CBD has been far more extensively studied than CBG/CBN/CBC, etc
GW Pharma performed a ton of high quality research into CBD before gaining FDA approval for Epidiolex
CBD is a known entity
The safety data on CBG/CBN/CBC simply isn’t there yet
And in the end, it’s the safety profile of each cannabinoid that concerns the FDA
Another factor is the FDA’s preference to “preserve the incentive” for big pharma to research CBG/CBN/CBC — the FDA and big pharma believe that allowing OTC sales of CBG/CBN/CBC could disincentivize pharma company researchers from studying it
Lastly, CBD Isolate is clearly the FDA’s preference in terms of who gets the 1st green light — Dr. Gottlieb, Canopy Growth, etc
Now that’s nothing I haven’t stated before, but it’s the foundation of the argument for CBD Isolate so it bears repeating:
Here’s something new... There is a big regulatory difference between HR 5587 and HR 8179
The former makes CBD exempt from the drug exclusion clause in the FDCA (that’s the mechanism of legalizing it) but leaves the specifics of regulation up to the FDA, whereas the latter tells the FDA how to regulate it (treat all cannabinoids outside of THC as dietary supplements) — more conservative members in Congress may not feel comfortable telling the FDA how to regulate cannabinoids from hemp
So HR 5587 remains the favorite
That’s my current state of mind on HR 5587 vs HR 8179
Now if HR 8179 gets a ton of cosponsors over the next few weeks and HR 5587 doesn’t rack up many new ones, then the scale could start tilting in the other direction
In the end, it’s the specifics of any Senate bill on CBD Legalization that will likely define the outcome, as the House is far more liberal and pro-cannabis than the Senate — so when a bill is filed in the Senate, that will be our biggest clue
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.