Understanding Hemp vs. Cannabis

Learn the legal, regulatory, and biochemical characteristics that differentiate hemp from cannabis in this response article by Curt Robbins.

Copyright © Higher Learning LV

I recently made a post to social media in my occasional "DID YOU KNOW?" style that pointed out the history of the legal standard of hemp versus cannabis. Interestingly, while hemp and cannabis became federally illegal in the U.S. in 1937, it wasn't until the early 1970s that this class distinction began to even be addressed.

Each time I do this, I manage to piss off someone who is offended that I might suggest that a single plant genome (species) is, perhaps, two plant genomes. Or maybe four (the species issue has been long debated in the cannabis and hemp cultures). Social media like Twitter, rife with character limitations—and plenty of occasionally grumpy activists—is a great place to amplify such responses, but not necessary the location to craft them. So I'll take that opportunity here.

"Hemp isn't defined by some arbitrary level of one compound in it," said the commenter.

Recently, someone in the Twitterverse was tired of hearing about this hemp-versus-cannabis thing and commented to my hemp post. Said respected commenter: "Hemp isn't defined by some arbitrary level of one compound in it." I'm going to take the high road and assume that the commenter implied the genome of cannabis itself and the physiology of the plant (again, Twitter is a cramped Tokyo bullet train in terms of granularity and deep dives on delicate topics).

One of my favorite followers and a fellow writer commented in response to the commenter, "Not botanically, but it is legally."

This is why I almost always try to include the term "arbitrary" when describing the hemp standard (which is, in the European Union, an even more strict <0.2% tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC). The border between hemp and cannabis is arbitrary. It was invented by a single human and is teaming with politics and laws and international standards and such. If this is evil, then perhaps the metric system is a tool of el Satán.

To place a dividing line in the sand for this herb based on one—one—of these hundreds of special medicinal molecules is, perhaps, a bit daft. This is science, after all.

For example, if the purpose of the hemp standard is to differentiate between an herb that can cause significant psychoactivity and one that doesn't, then the level should obviously be just below the point where the majority of humans experience zero psychoactivity.

At this point I must give a shoutout to the cannabidiol, or CBD, peeps who will zap me if I don't mention that their favorite molecule is, technically, psychoactive. However, it manifests this psychoactivity in the form of reduced anxiety, not talking to trees or pondering the meaning of life.

Now, let's get to the part that I love, the science.

So, there are about 146 cannabinoids, 200 terpenes, and 20 flavonoids that can express themselves in an individual cultivar, or strain (a term best reserved for viruses) of cannabis/hemp*. To place a dividing line in the sand for this herb based on one—one—of these hundreds of special medicinal molecules is, perhaps, a bit daft.

This is science, after all.

Copyright © Higher Learning LV

*(It should be noted that an individual cultivar or plant will never express the entirety of the genetic spectrum of available terpenes and cannabinoids. The genome's DNA is best considered a potential feature set, or menu, from which a particular cultivar commingles with its environment to produce a unique example of the species. To learn more, check out my article "Understanding Cannabis Categories: Untangling Cultivars, Chemovars, Strains, and More.")

I know, I know. Don't be even more daft, Curt. This is about politics and the mere fact that THC delivers euphoria seems to offend a large swath of society. But let's talk more about the science. Specifically, the science of hemp.

Hemp has literally thousands of uses for all parts of the plant, from the stalk to the fan leaves to the flowers. Often, you'll hear talk of "industrial hemp." This is a large category, but focuses on the fibers of the stalk of the plant, not the flowers and leaves toward the top. We can do about a zillion things with the amazing fibers of the stalk, including produce fuel, food, and clothing. There's a French company that manufacturers hemp foundation blocks (they're far superior to traditional concrete blocks). Henry Ford designed a hemp-based car around 1941 (although it was never available for purchase).

Thus, when we casually toss about the term "hemp" on social media, we're all guilty of not necessarily defining the context of the term.

Thus, when we casually toss about the term "hemp" on social media, we're all guilty of not necessarily defining the context of the term.

Of course, many industry experts assert that we're trading one molecule (THC) for another (CBD). Some hemp cultivars produce decent amounts of CBD, enough to make devoting the acres to hemp more profitable than corn or soybeans; the option of cannabis isn't available to these family farmers and argi-companies. However, those who suggest that traditional modern strains of cannabis, not hemp, can typically produce more CBD (depending on cultivar, natch) are correct.

Dr. Ernest Small

But what about the other molecules? I've always been fascinated by cannabigerol, or CBG, and its acidic precursor, CBGA. If you're not familiar, check out a deep dive I did on the topic called CBGA: The Mother of Cannabis Cannabinoids.

This is going to be an exciting year, full of exploration beyond merely two of the dozens of cannabinoids founds in this plant—regardless of the name you give it or how much of a particular cannabinoid a single cultivar or specimen might offer.

So, to those who complain that the THC-based hemp standards employed in North America, the United Kingdom, and Europe is arbitrary (as if this is something negative, and not merely factual), I agree: It is arbitrary.

But this argument isn't getting any traction when limited to this framework. Yes, the standard is arbitrary. Yes, one Canadian scientist defined it in his book nearly 50 years ago. And yes, somehow that standard went on to be adopted by some of the most economically advanced and culturally influential nations on earth.

I don't see anything overly nefarious in that evolution. However, it also doesn't mean it's a good regulatory application of science (with all respect to Small).

Let's get back to the meat of the issue and review those numbers that seem to frustrate everyone so much. The question we should be asking ourselves: Are the two major hemp standards (<0.3% THC in U.S./Canada; <0.2% THC in EU) a logical, rational approach to this plant?

Given the sheer number of molecules found therein, probably not.

Those who would like to leave constructive comments and suggest a new standard—or why the standard should possibly be eliminated—I welcome your input.

Those of you who would like to check out the work of Ernest Small, the live links from the above screen capture can be found below >>