findings: Marijuana-Derived Cannabinoids

According to the study “Predicting binding between 55 cannabinoids and 4,799 biological targets by in silico screening”, marijuana-derived cannabinoids already carry a well-established baseline health risk.³ Cannabinoids like CBC, CBD, CBDV, CBG, CBL, CBN, Δ9-THC, and Δ9-THCV are associated with various side effects, including cognitive impairment, altered motor function, anxiety, drug interactions (specifically with liver enzymes), cardiovascular effects, and psychoactive reactions. Psychoactive cannabinoids such as Δ9-THC pose even greater risks of dependence, addiction, and psychiatric disturbances.

Figure 1: Heat map of predicted cannabinoid-target interactions

Hemp-Derived Cannabinoids: A Comparable Risk Profile

Notably, many hemp-derived cannabinoids show no significant increase in severe adverse effects compared to traditional intoxicating cannabinoids like Δ9-THC. The study demonstrates that HHC, Δ8-THC, Δ9-THCB, and Δ9-THCP (in Group I, see Figure 1) activate some biological targets that Δ9-THC (in Group II) does not. However, these differences in target activation do not indicate a significantly higher risk of adverse effects. The receptor binding profiles, or target interactions, of HHC, Δ8-THC, Δ9-THCB, and Δ9-THCP are generally overlapped with those of Δ9-THC. Despite some potency differences, the current data suggests that these atypical hemp-derived cannabinoids can be regulated similarly to Δ9-THC, without introducing disproportionate health concerns.

Similarly, when comparing CBD homologs—CBDB, CBDP, CBDV—to CBD, the results show a comparable risk profile. The study reveals that CBD, CBDB, CBDP, and CBDV (in Group IV) share a majority of their biological target interactions, with some differences in binding affinities. These variations do not point to increased risk or severe adverse effects. Therefore, CBDB, CBDP, and CBDV can be regarded within the same safety framework as CBD itself.

The data presented in the study do not support the notion that these hemp-derived cannabinoids are inherently more dangerous than traditional cannabinoids like Δ9-THC or CBD. Rather, their pharmacological profiles indicate that they fall within the established safety parameters of cannabinoids currently available in the market.

A Call for Logical Consistency: Acetaminophen vs. Δ8-THC

It’s important to point out something surprising: acetaminophen, the common painkiller in Tylenol, turns into a compound called AM404 in your body—a synthetic cannabinoid agonist that interacts with the same system in your body as cannabinoids like Δ8 THC.⁴

Now, some might say, “But acetaminophen is FDA-approved, and Δ8-THC isn’t!” That’s not the whole picture. FDA approval doesn’t mean a product is without risk—acetaminophen is proof of that. Despite its approval, it’s 4.7 times more likely to lead to poison control calls and nearly 80 times more likely to result in death compared to Δ8-THC. Meanwhile, many substances that haven’t gone through the FDA’s approval process are used safely, and some may be targeted more out of economic interests than genuine safety concerns.

Additionally, while Δ8-THC is the focus of much controversy, nearly half of the poison control calls related to it could have been prevented with simple safety measures like child-resistant packaging and compliant labeling.⁵ With these precautions, Δ8-THC would have appeared even safer in comparison to acetaminophen, underscoring that public health concerns could be effectively addressed through practical regulation, not prohibition.

Estimated Risk Comparison Table: Acetaminophen vs. Δ8-THC

Estimated Risk Multipliers: Acetaminophen vs. Δ8-THC

1. All incidence rate calculations for Δ8-THC were performed using Python in ChatGPT 4o, and have been standardized to per 1000 people to facilitate representative comparisons across different outcomes, including poison control calls, deaths, ER visits, and hospitalizations. The calculations were made based on provided data points and assumptions necessary for these estimations.
2. Incidence Rate Ratios (IRR) were performed in using Python in ChatGPT 4o by dividing the rate for Δ8-THC by the rate for Acetaminophen for each metric. 

Here’s the bottom line: FDA approval doesn’t erase risks, and just because Δ8-THC hasn’t gone through that same process doesn’t mean it’s inherently dangerous. Acetaminophen’s long-standing FDA approval hasn’t reduced its risk compared to Δ8-THC. The fact that Δ8-THC hasn’t been “deemed safe” by the FDA doesn’t justify targeting it, especially when far riskier products are already on the market.

If half of the poison control calls related to Δ8-THC were prevented, the call rate would drop to around 0.177 per 1000 users, further widening the safety gap between Δ8-THC and acetaminophen. If public health and safety were the genuine concern, why isn’t there the same outrage over acetaminophen, which interacts with the same system and poses higher risks? The focus here should be on consistency in regulation—anything else feels more like protecting markets and controlling competition than ensuring public safety.

The Economic Motive: Struggling Marijuana Markets

The marijuana industry is terrified of the growing hemp-derived cannabinoid market and the competition it poses. Marijuana’s recent economic struggles in key states reveal the real motive behind the associated lobbying and legislative attacks against hemp. In Colorado, marijuana prices have dropped by more than 60% since their peak in 2021, and dispensary sales have fallen to just over $1.5 billion in 2023, down from $2.2 billion.¹² Illinois has also experienced its first downturn, with marijuana sales dropping by 2.2% year-over-year.¹³

In Michigan, the market is grappling with oversupply, leading to a price collapse and reduced sales.¹⁴ Even in California, marijuana sales revenue has dropped by $30 million, while the hemp industry continues to gain traction. Notably, two days before California Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed an emergency order to regulate easy access to “intoxicating hemp,” the state released its cannabis tax results for the second quarter, revealing a significant decline. This further highlights the economic pressure the marijuana industry is facing as it struggles to compete with the growing hemp cannabinoid market.¹⁵ 

Faced with shrinking profits and oversupply issues, the marijuana industry is using public health rhetoric to try and suffocate the hemp market before it gains further ground. Their claims about “public safety” are merely a smokescreen to cover their true goal—market control of cannabinoid products.

Conclusion: Not a Public Health Issue, but a Market Control Battle

The health risks of Δ8-THC and other hemp cannabinoids are comparable with those already present in the regulated marijuana market. If marijuana products and their inherent risks are tolerable, why should hemp-derived cannabinoids be treated any differently? The simple answer: this isn’t about public safety—it’s about stifling competition.

References:

1. Santillo MF. Screening 55 cannabinoids on 4799 biological targets by in silico methods. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition; 2023 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/171080/download
2. Meehan-Atrash J, Luo W, Strongin RM. Toxicant formation in dabbing: The terpene story. ACS Omega. 2017;2(9):6112-6117. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.7b01130
3. Santillo MF, Sprando RL. Predicting binding between 55 cannabinoids and 4,799 biological targets by in silico methods. J Appl Toxicol. 2023;43(10):1476-1487. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.4478
4. Högestätt ED, Jönsson BAG, Ermund A, Andersson DA, Björk H, Alexander JP, Cravatt BF, Zygmunt PM. Conversion of acetaminophen to the bioactive N-acylphenolamine AM404 via fatty acid amide hydrolase-dependent arachidonic acid conjugation in the nervous system. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(36):31405-12. Available from: https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(20)79251-3/fulltext
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 5 things to know about delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol – Delta-8 THC. FDA; 2021 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/5-things-know-about-delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol-delta-8-thc
6. United States Census Bureau. Happy New Year 2023. U.S. Census Bureau; 2022 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/12/happy-new-year-2023.html
7. Gallup. Percentage of Americans who smoke marijuana increases to 16%. Gallup; 2019 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://news.gallup.com/poll/284135/percentage-americans-smoke-marijuana.aspx
8. American Association of Poison Control Centers. An analysis of exposures involving delta-8 THC. AAPCC; 2022 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://poisoncenters.org/news-alerts/13302763
9. Livne O, Budney A, Borodovsky J, Walsh C, Shmulewitz D, Fink DS, et al. Delta-8 THC use in US adults: Sociodemographic characteristics and correlates. Addict Behav. 2022 Oct;133:107374. Epub 2022 May 23. PMID: 35644057; PMCID: PMC9245337. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35644057/
10. Agrawal S, Khazaeni B. Acetaminophen toxicity. [Updated 2023 Jun 9]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan–. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441917/
11. Lee WM. Acetaminophen (APAP) hepatotoxicity – Isn’t it time for APAP to go away? J Hepatol. 2017 Dec;67(6):1324-1331. Epub 2017 Jul 20. PMID: 28734939; PMCID: PMC5696016. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5696016/
12. Mitchell T. Colorado marijuana prices nearing record lows again. Westword. 2023 Oct 1 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://www.westword.com/marijuana/colorado-marijuana-prices-nearing-record-lows-again-22032318
13. Lutz BJ. Illinois marijuana sales revenue falls as consumer demand slows. Yahoo Finance. 2024 Oct 17 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/illinois-marijuana-sales-revenue-falls-230619534.html
14. Walsh D. Michigan marijuana sales fall as market faces oversupply. Crain’s Detroit Business. 2024 Oct 16 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://www.crainsdetroit.com/cannabis/michigan-marijuana-sales-fall-market-faces-oversupply
15. Wood S. Cannabis tax revenues plummet. North Bay Business Journal. 2024 Sep 16 [cited 2024 Oct 25]. Available from: https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/industrynews/cannabis-tax-rolls-hemp-market