The DEA has issued a new rule formally clarifying that the synthetic cannabinoid HHC is a Schedule I controlled substance, a move that could have sweeping implications across the hemp and cannabis industries.
The rule asserts that HHC has always been federally controlled as a tetrahydrocannabinol and does not qualify as lawful hemp under the 2018 Farm Bill, particularly when produced through chemical conversion. This clarification significantly increases enforcement risk, restricts interstate commerce, and may signal broader exposure for other converted cannabinoids commonly sold in the hemp market.
To help the industry interpret the scope and legality of this rule, attorney and consultant Paula Savchenko, Esq., founding partner of Cannacore Group and PS Law Group, offers the following legal insight on what this means for operators, compliance strategies, and potential challenges ahead.
"The DEA's rule formally adding HHC to Schedule I asserts that the compound has always been controlled and that the 2018 Farm Bill only legalized naturally occurring hemp cannabinoids, excluding those produced through chemical conversion," Savchenko explains. "This position effectively renders HHC products unlawful at the federal level, heightens enforcement risk nationwide, and prohibits interstate commerce, while also signaling potential exposure for other converted cannabinoids."
Savchenko notes, however, that the rule is vulnerable to legal challenge. It conflicts with recent appellate decisions, including AK Futures LLC v. Boyd Street Distro, LLC and Anderson v. Diamondback Investment Group, LLC, which interpret the Farm Bill to include hemp-derived cannabinoids even if converted. The rule may also exceed DEA authority, particularly following Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated Chevron deference, as the rule appears to function as a substantive rule change without proper Administrative Procedure Act procedures.
Despite the federal position, Savchenko points out that HHC may still be permitted under the laws of certain states that have expressly allowed it or have not prohibited it. Such legality, however, is limited strictly to intrastate activity and does not reduce the heightened risk of federal enforcement or the restrictions on interstate commerce.
For more information:
Cannacore Group
cannacoregrp.com/
