The Oklahoma Bar Journal May 2025

A substance obtained by sepa rating cannabinoids from any part of the marijuana plant by physical or chemical means, so as to deliver a product with a can nabinoid concentration greater than the raw plant material from which it is derived. Categories of concentrate include water-based medical marijuana concentrate, food-based medical marijuana concentrate, solvent-based con centrate, and heat- or pressure- based medical marijuana concen trate as those terms are defined in the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana and Patient Protection Act. 11 However, OMMA regulations do not distinguish between different classifications of concentrates, with examples such as rosin, 12 resin, 13 distillate 14 and hash. 15 These vari ations involve distinct extraction and refinement techniques, yet they remain undefined, leading to compliance confusion, inconsistent production and discrepancies in regulatory and testing enforcement. Standardized definitions would clarify and ensure uniform applica tion of regulations. Concentrates should be spe cifically defined and classified based on their source material and processing methods. For example, cured resin is derived from dry cured cannabis, 16 while live resin is extracted from fresh, frozen-cured cannabis. 17 Rosin and hash should be classified separately, as hash serves as a precursor to rosin, rather than a final extract. Establishing classifications such as these would provide regulatory clarity, improve enforcement consistency and create a standardized framework for can nabis processing compliance.

on the extraction method used. 4 Hazardous processing uses volatile solvents, such as butane, propane, CO 2 or ethanol. 5 These chemicals require strict safety protocols and facility buildout requirements under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard, 6 including Class 1, Division 1 (C1D1) certification to prevent fire and explosion hazards pursuant to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 7 Nonhazardous processing, by contrast, avoids volatile solvents and includes methods such as ice water hash 8 production, rosin pressing 9 and the manufacturing of edible products and uninfused prerolls. 10 Additionally, proces sors operating under a distribu tion-only business model would fall under the nonhazardous cate gory. These techniques pose fewer safety risks and are subject to less stringent regulatory oversight. KEY PROCESSING TERMS THAT REMAIN UNDEFINED OMMA’s regulations fail to pro vide clear definitions for several essential terms, creating regula tory uncertainty and enforcement inconsistencies. The absence of standardized terminology leads to misclassification of products, inconsistent testing requirements and compliance difficulties for processors. Below are some of the most critical missing definitions and their potential impacts. Cannabis Concentrate Variations OMMA rules define “medical marijuana concentrate” or “con centrate” as:

Solvent-Based vs. Solventless Extraction

The current rules lack specificity on which solvents are approved, restricted or prohibited. There is also no regulatory framework out lining acceptable residual solvent limits in final products. Without clear solvent guidelines, processors risk noncompliance due to varying interpretations of what constitutes a hazardous or nonhazardous pro cess, potentially leading to public safety implications. For example, the use of hexane and heptane as solvents in cannabis extraction has raised significant health and safety concerns. 18 Hexane, a Class II solvent – per the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use 19 – has been linked to respiratory irritation, dermati tis, liver and kidney failure and neurological disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease. 20 Heptane, while considered less toxic than hexane, is still associated with health hazards, including respira tory irritation and central nervous system effects. 21 OSHA identified the handling and transfer of flam mable solvents like hexane and hep tane as potential health hazards in cannabis processing, emphasizing the need for proper safety protocols to prevent employee exposure. 22 Given these risks, many in the industry advocate for the use of safer alternatives, which offer effective extraction capabilities with a more favorable safety profile. A defined list of permitted solvents and standardized solvent residue thresholds would clarify compliance and enhance safety and regulatory certainty.

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

8 | MAY 2025

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL