“The program’s already live, even though it’s still Schedule I in Alabama.”

By Anna Barrett, Alabama Reflector

Alabama’s public health officials on Thursday withdrew their objection to the federal rescheduling of marijuana, a move officials characterized as procedural, following a July public hearing.

The governing body of the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) in May voted to delay the rescheduling so that officials could have more time to determine how to implement it, but noted that they “fully intended” to reschedule the drug.

State Health Officer Dr. Scott Harris said Thursday morning that he did not see any issues with the change, and the public comments did not reflect the impact of rescheduling but rather marijuana itself.

“I would say there are a lot of really passionate people that had a lot of really strong feelings about it, and I don’t want to minimize that or oversimplify that,” Harris said. “The comments were people who really support medical marijuana or who really don’t support medical marijuana. The comments weren’t really about what we were trying to get at, which [was] ‘what are the consequences of rescheduling.’”

Conservative activists at the public hearing said the rescheduling would “harm children” and “worsen Alabama’s mental health crisis.” The only proponent of rescheduling at the public hearing said not doing so would instill distrust between patients and doctors.

Harris said ADPH’s legal team resolved all of the department’s concerns, like the impact to pharmacies and those seeking the medication.

In April, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) moved marijuana from Schedule I—the Drug Enforcement Administration’s list of drugs with the greatest potential for abuse and least legitimate use—to Schedule III, with drugs considered to have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

The order followed an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in December instructing the DOJ to move towards rescheduling.

Former President Joe Biden instructed DOJ to reschedule the drug in 2024, but hearings on the move were canceled in early 2025.

The federal order applies to state-licensed medical marijuana products in the states that allow medicinal use of the drug. The move means those businesses can deduct business expenses from their federal taxes and researchers have access to state-legal products. As a Schedule I drug, only cannabis grown in a federally approved facility could be studied, severely limiting the supply available to researchers.

Alabama’s medical cannabis program was created by the Legislature in 2021. Three dispensaries are open in the state, with seven more to open within the next few months. At the program’s full capacity, there will be nearly 40 dispensaries.

Harris said the rescheduling would not impact the state’s medical cannabis program.

“The program’s already live, even though it’s still Schedule I in Alabama. The reason is, the statute was written essentially to decriminalize it for people who are authorized to have it,” he said.

The committee unanimously withdrew its objection.

This story was first published by Alabama Reflector.

Source link

San Francisco officials are seeking public input on newly released draft rules for cannabis cafes in line with a California state law enacted last year that authorizes local governments to let marijuana retailers to expand their services.

In July, the city’s Board of Supervisors and mayor approved an ordinance to let marijuana dispensaries serve food and drinks inside their on-site consumption areas. On Friday, the city’s Office of Cannabis posted proposed regulations for how those cannabis cafes will operate.

The draft rules touch on operations plans, employee training, security, deliveries, inventory control and access for medical cannabis patients.

Public feedback is being accepted through September 25.

In late 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed AB 1775, allowing marijuana businesses to offer non-cannabis food and non-alcoholic beverages and host live events such as concerts in their on-site cannabis consumption areas if they get permission from their local government.

The new law officially took effect last January, but it has taken months for local officials in San Francisco and other cities to begin enacting their own ordinances to lay out the rules for how cannabis cafes can operate.

Under the San Francisco proposal, a business would need to obtain a new Cannabis Café Permit as well as a Cannabis Consumption Permit.

Businesses would need to implement written procedures “designed to discourage customers from removing cannabis products intended for on-site consumption from the designated consumption area” or the overall premises.

There would be some restrictions on the name of cannabis cafes, barring those that would be likely to “mislead members of the public into believing cannabis products may legally be sold to persons under 21 years of age” or that would entice minors to attempt to patronize the businesses.

Dispensaries would need to maintain accommodations for medical cannabis patients, which may include providing an area where the can communication confidentially with employees and maintaining an adequate supply of medical marijuana products.

Written comments on the proposed cannabis cafe rules can be sent by email to [email protected] or via mail or in person to Office of Cannabis; 49 South Van Ness; Suite 660; San Francisco, CA 94103.

City officials separately released proposed rules changes to incorporate cannabis cafes into the existing Good Neighbor Policy for marijuana businesses.

They also posted new resources for businesses to check their eligibility to open a cannabis cafe, as well as bulletin and a FAQ on the issue.

Prior to signing the current cannabis cafe law, Newsom vetoed a prior version of the bill, saying that while he appreciated that the intent was to “provide cannabis retailers with increased business opportunities and an avenue to attract new customers,” he felt “concerned this bill could undermine California’s long-standing smoke-free workplace protections.”

To that end, the measure as enacted contains changes to create separation between public consumption spaces and back rooms of businesses where food is prepared or stored in order to better protect the health of workers in line with the governor’s concerns.

The law makes explicitly clear that hemp-based food items or drinks are not considered “non-cannabis” products that could be sold at the cafes. It also says that non-cannabis items “shall be stored and displayed separately and distinctly from all cannabis and cannabis products present on the premises.”

The legislation also allows live musical or other performances on the premises of a cannabis retailer in areas where on-site consumption is allowed.

Ahead of the governor’s signing of the measure, actor Woody Harrelson—who owns a marijuana lounge in West Hollywood called The Woods, alongside co-founders comedian Bill Maher and tennis star John McEnroe—called for its enactment. Whoopi Goldberg also joined in that push, with a video encouraging the governor to sign it.

Earlier this month, Newsom announced that legal marijuana sales have generated nearly $8.4 billion in tax revenue for California communities since voters approved adult-use legalization in 2016.

He also recently signed legislation to more clearly define the types of marijuana packaging and labeling that is prohibited due to appealing to children.

The governor recently took credit for helping to lead the push for the state to legalize marijuana and discussed his own limited experience with using cannabis.

Last October, however, he vetoed a bill that would have allowed certain marijuana microbusinesses to ship medical cannabis products directly to patients via common carriers like FedEx and UPS, stating that the proposal “would be burdensome and overly complex to administer.”

Newsom did sign a bill earlier that month aimed at streamlining research on marijuana and psychedelics.

—
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.
—

Last September, the governor also signed a measure into law to put a pause on a recently enacted tax hike on marijuana products.

Meanwhile, a lawmaker spoke to Marijuana Moment about her decision to put her own bill to legalize cannabis dispensary drive-thru windows on hold for now.

California’s treasurer recently said the marijuana legalization law that voters approved a decade ago has been a “complete failure” and should be replaced with a new ballot initiative that prioritizes consumers and small businesses.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, who is endorsed by President Donald Trump, recently told Marijuana Moment that taxes and regulations on cannabis are “too high.”

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

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

The program is “designed to expand opportunities for marginalized or under-represented individuals to participate in the state’s regulated marijuana industry.”

By Rebecca Rivas, Missouri Independent

Missouri received nearly 900 applications for its final round of marijuana microbusiness licenses, with the Missouri Lottery scheduled to draw applicants on September 9 for 77 available licenses.

But unlike the entrepreneurs selected in the program’s first two rounds, this year’s applicants will enter a system reshaped by two years of growing pains and dozens of license revocations.

Jimi Poe, owner of 816 Dispensary in Platte City, was among the first microbusiness licensees selected in 2023. Two years later, he opened Missouri’s first operating microbusiness dispensary.

“It was definitely a long journey,” Poe said during the Missouri Division of Cannabis Regulation’s latest podcast episode. “It was a journey that round three people are not going to have to go.”

The microbusiness program was established through the 2022 constitutional amendment voters approved to legalize recreational marijuana. It was “designed to expand opportunities for marginalized or under-represented individuals to participate in the state’s regulated marijuana industry,” according to the state’s website.

As part of the DCR Out Loud episode, Poe spoke with Lesley Turek, the division’s chief equity officer, about the evolution of the program since its inception in 2023.

This is the third and final lottery for microbusinesses, where the state will issue at least 29 wholesale and at least 34 dispensary licenses to meet the constitutional requirement of 144 total micro licenses.

Poe was one of the “pioneers” of the microbusiness industry, Turek said, and as of August 18, there are 21 operational microbusiness licenses—five dispensaries and 16 wholesale.

These companies heavily relied on each other to learn and grow their businesses, Poe said, so it’s important for new owners to build relationships right away.

“That’s one of the great benefits of the microbusiness program,” Turek said, “is that it really is a community.”

Turek, who oversees the microbusiness program, also stressed that the winners should also develop a relationship with their compliance officers so they understand the new rules put in place in May. They’re rules cannabis regulators proposed in 2024 after they revoked numerous licenses due to unconstitutional ownership deals.

“I think it’s really important too for licensees,” she said, “both current and future applicants, to understand—any sort of arrangement or agreements that you are trying to get into, include DCR with those so that we can make sure that you’re remaining compliant.”

The new rules governing the microbusiness program provide a deeper explanation of what it means to “majority own and operate” a license, which was a requirement in the 2022 constitutional amendment.

They allow regulators to complete an extensive review of potential ownership arrangements before the licenses are issued, rather than afterwards. And they mandate that regulators communicate directly with majority owners, not consultants, and that applicants take a course on compliance before applying and after receiving the license.

Poe’s journey

When Poe was 20, he said he got slapped with a nonviolent marijuana charge.

“I had a so-called friend get in trouble,” Poe told Turek, “and he wanted to get out of that trouble, so he hooked me up with an undercover cop and told me it was his uncle.”

He ended up selling 12 pounds to the undercover cop and did 14 months in prison.

“I was dating my wife at the time, and I remember telling her that, ‘Hey, do this bit with me, and I promise I’ll never sell marijuana again,’” Poe said. “And I never did until here we are, selling marijuana together in the dispensary under a state license.”

August 4 was the 20th anniversary of the day he got busted.

Now his charge is an important part of his business’ story, and it also made him eligible to apply for a microbusiness.

“I remember when I first won the license, I was like, ‘I’m gonna be the first to open,’” he said. “That was my goal from the time I won the license, and I also wanted to make my mark within the industry. So I felt like I achieved those goals.”

While it took two years instead of the six months he anticipated to open, Poe stressed that it won’t be as hard for these new winners.

“There’s a lot more people that are coming online,” he said, “and there’s a lot more stuff out there than when I first started. There were a lot of gray areas, and people were still trying to figure it out.”

When he opened his doors, “people thought I was crazy,” he said.

He only had nine different strands of what the industry calls “flower,” or dry weed in containers.

Now he has 32 different strains of flower, disposable distillate carts, multiple different dabs and 12 different pre-rolled joints. His menu started as one page and now it’s eight pages long, so “things have grown tremendously,” in a year, he said.

“We’re still lacking on the manufacturer side,” Poe said of the microbusiness community. “The manufacturing and equipment and the know-how, people are still trying to figure that out.”

Turek said before the Missouri Lottery draws the winners, cannabis regulators will vet the applications for basic things, like making sure no one has applied twice and application fees have been paid.

“It does take a little bit of time,” she said, “because if, for example, an application fee doesn’t come through, we give that person a chance to make that payment so that they can go to the lottery.”

Then after the draw, Turek said they’ll be in “full processing mode.”

They will be conducting a full review of the top-drawn applications, making sure that all the business arrangements are compliant with state law and background checks show no disqualifying felonies.

“We’ll start by making a phone call to reach out to the owners and say, ‘Hey, it’s us, DCR. Here’s your specialist with this team,’” Turek said. “Give you specific names to contact and tell you what’s going to happen in the process.”

If that application doesn’t meet state requirements, then the next top-drawn applicant will be processed. This is part of the new rules to prevent numerous license revocations.

Lisa Cox, spokeswoman for the Missouri Department for Health and Senior Services that oversees the cannabis division, said the division plans to award microbusiness licenses from Round 3 before the end of 2026.

Currently, there are 46 microbusiness licenses from the Round 1 and 2 that are active but not yet approved to operate.

Poe said that’s partly because owners were nervous to open and unsure if the microbusiness program was going to thrive.

“I’ve been operational for over a year,” he said, “and I’ve proven that we’re going to make it.”

This story was first published by Missouri Independent.

Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.

Source link

“There are products that have not been subject to the same rigorous testing that the medical marijuana requires.”

By Stewart Yerton, Honolulu Civil Beat

It happens all the time now at Oʻahu Dispensary and Provisions in Waikīkī: A prospective customer like Blake Birdwell comes looking for a pre-rolled hemp cigarette or hemp-based edible, only to find the kiosk’s shelves are empty of such goods—by recent order of the Hawaiʻi Department of Health.

“It’s really shitty,” Birdwell said on a recent afternoon after making the rounds at other shops like Natural Mystic, Vape Hawaiʻi and Hawaiʻi’s Cheapest. “They’re all telling me, ‘No.’”

It’s a new reality for people like Birdwell who until recently were able to purchase a range of THC products without a medical marijuana card at dozens of shops across ​​the state—often at a lower price than the products for sale at Hawaiʻi’s officially licensed medical marijuana dispensaries.

The state has now cracked down on sellers of hemp-based products that had been operating under a loophole in federal law, and that’s set up a battle in which Oʻahu Dispensary and Provisions’ owner, Lance Alyas, has asked a federal judge to stop the crackdown.

The suit, which alleges the state has improperly recriminalized federally legal hemp, has gained national attention in legal news reports. The free-market libertarian magazine Reason, which generally opposes government-regulated monopolies, has also weighed in.

It’s the latest iteration of an ongoing struggle to regulate cannabis in Hawaiʻi, which has become widely available for adults to use recreationally in two dozen states.

It’s also a matter of life and death for Alyas’ business, he says, which operates four locations on Oʻahu.

“We have 20 people at risk of losing their jobs,” he said.

Booming Market For Low-THC Hemp Products

Hemp is the same plant species as cannabis sativa—or marijuana—which is a federally controlled substance, though hemp has been historically grown for non-intoxicating uses and contains lower levels of tetrahydrocannabinol or THC. Congress’s 2018 Farm Bill made hemp legal as long as the plants contained no more than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC, the ingredient that gets people high, by weight.

That led to a national flood of products—including gummy candies, vapes, drinks and pre-rolled cigarettes—containing THC derived from federally legal hemp.

In 2020, the Hawaiʻi Legislature passed a law making it legal to grow hemp, but not to produce or sell hemp-based THC products.

Such products proliferated legally on the continent, however, thanks to the 2018 farm bill. By 2024, the hemp-based cannabinoid market had grown to $3.5 billion and was expected to reach $4.4 billion by 2029, the Brightfield Group, a consumer goods research firm reported.

Others, such as Portland-based market researcher Beau Whitney, estimate the market now is actually closer to $30 billion to $44 billion, thanks in part to THC beverages.

Adult beverages containing THC derived from hemp have become so popular and ubiquitous that even Target has begun selling the drinks in hundreds of stores in four states.

Until recently, Hawaiʻi residents could order drinks online, shipped to their door, from brands with names like Willie’s Remedy+, produced by the singer Willie Nelson.

The challenge for Hawaiʻi regulators has been how to deal with such products, which are legal under federal law, coming into the state, where they weren’t supposed to be sold.

‘Premier Pakalolo Provider’ Lobbied For Change

Noa Botanicals is one of Hawaiʻi’s eight licensed medical marijuana dispensaries not subject to the crackdown. Although technically a maker and distributor of medication people can buy only with a doctor’s approval, Noa Botanicals’s marketing looks more like that of a lifestyle brand—not a medical product for patients seeking pain medication.

Its Instagram page, for instance, calls itself “Hawaii’s Premier Pakalolo Provider” and carries the slogan “Find your Hawaiʻi High.” A recent post shows greenhouse workers posing with big marijuana plants above the text “Bud Huntaz out here baggin’ da real trophies.” Other posts feature local music artists HIRIE and Sierra Lucia.

Starting in late 2024, Noa Botanicals’s chief executive, Karlyn Laulusa, began lobbying House Consumer Protection and Commerce Committee Chair Scot Matayoshi (D) and other lawmakers about unlicensed retailers selling hemp-based THC products.

The crux of the problem, as Laulusa described it in emails to lawmakers, was that the licensed, highly regulated dispensaries were losing business to unregulated retailers selling hemp-derived products that were illegal in Hawaiʻi.

The number of unlicensed retailers had boomed from 10 on Oʻahu in 2024 to 74 by early 2025, she wrote, and were taking over the market. Lualusa cited a market analysis from the Department of Health estimating that out of a total annual market of $198 million to $360 million, only $60 million was going to licensed dispensaries. The rest—$138 million to $300 million annually—was going to the unregulated market.

While all of this was happening, buyers were dropping out of the official medical marijuana program. In December 2021, there were 34,125 Hawaiʻi residents with a medical marijuana card, according to the Hawaiʻi Department of Health. DOH’s most recently available report, from the end of last year, shows 28,735 people had cards—a 16 percent decline.

Meanwhile, Laulusa told lawmakers that the Department of Health’s Office of Medical Cannabis Control and Regulation had authority over only the regulated dispensaries. The regulators couldn’t do anything about the unregulated ones.

The result of Laulusa’s lobbying efforts was Act 269 of 2025, which was supported by the Honolulu Police Department and the prosecutor’s office, as well as two other licensed dispensaries, Aloha Green Apothecary and Cure Oahu.

The law, combined with interim administrative rules, gave the health department the ability to require all sellers to register with the agency and open their stores to inspection by cannabis control agents who could tell the retailers what products they needed to remove from their shelves.

As Andrew Goff, chief of DOH’s Office of Medical Cannabis Control and Regulation, describes it, ACT 269 and administrative rules gives the office the ability to enforce existing law. The registration requirement enables the office to know what retailers are selling cannabis products, so the office can let the retailers know what products are allowed and what are not.

Alyas, who obtained the correspondence between Noa Botanicals’s Laulusa and Matayoshi through a public records request, questioned whether lawmakers should be working so closely with industry executives to shape a new law.

Laulusa did not respond to requests for comment.

Matayoshi said it’s part of his job to communicate with industries the state closely regulates and solve problems. Not talking to the regulated industry, he said, would be failing to do due diligence.

“If we’re going to be regulating doctors,” he said, for example, “I think we should be talking to doctors.”

In any case, DOH began enforcing the rules in July, which has led to the situation where people like Birdwell can’t get pre-rolled hemp reefers from places like Oʻahu Dispensary and Provisions.

As president of the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaiʻi, Nikos Leverenz generally supports legalization and regulation of adult-use cannabis. Although he testified against Act 269, Leverenz did say DOH’s enforcement rules can provide a useful framework for regulating sales of cannabis sold to adults—if policymakers legalized such sales outside of medical marijuana dispensaries.

“The DOH has the authority to do what it’s doing now, but I don’t think it’s in the best interest of consumers,” he said. “And it’s certainly not in the interest of businesses outside of the licensed cannabis dispensaries.”

Economic Protectionism Or Consumer Protection?

This echoes one of Alyas’s main complaints: that policymakers are favoring the licensed dispensaries over anyone else, engaging in economic protectionism of a medical cannabis dispensary industry that’s had the benefit of a government-imposed oligopoly for a decade.

When the Legislature established the medical dispensary program in 2015, it limited the number of licenses to eight, with each licensee permitted to operate two retail dispensaries. Over time the Legislature increased the number of dispensaries a licensee can run to four if the licensee can show the location is needed to serve a rural or underserved population.

Alyas questions why, if the market calls for more retail locations, policymakers haven’t simply granted more licenses, rather than letting the same eight businesses, which he calls “the Hateful Eight,” expand operations.

More pointedly, Alyas questions the Department of Health’s 2025 decision to let Noa Botanicals open a new retail location on Royal Hawaiian Avenue under the statutory provision allowing new locations in rural or underserved areas, when there already were two competing licensed shops in Waikīkī.

DOH said there was only one licensed dispensary at the time it approved Noa Botanicals’s request to open its Waikīkī location, and there are now a total of two in Waikīkī.

The medical marijuana control office makes its determinations based on the licensee’s ability to serve and supply patients and an “assessment of the number of registered patients residing in the relevant area in relation to the capacity of the surrounding dispensary locations,” DOH said.

Licensed dispensaries are subject to numerous regulations and are fundamentally different from hemp retail stores, the department said.

Matayoshi, the House Consumer Protection and Commerce Committee chair, says regulation is not simply about protecting the network of dispensaries and affiliated production facilities the state has set up to produce and sell medical marijuana.

It’s also about protecting consumers from untested, hemp-based THC products previously sold by unlicensed retailers.

“There are products that have not been subject to the same rigorous testing that the medical marijuana requires,” he said.

Matayoshi also took issue with the federal government’s carving out low-THC hemp from its schedule of controlled substances, which includes marijuana.

“They try to draw a difference,” he said. “There’s not any. If hemp didn’t have the same effect people wouldn’t buy it.”

Federal Loophole Set To Close

Meanwhile, Alyas’s lawsuit remains alive in Honolulu federal court.

Among other claims, Alyas argues that Hawaiʻi’s law violates the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause by criminalizing hemp that Congress legalized. It also challenges the state’s law under a constitutional doctrine known as the “dormant commerce clause,” which limits states’ ability to pass laws interfering with interstate commerce.

Hawaiʻi Attorney General Anne Lopez’s (D) office has countered that the supremacy and dormant commerce clause arguments don’t apply and has asked the court to deny Alyas’s request for a court order preventing the state from enforcing the law.

The issues concerning Hawaiʻi’s low-THC hemp law soon may be moot. In 2025, President Trump signed a bill that redefines hemp, effectively closing the loophole in the farm bill that allowed for the wave of hemp-based THC products to flood the market.

The new measure was supposed to take effect in November, but the Senate passed a bill pushing the deadline back until December.

Beau Whitney, the Portland-based hemp market researcher, has been following Congress’s movements closely. He said the new hemp definition threatens the whole industry and could have unintended consequences for industrial hemp.

While some in Congress, including U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, have been pushing back, Whitney isn’t counting on those efforts to do anything, although he said, “There might be a diving catch.”

This story was first published by Honolulu Civil Beat.

Photo courtesy of Brian Shamblen.

Source link

Illinois officials have posted a new form that recreational marijuana dispensaries can file in order to get permission to begin selling medical cannabis, which is taxed at a much lower rate than adult-use products.

The expanded opportunity for marijuana businesses comes as part of omnibus cannabis legislation that was passed by lawmakers and signed into law by Gov. JB Pritzker (D) this session.

The law also doubles the amount of marijuana that adults can legally possess, allows drive-thrus and curbside pickups at dispensaries and lets them stay open for longer hours of operation, among other changes.

The five-page form released this week by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) allows businesses holding an active Adult Use Dispensing Organization License issued under the state’s Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act to apply for a separate Medical Cannabis Dispensing Organization license.

“Any adult use dispensary holding an active license in good standing may opt-in for a medical dispensary license,” IDFPR said in previously issued guidance about changes made by the new cannabis omnibus legislation. “This medical dispensary license will allow the dispensary to sell cannabis to medical cannabis patients at the medical tax rate up to the medical patient’s allotment.”

Dispensaries can begin filing the form on September 10, and then they must wait for their so-called “15-37 License,” named after the section of the legislation, to be issued before they can begin medical cannabis sales.

Applicants must submit a non-refundable fee of $5,000 and, if approved, their standard renewal fee will then increase by an additional $10,000 per renewal cycle.

The new form, noted earlier by Illinois New Joint, asks about a business’s disciplinary history, ownership structure and tax compliance.

It also asks questions such as:

• Does the dispensary include materials or signs informing patients that possession of cannabis is illegal under federal law?
• Does the education plan offer information available to patients on the potential side effects of cannabis?
• Does the dispensary offer materials or signs informing patients that consuming cannabis is prohibited in public places?

Businesses also need to submit a patient prioritization plan that includes details about designating a medical cannabis line and registers that will serve medical cannabis patients first, as well as a floor plan showing a dedicated consultation area for patients.

The medical cannabis sales option for adult-use businesses is part of SB 3222, which was approved by the legislature and signed by Pritzker in June.

As enacted into law, the measure also allows residents of the state who are over 21 years of age to possess up to 60 grams of marijuana flower—double the amount in prior law. They are also able to have up to 10 grams of cannabis concentrates and infused products with up to 1,000 mg of THC—also double the earlier limit. Possession amounts for adult non-residents are also doubled under the bill and are generally set at half of what residents can carry.

Additionally, people with past convictions for possession of up to 60 grams of marijuana are now able to have those records expunged—double the previous cutoff allowing only those with convictions for up to 30 grams to be eligible.

The legislation also recriminalizes hemp THC products with more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container, in line with a federal ban that is set to take effect in November.

The state’s list of medical marijuana qualifying conditions is also being expanded to add female orgasmic disorder, endometriosis, ovarian cysts and uterine fibroids.

The governor held a signing ceremony for the legislation at a marijuana dispensary, saying he is “proud that Illinois continues to lead the nation in showing what thoughtful, balanced cannabis policy can achieve.”

In 2019, Pritzker signed the state’s initial marijuana legalization policy into law.

Source link

“Texas can protect children and consumers without rebuilding the drug war.”

By Michael A. Davis

Texas officials have spent years treating hemp-derived THC as if it were the greatest danger facing the state. Now the crackdown is no longer political theater.

Beginning July 31, Texas restored a controlled substance schedule that allows products labeled as containing delta-8 THC—or found to contain more than trace amounts of certain tetrahydrocannabinols—to be detained and referred to law enforcement.

That does not mean every hemp product is illegal. Products that comply with the state’s delta-9 THC limit remain legal. But it does mean many products that adults bought openly from registered businesses have suddenly been pushed out of the regulated marketplace.

Texas leaders may call that a public-safety victory. I see a policy that could make the market less safe.

I write from the perspective of someone who has lived through incarceration and spent years working on reentry. I know how quickly lawmakers can turn a complicated social problem into a criminal offense.

I also know what happens after the speeches end. The politician moves to the next issue, while ordinary people live with arrests, records, lost jobs and closed doors.

There are legitimate concerns about intoxicating hemp products. Some have been sold in packaging that appeals to children. Potency can be inconsistent. Labels can be confusing, and testing standards have not always given consumers the protection they deserve.

No responsible advocate should dismiss those problems. But those problems call for regulation, not denial.

Texas already showed that it knows how to build guardrails. The state imposed a minimum purchase age of 21 and required government-issued identification. Regulators adopted rules involving labeling, testing, packaging and inspections. Those protections could have been strengthened with uniform dosage limits, random state testing, tougher penalties for businesses that sell to minors and clear rules against child-oriented advertising.

Instead, Texas chose to remove certain products from legal shelves while leaving demand in place.

That is where the real danger begins.

A licensed retailer can be inspected. Its products can be tested. A batch can be traced or recalled. A business can lose its license for selling to a child. An illegal seller has no license to lose, no testing requirement to follow and no reason to check identification.

A teenager who walks into a compliant smoke shop should be asked for identification. A dealer operating through social media, a parking lot or an unregulated delivery network will not care whether the customer is 17 or 37.

This crackdown does not eliminate hemp-derived THC. It creates more room for untested products, counterfeit labels and sellers who cannot be held accountable. It may also give organized criminal networks another market to exploit.

That does not mean every illegal sale is tied to a cartel, and we should not make claims the evidence cannot support. But when government closes a legal channel without ending consumer demand, illegal suppliers gain an opening. That is basic economics, not fearmongering.

Texas applies a different standard to alcohol.

Alcohol is sold in grocery stores, convenience stores, restaurants, stadiums and entertainment districts. It is present in homes and at parties across the state. A teenager may never need to fool a cashier to get it; the alcohol may already be in a refrigerator or handed over by an older friend.

Texas does not respond by outlawing beer, wine and liquor for adults. It licenses sellers, checks identification, taxes the products and penalizes violations. The system is imperfect, but the principle is clear: Adult access can coexist with rules designed to protect children.

Alcohol and hemp are not identical. They do not have to be identical for the double standard to matter. If Texas believes regulation can reduce the risks associated with alcohol, it should explain why regulation is suddenly considered impossible when the product is hemp-derived THC.

The imbalance is even harder to defend when we look at the crises Texas already faces.

The state Department of State Health Services says drug poisoning deaths increased 68 percent from 2019 to 2024. In 2023, drug poisoning was the leading cause of injury-related death for Texans ages 24 to 69. Families are still being devastated by fentanyl, while communities also confront gun violence, violent crime, untreated mental-health needs and unaffordable health care.

Those problems require sustained investment in prevention, treatment, enforcement and recovery. They are expensive, complicated and politically difficult. Banning a product is simpler. It creates a headline and allows leaders to declare victory before the consequences are measured.

We should also be honest about the economic interests surrounding this debate.

Hemp-derived THC beverages are becoming real competitors in the broader adult-beverage market. NielsenIQ reported that mainstream retail sales reached $239 million over the latest 52-week period, an increase of 135 percent from the prior year. Some consumers are replacing a beer, glass of wine or cocktail with a low-dose THC drink.

Some alcohol businesses see that market as an opportunity and have begun selling or distributing THC beverages. Others may see it as a threat. That division matters because “the alcohol industry” is not a single voice. Still, political contributions from people connected to alcohol distribution deserve public scrutiny when Texas leaders push policies that could remove a competing product.

Campaign-finance records have prompted questions about major donations to Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), who led efforts to restrict hemp products in the most recent legislative session, from John Nau, a longtime beer distribution executive. A contribution does not prove a deal, and it would be irresponsible to claim otherwise. But Texans are entitled to ask whether established industries have greater access to political power than the small businesses and consumers who will bear the cost of prohibition.

Following the money is not the same as alleging corruption. It is part of holding government accountable.

Texas can protect children and consumers without rebuilding the drug war.

Require every intoxicating product to be sold only to adults 21 and older. Mandate reliable identification checks, child-resistant packaging and plain labeling. Establish reasonable per-serving and per-package THC limits. Require independent laboratory testing, scannable batch information and random state verification. Punish businesses that mislabel products or sell to minors. Fund public education and impaired-driving enforcement.

Those are not weak measures. They are what serious regulation looks like.

Public safety should be measured by harm reduced, not products banned. If the result of Texas’s crackdown is that adults turn from accountable retailers to illegal sellers, then the state will have created the very danger it claimed to prevent.

The question is not whether hemp should have rules. It should.

The question is whether Texas wants rules that protect people—or prohibition that protects politics.

Michael A. Davis is an Austin-based writer, author and reentry advocate whose work examines Texas politics, criminal justice, public policy and communities too often overlooked by those in power. He is the author of the books “The Road to Reentry,” “Pursuing Redemption,” “Reclaiming Freedom” and “The Mind You Inherited.”

Image element courtesy of AnonMoos.

Source link

Top marijuana officials in multiple states are taking steps to make sure that visitors who are in town to watch World Cup games understand local cannabis laws.

In Massachusetts, the Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) is rolling out a public information campaign to educate soccer fans about where they can legally purchase marijuana, along with reminders about how to celebrate with it responsibly.

“Our goal is to make sure both visitors and residents alike avoid committing any dangerous plays this summer while enjoying the festivities surrounding the World Cup by understanding how to consume responsibly,” CCC Chair Chris Harding said in a press release. “The Commission is committed to our public education mandate, so we encourage fans to take advantage of our resources—and in particular MoreAboutMJ.org.”

CCC Executive Director Travis Ahern pointed out Massachusetts was the “first state on the East Coast to open adult-use cannabis retail stores in 2018, but legalization is still a novel concept to many nations around the world.”

“For those soccer fans who choose to visit the Commonwealth to enjoy the World Cup and experience everything our state has to offer, we hope they will do so safely and responsibly,” he said.

In New York, the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) is similarly putting out public messaging to help make sure tourists who are visiting to watch World Cup matches understand the basics of the state’s marijuana laws,

“We certainly don’t want to see any adverse events,” John Kagia, OCM’s executive director, told The New York Post.

“It’s really important to access the legal market in a responsible manner,” he said. “Be mindful and respectful and good neighbors. Be discreet. We want fans to be particularly mindful that there are young families with children at these events.”

“We have great cannabis products in New York,” Kagia said. “They should not travel with cannabis outside the state.”

Source link

“Our focus is to maintain that momentum by implementing the amended Cannabis Act as efficiently as possible.”

By Christopher Shea, Rhode Island Current

Rhode Island’s Cannabis Control Commission on Friday reopened the application process for prospective retailers after regulators’ first attempt to license more pot shops was halted by a federal court order and voided under a new state law.

Gov. Dan McKee (D) on June 10 signed a pair of bills that undo a provision in the original 2022 Rhode Island Cannabis Act that required cannabis retailers be majority-owned by Rhode Island residents, along with kickstarting a new application process within 60 days.

They’re changes the state made in order to resolve the trio of federal lawsuits that led to U.S. District Court Judge Melissa DuBose blocking the Cannabis Control Commission from holding the lottery it was planning to hold in May to award licenses.

DuBose also stopped regulators from continuing to screen and review any of the 97 retail license applications submitted by the original December 29, 2025, deadline.

“Our focus is to maintain that momentum by implementing the amended Cannabis Act as efficiently as possible,” Michelle Reddish, chairperson of the three-member regulatory panel, said in a statement Thursday.

Online submissions for the state’s three license types will be accepted through Monday, November 23. Prospective retailers seeking a social equity license, reserved for those adversely affected by the war on drugs, must first receive certification by September 11.

The commission’s announcement did not include a timeline for regulators to review applicants nor say when licenses would be awarded.

The revised law requires social equity businesses to be majority owned by one or more people who can show they were disproportionately impacted by criminal enforcement of past prohibitions, including being arrested or having a family member who was.

Under the 2022 act that legalized recreational cannabis, the commission can offer 24 new licenses to retailers, with six reserved for social equity applicants and another six reserved for worker-owned cooperatives. But not every license type received an application in each of the six geographic zones during the first go, which left regulators with a maximum of 20 licenses to issue across the state.

As it stands, nine shops are selling recreational cannabis in Rhode Island under hybrid retail-medicinal licenses grandfathered in from the state’s medical marijuana program.

The halt in the state’s first application pool left many would-be business owners continuing to pay rent on storefronts they may not even be able to open. Though they can’t recoup their property costs, the new state law allows those initial applicants to be refunded any fees paid to the commission.

All prospective retailers were required to pay an application fee of $7,500 and a yearly $30,000 licensing fee. Fees were waived for the first year for approved social equity applicants.

Over half of all applicants—56—sought general retail licenses. Another 19 were worker cooperatives while the remaining 23 were for social equity applicants.

Charon Rose, spokesperson for the Cannabis Control Commission, said in an email Friday that refund checks are expected to be issued on a rolling basis beginning next week. She did not state how many of the 75 applicants who paid the original application fee sought refunds.

This story was first published by Rhode Island Current.

Source link