This week, on December 14th, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) passed a new rule to make cannabis extract a separate Schedule I drug from marijuana. This move gets rid of any question that cannabis extract is indeed illegal on a federal level. Schedule I drugs are considered the most dangerous, high risk drug (like heroin) and are considered to contain no medicinal value. The move has many people angry and baffled, considering 28 states across the country use oils derived from cannabis extract to treat a wide range of conditions, from epilepsy to muscle inflammation. These oils often contain less than 0.3 percent THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. Instead they contain CBD or cannabidiol. 
 
 The New ID Number for Cannabis Extract 
 
 Under the new regulation, cannabis extract is classified under a different identification number. The new identification number is 7350. Those who exclusively manufacture marijuana extracts must register under the new code and update the registration annually. Those who need to update their registration will have 30 days from the 14th to do the paperwork. Entities that handle marijuana will stay on the old code number; 7360. Failure to be up to date with the new code will be considered a violation. 
 
 “Misguided and, Frankly, Ignorant” 
 
 Jeffrey Zucker, president and co-founder of Denver-based Green Lion Partners said, “This is a misguided and, frankly, ignorant move by the DEA. CBD does nothing but help people, and to put it on a level with heroin is absurd. Hopefully the backlash will be extreme enough for them to reconsider, as the only group this ruling helps is the pharmaceutical industry.” 
 
 The DEA’s Attempt at Justification 
 
 According to the DEA, the regulation was created in order to keep U.S. regulations consistent with international standards and in compliance with international drug-law treaties. Acting DEA Administrator Chuck Rosenberg said it was necessary for them to be able to track quantities of the marijuana extracts separately from the marijuana. The new code allows the government to track shipments of the extracts independently from marijuana. 
 
 A Perspective Opposing Science and Public Demand 
 
 Marijuana reform advocates have been outraged by the decision. Nate Bradley, executive director of the California Cannabis Industry Association expressed his frustration, stating that “Once again, the federal government has shown that it has not caught up with modern science.” Americans across the country use the extract for medicinal purposes every day. Over half of the country has voted in favor of its legalization and its medicinal value. In fact 20 percent of the country has voted to legalize recreational marijuana now and according to a recent Gallup poll, 60 percent of Americans are in favor of ending prohibition entirely and legalizing the adult use of marijuana. The latest decision by the DEA supports the pharmaceutical industry and, beyond this, has no basis in medical fact. 
 
 Earlier this year the DEA refused to reclassify marijuana, after being asked by many senators to review its classification. They cited that there was not enough government authorized scientific evidence to support its medicinal value. This was due to the fact that the medical research of marijuana was banned by the DEA. They have decided to lift this ban, allowing for research to be done. Perhaps when the evidence has been presented they will finally overturn their archaic and factually problematic laws. ||||| Note: This article contains an update on the legal status of CBD products, below the original text. 
 
 
 
 The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) made CBD oil a little more federally illegal in a little-noticed bureaucratic maneuver this morning. 
 
 Today’s Federal Register (Dec. 14, 2016) contains an item (21 CFR Part 1308) that establishes a new drug code for “marihuana extract.” 
 
 “This code,” wrote DEA Acting Administrator Chuck Rosenberg, “will allow DEA and DEA-registered entities to track quantities of this material separately from quantities of marihuana.” The move, the Register entry explained, is meant to bring the US into compliance with international drug-control treaties. 
 
 There is no major change in law brought about by the Register item. Rather, it serves to clarify and reinforce the DEA’s position on all cannabis extracts, including CBD oil. That position is: They are all federally illegal Schedule I substances. “Extracts of marihuana will continue to be treated as Schedule I controlled substances,” the notice says. 
 
 CBD oil derived from hemp is now commonly available nationwide via web sites and mail order services. Those operations survive on the assumption that cannabidiol products below the legal threshold for THC percentage in hemp (0.3 percent or less) are technically legal. 
 
 Not so, says the DEA. 
 
 In the DEA comment on the entry, Rosenberg directly addressed the question: What if it’s only cannabidiol (CBD) and no other cannabinoids? The agency’s response: “For practical purposes, all extracts that contain CBD will also contain at least small amounts of other cannabinoids. However, if it were possible to produce from the cannabis plant an extract that contained only CBD and no other cannabinoids, such an extract would fall within the new drug code” and therefore remain federally illegal. In other words: The DEA is confident that it can find enough traces of other cannabinoids in your CBD oil to arrest and prosecute. And if they can’t, they still have the option of arresting and prosecuting based on the CBD oil itself. 
 
 Is your CBD derived from hemp? Doesn’t matter to the DEA. The new extracts classification applies to all “extracts that have been derived from any plant of the genus Cannabis and which contain cannabinols and cannabidiols.” Hemp is not a separate genus. (Although it may be a separate species; lot of debate on that point.) Legally speaking, hemp is simply cannabis with no more than 0.3 percent THC content. 
 
 The new rule seems to clarify the DEA’s position on hemp-derived CBD, which entered a legal gray area following Congress’ passage of the 2014 farm bill. That legislation allowed certain states to grow hemp in pilot projects, and blocked federal law enforcement authorities (ie, the DEA) from interfering with state agencies, hemp growers, and agricultural research. 
 
 What DEA Administrator Rosenberg seems to be saying with this clarification is: You may be able to grow hemp. But if you try to extract CBD oil from it, the DEA considers that a federal crime. 
 
 The rule did not contain any hint as to when the DEA will step into the 21st century and stop using the archaic version of the word “marihuana.” 
 
 UPDATE 12/14/2016, 2:20pm PST: 
 
 Although the DEA considers CBD oil to be a federally illegal Schedule I drug, there are temporary safeguards in place that protect patients in many states from federal prosecution over possession of the oil. 
 
 The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment is the most important of those protections. Originally passed in 2014, the amendment to a Congressional appropriations bill prohibits the Justice Department from spending funds to interfere with the implementation of state medical cannabis laws. (It is silent on adult-use laws.) In August, the federal 9th US Circuit Court upheld Rohrabacher-Farr in the face of a challenge brought by federal prosecutors. Leafly has an explanation of that case here. 
 
 The amendment is the chief piece of legislation preventing federal law enforcement officials from prosecuting patients for possessing CBD products in the 28 legal medical cannabis states, and the District of Columbia. In addition, 16 states have passed so-called CBD-only laws that allow patients and caregivers to possess non-intoxicating CBD products. Those CBD-only laws usually allow no legal avenue to produce or obtain the products, however. 
 
 Rohrabacher-Farr must be renewed every year. If it’s not, its safeguards disappear. The amendment was most recently renewed last Friday, Dec. 9, as part of the continuing House resolution known as HR 2028, which funds the federal government through April 28, 2017. When that resolution expires next April, so does the protections afforded by Rohrabacher-Farr. Unless it’s renewed once again. 
 
 Experts and industry react 
 
 It’s unclear whether today’s action is a signal from the DEA to the incoming Trump administration, or just a bit of shelf-clearing before DEA Administrator Rosenberg rides into the sunset with the rest of the Obama administration. This rule, after all, finalizes a proposed rulemaking notice that first appeared more than five years ago, on July 5, 2011. 
 
 Robert Hoban, a Colorado cannabis attorney and adjunct professor of law at the University of Denver, raised the notion that the rule itself may not be lawful. “This action is beyond the DEA’s authority,” Hoban told Leafly in an interview late this afternoon. “The DEA can only carry out the law, they cannot create it. Here they’re purporting to create an entirely new category called ‘marijuana extracts,’ and by doing so wrest control over all cannabinoids. They want to call all cannabinoids illegal. But they don’t have the authority to do that.” 
 
 The new DEA rule, Hoban said, may threaten hundreds, possibly thousands, of jobs and growing businesses. Those business owners based their investments and careers on previous definitions of hemp and cannabidiol in the Controlled Substances Act and modified by federal courts. And that’s where this latest turn of events could end up. “We will see the federal government in court,” Hoban said. ||||| The DEA’s attempt to criminalize the status of cannabidiol (CBD) earlier this week has thrown the cannabis industry into an uproar. Hundreds of thousands of patients around the country rely on non-psychoactive CBD products to manage pain, inflammation, seizures, and other medical conditions. Hemp-derived CBD oil was, and continues to be, sold openly in American markets. 
 
 
 
 The DEA’s notice in the Federal Register on Wednesday, however, sent that entire industry sector into turmoil. The rule creates “unfair barriers for companies with cannabidiol in their products,” said Mark Malone, executive director of the Cannabis Business Alliance. “Patients will be forced to find cannabidiol from the unregulated black market.” Leah Heise, CEO of Women Grow, said the rule “has the potential to inflict substantial harm to a legitimate industry that has been operating legally worldwide for over a decade.” 
 
 The DEA tried this before. In 2001 it tried to ban hempseed oil. And Doc Bronner kicked the agency's butt in court. 
 
 Cloaked in the guise of a bureaucratic technicality, DEA Administrator Chuck Rosenberg made an aggressive bid to wrap CBD into the Controlled Substances Act as a federally illegal Schedule I drug. You can read more about the rule’s specifics here. 
 
 To recap: The DEA introduced a new drug code for “marihuana extracts.” In the course of doing so, Rosenberg paused to consider the question of non-psychoactive cannabidiol (CBD). Rosenberg made it clear that the DEA considers all CBD to be illegal simply because it’s derived from a plant of the genus Cannabis. 
 
 Over the past 48 hours, attorneys and legal scholars (and entrepreneur/activists like Harborside Health founder Steve DeAngelo, above) have pushed back with force. Many are arguing that the DEA’s move is a clear instance of illegal agency overreach. It’s a move that the same agency tried 15 years ago, in fact. And that attempt was ultimately slapped down by federal courts. 
 
 Is my CBD oil illegal? 
 
 Probably not. It depends on how you define “illegal.” Not to get cute, but when you start parsing the finer points of cannabis law things quickly turn vague and shifty. By publishing a final rule in the Federal Register this week, the DEA has essentially staked out new legal ground around CBD. The agency has formally stated that the DEA believes CBD products to be illegal Schedule I substances. 
 
 Is that now the law? Not necessarily. A federal judge might well see things differently than the DEA administrator. In fact, there’s a lot of evidence to think that federal courts could and would invalidate the final rule as it pertains to CBD. We’ll get to that in a minute. 
 
 Two safeguards protect patients who currently buy and use CBD products. They remain in effect. 
 
 First, you should know that there are two prominent safeguards in place protecting patients who currently purchase and use CBD products. 
 
 The first is the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, which prohibits the Justice Department (of which the DEA is a part) from interfering in any way with state medical marijuana laws and regulatory systems. CBD products fall under the protections of that amendment. This includes so-called CBD-only states, which allow patients to possess cannabidiol oil but not psychoactive THC. So the DEA may consider CBD oil illegal, but the agency can’t enforce that opinion in any of the 28 medical marijuana states (plus the District of Columbia), or any of the 16 CBD-only states. 
 
 There are a couple caveats to Rohrabacher-Farr, however. It doesn’t pertain to federal jurisdictions such as National Forests or National Parks. And the amendment must be reauthorized through Congressional spending bills. The latest re-up happened on Dec. 9, but it only runs through April 2017, at which point it would have to be reauthorized again. 
 
 The second protection is the 2014 Farm Act, which carved out an excemption to the Controlled Substances Act for states engaging in hemp cultivation pilot projects. 
 
 The DEA tried this in 2001. And lost. 
 
 Cannabis industry veterans who have been in the game a while must have felt a sense of deja vu when they read the DEA’s final rule this week. Because the agency tried the same maneuver more than a decade ago. Back then, cannabis and hemp advocates took the DEA to court—and the DEA lost. 
 
 Robert Hoban, Adjunct Law Professor, University of Denver 'The DEA cannot create a statute. That can only be done by Congress.' 
 
 “The DEA cannot create a statute,” Robert Hoban told me in an interview earlier this week. Hoban is a Denver-based attorney who specializes in cannabis law. He’s also an adjunct law professor at the University of Denver. “That can only be done by Congress.” 
 
 Hoban mentioned legal precedent established by a case involving hemp products more than a decade ago. “Look at the HIA versus DEA case.” 
 
 So I did. Here’s how that worked out. 
 
 On October 9, 2001, the DEA published what it called an “Interpretive Rule” stating that “any product that contains any amount of THC is a Schedule I controlled substance.” The rule would have banned all hemp and hempseed products, including hempseed oil. 
 
 With sneaky bureaucratic maneuvers like this, timing is everything. On October 9, 2001, Americans were still reeling from the shock of the 9/11 attacks. Nobody was paying attention to obscure hemp regulations in the Federal Register. 
 
 Nobody, that is, except a handful of hempseed oil companies whose products were effectively outlawed by the rule. 
 
 A coalition of those companies, led by Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, challenged the DEA rule in federal court. 
 
 If the DEA wanted to schedule hemp, it would have to follow the rules. The agency couldn't do it on its own. 
 
 The case took more than two years to find resolution, but ultimately Dr. Bronner’s, et al, defeated the DEA. In two separate rulings in 2003 and 2004, the US 9th Circuit Court concluded that non-psychoactive hemp had not been regulated by Congress under the scheduling system established by the Controlled Substances Act. Therefore, if the DEA wanted to schedule hemp, it would have to follow the established rules for doing so, which meant going through Congress. The DEA’s “Interpretive Rule” was not an interpretation at all, the judges said. It was an act of legislation. And only Congress can pass legislation. “The DEA has no authority” to regulate drugs that are not scheduled by Congress, the court concluded. 
 
 The new rule is on even shakier ground 
 
 Those cases, known collectively as Hemp Industries Association v. DEA, are the reason you can purchase hempseed oil at Whole Foods today. And it may be the hammer with which cannabis industry attorneys can smash the new CBD rule. 
 
 In fact, this week’s CBD rule may actually be more difficult for the DEA to defend than its hemp rule 15 years ago. 
 
 At least the 2001 hemp rule directly addressed hemp. DEA Administrator Rosenberg’s attempt to pull CBD into the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule I drug wasn’t even the point of this week’s rule. Rosenberg outlawed CBD under the guise of answering a question about CBD products that contained no other cannabinoids. But make no mistake: When it comes to Federal Register entries, there isn’t a word or a comma that isn’t vetted five times from Tuesday by a platoon of government lawyers. Rosenberg and the DEA knew exactly what they were doing. 
 
 On Thursday, Hoban said that his law firm was in communication with other cannabis attorneys and experts around the country. A singular or joint lawsuit challenging the DEA rule may be coming soon. Their chances against the DEA look promising. Hoban mentioned the earlier Hemp Industries v. DEA cases, as well as the recent challenges to the DEA’s attempt to ban Kratom. “Our team is diligently and expediently working to prepare a recommended strategy in response to the DEA’s Rule,” Hoban said. 
 
 So don’t throw out your CBD oil. And stay tuned. ||||| SEATTLE (Reuters) - The U.S. government will announce on Thursday that it will allow more research into marijuana but has rejected requests to relax the classification of the substance as a dangerous, highly addictive drug with no medical use, sources with direct knowledge of the matter said. 
 
 A marijuana leaf is displayed at Canna Pi medical marijuana dispensary in Seattle, Washington, November 27, 2012. REUTERS/Anthony Bolante 
 
 The decision is the Drug Enforcement Administration’s response to a 2011 petition by two former state governors who had urged federal agencies to re-classify marijuana as a drug with accepted medical uses, the two sources said on Wednesday. They requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. 
 
 The DEA declined to comment. However earlier on Wednesday, the agency had sent emails, a copy of which was reviewed by Reuters, to parties that had expressed an interest in the matter, saying it would be making “important announcements regarding marijuana related topics” on Thursday. 
 
 The Food and Drug Administration did not respond immediately to requests for comment. 
 
 For decades, marijuana has been classified as a “Schedule I” drug with “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse,” on par with heroin. The government has repeatedly rejected appeals over the years to reclassify marijuana. Loosening that definition could encourage scientific study of a drug that is being used to treat diseases in several U.S. states despite little proof of its effectiveness. 
 
 Twenty-five states have sanctioned some forms of marijuana use for medical purposes. Four states - Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado - and the District of Columbia have gone even further, allowing its recreational use for adults. 
 
 California and eight other states have recreational or medical marijuana proposals headed for their 2016 ballots. 
 
 A drug can be reclassified through congressional legislation or a formal scheduling petition process that involves medical and scientific evaluation by the FDA and DEA. 
 
 The DEA only allows marijuana for federally sanctioned research to be cultivated at a garden at the University of Mississippi, an operation overseen by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. 
 
 Cannabis advocates have long argued that this arrangement, and the labeling of marijuana as among “the most dangerous drugs” under the Controlled Substances Act, has sharply limited the supply available for research. 
 
 The sources said the federal government would pave the way on Thursday for increased research, possibly with marijuana supplies from outside the University of Mississippi. 
 
 “This is a good day for science,” said Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a group that opposes legalization. “This shows that the federal government is flexible on legitimate research but is nowhere near wanting to legalize marijuana.” ||||| HURLBURT FIELD — The former academic dean at the Air Force Special Operations School is appealing his recent dismissal for using prescribed cannabidiol, a non-pyschoactive marijuana derivative, to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. 
 
 Henry Cobbs, a 22-year Air Force veteran who retired in 1982 and who holds a doctoral degree in educational technology, has been at the Special Operations School since 2009. Two years ago he was diagnosed with intraductal carcinoma of the prostate, a rare form of prostate cancer, and opted for wide-ranging treatment. 
 
 "I availed myself of everything I could find," Cobbs said. 
 
 One of the things he found through a Montgomery, Alabama, physician was CBD oil, another name for cannabidiol. After being prescribed the oil in October 2017, Cobbs applied the dosage on his tongue. But after reading that using the oil in an electronic cigarette and inhaling the vapor delivered the drug in a higher concentration, he opted for that method. 
 
 Cobbs subsequently told a couple of co-workers — one diagnosed with prostate cancer, and another with indications of the disease — about using CBD oil. And according to a termination letter from Special Operations School commander Lt. Col. Michael Lowe, Cobbs was also seen "vaping" the medication. 
 
 Cobbs' termination became effective the afternoon Aug. 15, but he retired on the morning of that day, a move designed to preserve his retirement benefits. Retirement doesn't jeopardize his appeal, Cobbs said. 
 
 At issue in Cobbs' termination is a 1986 executive order by President Ronald Reagan aimed to make federal workplaces drug-free. The order defines "illegal drugs" to include federal Schedule I drugs, which include CBD oil. But the order also notes "the term 'illegal drugs' does not mean the use of a controlled substance pursuant to a valid prescription or other uses authorized by law." 
 
 Cobbs has contacted with the office of U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz regarding his appeal. 
 
 Retired Air Force Capt. Nate Nelson, director of military affairs in Gaetz's office, said Thursday that federal law, which governs how the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) must handle Cobbs' situation, lists CBD oil as a Schedule I drug, with the exception of a particular type used for epilepsy. 
 
 Nelson said Gaetz's office is working with Cobbs in an advisory capacity, but added that "the military has to uphold the federal stance." 
 
 "We completely understand AFSOC's stance," Nelson said. 
 
 Nelson pointed out that, while they might not necessarily help Cobbs, a couple of pieces of legislation now in Congress could affect similar cases. 
 
 The Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States Act would, among other things, exclude CBD oil from the definition of marijuana. Gaetz is a co-sponsor of the bill. 
 
 Also, Nelson said, House Resolution 6043, which would change how the Controlled Substances Act is applied to marijuana, has been introduced with Gaetz as a co-sponsor. 
 
 Cobbs' most recent examination showed his cancer had been contained. But as his appeal proceeds, Cobbs says he's left with one question. 
 
 "You're going to make me choose between a job and cancer?" he asked. ||||| Medical researchers have confirmed what some desperate parents have been claiming for years—that a nonpsychoactive component of marijuana known as cannabidiol (CBD) can reduce epileptic seizures in some children. 
 
 Published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the findings stem from a double-blind, placebo-controlled study—the most scientifically rigorous type of investigation possible. “This study clearly establishes cannabidiol as an effective anti-seizure drug for this disorder and this age group," says principal investigator Orrin Devinsky, director of the Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at New York University Langone Medical Center. “It certainly deserves to be studied in other types of epilepsy.” 
 
 A total of 120 children and teenagers with Dravet syndrome—a rare disorder marked by drug-resistant seizures that can be nearly continuous in some cases—were part of the study. They were divided into an experimental group, which received the test drug, and a placebo group, which was given a medically inactive compound. Over the course of 14 weeks the youngsters receiving CBD experienced a median number of 5.9 convulsive seizures per month (down from 12.4) compared with 14.1 convulsions per month (down from 14.9) for the placebo group. The new findings are consistent with previous, less-stringent studies of the same drug, a compound called Epidiolex, made by U.K.–based GW Pharmaceuticals. (GW funded the new study.) 
 
 As the current paper points out, “interest in cannabidiol for the treatment of epilepsy was generated by media reports of efficacy in children with Dravet syndrome.” The star of many of those reports was Charlotte Figi, now 10, of Colorado, who was having hundreds of seizures a month by age three when her parents decided to treat her with cannabidiol. Unlike the better-known marijuana component tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol does not make users high. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for medical use, and the conditions approved for treatment can vary from state to state. Sixteen states have laws that specifically allow the use of CBD to treat seizures. 
 
 The Figis treated their daughter with a specially prepared CBD-containing oil, now known as Charlotte’s Web, which is derived from hemp, a type of cannabis containing less than 0.3 percent THC by weight. They reported dramatic improvement. As word spread, more families tried CBD and the positive anecdotes piled up. “That’s certainly one of the motivations for this research,” Devinsky says. He notes there is also plenty of animal model data as well as anecdotes from the late 1800s about Indian hemp, another type of cannabis, that was used to treat epilepsy. And there are even mentions of the approach in Sumerian tablets going back 3,800 years. “The parents added fuel to the fire,” he says, “but that anecdotal evidence was there for millennia.” 
 
 All of the patients in the new trial fit the criteria for severe, drug-resistant epilepsy and were taking other seizure medications. Whereas there was a statistically and clinically significant median reduction in convulsive seizures of 39 percent in the treated group, only three of the 52 patients receiving cannabidiol became completely seizure-free. And 93 percent of those patients reported troublesome side effects—including sleepiness (the most common symptom), vomiting, fatigue, decreased appetite, diarrhea and elevated levels of liver enzymes. Eight of the cannabidiol patients stopped participating in the study as a result of the more severe side effects. The study authors indicate some of those issues could have been caused by interactions with other epilepsy drugs. Also, there was no significant reduction in nonconvulsive seizures, which are essentially brief staring spells in which a person is unaware of his or her surroundings for several seconds. The study notes this could be because cannabidiol only affects convulsive seizures or because nonconvulsive seizures “cannot be reliably counted by parents in developmentally delayed children.” 
 
 Nevertheless, 62 percent of caregivers in the cannabidiol group said their child’s overall condition improved during the trial, compared with 34 percent in the placebo group. After the trial caregivers of participants in both the placebo and experimental groups were given the option of continuing treatment with cannabidiol in what is called an open-label extension of the study. More than 100 families from both groups took researchers up on the offer. 
 
 Sam Riggio, director of operations for Realm of Caring, a cannabis research, education and advocacy group, understands how even treatments with limited benefits can have a big impact on Dravet patients. Riggio and his wife Tara moved to Colorado from Illinois in 2013 when they heard about cannabidiol in a Dravet group on Facebook. (At the time, the hemp supply in the U.S. was spotty. Charlotte’s Web had a reputation as safe and effective for children, but it was only available to Colorado residents.) Their daughter Francesca, who will be seven next month, was having seizures that never lasted less than 15 minutes and sometimes went on for long as 70 minutes. She had her first seizure at six months and at 18 months suffered a severe reaction to an epilepsy drug that left her with profound cognitive deficits. Then her parents started her on cannabidiol. “It wasn’t the answer for her like it was for Charlotte and some of the other kiddos,” Riggio says, “but it provided her enough cushion that she could come off the three pharmaceuticals she was on.” In the years since, while Francesca remains nonverbal with the cognition of an 18-month old, most of her seizures now last less than two minutes and resolve on their own. Her parents have not had to call 911 nor have they had to rush her to the emergency room. “That’s a huge improvement for her quality of life,” says Riggio, who credits the changes to cannabidiol. 
 
 Devinsky hopes these latest findings will persuade the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to change its classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act, a ruling that hampers medical research and treatment. (Drugs on Schedule I, such as heroin, are deemed by the DEA to have “no currently accepted medical use.”) “To put CBD as a Schedule I drug violates scientific data and common sense,” Devinsky says. He points out that some opiates, which kill thousands of Americans a year, are Schedule III drugs, a less restricted category. “Cannabis is approved in 20 countries for spasms in multiple sclerosis,” he says, “so to say there’s no evidence of efficacy is simply untrue. Those studies came out a decade ago, this study is coming out today. They have to de-schedule this drug. It’s just not fair to the research and clinical communities, or to the patients. It’s medieval.” 
 
 Going forward, GW Pharmaceuticals plans to seek U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of Epidiolex in the next few months as a treatment for Dravet syndrome and Lennox–Gastaut syndrome, another seizure disorder. No one really knows yet how cannabidiol reduces seizures in Dravet, but Devinsky says the leading theory is that the cannabidiol binds to a receptor in nerve cells called GPR55, modulating the calcium activity and excitability of the cells. He also says cannabidiol has many other effects on nerve cells and that there is much to learn. 
 
 For Riggio, a gold-standard, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial will do just fine for now. “It’s exciting because it’s a new option for people who feel like they are out of options,” he says. “And it confirms what we’ve seen anecdotally—and the more data we have to back that up, the more confidence we have to use this sooner and hopefully avoid a lot of side effects that my daughter had to endure.”
– A cannabidiol hemp oil that Leafly says is used by "hundreds of thousands of patients" in the US for a variety of medical purposes, including to help relieve seizures, has been designated a Schedule 1 drug by the DEA, 7NEWS reports. Schedule 1 drugs (which are illegal and include LSD and heroin) are said to have "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse." The announcement published in the Federal Register last week details the new ruling for CBD, which sets aside a new code number for "marihuana extract" and pertains to any "extract containing one or more cannabinoids ... derived from any plant of the genus Cannabis." This decision came despite the fact that CBD from hemp—cannabis with no more than between 0.3% and 1% of the active ingredient THC—has been widely available up till now via mail order and the internet. Companies selling it have been operating under assumed legality because of CBD's low THC levels, Leafly notes—an apparently murky area. The DEA made a similar move in 2001 when it failed in an attempt to ban all hemp products. Leafly lays out the legalese surrounding CBD products and how it thinks patients could avoid prosecution in the 28 medical marijuana states and DC. "The DEA cannot create a statute," a lawyer specializing in cannabis law tells Leafly. "That can only be done by Congress." The DEA notes it created the regulation to comply with international drug treaties, per the Marijuana Resources blog. "This is a misguided and, frankly, ignorant move by the DEA," says Jeffrey Zucker, co-founder of a strategy firm for the cannabis industry. "CBD does nothing but help people, and to put it on a level with heroin is absurd." (Why hemp is "poorly understood.")