A recent court of appeals case, United States v. Bass, basically ruled that the government could not just point to a positive THC-8 drug test and assume the person knowingly used THC-8. That mattered because THC-8 can show up after someone uses hemp or hemp-derived products, and those products are widely sold in normal places like gas stations, smoke shops, and convenience stores. So, a positive test by itself did not prove the person knew they were using something prohibited.

The big takeaway is that the old “they tested positive, so they must have knowingly used it” shortcut does not work the same way for THC-8 when hemp products are involved. Hemp products can be mislabeled, confusing, or marketed as legal, and a person may not know they are ingesting THC-8. Because of that, the court rejected using a permissive inference of knowing use based only on a THC-8 urinalysis in that kind of situation.

Put simply: if someone allegedly used a hemp product and later tested positive for THC-8, the government needs more than just the test result. It has to show real evidence that the person actually knew they were taking THC-8 or knowingly used a prohibited substance.

If you are facing a possible administrative separation or even a court-martial following a positive urinalysis, call Gapasin Law LLC at (877) 833-UCMJ (8265) or submit the request for a consultation and speak with Mr. Gapasin about your options and any strategies you can pursue to save your career.