North Carolinians strongly support legalizing medical marijuana, and a majority wants to go even further by legalizing cannabis for recreational use, according to a new poll.

The survey published on Thursday by Elon University also found that North Carolina adults support keeping THC-infused hemp products like seltzers and gummies legal in the state, although with age limits.

Medical cannabis legalization is supported by 75 percent of respondents, with only 11 percent in opposition.

While there is bipartisan support for the patient-focused reform, Democrats are much more likely to support it, at 89 percent, as compared to Republicans, only 57 percent of whom are on board.

Broader recreational marijuana legalization comes in at 55 percent in support overall and 30 percent opposed. While 74 percent of Democrats favor the reform, just 33 percent of Republicans do.

Meanwhile, as North Carolina lawmakers continue to debate how to handle the issue of hemp-derived THC products, the poll shows that most state residents want to keep them legal.

When asked whether North Carolina should “allow or prohibit the sale of hemp-derived products like seltzers and gummies with THC levels that can cause intoxication or a ‘high,’” 53 percent said they back keeping them legal, while 28 percent said they should be banned.

As with broader cannabis legalization, a majority of Democrats (62 percent) were on board with legal hemp THC products, and only a minority (35 percent) of Republicans were.

In a separate question, 82 percent of all respondents said they back banning sales of hemp-derived consumable products to people under the age of 21, including majorities across party lines.

Jason Husser, director of the Elon University Poll and professor of political science and public policy, noted that support for marijuana legalization has remained stable in the state in recent years.

“We found a significant increase in support for legalization between 2017 and 2021 as North Carolinians saw legalization occurring in other states,” he said in a press release. “Over the last five years, support for legalization has largely been stable with a large majority supporting medical legalization and a small majority favoring recreational legalization.”

“In turn, support for allowing hemp-based THC has similar levels of support and high correlation with support for recreational marijuana,” he said. “However, North Carolinians are largely unified in wanting hemp consumables restricted to those 21 or older.”

The poll involved interviews with 1,121 North Carolina adults between August 21-31 and has a margin of error of +/-5.09 percentage points.

The results come as Gov. Josh Stein (D) is continuing to pressure the GOP-controlled legislature for marijuana reform.

Last month, the governor called on lawmakers to legalize and regulate cannabis in a way that “protects kids” while lawmakers this week are considering a bill to restrict hemp THC products.

In a social media post he noted that lawmakers are considering legislation that “aims to eliminate the Wild West that is North Carolina’s THC market.”

The governor has repeatedly called on lawmakers to broadly legalize and regulate cannabis, though GOP legislative leaders have been more interested in focusing on the narrower hemp issue.

A bill to restrict hemp and kratom products that was recently approved by the Senate now awaits potential action in the House.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in North Carolina have been considering legislation to legalize medical cannabis for the last several sessions—with the Senate approving several proposals and the House refusing to follow suit.

North Carolina’s Senate president pro tempore recently said that lawmakers will take a more serious look at legalizing medical marijuana following the Trump administration’s move to reschedule cannabis at the federal level.

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

The governor-appointed cannabis commission in North Carolina issued a report in April recommending that the state move away from a criminalization-based approach to the plant and toward a system of “robust” regulations that provide for adults’ legal access to THC products.

The North Carolina Advisory Council on Cannabis, which Stein convened last year, says in the new document approved in April that the current “absence of regulation for North Carolina’s intoxicating cannabis market raises numerous concerns,” noting that hemp products are readily available yet largely unregulated and that marijuana remains prohibited altogether in the state, even for medical use.

“Compared to regulated marijuana frameworks in other states, this environment presents identifiable risks,” the interim report says. “While some operators voluntarily implement consumer protection protocols, these safeguards are not required under state law.”

Stein, for his part, thanked the group for its “expertise, hard work, and thoughtful deliberation” in a press release and reiterated his support for legalizing marijuana.

Members are tasked with developing and submitting initial recommendations on a “comprehensive cannabis policy, including any proposed legislation,” with a final report due by December 31 of this year.

During his time as the state’s attorney general, Stein led a separate task force under then-Gov. Roy Cooper (D) that examined racial injustice issues and ultimately recommended decriminalizing marijuana and studying broader legalization in response to racially disparate enforcement trends.

A tribe in North Carolina, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, launched the state’s first marijuana dispensary in 2024—despite the protests of certain Republican congressional lawmakers.

Democratic lawmakers recently filed legislation to allow voters to decide whether to legalize marijuana for personal or medical use at the ballot box this November—though Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger (R) said the bill is unlikely to advance.

Meanwhile, bipartisan North Carolina lawmakers have been stepping up the push for psychedelics reform legislation.

Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.

Source link

Ecuador’s hemp sector is projected to approach or surpass $20 million in 2026 as companies move beyond raw biomass into chocolates, cosmetics, supplements, veterinary products and other finished goods. With more than 700 companies operating across the supply chain, the industry is now looking to capture more value domestically while expanding finished-product exports into international markets.

When people talk about the hemp industry, it can be hard to picture what that actually means beyond a field of crops. In Ecuador, the answer is starting to show up in very tangible products: chocolates, gummies, herbal infusions, craft beer, kombucha, creams, serums, oils and pet products are all part of an increasingly diverse market for non-psychoactive cannabis—meaning cannabis that does not get you high and contains very low levels of THC.

That shift from raw plant material to finished goods is at the heart of a sector that, according to figures provided by industry representatives, grew from roughly $10 million in revenue in 2024 to $15 million in 2025 and is projected to approach or surpass $20 million in 2026, according to El Universo.

The ecosystem now includes more than 700 companies involved in everything from seeds and cultivation to processing, laboratories, retail and finished-product manufacturing.

But that number tells only part of the story. One of the industry’s biggest bets is moving beyond hemp as biomass or raw material and capturing more value by turning it into finished products inside Ecuador.

From Hemp to Chocolate: The Money’s in Finished Products

Ecuador’s Cannabis, Industrial and Medicinal Hemp Industries Cluster brings together roughly 30 small and midsize companies, with goals that include strengthening the production chain and developing finished goods rather than biomass alone.

That strategy is already visible on store shelves and in product catalogs. Forbes Ecuador identified chocolates, gummies, teas, herbal infusions, craft beer, kombucha, ointments, creams, oils, flower, anti-aging products, balms, lubricants, probiotics, prebiotics and oils for pets already on the market.

One company that helps illustrate that range is CBD Solutions, a family business that began taking shape in 2020 and later developed its own small lab as it moved from artisanal production toward manufacturing under more formal standards. Its portfolio includes sublingual oils, creams, ointments, lip balms, chocolates, craft beer, kombucha, herbal infusions, gummies, coffee with CBD kief, extract cartridges and flower.

Hemp Ecuador Labs represents another part of the production chain: research and formulation. The company has operated since 2021 and, according to Forbes, has developed close to 200 products across its own projects and work for third parties, while offering around 45 products under its own brands. Its manager, Eduardo Monge, said bringing a cosmetic or supplement to market can take roughly six months of research, formulation, testing and analysis.

Mayu Ecuador, meanwhile, sells supplements, oils, infusions, chocolates, gummies, creams and a cosmetic serum, along with products for the veterinary market. The company distributes its lines through more than 100 locations nationwide and also works with two compounding pharmacies in Quito and Cuenca.

As far back as 2021, data from Ecuador’s National Agency for Health Regulation, Control and Surveillance, known as ARCSA, showed that 144 CBD products had been authorized for sale in the country, with 95 of them in the cosmetics category.

Among the examples at the time was Laboratorios Beautik, which had developed a CBD hair-care line including shampoo, conditioner, leave-in cream and a hair mask.

What has changed is the scale. Industry sources now point to more than 2,000 products with health notifications or registrations, while other recent counts cite more than 2,500 products registered with ARCSA and more than 50 types of veterinary products registered with Agrocalidad.

Ecuador Has Drawn a Clear Line Between Psychoactive and Non-Psychoactive Cannabis

Ecuador’s growth is taking place within a defined regulatory boundary separating this industry from debates over psychoactive cannabis and adult use. In the country, non-psychoactive cannabis—containing less than 1% THC by dry weight—was removed from the country’s controlled-substances framework and placed under agricultural regulation.

For processed foods and supplements, the rules are even more specific. Resolution ARCSA-DE-2022-014-AKRG allows parts of non-psychoactive cannabis, hemp, or their derivatives to be used as ingredients, but requires the finished product to contain less than 0.3% THC.

Companies seeking health notification must submit testing showing that concentration, along with analyses for heavy metals and pesticides. The same regulation prohibits the use of psychoactive cannabis or its derivatives in those foods and supplements, as well as THC concentrations of 0.3% or higher.

That framework helps explain why the recent shelving of a broader cannabis proposal did not halt this industry. The bill shelved in August addressed issues including adult use, home cultivation and THC-containing products, while the non-psychoactive segment has been operating under its own regulations since 2020.

This also puts another figure highlighted by the industry Cluster into context. According to its president, Lizbeth Fajardo, no health alerts have been reported in connection with the sale of registered products in this market.

The Next Step Is About Much More Than Exporting Biomass

Ecuador’s industry already exports raw material and biomass to other markets, including the United States, Switzerland and Germany, according to sector representatives. The next challenge is increasing exports of finished products, allowing more of the formulation work, technical know-how, intellectual property and commercial value to remain in Ecuador.

Hemp Ecuador Labs, for example, has already tested products in Colombia, Paraguay and the United States and is now working toward meeting the volumes required by those markets. 

Mayu, meanwhile, is working to enter the markets of the United States, Spain, Iceland, France and Costa Rica. One of its CBD chocolates was selected as a semifinalist in the II Ecuadorian Cacao Innovation Award, earning the company the opportunity to present it at the Salon du Chocolat in Paris.

That example captures where the industry wants to go. Ecuador can produce flower and biomass, but the business strategy behind that projected $20 million market goes much further: turning raw material into something recognizable, regulated, and marketable, whether that means a gummy, a cosmetic, or a veterinary product.

In that sense, the clearest way to understand what Ecuador’s “hemp industry” looks like today may be to stop looking only at the plant and start looking at everything companies are making from it.

Cover photo created with AI.

Source link

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

“Rhode Island has already chosen to regulate hemp rather than prohibit it. Our next attorney general should explain whether they intend to defend that decision.”

By Mike Simpson, Lovewell Farms via Rhode Island Current

Last October, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha (D) joined 38 other state attorneys general in signing a letter urging Congress to change the federal definition of hemp. On August 4, Neronha signed another multistate letter, this time urging Congress to reject any effort to “delay, repeal, suspend, or weaken” hemp restrictions enacted in November 2025.

I have now written twice in the last year about the problems with this federal policy and its consequences for Rhode Island farmers and small businesses. I write as the co-founder of Lovewell Farms, Rhode Island’s only USDA-certified organic hemp farm, founded in 2018. I write this with nearly 20 years experience in cannabis and drug policy. Lovewell Farms supports strong regulation of hemp products, including testing, reasonable potency limits, child-resistant packaging, accurate labeling and restrictions on sales to minors.

What we do not support is describing Rhode Island’s regulated hemp industry as something that is harmful.

That was one of the central problems with the October 2025 attorneys general letter. It described a national hemp market in which products are sold “without consistent age restrictions, labeling standards, or safety requirements,” while discussing gummies and beverages marketed to children and synthetic cannabinoids produced through chemical conversion.

Those concerns may be legitimate in states that have failed to regulate hemp products. They do not accurately describe Rhode Island. Neronha signing this letter made it appear he agreed with these claims, and that they were reflective of our state’s program.

But Rhode Island has a state-regulated hemp program. Businesses like mine operate under state licenses and are subject to the exact same requirements governing testing, potency, labeling, packaging and age restrictions as the state’s medicinal cannabis program. The state has also placed specific limits on THC in consumable hemp products.

There is certainly room to debate whether those regulations should change, but it is simply inaccurate to describe Rhode Island’s hemp market as unregulated and unsafe.

This distinction became particularly important after Congress enacted a new federal definition of hemp last November. Rhode Island Sens. Jack Reed (D) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D) both opposed an amendment that would have removed the hemp provision, and their offices subsequently told Rhode Island Current that they did so “at the urging of the vast majority of the state attorneys general.”

Neronha’s participation in the October letter therefore had consequences beyond Rhode Island. It provided the justification for a congressional vote that now threatens farmers nationwide.

This August letter is more troubling after the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday passed legislation that would give farmers another month before the new definition takes effect.

The provision is part of a short-term government funding bill to avoid a federal shutdown this fall. It keeps the federal government funded through December 11 and was already approved by the Senate in early August. If signed into law by President Donald Trump, the effective date of the hemp product ban would also be moved to December 11.

Rather than support that effort, Neronha joined other attorneys general in asking Congress to reject any delay or modification.

The problem remains that the federal definition is much broader than the synthetic and highly intoxicating products discussed throughout both letters. The August letter itself acknowledges that the new law excludes final hemp-derived cannabinoid products containing more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container.

That threshold does not merely eliminate synthetic delta-8 products or high-potency THC gummies. It threatens ordinary, naturally extracted, full-spectrum CBD products containing trace amounts of THC like those manufactured on our farm.

This is important for farmers like me. CBD-rich hemp flower plants naturally produce small amounts of THC. Full-spectrum extracts preserve most of the natural cannabinoids in the plant. Our products can therefore be non-intoxicating, produced without chemical conversion, and compliant with state law, all while containing more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per package.

The August letter nevertheless states that the new definition will preserve “safe, nonintoxicating hemp products” and “will not inhibit the cultivation of hemp.” For cannabinoid hemp farmers, those assertions deserve considerably more scrutiny.

Congress should be able to prohibit synthetic intoxicants or establish reasonable national standards without defining naturally occurring, non-intoxicating full-spectrum CBD products out of existence.

AG candidates: Please answer the following

This issue now has particular relevance in Rhode Island because Neronha is term-limited. The state will elect a new attorney general this year, and that person will inherit the authority to sign letters like these on Rhode Island’s behalf.

The candidates for attorney general should therefore explain their positions on hemp before the primary election.

• Do you support Rhode Island’s existing regulated hemp industry?
• Do you believe naturally occurring full-spectrum CBD products should remain legal?
• Do you support the federal 0.4-milligram-per-container standard, even when it prohibits non-intoxicating products that are legal under state law?
• Do you support distinguishing those products from chemically converted intoxicating cannabinoids?
• Will you consult Rhode Island regulators, farmers and licensed businesses before signing national policy letters that make factual claims about our state?

When an attorney general signs such a letter, the signature carries the authority of the state. As the congressional response to the October letter demonstrated, those signatures can influence federal policy. The August letter suggests that there is still a substantial disconnect between the national hemp debate and the businesses operating under Rhode Island law.

The next attorney general has an opportunity to approach this differently. Rhode Island does not need someone who automatically agrees with the hemp industry, nor should the industry be exempt from scrutiny. We need an attorney general who understands the laws already in place and distinguishes between regulated and unregulated markets, intoxicating and non-intoxicating products and synthetic cannabinoids and the naturally occurring compounds found in a legal agricultural crop.

Rhode Island has already chosen to regulate hemp rather than prohibit it. Our next attorney general should explain whether they intend to defend that decision, or abandon it.

Mike Simpson is the co-founder of Lovewell Farms, Rhode Island’s only U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic hemp farm. He is also a historian, educator and longtime advocate for policy reform. He was previously deputy director for Regulate Rhode Island and an initiative coordinator for Marijuana Policy Project in Maine. He now lives in Providence and farms in the village of Hope Valley in Hopkinton.

This story was first published by Rhode Island Current.

Source link

Michigan cannabis regulators have, for the first time, issued a suspension of a hemp business license over excessive THC levels. The Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA) last week said it had suspended the license of Loud Labs of Michigan LLC after an investigation found the company possessed products containing delta-9 THC beyond the state’s legal hemp threshold of 0.3%. 

CRA staff conducted a compliance inspection at the business on March 25, during which the inspectors observed multiple cannabis products and reviewed certificates of analysis indicating that certain products contained delta-9 THC that exceeded hemp threshold. The agency conducted an inventory audit on May 18 and identified multiple products for which corresponding laboratory certificates of analysis reported delta-9 THC concentrations above 0.3%.  

The agency’s report points out five products in particular, including a concentrate with a reported delta-9 THC level of 92.84%; another with a concentration of 21.38%; and a third with a concentration of 20.35%. Two topical patches were also found to have THC levels in violation of state hemp laws – one tested at 0.59%, and another tested at 0.45%, according to the notice of suspension. 

The CRA alleges that Loud Labs violated parts of the state’s Industrial Hemp Research and Development Act (IHRDA), which provides for suspension of a processor-handler license when the licensee intentionally possesses cannabis containing more than 0.3% delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis. Based on those allegations, the agency suspended Loud Labs’ hemp processor-handler license effective immediately and has also provided notice of its intent to revoke the license.  

Under the applicable provisions of the IHRDA, a license must be revoked if, following notice and an opportunity for a hearing, the CRA determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the licensee violated the relevant provision.   

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

“We are not in any way convinced that we are definitely moving to be a marijuana-legal state. It could happen, but it may not.”

By Clayton Henkel, NC Newsline

When members of the North Carolina House and Senate reconvene in November, they will be faced with having to decide how to regulate intoxicating hemp products. The two chambers were at odds in July over House Bill 328, which would ban hemp with more than 0.4 milligrams of THC and prohibit the sale of any hemp consumables, including CBD, to anyone under 21.

House members opted to wait until after November’s midterm elections, not wanting to upset a $4 billion industry that employs 16,000 people in North Carolina.

In Washington, the hemp industry received a one-month reprieve this week from a national ban on intoxicating hemp products as part of a short-term funding bill. The U.S. House voted to delay the ban from taking effect until December 11, as the White House pushes to delay or somehow fix the national ban. At the same time, the Trump administration has called on the U.S. Department of Justice to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III drug, the same class as Tylenol with codeine.

While the outlook is hazy, the end of the year could bring big changes for both the hemp and cannabis industries.

Hemp consumables are largely unrestricted in our state, but North Carolina is in the unique minority of states in which marijuana is fully illegal for both recreational and medicinal purposes.

State lawmakers are trying to navigate how to best protect minors from hemp-derived cannabinoids, while also preparing for a future that could include some form of legal cannabis.

39 states, 39 approaches

The North Carolina Advisory Council on Cannabis, appointed in June 2025 by Gov. Josh Stein (D), has been meeting for months to develop a comprehensive approach to regulate cannabis sales and create a safe, legal market for adults that protects kids.

Nearly 40 states have already enacted cannabis regulations, but no two are the same.

Yasha Kahn, co-founder of MCR Labs, has been involved in cannabis testing for more than a decade. Kahn was invited to offer his expertise to the advisory council last week, as that group explores a framework for legalization.

North Carolina policymakers will have to decide on an endless number of variables in regulating cannabis, including who should handle testing and at what point in the process the product should be tested.

Kahn said each state has unique testing requirements with no real consensus. And each state may have its own approach to testing batch sizes, packaging, total THC definitions, and regulatory audits.

“Instead of looking at this as a huge mess, it really is 39 individual experiments on policy with much of the data available that we can analyze,” said Kahn. “We can see which policies have worked, which ones haven’t.”

Kahn said cannabis has the potential to be a multi-billion-dollar industry for North Carolina.

Balancing testing and oversight

The advisory committee will also have to decide whether to use private labs or state labs to test the purity and potency of cannabis if it should become legal. Either way, Kahn recommended the state should require all lab results be made public and shared with state agencies.

“How long would it take to have a testing lab to be up and running and producing results?” asked council member Pat Oglesby.

Kahn said there are hemp labs that would likely be willing to take on the testing for a slice of a booming industry, but establishing an accredited lab from scratch would take time.

“A lot of instruments have months of delays just to be delivered. You have to have capital and good talent,” said Kahn. “I’ve heard of labs opening within maybe nine months. In my experience, it’s closer to a year and a half.”

Privatizing testing, however, comes with risk, Kahn said, as consumer fraud has been documented in multiple states.

A store owner, for example, may find a low THC product is not selling well and urge the cultivator to produce a stronger product. The cultivator may then call the lab and suggest they provide higher THC results, or they will find a new lab to deliver those results.

“This happens in every market that has more than one lab,” Kahn cautioned.

Kahn said this deception becomes easier to trace when the labs are required to share data with the state and those results are made public.

In Colorado, THC potency inflation and the failure to identify mold and other contaminants has legislators considering shifting their cannabis testing to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Lawmakers there are also considering having state regulators collect the samples to be tested from dispensaries, rather than samples being provided by the producer or cultivators.

Will the industry bloom in North Carolina?

Dr. Larry Greenblatt, state health director and co-chair of the advisory council, said while it may appear that North Carolina is marching toward some form of cannabis legalization, it’s by no means a foregone conclusion.

“We are not in any way convinced that we are definitely moving to be a marijuana-legal state,” said Greenblatt. “It could happen, but it may not.”

The advisory group’s final recommendations, including a detailed look at lab testing, will be included in a report to the governor at the end of this year. It would then be up to the legislature to decide if they want to use the information as the foundation or guidance for a cannabis market in North Carolina.

Stein has said he supports legalization for adults, but Republican lawmakers are divided. Recent attempts to legalize medical marijuana have died in the state House, despite the backing of Senate leaders. And neither chamber has ever voted to legalize the drug for recreational use.

Meantime, other states are moving ahead. In neighboring Virginia, regulators will begin accepting applications for regulated recreational cannabis dispensaries in February, with a retail launch set for July 1, 2027.

This story was first published by NC Newsline.

Photo courtesy of Brian Shamblen.

Source link

The state says flower, pre-rolls and vapes were already prohibited. Hemp retailers say years of limited enforcement allowed a market to develop that is now being removed.

Lance Alyas says other hemp retailers in Hawaii have contacted him privately since he sued the state over its hemp rules, but few are willing to discuss the dispute publicly.

“I can’t tell you how many have reached out to me throughout this process expressing shock at my willingness to sue and then take this on in the media as well,” Alyas, owner of Oahu Dispensary and Provisions, told High Times.

He says enforcement visits have contributed to that reluctance. Alyas described Department of Health inspectors as “old marshals and sheriffs from a western movie” who were “brash, abrasive, stern, and domineering.”

Alyas operates four stores on Oahu. He and another hemp retailer, Kyler Falces-Cachola, are suing Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez and Department of Health Director Kenneth Fink in federal court, challenging several parts of the state’s hemp regulatory system.

The lawsuit comes as the Department of Health and Attorney General have begun statewide enforcement against retailers selling noncompliant products, including hemp flower, THCA flower, pre-rolls and vapes.

Alyas says officials visited two of his stores simultaneously, photographed products and explained which items could no longer be sold.

“They gave us a warning about the products that are not able to be sold, so we had to take them off our shelves to make sure we’re going to the court with clean hands,” he said.

No inventory was confiscated, Alyas said, but officials warned about possible seizures, embargoes, fines, enforcement and arrest if prohibited products remained for sale.

The state says nothing new was banned

The Hawaii Department of Health says the current enforcement should not be understood as a new ban.

“The 2025 changes to Hawaiʻi’s hemp law created a registration system for hemp retailers and distributors, it did not newly prohibit hemp flower, pre-rolls, vaping products, or concentrates. Those restrictions predate the registration requirement.”

Hawaii Department of Health, to High Times

Act 14, adopted in 2020, prohibited the sale of hemp leaf or floral material intended to be smoked or inhaled and cannabinoid products intended for aerosolized respiratory delivery. It also established penalties of up to $10,000 for each separate offense.

The 2025 legislation, Act 269, created a registry for manufactured hemp product retailers and distributors and expanded the state’s ability to inspect businesses, seize noncompliant products and pursue violations.

Licensed medical cannabis operators had been pressing for stronger enforcement before Act 269. Noa Botanicals CEO Karlyn Laulusa lobbied House Consumer Protection and Commerce Committee Chair Scot Matayoshi and other lawmakers, arguing that licensed dispensaries were losing business to unregulated hemp retailers. According to Honolulu Civil Beat, Alyas later obtained correspondence between Laulusa and Matayoshi through a public-records request. He characterizes Hawaiʻi’s eight medical cannabis licensees as “the Hateful Eight.”

Noa Botanicals, Aloha Green Apothecary and Cure Oahu all supported the new rules during the legislative process.

The situation reflects a recurring feature of cannabis markets: written law and enforcement do not always move together.

A prohibition that is rarely enforced can coexist with an open market for years, allowing stores, suppliers and consumer demand to develop around it. Increased enforcement can then change the market without the underlying prohibition itself being new. The conduct was tolerated long enough to build businesses around it. Now the prohibition is being enforced.

Ninety percent of the revenue, gone

For Alyas, the change has been substantial.

He says his company lost about 90% of its revenue and roughly 25% of its workforce after removing the affected products. He has kept current employees at the same pay and hours but says the company cannot continue for long under present conditions.

The legal dispute

Alyas and fellow hemp retailer Kyler Falces-Cachola are plaintiffs in Alyas et al. v. Lopez et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00035-JAO-WRP, before the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaiʻi. The defendants are Hawaiʻi Attorney General Anne E. Lopez and Department of Health Director Kenneth S. Fink, M.D., both sued in their official capacities.

Alyas is now waiting for U.S. District Judge Jill A. Otake to rule on two pending motions: the retailers’ request for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement while the case proceeds, and the state’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. After hearing arguments on both on July 2, Otake took them under advisement and said she would issue a written order.

“If we don’t get a judge’s decision soon, we will have to close down probably within two or three weeks,” he said.

DOH acknowledges that businesses may be affected and confirms that there is currently no pathway allowing retailers to continue selling the prohibited categories.

“The Hawaiʻi Department of Health recognizes that removing certain hemp products from sale can have an impact on businesses,” the department told High Times.

That position is consistent with what Andrew Goff, head of DOH’s Office of Medical Cannabis Control and Regulation, said shortly before enforcement began. “You had time to change your inventory or pivot from whatever industry you want to go into,” Goff told Hawaii News Now in June, adding that the state had provided businesses sufficient time to adjust.

Under current DOH rules and guidance, retailers can continue selling compliant CBD products and certain topicals, tinctures, softgels, gummies, tablets, capsules, powders and beverages, subject to product-specific THC limits, testing, packaging and labeling requirements.

“At present, Hawaiʻi law does not provide an alternative pathway for hemp retailers to continue selling prohibited products,” DOH said. “DOH can, however, provide education and technical assistance to help businesses understand the existing law and prepare for future law changes.”

Alyas says those categories cannot sustain his stores.

“Our business is a majority, 90% of sales, of these types of product,” he said, referring to flower, pre-rolls and other products removed from sale. “We cannot sustain selling only these products. That’s currently what we’re doing now, only selling the topical, and soft gels, etc., and this is killing us.”

“People want smokable, not topical, that they can get online.”

Where the demand goes

The enforcement also changes how adults can access cannabis in Hawaii. Adult-use marijuana remains illegal, sitting outside the regulated market, while cannabis is available through the state’s medical dispensary system.

The possibility that some hemp retailers would close was also addressed publicly before enforcement began. State Rep. Scot Matayoshi, chair of the House Consumer Protection and Commerce Committee, also defended the policy in June. “If putting these people out of business means getting these products off the streets … then they should be out of business,” he told Hawaii News Now, referring to products he said were reaching minors and circumventing other state laws.

A 2025 economic analysis commissioned by DOH estimated Hawaii’s total cannabis market across medical, gray and illicit sources at between $16.5 million and $32 million per month. Legal medical dispensaries generated about $5.3 million monthly.

Removing hemp flower and other intoxicating products from retail therefore reduces one channel through which adults outside the medical program have been obtaining cannabis.

Some of that demand could move toward medical dispensaries, while adults who do not qualify for or participate in the medical program have fewer regulated options, and some of that demand could move to the illicit market.

The delayed federal hemp ban and Hawaii

The future of the same products remains under debate at the federal level.

The 2018 Farm Bill defined hemp using a limit of 0.3% delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis. That created room for products containing considerably more THCA while remaining below the federal delta-9 threshold.

Two flower samples provided by Alyas illustrate the difference. One contained 0.2104% delta-9 THC but 28.329% THCA, producing 25.055% total THC after applying the standard conversion formula. Another contained 0.169% delta-9 THC and 16.804% THCA, producing 14.906% total THC.

Congress changed that framework in Public Law 119-37 in November 2025. The new definition uses total THC, expressly including THCA, and places additional restrictions on finished hemp-derived cannabinoid products. Those provisions were scheduled to take effect November 12, 2026. On September 2, President Trump signed a funding bill that delays most of them until December 11. A carve-out leaves the November 12 date in place for products containing cannabinoids that cannot be naturally produced by the plant, which does not include THCA flower.

The additional month is intended to give Congress more time to consider a longer-term regulatory framework for hemp-derived cannabinoid products. Bills already introduced in Congress propose alternatives ranging from longer implementation delays to new rules for particular hemp products.

Alyas believes naturally occurring THCA flower and pre-rolls could remain part of that market if federal lawmakers eventually choose regulation instead of prohibition.

Hawaii’s rules do not currently make that distinction for smokable hemp. Flower and pre-rolls remain prohibited regardless of their labeled delta-9 THC or THCA content, leaving retailers such as Alyas dependent on the narrower range of manufactured hemp products permitted by the state.

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