I dunno, if we start making up things like "She said she isn't a criminal, but what if she actually launders money" and not take the article for what it says, what's the point of discussing all of this at all?
This immigration employee did decide to classify this enriched hemp as a controlled substance, yes.
This doesn’t a crazy out of line interpretation of that 3% THC rule that seems like a legal hoop-hole, but it is just of the lack of enforcement of the law by other branches of the government that makes feel this way. It means to be accidental THC not laboratory enriched THC. Which is obviously the case here.
> This immigration employee did decide to classify this enriched hemp as a controlled substance, yes.
As far as I can tell, the submission article doesn't mention THC at all, and the only time hemp is mentioned is in this context:
> He claimed I also couldn’t work for a company in the US that made use of hemp – one of the beverage ingredients. He revoked my visa, and told me I could still work for the company from Canada, but if I wanted to return to the US, I would need to reapply.
Seems he was OK with the hemp, he was just not OK with the part where there was a Canadian working with a US company that used hemp.
Where are you getting the part that this individual chose to classify some hemp as cannabis from? Wouldn't he try to alert some of his boss in that case, rather than take back this woman's visa?
