The federal ban on intoxicating hemp products would shut down about 68.1% of U.S. hemp-related businesses, according to a Whitney Economics report outlined by The Denver Gazette. The ban, which was set to take effect in November was delayed one month in August, via an amendment to a federal funding bill. 

The Whitney Economics analysis found that, in addition to the closures, 15.5% of hemp businesses would need to lay off employees, 6.9% would remain in business but would see less revenue, and 3.2% would relocate, presumably outside of the U.S. 

The report also suggests that states would lose between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion in tax revenue and between $46.6 billion and $59.6 billion in potential retail losses.  

“Given the high levels of potential business failures and relocations, the economic impact of the current hemp laws, if enacted is rather profound, a reduction of total industry wide revenues by $35.1-$41.3 billion, 29,523-36,744 fewer employers and 188,961-225,861 displaced workers, earning between $7.5-$8.9 billion in wages.” — Whitney Economics, “2026 U.S. Hemp Cannabinoid Report,” via the Gazette 

The U.S. Hemp Roundtable has suggested that between 90% and 95% of current hemp products sold in the U.S. would be eliminated from the market under the ban, according to the Gazette. 

Whitney Economics surveyed 496 hemp businesses across 35 states to compile the report.  

Ganjapreneur: Offering daily insights since 2014, the leading digital business journal for cannabis industry professionals. Subscribe to the newsletter to join our community of over 40,000 ganjapreneurs.

Source link

“If they make a change in the drinks, then this is something we will have to look at in January…putting a framework around specifically the drinks.”

By Rebecca Rivas, Missouri Independent

When Joshua Grigaitis founded the Mighty Kind Company in St. Louis in 2019, his team started by producing flavored sparkling water infused with CBD, a non-intoxicating compound found in cannabis.

The company has since become a major player in the market for intoxicating hemp-THC beverages. But with a federal ban looming, Grigaitis said he is prepared to return to the company’s roots.

The ban is now set to take effect December 11, after President Donald Trump signed a bill last week delaying its implementation by one month.

“Big picture is we’re gonna sell a variety of products, and we’re gonna stay diversified,” Grigaitis said. “We were originally a CBD company. We’ve never had the thought: we’re not going to have anything to do if we can’t sell THC drinks. We’ll just do something else.”

Hemp companies across Missouri and the nation are rethinking their business plans in anticipation of the ban. While Grigaitis is confident Mighty Kind can adapt through new products, companies built around low-dose, full-spectrum cannabis products—those created specifically for people seeking relief from chronic pain or health ailments—could face a far more difficult path forward.

Dr. Ethan Russo, a neurologist in Washington and founder of the medical cannabis research and drug development company Credo Science, said the medical side of the industry is in “chaos.”

“There are just many, many companies going out of business, some of whom have produced very good products that have been helpful to people with medical conditions that haven’t had relief otherwise,” Russo said. “It’s a very bad time for the industry.”

Russo said these products focus on the therapeutic compounds found in cannabis, such as CBD and CGB, and the small amount of THC, such as 3 mg or less, in them activates those non-intoxicating compounds and makes them more effective.

While Congress may end up allowing and regulating these products, particularly considering Trump’s support for them, there is no wiggle room in the legislation Missouri lawmakers passed this spring.

When Missouri’s law goes into effect on November 12, intoxicating hemp products will be “put under the purview of the department’s existing regulations for cannabis products,” said Lisa Cox, spokeswoman for the Missouri Department Health and Senior Services, which oversees the state’s cannabis program.

On November 12, everything that comes from cannabis and is intoxicating—or has more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container—will be considered marijuana and can only be sold in licensed dispensaries. The cannabis also has to be grown and manufactured in licensed Missouri facilities.

For now, beverages will stay on store shelves until December 11, and there will be no other regulation of these items except that people now must be 21 to buy them until then.

Missourians won’t be able to purchase hemp-derived THC products online after November 12, even though it’d be federally still legal. There are currently a few low-dose full-spectrum products available in dispensaries.

Dr. Patricia Hurford, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist in Chesterfield, said she anticipates she’ll hear more concern from her patients when their full-spectrum products are no longer available in November. Like Russo, Hurford commends Missouri’s legislation for protecting children and regulating the quality of cannabis products, but she worries about access to medicinal products.

“Patients require protection,” Hurford said, “and sometimes protecting those patients means we have to take dangerous products off the shelf. Sometimes it just means we’re offering and preserving access to safer and lower-dose alternatives.”

Hemp vs marijuana

This wave of complicated, confusing policymaking around cannabis is pushing a necessary conversation about having two different laws for hemp and marijuana, Russo said.

That conversation should be, “legalize it and regulate it. That’s the only way that this can work,” he said.

Hemp and marijuana are essentially terms the government uses to distinguish between the part of the cannabis plant that has high amounts of THC.

Hemp has previously been defined as any part of the plant containing 0.3 percent or less delta-9 THC by dry weight.

Last November, a provision in the federal spending bill amended the definition of hemp, changing the limit to a total THC concentration of less than .3 percent on a dry weight basis, rather than only delta-9 THC. It also prohibits products from containing more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container.

Missouri’s law was aimed at getting unregulated intoxicating cannabis products, particularly those that are attractive to children, off the shelves.

Republican state Rep. Dave Hinman of O’Fallon, who sponsored the ban, believes the state will send out communication directly to retailers to make sure they understand the nuisance of the law.

Hinman anticipates Missouri’s upcoming legislative session to be filled with much more work to be done on this issue, and he said he’s been asked by state leaders to continue taking the lead on cannabis-related legislation.

If Congress allows full-spectrum products, Missouri will have to approve that use through a bill. And if there is further delay of the federal ban, then lawmakers will have to pass regulations on beverages.

“If they make a change in the drinks, then this is something we will have to look at in January…putting a framework around specifically the drinks,” Hinman said. “If we need to make changes and adjustments, I will absolutely be involved in this.”

Panic for patients

Hurford said the marijuana industry was born out of creating medicinal, therapeutic products. However, now dispensaries are often more focused on recreational products, she said, and offer an environment that might be intimidating for patients to enter and find what they need.

“Let’s get back to promoting the medicinal aspects in those products,” she said.

Healer is an example of a company that has helped her patients, and she believes its co-founder, Dr. Dustin Sulak, is a “well-respected, knowledgeable clinician.” But its products will be banned in November, and company owners say they won’t pursue trying to work within the marijuana regulations.

Healer’s co-founder and CEO, Brad Feuer, said marijuana cultivation facilities nationwide focus on growing cannabis with high THC and low CBD content, which doesn’t work with their formula. And secondly, it wouldn’t be cost effective for the company or patients.

Katherine Golden is a nurse who seven years ago founded an independent cannabinoid health hotline called Leaf411. She said while more medicinal products with only one or two milligrams of THC were available in dispensaries when her hotline first started, many of them have been pulled off the shelves.

“That to me is the heartbreak of what’s happening with our legislation because you’re taking access away from a product that is not being abused,” Golden said. “The hemp market—those who are the responsible players—are providing this product that the retailers aren’t carrying because it doesn’t sell enough for them.”

Part of the reason is because these customers need it delivered to their homes, particularly those caring for people with dementia or those struggling with ailments, she said. Her hotline has already gotten a taste of the panic patients may feel in November after California’s ban was put in place in July.

“I can only guess when we see another state like Missouri ban on Nov. 12, we’re going to hear from Missourians calling us saying, ‘What do I do? I just found this out,’” she said. “Because a lot of patients are so involved in what they’re doing in their lives, they’re not following what’s happening.”

Andrew Mullins, executive director of the Missouri Cannabis Trade Association that represents the state’s marijuana businesses, said for patients to be protected, their medical products must be “tested, taxed, age-gated and responsibly packaged, which simply isn’t happening with intoxicating hemp.”

“Many dispensaries already carry low-dose THC products,” Mullins said, “and we expect there will be more emphasis on medicinal uses of their products and development of additional products to meet patient demand, as online and unregulated channels diminish.”

Adrian Holguin, a California-based cannabis consultant under his business CannaShark, said Missouri’s regulatory framework ties the hands and potential profits of businesses working in intoxicating hemp and low-dose, full-spectrum. Like Healer, most of these businesses will choose to not to find a place in Missouri’s market.

“They have to take their operations and either leave the state and find the last remaining states,” he said, “or they have to be ready to pivot in a direction that’s going to make sense and that follows the legislation that’s coming.”

Business owners could try to work with a licensed Missouri marijuana manufacturer or cultivator to make their products under the new law. However, even for marijuana companies, Missouri is “a tough state to crack,” he said, partly due to the consolidation of facility licenses. Other states are going to be more accommodating.

“When you decide on business,” he said, “where to play is one of the main questions you ask yourself.”

Grigaitis believes this moment is going to produce challenges, but it’s also going to push innovation. Mighty Kind is looking to launch a new seltzer with Lion’s Mane mushroom concentration, he said, which promotes relaxation, focus and brain support.

“I see it as all very positive,” Grigaitis said, “you know, evolution of moving from alcohol to something less harmful for everybody and plant magic of all kinds.”

This story was first published by Missouri Independent.

Source link

Earlier this week, the House passed a short-term funding bill that postpones the federal ban on hemp-derived THC products. President Trump signed the ban into law last year; it was scheduled to take effect November 12^th. This Wednesday, however, Trump signed off on the Congressional extension, pushed by his Administration, which means the ban is now scheduled for December 11^th.

The extension begs three primary questions for me. The first is whether Congress will pass legislation relevant to intoxicating hemp products (i.e. regulating them), prior to December 11^th. The second is whether Congress will extend the deadline again, if legislation fails to coalesce. The third is whether enforcement will follow, if a ban takes effect. I’ll answer these and a few more in FAQ format.

Will we see legislation around intoxicating hemp products prior to December 11^th?

We hear a lot of scuttlebutt from Capitol Hill and industry players on this topic. The general sentiment is that comprehensive legislation to regulate intoxicating hemp products is unlikely to coalesce prior to December 11^th. There are just too many disparate interests, too many ideas, and not enough time.

That conclusion was buttressed for me yesterday morning, when Speaker Johnson announced cancellation of all votes for the last two weeks of September. This leaves a very small window before midterms. After midterms, things become even less certain.

Note: the current composition of Congress fully supported the ban, and hardline conservatives have vocally supported it. If Democrats take majorities, we may see a more “regulated market” approach.

Will we see another extension to the December 11th ban on intoxicating hemp products?

This is possible. The Trump Administration has signaled that it will not seek another extension beyond December 11. The Administration had also talked of implementing regulations over the extension period, for whatever it’s worth. More recently, we’ve heard talk of a second extension to the ban, through March. Again, much depends on the midterms.

Who benefits from an extension? Who suffers?

The primary beneficiaries are going to be sellers of unregulated, intoxicating hemp products, from Trump aides on down. Our impression is that many operators in the space aren’t planning carefully, or planning much at all. It’s also fair to say that a lot of hemp products sellers will keep doing whatever they’re doing, or attempt to, regardless of any federal law.

State-legal cannabis sellers are on the other side of this equation, which is a complicating policy factor—including for proponents of an “agnostic” or “one source” bill. The sale of intoxicating hemp products in adult-use cannabis states, including at gas stations etc., competes with these regulated businesses’ sales.

The alcohol lobby is another complicating factor. Major drink producers are pushing to restrict or ban hemp-derived beverages, while wholesalers and retailers would like to see regulation. All of these competing interests, plus the confusion around cannabis regulation more generally, create a true morass.

Will there be enforcement against sellers of intoxicating hemp products, if the ban takes hold?

I wrote a piece about this last December, after the first ban was scheduled. In relevant part, I opined:

At the federal level, I wouldn’t expect a coordinated crackdown by DEA and U.S. attorneys. That would be too expensive, too unwieldy. Instead, I think targeted enforcement of select larger players—perhaps including warning letters next summer—is the most likely path. In that scenario, the chilling effect I mentioned for service providers would be magnified, and it’s likely that many operators would also stand down.

I also think states will continue to get on the prohibition bandwagon, as I explained to MJ BizDaily last month. Some already are, but you’d see more of this in an environment where the feds throw their backs into it, enforcement-wise, and where de jure prohibition is not the whole picture.

I don’t have much to add at this point, other than any business operating under perpetually looming bans, deadlines, enforcement threats, etc., is operating in a dicey milieu. The money must be good!

Big picture

For a long time, I’ve been on record opposing intoxicating hemp products. This is not simply a public health objection to unregulated, chemically synthesized, frequently contaminated products (which are often for sale to minors). As a legal matter, our law firm concluded: 1) the “Farm Bill loophole” does not exist, 2) that most intoxicating hemp products are marijuana or other controlled substances, 3) that most of these products clearly violate the FD&C Act in addition to the Controlled Substances Act, and 4) that most states lack a regulatory framework for these sales (while others outright prohibit them.) I reiterate all of this here, as context for the opinions above.

I do continue to believe that we need a wholistic U.S. policy for the cannabis plant. As far as the pending ban on intoxicating hemp products and seed sales, let’s see what happens leading up to the midterms, and before December 11^th.

__________

For related posts, check out the following:

Source link

The House of Representatives on Tuesday voted 370-48 to approve a bipartisan funding bill that contains language delaying the federal ban on most hemp cannabinoid products until December 11, The Hill reports.

The proposal was already approved by the Senate last month and is now heading to the president’s desk for his signature.

Hemp products that contain cannabinoids “not capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant” are not affected by the one-month delay and will become prohibited starting November 12.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D), who originally introduced the legislation alongside Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR), cheered the bipartisan approval as “good news for Minnesota’s farmers, brewers, small businesses, and customers.”

“The President should sign this bipartisan bill into law immediately. This delay will give Minnesota hemp’s producers, retailers, and customers certainty, and give Congress more time to get to a long-term fix.” — Klobuchar, in a statement

“This extension gives us one additional month, and we intend to make every day count,” the U.S. Hemp Roundtable said in a press release. “We will continue working with lawmakers and stakeholders to advance a comprehensive federal framework that protects consumers, prevents youth access to intoxicating products, provides certainty for farmers and businesses, and preserves access to lawful hemp products.”

Ganjapreneur: Offering daily insights since 2014, the leading digital business journal for cannabis industry professionals. Subscribe to the newsletter to join our community of over 40,000 ganjapreneurs.

Source link

A handful of congressional Republicans threatened this week to upend their leadership’s agenda in protest of legislation to delay the scheduled federal recriminalization of hemp THC products from taking effect.

Hemp derivatives with less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis were federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill that President Donald Trump signed during his first term in office. But late last year, the president signed new legislation containing provisions that redefined hemp to make it so only products with 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container would remain legal after November 12.

The House of Representatives on Tuesday, however, approved a Senate-passed funding bill that contains provisions to delay the effective date of most parts of the ban, with an exception for synthetics, until December 11.

Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) and several other members knew that they didn’t have enough votes to block that bipartisan funding bill, known as a continuing resolution, so they set out instead to block a rule for consideration of a separate package of largely partisan GOP-led legislation touching on issues such as condemning socialism, defending Israel from boycotts and the mining of mineral.

Harris, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, voted against the rule on Tuesday, as did Reps. Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Chip Roy (R-TX), each of whom cited the hemp product ban as among the issues they want to take a stand against their own party’s leadership over.

But their opposition, along with that of Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA), was not enough to defeat the rule clearing the way for House leadership’s agenda for the week to advance.

Two Democrats—Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) and Jared Golden (D-ME)—voted with Republicans to approve the rule, 210-208.

Harris complained in a social media post that THC products are “being sold in convenience stores across the country,” saying that some “can contain even more THC than marijuana.”

Sessions, for his part, said he wanted House leaders to “change” the bill by removing the hemp ban delay provision.

“Let’s just make it a clean CR. I’ll vote for that,” he said.

Roy, for his part, said in a letter to leadership that he had “serious concerns” about issues in the bill that “Congress should address rather than simply extend,” including its “treatment of harmful intoxicating hemp products.”

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), for her part, criticized her colleagues for threatening to delay their party’s agenda over hemp.

“There are a few House Republicans so upset the Continuing Resolution includes a delay in the implementation of the Mitch McConnell-backed language to ban most consumable hemp-derived products from the marketplace, they are threatening to vote against this week’s rule, which has nothing to do with the CR,” she said in a Facebook post. “Make that make sense.”

Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR), who did not join other prohibitionists in voting against House leadership to protest the hemp move, said in a social media post that he opposes delaying the ban.

“Congress legalized hemp in the 2018 Farm Bill for agricultural uses like fiber, not as a backdoor for intoxicating products. Modern extraction techniques turn low THC hemp into gummies, snacks and drinks; items that can particularly cause risk to children,” he said. “Unregulated, intoxicating products should not remain on the market. The currently scheduled restrictions close this gap. A delay prolongs the harm. I sincerely hope that the ban goes into effect without further delay.”

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole (R-OK), said he was “sympathetic” to concerns from Harris and others about use of the funding bill to address the hemp issue.

“This should not have been on here, CR should not be controversial, so I’m sympathetic with that,” he said, though he also criticized the handful of GOP holdouts for using the rule as “leverage” for their concerns.

“A lot of this is we’ve got a group that wants to leverage the procedural votes to extract things that the majority of us probably don’t want to do. I find that disappointing,” he said, according to The Hill. “I mean, if you’re going to be a member of the Republican conference, you ought to be able to vote for the rule. It’s just that simple, and you shouldn’t use it to leverage things against your own team. You want to vote against the bill? That’s perfectly fine, and that’s true in any bill. Your final vote on the bill is up to you, but blackmailing your colleagues is not the way to build an effective team.”

The funding bill’s provision to delay the ban, which is supported by the White House and is now headed to Trump to be signed into law, contains a carve-out to allow the immediate recriminalization on November 12 of synthetic cannabinoids “that are not capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant.”

A number of lawmakers from both chambers and both parties have filed or are circulating a growing number of bills to prevent the scheduled federal recriminalization of hemp THC drinks and other products later this year. Until now, none of those proposals have gained traction with congressional leaders.

For example, Reps. Beth Van Duyne (R-TX) and Greg Landsman (D-OH) filed a bill to keep hemp THC drinks legal while taxing and regulating them like alcohol.

Rep. James Comer (R-KY), who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is circulating legislation that would delay a planned federal ban on hemp THC products and institute some regulations—including packaging requirements, testing rules and age limits.

Separately, Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY), filed a lengthier proposal to prevent the federal recriminalization of hemp THC products and put in place a number of regulations for manufacturing, labeling, sales and taxation of hemp-derived products, including an age limit of 21.

Source link

A supermajority – 70% – of likely general election voters in Louisiana prefer regulation of hemp beverages as opposed to an outright ban, according to a survey conducted by polling and research firm Cygnal on behalf of the Louisiana Hemp Beverage Coalition. The survey found 47% of respondents preferred state-level regulation while 23% backed federal regulations. 

Just 14% of respondents supported an outright ban, and 16% said they were unsure.

Another 60% of respondents said that the federal government should not ban products that the state already regulates, with about 20% saying they disagree. About 52% of those polled supported their member of Congress voting to repeal the upcoming federal ban on intoxicating hemp products, which is set to take effect in December. About 25% supported the ban. 

The pollster found three messages tested strongest for supporting hemp beverages. The top-ranked overall message focused on the economic impact of the hemp beverage market, noting that the industry employs “thousands of workers and generate millions in tax revenue” and that “a federal ban would shutter these businesses, eliminate Louisiana jobs, and wipe out tax revenue. All without a proven public safety benefit.” 

Among Republicans, the strongest message focused on low-dose safety: “Hemp beverages sold in Louisiana contain no more than 5 milligrams of THC per serving, roughly the equivalent of one or two beers. They do not produce the intense effects associated with marijuana and are commonly consumed in place of alcohol.” 

For independents, the top ranked message explained that “hemp beverages are not marijuana” and are “made from federally legal hemp plants and contain a fraction of the THC found in marijuana. Banning them because of a misconception about what they are is just bad policy.” 

After hearing the messaging regarding hemp beverages, opposition to the ban among voters swung from 40% to 50% and fell from 31% to 22% in support of the ban. Among Republicans, opposition to the ban went from 26% to 40% and support for the ban went from 45% to 29%. 

Only 1% of those polled said hemp regulation was their top voting issue. 

The poll included 504 likely voters and was conducted July 14 to 16.       

Ganjapreneur: Offering daily insights since 2014, the leading digital business journal for cannabis industry professionals. Subscribe to the newsletter to join our community of over 40,000 ganjapreneurs.

Source link

Plaintiffs argue in the lawsuit that the result is “a single product is simultaneously legal ‘hemp’ and illegal ‘marijuana.’”

By Rebecca Rivas, Missouri Independent

A federal judge is being asked to decide whether Missouri’s new law banning intoxicating hemp products is clear enough to enforce in November or so contradictory that a constitutional challenge to it should move forward.

At the center of the dispute is the question of whether Missouri calls a product legal “hemp” in one part of state law and illegal “marijuana” in another.

The plaintiffs, led by the Missouri Hemp Trade Association, said in a filing this week that the state has created overlapping definitions, leaving businesses unsure what they can legally sell when the law goes into effect on November 12. They argue the case over House Bill 2641 deserves to be heard in court.

“Most judges would read [House Bill 2641] and go, ‘What is going on here?’” said Chuck Hatfield, attorney for the plaintiffs. “‘This seems like something we need to at least dig into and figure out.’ And that’s what our clients want is a day in court.”

The state says there’s no contradiction because the law specifically outlines which category controls: if it meets the definition of a hemp-derived cannabinoid product, it’s treated as marijuana. The state asked Judge M. Douglas Harpool of the U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri to dismiss the lawsuit earlier this month.

The state argues the case is part of a growing nationwide effort by the hemp industry to overturn similar state laws.

“The industry’s playbook is well established,” the motion to dismiss states, citing other federal cases where the challenges against other state legislation regulating intoxicating hemp have failed.

Plaintiffs hit back in their response this week, saying that Missouri’s law is different from the other states cited. These products will be considered marijuana in Missouri under the new law, they argue, and that’s where the legislation gets “unconstitutionally vague.”

The federal law distinguishing marijuana and hemp has brought intense debate both in the legislature and courts nationwide since Congress legalized hemp in 2018.

For Missouri, the lawsuit is the latest episode in a long saga to regulate intoxicating hemp products that, in previous years, has ended with lawmakers throwing their hands up in frustration.

When Congress legalized hemp in 2018, it opened a door for intoxicating products like hemp-derived THC beverages that are now found in grocery stores and bars throughout the state.

Congress closed that loophole in November by passing a federal ban that’s set to go into effect November 12. Missouri lawmakers said they intended to mirror that language by a law passed this spring.

However, plaintiffs argue in the lawsuit that the result is “a single product is simultaneously legal ‘hemp’ and illegal ‘marijuana.’”

The state argues in its motion to dismiss that it prevented this scenario because it “enacted provisions to guard against confusion.”

“In other words, to the extent that a hemp-derived cannabinoid meets the statute’s definition of ‘hemp’ and is not included in any of the statute’s exclusions from ‘hemp,’ then the product is not a ‘hemp-derived cannabinoid product’ for purposes of HB 2641’s central mandate,” according to the state’s motion. “It is that simple.”

The bill, sponsored by Republican state Rep. Dave Hinman of O’Fallon, will prohibit hemp products from containing more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container, which is among the limits included in a provision in the federal spending bill Congress approved last year.

Even if Congress reverses course and decides to allow the sale of these products, Hinman’s bill would only permit them to be sold in Missouri’s licensed marijuana dispensaries. And if Congress chooses to delay the ban, Missouri would still ban all products, except for intoxicating beverages.

However, plaintiffs argue beverages are not specifically stated as being exempt.

The law lists types of products that would go into effect if there was a delay, which includes “any solid candy, gummy, chewable product, tablet, capsule, oil, baked good, or other solid edible.” It also includes products “that can be smokable or vapeable in the form of raw plant material, flower, or bud material and that contain any amount of tetrahydrocannabinolic acid.”

Beverages are thought to be allowed because they aren’t on the list of things that would go into effect. However, critics have said other products might be unintentionally exempt because they are not listed here, not just beverages, and the law just creates another loophole. Plaintiffs point to the carve-out clause as further reason the law is “difficult to parse.”

This list has become a bigger focus because Congress is currently considering delaying the federal ban.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Senate approved a measure to fund federal agencies until December 11, and it includes delaying the federal ban on intoxicating hemp THC products until that date.

It now goes back to the U.S. House for final approval before heading to the president’s desk.

This story was first published by Missouri Independent.

Source link

“I’m hoping that the cannabis industry will take the lead, and they’ll decide they don’t want to be like the tobacco industry.”

By Mia Maldonado, Oregon Capital Chronicle

Karma Clarke, a Douglas County mother, thought marijuana was harmless in 2014 when she voted in favor of the ballot measure legalizing recreational cannabis in Oregon.

She believed that until six years later, when her then-20-year-old son began smoking marijuana regularly.

He had played sports and maintained good grades in college, but when he returned home after completing his associate degree, Clarke said her son began acting strangely. He stopped leaving his room, and he lost the ability to perform everyday tasks such as reading a tape measure or answering questions.

After several doctor visits, her son was admitted in two different psychiatric hospitalizations. Although his drug tests came back clean, something had switched in his brain, she said.

Clarke shared her story of witnessing her son develop a psychotic disorder at a virtual meeting Wednesday, where state Sen. Lisa Reynolds, D-Portland, invited her and public health experts to speak about policy proposals aimed at preventing youth access to cannabis.

“I’m hoping that the cannabis industry will take the lead, and they’ll decide they don’t want to be like the tobacco industry and they don’t want to keep denying that there’s a link between their products and people’s lives being ruined,” Clarke said.

Reynolds looks to THC caps again, and more warning labels

Recreational cannabis has been legal in Oregon for adults 21 and older for more than a decade, but it remains illegal for minors. Still, an estimated 13,000 youth between ages 12 and 18 use cannabis in Oregon, according to Dr. Julia Dilley, a Multnomah County epidemiologist who led a 10-year study looking at cannabis legalization and public health impact in Oregon and Washington.

Reynolds, a pediatrician who has served in the Legislature for five years, is seeking to improve cannabis prevention education in schools, cap individual edibles at 10 milligrams of THC and require manufacturers provide more warning labels on their products.

Reynolds’s efforts are inspired by her work as a pediatrician, and because she believes her brother’s habitual marijuana use in the ’70s contributed to his severe mental health problems as an adult.

Teens using cannabis are at 11 times higher risk of developing a psychotic disorder compared to teens not using cannabis, studies show.

“When we talk about the risk of psychosis, this isn’t just what we would call a bad experience while you are actually intoxicated by cannabis,” Reynolds said. “This is a long-term disability.”

Additionally, more children are turning up in hospitals after consuming edibles resembling desserts such as brownies or cookies.

She spearheaded legislation earlier this year to cap individual edibles at 10 milligrams of THC. Her bill made it past the Oregon Senate, but it died in the committee process on the House side as members received intense pushback from marijuana industry groups. Reynolds said she’ll propose the legislation again, but this time with the help of a lobbyist.

The Cannabis Industry Alliance of Oregon did not immediately respond to the Capital Chronicle’s request for comment.

Oregon is one of the most loosely regulated marijuana states

More than 800 calls since 2025 to the Oregon Poison Center were related to cannabis, said Dilley, the Multnomah County epidemiologist. One-third of those calls were for children younger than 5.

Cannabis use among youth is higher in Oregon than it is in Washington because it doesn’t have the same protective measures, she said.

Unlike Washington which requires that cannabis manufacturers individually wrap all edibles with a 10 milligram THC cap, Oregon cannabis manufacturers can sell individual edibles with more than 10 milligrams of THC, such as sodas or cookies containing 100 milligrams of THC that are meant to be split into several portions. Both states require an edible package contain no more than 100 milligrams of THC.

Unlike Oregon, it’s illegal to grow nonmedical marijuana at home in Washington. Washington also caps the number of retail cannabis outlets and applies a 37 percent sales tax. Oregon’s cannabis sales tax ranges from 17 percent to 20 percent, depending on where it’s bought.

Both states require cannabis businesses to be located at least 1,000 feet away from public schools. Washington requires this buffer also apply to private schools, playgrounds, childcare facilities, libraries and other locations, though Oregon localities can establish additional buffers under state law.

Oregon does require warning labels on cannabis products related to pregnancy. These labels are working and preventing people from using cannabis during pregnancy, Dilley said, adding that Oregon could go a step further at providing more warning labels about cannabis use contributing to worse mental health outcomes.

“These products should not be designed or marketed to appeal to children,” pediatrician Dr. Jill Pearson said. “Yet, time and time again, we are just rep

This story was first published by Oregon Capital Chronicle.

Source link

Source link

Congress voted last year to strip most hemp THC products of their federal legal status, starting November 12. On Saturday morning, the Senate pushed that date to December 11. Here is what the ban actually does, what the vote changed and why this extension is probably the last one.

At 3:35 on Saturday morning, after a week of political fights and a threatened holdup of the entire government funding bill, the US Senate voted to give the hemp industry 29 more days.

Three days earlier, a White House official had already told Senate Republicans there would not be another 29.

If you have not been following this fight closely, here is the short version of what is at stake, and then what actually happened.

First: What Is the Hemp Ban?

In 2018, the Farm Bill legalized hemp, defined as cannabis containing no more than 0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight. Nobody in Congress seemed to anticipate what would happen next. Chemists worked out how to convert legal hemp-derived CBD into intoxicating cannabinoids the statute had not mentioned: delta-8, delta-10, HHC, THC-O. Growers realized THCA flower is not intoxicating until you heat it, which meant it technically fell inside the definition. Beverage makers built a THC seltzer category from scratch.

Within a few years, that gap became a multibillion-dollar industry selling weed-adjacent products in gas stations, smoke shops, liquor stores and grocery aisles, including in states where marijuana itself is still illegal.

Late last year, Congress moved to close it. Tucked into the spending bill that ended the record-long government shutdown was Section 781 of P.L. 119-37, a rewrite of the federal definition of hemp. Trump signed it into law, though his administration would later push Congress to postpone the very restrictions he had approved. The provision was championed by Sen. Mitch McConnell, the same senator who wrote hemp into the 2018 Farm Bill in the first place.

The new rule does two things. It measures total THC, which counts THCA rather than ignoring it. And it caps finished consumable products at 0.4 milligrams per container of total THC plus other cannabinoids with similar effects.

The 0.4-milligram cap, not the word “ban,” is the mechanism. A typical hemp gummy carries 10 milligrams. A THC seltzer carries between 2 and 10. Almost nothing on the market clears 0.4.

The US Hemp Roundtable has estimated roughly 95% of existing hemp cannabinoid products fall outside the new definition. The effective date was November 12, one year after enactment. We broke down the fine print here.

Then Came the Fight Over Delaying It

The hemp industry spent nine months lobbying to get the law changed before it landed. It did not get a rewrite. What it got instead was an attempt at more time.

Senate leaders released a stopgap funding bill on August 2 to keep the federal government open through December 11. Inside it, at the White House’s request, was a provision pushing most of the hemp restrictions to that same date. Cannabinoids that the plant cannot naturally produce would still lose federal hemp status on November 12. Everything else would get 29 extra days.

Sen. Ted Budd, a North Carolina Republican, filed an amendment to strip it out and hold the original date. He called intoxicating hemp a “public health crisis” and held up posters on the Senate floor showing THC packaging that resembled Oreos and Skittles as evidence that the hemp industry’s goal is to make children “addicted to these disguised substances.” His amendment collected 13 cosponsors and threatened to derail the entire funding bill and the Senate’s August recess. We covered that standoff here.

What Happened Saturday

Budd’s amendment died at 3:35 a.m.

The Senate voted 61-32 to table it. The motion came from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, the Minnesota Democrat who wrote the delay provision in the first place. Twenty-four minutes later, the chamber passed the underlying continuing resolution 90-6, according to the Senate’s official record.

That means the Senate bill would push most of the November 12 restrictions to December 11, if the House agrees and Trump signs it. Neither has happened. Until both do, November 12 remains the operative federal date.

Read past the vote count, though, and the week produced four things that matter more than the calendar.

1. Nobody Voted the Way You’d Guess

Start with the roll call, because it scrambles every assumption about who sits where on cannabis policy.

Eleven Democrats voted with Budd to keep his amendment alive: Kirsten Gillibrand, Dick Durbin, Catherine Cortez Masto, Maggie Hassan, Martin Heinrich, Mazie Hirono, Jeff Merkley, Alex Padilla, Jacky Rosen, Adam Schiff and Lisa Blunt Rochester. Republicans including Rand Paul, Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy voted to protect the delay.

Merkley and Padilla lined up with Ted Budd. Rand Paul lined up with Amy Klobuchar. Hemp has managed to scramble both parties at once.

Paul, the delay’s loudest Republican defender, accused his colleagues of wildly exaggerating the risk. He told reporters for the Associated Press and PBS NewsHour after the lunch that the senators pushing to keep the ban on schedule were behaving “like they watched ‘Reefer Madness’ in 1937.”

On the other side, Sen. Tom Cotton called the products “gas-station marijuana candy” during a closed-door Republican lunch that Sen. Josh Hawley later described to MS NOW as a “big blow-up.”

2. The White House Signaled This Is the Last Delay

The most important thing of the week happened three days before the vote, in a room the industry was not in.

James Braid, the White House director of legislative affairs, attended that Republican lunch. Cotton, Sen. Pete Ricketts and Budd pressed him on why the administration had reversed course on a law the president himself signed. According to Axios, NBC News and Punchbowl News, all citing people present, Braid committed that there would be no further delays beyond the one in the funding bill.

The pressure went beyond the lunch. Trump personally called Budd on Tuesday night, after the senator filed his amendment. According to a Senate aide cited in reports of the call, the president discussed setting up federal regulations for hemp but did not directly ask Budd to withdraw it.

December 11 is not a waypoint. On the current signals, it is the cliff.

That matters because the delay exists almost entirely because the administration wanted it. The Hill reported the provision went in at the White House’s request, and Trump has publicly pushed Congress to fix hemp rather than kill it, writing on Truth Social that lawmakers must “get this done RIGHT and FAST, especially for those who saw that CBD helps them.” Take that support away in December and the coalition for another temporary extension gets substantially weaker.

Congress has had nine months to write a permanent fix. It has produced the Barr-Craig Lawful Hemp Protection Act, which would replace the ban with federal potency limits, age restrictions and labeling rules; a competing draft circulating from Rep. James Comer; and a stack of delay proposals. None has advanced far enough to replace the November law.

Why the Reversal Is Being Questioned

There is another reason the White House’s sudden investment in the issue has drawn scrutiny.

In June, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles’s younger daughter Caroline married Bret Worley, the chief executive of MC Nutraceuticals, a hemp company that describes itself as the largest global supplier of cannabinoids. MS NOW reported that Worley’s company urged industry allies to press lawmakers for the delay, and The New York Times reported that once the provision was added to the funding bill, MC Nutraceuticals told prospective customers the industry now had “a seat at the table.”

The White House denies that the family connection influenced its position. Spokesman Kush Desai said Wiles “has never lobbied in favor of this or any other position on hemp with Capitol Hill,” and that the administration is guided by the interests of veterans and patients. Neither Wiles nor Worley responded to requests for comment from MS NOW, and MC Nutraceuticals did not respond to the Times.

None of that establishes that the delay was written to benefit anyone’s business. It does explain why senators in both parties spent the week asking harder questions about an abrupt reversal.

3. The Cannabis Industry Is Split

Hemp groups treated Saturday’s vote as permission to keep building.

“This morning’s vote was a huge turning point in the pursuit of safe, responsible federal regulation,” said Christopher Lackner, founder and president of the Hemp Beverage Alliance, which represents 375 members across the US and Canada. “The next chapter begins today.”

Thomas Winstanley, president of Edibles.com, part of Edible Brands, the parent company of Edible Arrangements, was more measured.

“Congress did not solve the hemp issue today. It preserved the opportunity to solve it correctly. A delay is not a destination.”

Thomas Winstanley, president, Edibles.com

Winstanley said in a statement that the ban would have “increased consumer risk by driving demand toward the illicit market” while undermining farmers, manufacturers and retailers. That is a central argument from the hemp industry, and the Senate just gave it four extra weeks to land.

But parts of the state-licensed cannabis sector treated the same vote as another month of unequal rules. So did a bipartisan coalition of 35 state and territory attorneys general, who sent Congress a letter on August 4 arguing the ban had “protected consumers, provided much-needed regulatory clarity, and preserved legitimate industrial, agricultural, and nonintoxicating hemp markets.”

The logic is not complicated. A licensed operator pays for a state license, mandatory batch testing, compliance staff, seed-to-sale tracking and state cannabis taxes, then watches a hemp company sell a comparable high through ordinary retail with none of that overhead. From inside a dispensary, November 12 does not look like prohibition. It looks like the end of an arbitrage.

From inside a hemp beverage company, the same date looks like the government erasing a legal business built on a law Congress itself wrote in 2018.

Both pressures are real, and the split helps explain why a clean fix has been so hard. Hemp operators are lobbying to preserve a national market. Prohibition groups and parts of the licensed cannabis world are lobbying for the opposite outcome. That makes for an unusual coalition, even if its members arrived there for entirely different reasons.

4. The Medicare Guy Showed Up

The strangest detail of the week got almost no coverage.

On Friday, Mehmet Oz, who runs the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, urged senators to reject Budd’s amendment. His concern was a program his own agency launched in April.

The Substance Access Beneficiary Engagement Incentive lets providers in certain CMS Innovation Center models consult with Medicare beneficiaries about eligible hemp products for symptom control, and furnish those products at the provider’s own expense, up to $500 per beneficiary per year. Medicare does not pay for them. Five accountable care organizations submitted implementation plans for the first performance period.

So Medicare’s own agency is already in the hemp business, and its administrator spent political capital on a Senate floor fight to keep the new hemp law from gutting it.

Here is the part that makes it coherent rather than merely odd. The CMS program already imposes limits of its own. Eligible products must contain no more than 0.3% delta-9 THC. Oral products cannot exceed 3 milligrams per serving of tetrahydrocannabinols, including delta-8, delta-10 and THCA. Cannabinoids the plant cannot naturally produce are excluded outright.

But the incoming federal standard would cap finished hemp products at 0.4 milligrams per container of total THC, including THCA, plus other cannabinoids with similar effects. That is far below the ceiling CMS currently allows, and it would sharply narrow the universe of products the agency can use in its own demonstration. CMS says it will adjust its eligibility definition if federal hemp law changes.

Budd’s response was the sharpest line anyone landed all week. “Why do unregulated intoxicating edibles need to be available at gas stations for CMS to continue studying hemp-derived pain relief?”

It is a fair question, and it points at what the whole fight keeps failing to separate. The full-spectrum tincture a Medicare patient might get through a CMS demonstration and the 100-milligram gummy sold beside the register at a gas station are governed by the same paragraph of federal law. Most of the proposals on the table are attempts to draw a line the current statute does not draw cleanly. None has gotten a vote.

What Still Has to Happen

The delay is not law. It is one chamber’s position, and the House passed its own funding bill with no hemp language in it at all.

• When the House returns. It has to decide whether to accept the Senate bill, amend it or negotiate something else.
• September 30. Current government funding expires. By then both chambers need to enact identical legislation or the government shuts down.
• November 12. Cannabinoids the plant cannot naturally produce lose federal hemp status regardless. That carve-out survived the Senate untouched.
• December 11. The 0.4-milligram cap and the rest of the new definition arrive, on the same day the Senate’s own funding bill expires.

The states are on their own clocks either way. Illinois restrictions take effect November 12 under state statute, which no federal stopgap touches. North Carolina is weighing legislation that would write the federal standard into state law. For a company whose immediate problem is Illinois, the federal extension does not move the November 12 state deadline.

Budd has already said he will be back.

“We agreed to ban these drugs nearly 9 months ago, but clearly our fight to stop this scourge is just beginning.”

Sen. Ted Budd, R-N.C.

Nine months produced no framework. The Senate has now offered the industry four weeks more than it had on Friday, but the House still has to agree, the administration has reportedly told senators it is done spending capital on extensions, and the opposition runs from Tom Cotton to Jeff Merkley.

Winstanley had it right. A delay is not a destination. It is also, on the current signals, the last one anybody is handing out.

Source link