For some context, I think some of the key legal points in here was that the he was fired because urinary analysis showed THC metabolites in his blood from the s

For some context, I think some of the key legal points in here was that the he was fired because urinary analysis showed THC metabolites in his blood from the small amount of THC in the CBD. Part of the legal reasoning is that he knew the risk: "Mr Armour understood...that CBD products containing no more than 0.3 percent of THC are legal hemp [and not marijuana]" However, it looks like one of the CBD products he used were advertised as below the legal limit was not. But part of the problem identified is that the law identifies a threshold but not necessarily a required confidence against that threshold because it was close. "Mr Armour provided what remained of the three CBD products and asked them to be tested...DEA's chemical analysis showed that two CBD products were legal...chemical analysis of [the third CBD product] measured THC above the 0.3 percent legal limit, even though that analysis was unable to establish whether THC was above the legal limit to a scientific degree of certainty with 95 percent confidence" It also says that he assumed the risk because "he also understood that the FDA does not regulate CBD products". So from the legal analysis there are two interesting points to me 1. He can argue that all of the CBD products he took were below the legal limit within a margin of error (burden of proof and all that) 2. Since he took legal products (assuming #1 holds) that the threshold for the urinary analysis is incorrect. But I'm also not sure where the line is if you can take enough of a legal substance to violate a limit. For example, what if I drank enough orange juice (ABV in the ~0.2-~0.7% range) to get above a DUI limit? I assume I'm still legally culpable. What is the recourse though if somebody dumped some vodka in my orange juice before I bought from the store. There's certainly some recourse against the orange juice supplier since it is a controlled substance. More of an interesting thought experiment, playing devils advocate here. Maybe this will actually spark something in changing definitions though. When I got my security clearance they basically said "we don't want to deal with the legal distinction between CBD products and marijuana products, so just don't touch any of it"