The Surprising Reach of FDA Regulation of Cannabis, Even After Descheduling.

Sean M. O'Connor, Erika Lietzan
{"title":"The Surprising Reach of FDA Regulation of Cannabis, Even After Descheduling.","authors":"Sean M. O'Connor, Erika Lietzan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3242870","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As more states legalize cannabis, the push to \"deschedule\" it from the Controlled Substances Act is gaining momentum. At the same time, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the first conventional drug containing a cannabinoid derived from cannabis—cannabidiol (CBD) for two rare seizure disorders. This would all seem to bode well for proponents of full federal legalization of medical cannabis. But some traditional providers are wary of drug companies pulling medical cannabis into the regular small molecule drug development system. The FDA's focus on precise analytical characterization and on individual active and inactive ingredients may be fundamentally inconsistent with the \"entourage effects\" theory of medical cannabis. Traditional providers may believe that descheduling cannabis would free them to promote and distribute their products free of federal intervention, both locally and nationally. Other producers appear to assume that descheduling would facilitate a robust market in cannabis-based edibles and dietary supplements. In fact, neither of these things is true. If cannabis were descheduled, the FDA's complex and comprehensive regulatory framework governing foods, drugs, and dietary supplements would preclude much of this anticipated commerce. For example, any medical claims about cannabis would require the seller to complete the rigorous new drug approval process, the cost of which will be prohibitive for most current traditional providers. Likely also unexpected to some, there is no pathway forward for conventional foods containing cannabis constituents, with the (probably exclusive) exception of certain hemp seed ingredients, if those foods cross state lines. And it will certainly come as a shock to many that federal law already prohibits the sale of dietary supplements containing CBD--including those already on the market as well as those made from \"hemp,\" which has recently been descheduled under the 2018 Farm Bill. This Article describes in detail the surprising reach of the FDA and then outlines three modest, but legal, pathways forward for cannabis-based products in a world where cannabis has been descheduled.","PeriodicalId":80193,"journal":{"name":"The American University law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American University law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3242870","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

As more states legalize cannabis, the push to "deschedule" it from the Controlled Substances Act is gaining momentum. At the same time, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the first conventional drug containing a cannabinoid derived from cannabis—cannabidiol (CBD) for two rare seizure disorders. This would all seem to bode well for proponents of full federal legalization of medical cannabis. But some traditional providers are wary of drug companies pulling medical cannabis into the regular small molecule drug development system. The FDA's focus on precise analytical characterization and on individual active and inactive ingredients may be fundamentally inconsistent with the "entourage effects" theory of medical cannabis. Traditional providers may believe that descheduling cannabis would free them to promote and distribute their products free of federal intervention, both locally and nationally. Other producers appear to assume that descheduling would facilitate a robust market in cannabis-based edibles and dietary supplements. In fact, neither of these things is true. If cannabis were descheduled, the FDA's complex and comprehensive regulatory framework governing foods, drugs, and dietary supplements would preclude much of this anticipated commerce. For example, any medical claims about cannabis would require the seller to complete the rigorous new drug approval process, the cost of which will be prohibitive for most current traditional providers. Likely also unexpected to some, there is no pathway forward for conventional foods containing cannabis constituents, with the (probably exclusive) exception of certain hemp seed ingredients, if those foods cross state lines. And it will certainly come as a shock to many that federal law already prohibits the sale of dietary supplements containing CBD--including those already on the market as well as those made from "hemp," which has recently been descheduled under the 2018 Farm Bill. This Article describes in detail the surprising reach of the FDA and then outlines three modest, but legal, pathways forward for cannabis-based products in a world where cannabis has been descheduled.
美国食品和药物管理局对大麻的监管范围令人惊讶,即使在取消计划之后。
随着越来越多的州将大麻合法化,将其从《受控物质法案》中“除名”的呼声越来越高。与此同时,美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)最近批准了第一种含有从大麻中提取的大麻素-大麻二酚(CBD)的常规药物,用于治疗两种罕见的癫痫发作。对于支持联邦政府将医用大麻完全合法化的人来说,这一切似乎都是好兆头。但一些传统供应商对制药公司将医用大麻纳入常规小分子药物开发体系持谨慎态度。美国食品和药物管理局对精确的分析特征和单个活性和非活性成分的关注可能从根本上与医用大麻的“伴随效应”理论不一致。传统供应商可能认为,取消大麻管制将使他们能够在地方和全国范围内不受联邦干预的情况下推广和分销其产品。其他生产商似乎认为,取消计划将促进以大麻为基础的食品和膳食补充剂的强劲市场。事实上,这两件事都不对。如果大麻被推迟,美国食品药品监督管理局管理食品、药品和膳食补充剂的复杂而全面的监管框架将阻止这种预期的商业活动。例如,任何关于大麻的医疗索赔都要求卖方完成严格的新药批准程序,其费用对于大多数现有的传统供应商来说将是令人望而却步的。可能也出乎一些人的意料,含有大麻成分的传统食品没有前进的道路,如果这些食品跨越州界,某些大麻种子成分(可能是唯一的)例外。许多人肯定会感到震惊的是,联邦法律已经禁止销售含有CBD的膳食补充剂——包括那些已经上市的膳食补充剂,以及那些由“大麻”制成的膳食补充剂。根据2018年的农业法案,大麻最近被推迟了销售计划。本文详细描述了FDA令人惊讶的影响范围,然后概述了在大麻已被取消计划的世界中,以大麻为基础的产品的三条适度但合法的前进道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信