←back to thread

I'm the Canadian who was detained by ICE for two weeks

(www.theguardian.com)
1009 points n1b0m | 5 comments | 19 Mar 25 11:21 UTC | HN request time: 1.171s | source
Show context
hartator ◴[19 Mar 25 12:58 UTC] No.43411285[source]▶
> to help launch an American brand of health tonics called Holy! Water

> contained hemp

The actual company name is hempandhoneynj? That sells “ HIGH THC IS FOR EXPERIENCED CANNABIS USERS”.

I don’t think weed is legal yet on the federal level. There is some grey ares are on the THC vs weed classification, but note that also harsher laws - like dealing drugs - could have applied here.

replies(2): >>43411901 #>>43413802 #
1. diggan ◴[19 Mar 25 13:44 UTC] No.43411901[source]▶
The THC is derived from legal hemp it seems, which is why they call it "Hemp" and not "Cannabis" in the article, I'm guessing.

> Our Delta 9 THC is legal according to federal law and many state laws. All Delta 9 THC extract being offered is 100% derived from legal hemp and does not contain more than 0.3% ∆9THC.

https://www.hempandhoneynj.com/product/holy-water-euphoric-k...

So no, "harsher laws" couldn't apply here, as there are no scheduled drugs involved in either the process or final product.

replies(1): >>43413248 #
2. hartator ◴[19 Mar 25 15:24 UTC] No.43413248[source]▶
That’s their claim on their website.

How is it different from a local dealer: trust me cops won’t care?

Federal law allowance on that 3% rule is very very narrow. And it’s highly likely that the THC is being re-enrich post haverst which then it is still not legal.

“Harsher laws” are pretty harsh. Even if no violence just “easing distribution”, it’s a max sentence of 10-year.

replies(1): >>43414360 #
3. diggan ◴[19 Mar 25 16:45 UTC] No.43414360[source]▶
I dunno, if we start making up things like "She said she isn't a criminal, but what if she actually launders money" and not take the article for what it says, what's the point of discussing all of this at all?
replies(1): >>43419094 #
4. hartator ◴[20 Mar 25 01:29 UTC] No.43419094{3}[source]▶
This immigration employee did decide to classify this enriched hemp as a controlled substance, yes.

This doesn’t a crazy out of line interpretation of that 3% THC rule that seems like a legal hoop-hole, but it is just of the lack of enforcement of the law by other branches of the government that makes feel this way. It means to be accidental THC not laboratory enriched THC. Which is obviously the case here.

replies(1): >>43419308 #
5. diggan ◴[20 Mar 25 02:11 UTC] No.43419308{4}[source]▶
> This immigration employee did decide to classify this enriched hemp as a controlled substance, yes.

As far as I can tell, the submission article doesn't mention THC at all, and the only time hemp is mentioned is in this context:

> He claimed I also couldn’t work for a company in the US that made use of hemp – one of the beverage ingredients. He revoked my visa, and told me I could still work for the company from Canada, but if I wanted to return to the US, I would need to reapply.

Seems he was OK with the hemp, he was just not OK with the part where there was a Canadian working with a US company that used hemp.

Where are you getting the part that this individual chose to classify some hemp as cannabis from? Wouldn't he try to alert some of his boss in that case, rather than take back this woman's visa?