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

An Arizona cannabis dispensary chain will no longer accept products tested by two laboratories that have been cited by state regulators for inaccurate testing results, the Arizona Republic reports. In an email obtained by the Republic, Story Cannabis said it would no longer accept products from Kaycha Labs and Level One Labs “with a Certificate of Analysis test date on or after October 1, 2026” due to “multiple compliance violations and concerns related to the testing.” 

Kaycha was recently fined $88,500 for inaccurate testing results, the report says, while Level One was found to have inflated the potency of its samples. 

In the email, Nikole Samuelson, the state retail buyer for Story, which operates 11 dispensaries in Arizona and in three other states, said the company “takes the quality and control of the products sold in its stores very seriously.”    

In an email to the Republic, George Griffeth, Level One co-founder and CEO, said the labs problems were due to “inadvertent” software problems and “human error.” He said he believed that Story may reconsider its position.  

“Story has expressed general compliance concerns, but it has not explained to Level One the specific standards underlying its decision or how it evaluated comparable findings at laboratories. We look forward to a constructive conversation with Story about a clear path to reinstatement. We are confident that a fuller understanding of the facts and our response will give Story a sound basis to reverse its decision.” — Griffeth, in an email to the Republic 

Kaycha Labs did not comment on the email. 

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

“When you take a really long time to get a bulletin out to tell people about these issues, a lot of time, people have already consumed the product.”

By Christopher Osher and Evan Wyloge, The Denver Gazette

This story was originally published by ProPublica.

In March 2022, Colorado public health officials started getting startling reports of liver damage tied to a new marijuana-based sleep aid that had quickly become a top seller in the state.

But it wasn’t until June 2023, nearly 15 months later, that the state’s Marijuana Enforcement Division would warn consumers that the danger had become so serious that the manufacturer had halted production of the sleep pills, called 1906 Midnight Drops, after more reports of “acute liver injury.”

The delay highlights a slew of weaknesses in the system for protecting consumers from hazardous products in the nation’s first regulated recreational marijuana market.

The health complaints had prompted the division to investigate, but the agency decided it didn’t have the power to pull the drops from the stores in this situation. If the agency had dug deeper, it might have found what the state attorney general’s office later discovered: The manufacturer, Sima Sciences, began receiving complaints of harm shortly after it launched 1906 Midnight Drops and two years before health officials ever did.

Instead, the enforcement division took four months after the first report of liver damage to the state to post a notice on its website. But the agency didn’t call it a health and safety warning, which would have advised people not to consume the product. It released a more neutrally named “informational notification.” While there had been reports of “adverse health events,” the notice said, regulators didn’t find any violations. The manufacturer had reformulated the product, the notice added, and no additional issues had surfaced.

Jenifer Chatting didn’t even see it.

A surgical assistant at an oral surgeon’s office, Chatting wanted a safe, natural alternative to pharmaceuticals to treat her insomnia. So she was relieved when a local marijuana dispensary suggested a sugar-free option made of cannabis and herbal extracts that the manufacturer touted as the “the best sleep aid on the market.” She began taking the Midnight Drops nightly the same month that the state health department received its first complaint.

Unaware of the enforcement division’s notification, she didn’t worry when she started having full-body cramps and became lactose intolerant in September 2022, about six months after she started taking the drops. She thought she just needed to drink more water.

She continued taking the drops for nine more months until her dispensary stopped stocking them. Now, despite never having liver problems before, according to her medical records, she has liver damage at age 53; her doctor says she will ultimately need a transplant.

Colorado’s failure to get Midnight Drops off the market or to warn consumers to stop taking it despite repeated reports of harm was not an anomaly, The Denver Gazette and ProPublica found.

The division has limited authority to force companies to recall products. The agency instead relies on posting health and safety advisories on its website to warn the public, and on sending news releases to local media outlets.

Yet, in the cases for which the news organizations were able to identify the date of a complaint or the start of an investigation, it took regulators an average of more than seven months to issue a warning. That’s an incomplete snapshot because the division refused to release data on when investigations began. Complaint dates were private, it said, because the probes were ongoing — even years after the warnings were issued and some companies had surrendered their licenses.

Still, The Denver Gazette and ProPublica were able to identify initial complaint or investigative start dates for 23 of the 83 advisories the agency issued over the past five years by reviewing other licensing violation records.

Seven months is a long time for products that are typically smoked or ingested within days of purchase, industry insiders and consumer safety experts said. In comparison, federal investigators have criticized the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for taking an average of two months after learning of a potential hazard to not just warn consumers but to get companies to recall contaminated food.

Kimberly Anzarut, a former Denver marijuana regulator and now an industry consultant, said the delays mean Colorado consumers aren’t getting vital warnings while products are still on shelves.

“When you take a really long time to get a bulletin out to tell people about these issues, a lot of time, people have already consumed the product,” she said.

Lab directors said it generally takes only three days to return test results identifying contaminants, and if there’s an emergency, they can do so in a day.

But MED spokesperson Heather Draper said in a statement that it’s more complicated than just getting test results and that it takes time to build a case that leads to a health and safety advisory.

“This most often requires investigative resources to evaluate the scope of concerns, gather evidence of potential product safety concerns, and receive test results that indicate a contaminated product has been sold to consumers,” she said.

In 2019, he branched out into the sleep tablet line and also manufactured other “drops” meant to help with sex, anxiety, energy, focus and bliss.

By 2023, his company, based in Henderson, Colorado, was manufacturing 81% of the pills sold in dispensaries in the state, according to the cannabis analytics firm BDSA.

Vu, the former Denver regulator, worked for about a year as Barsoom’s head of regulatory compliance and said Barsoom wanted her to bend the rules on inventory reporting and product safety, though she stressed that she was unaware of the problems with the Midnight Drops, which were made after she left. They clashed, and he fired her in 2016, she said.

Barsoom declined interview requests and did not respond to detailed questions. His company’s lawyers also did not respond to requests for comment. But in court filings in response to personal injury lawsuits, they stated that “injuries, damages and losses, if any, may have been caused by plaintiff’s own comparative negligence.”

To promote the Midnight Drops, the 1906 website said the pills were infused with corydalis, an herbal extract, which, it said, “has been used for millennia.” It claimed the extract had sedative qualities and would help people stay asleep because it targeted body pain and tension.

A relative of the poppy, corydalis also contains a compound that researchers have linked to severe and potentially fatal liver injury.

Following reports about liver problems, the company reformulated Midnight Drops and added a warning label stating the product should be taken in consultation with a physician. But the new herbal supplement was also primarily composed of a compound with the same chemical makeup as the one in corydalis that had been tied to liver risks, regulators eventually concluded.

One doctor reported to the enforcement division in December 2022 that he continued to “see an uptick in patients with elevated liver enzymes,” which he believed was caused by Midnight Drops. He warned the agency that he had seen four such patients in the past two months and knew of other doctors treating more, state records show.

Dr. David Cristin, a gastroenterologist, said he was exasperated because patients kept using Midnight Drops despite his concerns. He said he registered a complaint through the company’s website, detailing the issues he had found, but was never contacted.

“The thing that was frustrating was my patients were swearing by these,” he said.

By May 2024, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment would receive 52 reports of harm involving Midnight Drops, at least 20 severe enough to require medical care. Of those reports, 25 occurred before the MED’s second notification. While the health department often does the initial review, records show it typically finished gathering information within days, which would trigger an automatic referral to the MED.

Nearly a year after issuing its first “informational notification,” the MED and the health department issued the second one in June 2023, warning that Midnight Drops had continued generating reports of “acute liver injury.”

At that time, Sima announced it was stopping production. But Barsoom and his companies continued marketing Midnight Drops for several more months and did not adequately warn dispensaries to stop selling them, according to a Colorado attorney general’s office investigation.

Chatting didn’t see the second MED notification either. A couple of weeks after it was posted, she went into a dispensary but learned the drops were no longer in stock. She said a dispensary staffer told her they had been pulled because consumers had been abusing the product. She hadn’t been, so she didn’t worry.

But that summer, bloodwork during a routine checkup revealed Chatting’s liver enzymes had soared to abnormal levels, indicating potential damage.

The MED’s lawyers have refused to release any of the agency’s investigative files about Midnight Drops, making it difficult to assess why the agency didn’t act sooner. Draper, the spokesperson, said that when regulators were fielding complaints about Midnight Drops, their powers were limited: They could put a hold on products and require companies to issue recalls only for specific violations. She said because of a 2023 statute change, regulators can now place holds on products over safety concerns to prevent their sales, even without a violation.

Still, even with that change, the time it takes to warn consumers after the first complaint as well as after the date when a product goes on sale have both gotten longer, according to the news organizations’ analysis. Draper said the agency “has improved its Health & Safety Advisory processes and this work continues.” She added that agency officials do not believe that the newsrooms’ analysis is “an accurate representation of our process and progress in these areas,” but she did not say why or provide any evidence disputing it.

Loopholes in Safety Rules

The continued time lag in public warnings from regulators is another blow to consumer safety for Colorado’s marijuana industry, which has loopholes in safety rules other states have closed to make it less likely that contaminated products end up in dispensaries.

In one of the longest cases, it took regulators three years to warn consumers from the date of the first sales of marijuana products made by Pueblo County-based Boone Farms that were contaminated with yeast, mold and aspergillus, which can damage lungs and cause asthma, fungal infections and, in rare instances, death. Draper said she could neither confirm nor deny if there was any other investigation. The owner of the company declined to comment but previously said it was a small amount of product and that some of it sold before the state set standards for aspergillus.

An MED investigator had similar suspicions about contamination in products made by Boulder-based Range Street, but “due to other priorities and bandwidth,” had to put the investigation on the “backburner,” according to the investigator’s synopsis obtained through a public records request. The MED eventually found yeast, mold and aspergillus. But it didn’t warn the public until 410 days after the first sales. Range Street, whose former owner declined to comment, has since surrendered its medical marijuana cultivation license.

Unlike other states, Colorado operates largely on an honor code, with manufacturers free to choose the samples and the labs that conduct contaminant tests required before products can be sold. Colorado regulators in January said they were considering requiring lab personnel to collect samples, which would bring Colorado in line with 26 of the 42 state marijuana markets. But the agency backed away from the proposal after top manufacturers argued it would increase costs.

Colorado also allows marijuana manufacturers to test their products far less frequently if they can show consistent compliance, something only one other state does. And the time frame for demonstrating that compliance can be as little as a few weeks.

Colorado’s regulators acknowledged at a 2023 industry forum that the reduced testing program “potentially poses risks to public health and safety,” as problems with the program were “a common occurrence” in investigations.

This January, the enforcement division noted in an industry bulletin that problems with that program persist, leading to recalls and advisories for unsafe levels of pesticides. The division told manufacturers in July that it is reviewing the reduced testing program as it considers a broader overhaul of testing rules.

Colorado also has historically relied on complaints to identify tainted marijuana once it is actually in the marketplace, rather than randomly sampling products on shelves. The Cannabis Regulators Association recommends random sampling, and other states like Oklahoma have such programs. Colorado only this year launched a pilot program to randomly sample dispensary products, but the program has run into delays, and the state hasn’t identified a long-term funding source.

Once a contaminated product gets to dispensaries, Colorado regulators face challenges in getting the product off the shelves. Colorado expects manufacturers to voluntarily recall products. Regulators in Colorado can only force products to be recalled in a public health emergency, but regulators can encounter hurdles to quickly establishing that one exists.

Even when testing finds contaminants, manufacturers say marijuana that’s already in dispensaries often remains for sale. That’s because Colorado allows the manufacturer to retest the marijuana, and the rules don’t specify a time frame for when those tests have to be done. The rules state that the MED “may” require manufacturers to refrain from selling items during retesting.

In contrast, Missouri immediately puts a hold on all marijuana products that fail mandatory contaminant testing. Manufacturers there can have the products reanalyzed, but dispensaries can’t sell those products until retesting shows the original analysis was incorrect.

In an industry bulletin in January, Colorado regulators said the agency had seen “increased instances” of marijuana manufacturers taking advantage of the retesting rule to cover up the use of banned pesticides.

“Health Isn’t Really Their Primary Concern”

Tess Eidem, a research professor at the University of Colorado who has a federal grant to analyze the division’s health and safety bulletin process, said she worries the state prioritizes protecting the financial viability of the marijuana market over consumer safety.

She pointed out that the MED isn’t part of the state’s health department but instead is in the state’s revenue department.

“So health isn’t really their primary concern,” she said.

Draper said that “consumer safety has been and remains a top priority for the Division.”

In September 2024, a little over a year after Chatting stopped taking Midnight Drops, she and her husband went on a dream vacation to England, where they lived on a houseboat. The trip was such a success that they began planning to retire there, projecting that in about a decade they could downsize and spend their golden years traveling the canals through the English countryside where Luke was born.

A month later, Jenifer got a call from a doctor. Because she’s a former smoker, she had gone in for a routine lung screening. Her lungs were fine, but the X-ray detected something suspicious with her liver. A follow-up ultrasound detected cirrhosis.

Chatting’s gastroenterologist ruled out alcohol consumption, noting in her medical records that Chatting had always been a light drinker, and instead cited an herbal sleeping aid as a likely factor. After she stopped taking the drops, her liver enzymes came back into normal ranges, but the damage was already done, her medical records show.

Two days before Thanksgiving, Luke couldn’t sleep and rose about 2 a.m. to Google information about cirrhosis. He said it was then that he finally discovered the MED’s notifications about Midnight Drops.

He started slamming his fists on the armrests of his desk chair. One armrest broke, and his fist hit jagged plastic, fracturing his left hand.

“Jen, they killed you,” he recalled shouting.

She has few symptoms now, other than body cramps, but her gastroenterologist has warned that her condition will inevitably deteriorate and she will require a liver transplant in as little as five years.

Struggling to come to terms with the diagnosis, Jenifer now stays mostly indoors, building elaborate Lego artwork and spending time with their rescue pug mixes.

“It’s hard because you think you’re doing something good for yourself and healthy and all natural,” she said. “And then it ends up being, you know…” She stopped and gathered herself. “Just because something’s all natural doesn’t mean that it’s good for you.”

Last September, Barsoom and his companies settled with the attorney general’s office to resolve the office’s investigation. Barsoom and his companies denied that they had violated consumer protection laws. But they agreed to pay $400,000 in fines, and the settlement bars them from selling cannabis products in Colorado until at least 2027.

Barsoom also agreed to issue an apology.

“We’ve always believed that great products should improve people’s lives,” his statement read. “When we learned that Midnight Drops wasn’t meeting that standard for everyone, we realized we had let our customers down. We are sorry that we didn’t act faster and communicate better with both our customers and regulators.”

The Chattings said Barsoom’s apology doesn’t amount to much for them, and they wish Colorado regulators had acted faster and communicated better with consumers.

“How are people supposed to know this?” Luke asked. “The only way I found this stuff was by digging and digging and digging on the internet.”

This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with The Denver Gazette. Sign up for Dispatches to get stories in your inbox every week.

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

A comprehensive meta-analysis of previously published studies has found that cannabidiol (CBD) – widely touted as a way to reduce the negative effects of cannabis – may actually be making products more potent by significantly increasing blood levels of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

The review, published in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, analysed data from 14 clinical trials involving 341 participants.

For years, health guidelines have nudged cannabis users towards products with more CBD and less THC, on the assumption that CBD softens THC’s effects. However, the researchers found that when CBD was taken alongside THC, it increased overall THC blood levels by an average of 31%.

More dramatically, high doses of CBD nearly doubled blood levels of 11-hydroxy-THC, an active metabolite which many scientists believe is equally or more potent than THC itself.

“Cannabis users and prescribers of cannabinoid-based products should be made aware of the potential for drug-drug pharmacokinetic interactions between CBD and THC,” wrote lead researcher Lucy Chester and her team at the Research Centre, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal.

The interaction appeared most significant with orally consumed cannabis products, such as edibles, capsules and oils, where CBD doses ranged from 105mg to 800mg. 11-hydroxy-THC (11-OH-THC) is a common metabolite produced when consuming edible cannabis products containing THC. The research suggests CBD may be blocking key liver enzymes (CYP2C9 and CYP2C19) responsible for breaking down both THC and 11-OH-THC. By inhibiting these enzymes, CBD essentially allows the psychoactive compounds to accumulate in the bloodstream.

The researchers found less dramatic but still significant effects with inhaled cannabis, where CBD doses were typically much lower (4mg to 30mg). One study using 400mg inhaled CBD had to be modified because participants couldn’t tolerate the throat irritation from such high doses.

The authors called for better-designed clinical trials to fully characterise this interaction, particularly studies using realistic doses and chronic CBD administration patterns that reflect real-world use. They noted that many people use CBD daily as a supplement or medication, which could lead to even more pronounced interactions.

“While it remains to be determined how CBD-related increases in THC and 11-OH-THC levels translate into behavioural or adverse effects, the findings from the meta-analysis highlight the need for caution and nuance when broadly encouraging high doses of CBD in combination with THC,” the study concluded.

Source link

The WNBA has officially removed marijuana from its prohibited substances list while also laying out rules for how players can invest in and promote cannabis companies.

At the same time, however, the women’s basketball league is also adding several psychedelics to the list of banned drugs.

As part of negotiations between the Women’s National Basketball Players Association and WNBA earlier this year, the league offered to remove cannabis from its drug testing protocol. Now, under the terms of the long-form version of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) signed by representatives of both sides, marijuana no longer appears on the prohibited substances list, whereas under the prior CBA it was included under “Drugs of Abuse.”

Prior WNBA policy treated cannabis significantly more restrictively compared to the NBA, as well as multiple other professional sports leagues beyond basketball that have also adopted reforms amid the state legalization movement. First-time offenses generally resulted in treatment referrals, but repeated violations could lead to fines and suspensions.

Under the new rules, players could still be subject to testing for cannabis if they enter the league’s Drugs of Abuse Program, if they are found to have been under the influence “while engaged in activities” for the team or the league or if they have “a dependency or other related issue involving the use of marijuana.”

Those who are referred to a marijuana treatment program and do not comply with the rules would be subject to fines of $300 per day. Any player who exhibits a “pattern of behavior that demonstrates a mindful disregard for her treatment responsibilities” or tests positive for marijuana would face escalating penalties such as a $3,000 fine or suspension for three or more games.

Players could be subject to “reasonable cause” drug testing or administrative proceedings if they are convicted of a felony involving the distribution or marijuana.

At the same time WNBA and the players union are loosening up on marijuana, however, it has also added specific entries for the psychedelics dimethyltryptamine (DMT), ibogaine, psilocybin and psilocin to the prohibited substances list for the first time.

Also prohibited under the new policy are synthetic cannabinoids, which the document describes as “including, but not limited to, Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (also called delta-8-THC)) and their By-Products.”

Separately, the CBA also addresses players’ investment in and promotion of companies that sell marijuana and hemp-derived CBD products.

It says that players can hold a direct or indirect ownership interest in marijuana companies as long as the interest is passive (meaning no management, governance, voting, or executive role or other operational rights or roles” and they have less than a 50 percent stake in the business.

There is also a requirement for the company to operate “in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations,” and the document specifically notes that players may not hold any ownership interest in a business “that produces or sells any products containing any Prohibited Substance or any other Schedule I or II substance under the Controlled Substances Act.”

While marijuana has been classified under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act since 1970, the Trump administration in April announced that it was moving state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as any cannabinoid products approved by the Food and Drug Administration, to Schedule III, where WNBA’s prohibition would presumably no longer apply. Broader reclassification of marijuana to Schedule III will be the topic of a hearing scheduled to begin later this month.

WNBA’s rules for CBD-specific companies are looser than those for marijuana businesses in that they don’t require passive interest or less than 50 percent ownership. The document also says that players can actively promote and endorse that sell CBD products. If the products are produced by a marijuana company, however, players will first need to receive permission from the league and the union.

“Without limiting such approval right of the WNBA and the Players Association, the promotion or endorsement by a player of a CBD Product that is produced or sold by a Marijuana Company (A) will not be permitted if such CBD Product is associated by the Marijuana Company with any Marijuana Product (e.g., the CBD Product is marketed or sold under a brand that also includes or refers to Marijuana Products) or if any proposed promotion creates a reasonable risk of public confusion with any Marijuana Product, and (B) if approved, shall be subject to any terms and conditions imposed by the WNBA and/or the Players Association.”

“For clarity, any investments in or promotions or endorsements of entities that produce or sell products containing a form of cannabis (including, for clarity, a CBD form of cannabis) not expressly permitted…are prohibited,” the agreement that was finalized on May 22 says. “In the event a player engages in a prohibited investment, promotion, or endorsement, then, without limiting other WNBA rights or remedies, the player shall be required to promptly dispose of her ownership interest in the prohibited investment and/or immediately terminate her participation in the prohibited promotion or endorsement, as applicable.”

The league gave some indication about its willingness to accept the changing tides around cannabis in 2024, when the WNBA team New York Liberty entered into a partnership with a CBD beverage company.

Meanwhile, Brittney Griner—a WNBA player who was previously incarcerated in Russia over possession of marijuana—pulled out of an appearance at a cannabis event last year after discovering what she felt was a threatening message in her hotel room.

Conference attendees had hoped to hear from Griner about the nature of her incarceration in Russia, which helped fuel international debate about cannabis prohibition laws domestically and abroad.

How other sports leagues have navigated marijuana policy for players amid the reform movement.

NBA, for its part, removed marijuana from the banned substances list for players in 2023, and it also freed them up to invest in and promote cannabis companies.

The NFL, meanwhile, reached an agreement with its players union in 2024 to further reform its marijuana policies, significantly reducing fines for positive tests while increasing the allowable THC threshold for players. About four years after NFL ended the practice of suspending players over cannabis or other drugs as part of a collective bargaining agreement, the league again revised its Substances of Abuse Policy and Performance Enhancing Substances Policy.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in 2024 voted to remove marijuana from its banned substances list for Division I players.

The reform builds on a 2022 change that increased the allowable THC threshold for college athletes, aligning NCAA’s rules with those of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

In 2024, Nevada regulators officially adopted a rule change that will protect athletes from being penalized for using or possessing marijuana in compliance with state law.

The head of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) blasted the “unfair” ban on marijuana for athletes competing in international sport events, including the Olympics that were underway in Paris at the time of the comments.

USADA CEO Travis Tygart said it was “disappointing” that WADA has maintained the cannabis prohibition based on what he considers a misguided justification.

WADA did carry out a review into its marijuana policy at the request of USADA and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) following the controversial suspension of U.S. runner Sha’Carri Richardson, who was barred from participating in the Olympics in 2021 after she tested positive for THC. Richardson said she used cannabis to cope with the recent passing of her mother.

While UFC announced in late 2023 that it was formally removing marijuana from its modified banned substances list for athletes, the league notified participants that the reform didn’t apply under California State Athletic Commission (CSAC) rules.

UFC advised fighters that they could be subject to a $100 fine by CSAS if they tested over 150 nanograms of THC per milliliter ahead of the UFC 298 event that took place in February.

In 2024, NFL announced it was partnering with Canadian researchers on a clinical trial to test the safety and efficacy of CBD for pain management and neuroprotection from concussions—key issues for many football players who experience injuries as part of the game.

Source link

The popular point-of-sale and payments service Square says it will no longer allow CBD and other hemp-derived products to be sold on its platform, according to an email obtained by Marijuana Moment.

The communication, sent to a business that uses Square, cited an upcoming change to federal law that will recriminalize many hemp products that were previously legalized by Congress.

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

“Because of this change, selling CBD and hemp-derived products — online or in person — will no longer be permitted on Square’s platform,” the email said.

“Your Square account remains open, and you can continue selling all of your non-CBD products on Square as usual, to the extent permitted under Square’s policies,” it continued. “Only the affected CBD/hemp items are impacted.”

Businesses are being directed to “remove any CBD, hemp and hemp-derived items from your Square catalog (both in-person and online)” by October 15.

“After that date, these items will no longer be permitted on Square platform,” the email said. “We know this is a significant change, and we want to give you as much time and support as possible to prepare.”

A Square spokesperson told Marijuana Moment that “a new federal law taking effect later this year places new restrictions and requirements on hemp-derived products, including those containing CBD.”

“To ensure compliance with this new law, we’re notifying impacted sellers and, where we’re able to, helping them update their catalogs so they can continue processing on Square,” they said.

A now-deleted page on Square’s website previously pitched its services specifically to hemp businesses, saying it could help them “sell CBD online and in-store to reach every customer.”

“Create a free online store and seamlessly accept payments for your CBD products. Or sync our software with your current site,” it said. “No matter how you run your CBD business, Square makes sure every part of it is protected.”

The platform’s new prohibition on hemp products comes amid a growing push in Congress to delay, alter or reverse the forthcoming ban on hemp products.

The U.S. Senate is expected to vote as soon as Friday on whether to extend the effective date of the hemp restrictions until December 11.

A number of members of Congress from both parties have filed or are circulating legislation that would enact regulations for hemp products in lieu of broad prohibition.

When asked whether Square would consider further revising its policies if the federal hemp product ban is delayed or reversed, the spokesperson said that “while we are constantly evaluating our policies and the broader compliance landscape to see if we can support more business types, we don’t have anything specific to share at this time.”

Read the full CBD and hemp products email from Square below:

Subject: [Action required] Important update about your Square account and CBD products

We’re reaching out with an important update about a federal law change that affects businesses selling CBD and hemp-derived products.

What’s changing

A new federal law takes effect on November 12, 2026 that redefines which hemp and hemp-derived products are legal.

Because of this change, selling CBD and hemp-derived products — online or in person — will no longer be permitted on Square’s platform.

What this means for your business

Your Square account remains open, and you can continue selling all of your non-CBD products on Square as usual, to the extent permitted under Square’s policies. Only the affected CBD/hemp items are impacted.

What you need to do

• • By October 15, 2026, please remove any CBD, hemp and hemp-derived items from your Square catalog (both in-person and online).
  • After that date, these items will no longer be permitted on Square platform.
  • If your business sells other, non-CBD products, no further action is needed — you’re all set to keep selling them.

If you have a Square Loan

Your outstanding Square Loan balance is unaffected by this change. Your remaining balance and your loan terms stay the same. Here’s how repayment continues:

• • If you sell other, non-CBD products on Square: Nothing changes about how you repay. Your loan will continue to be repaid automatically as a percentage of your daily card sales, just as it does today.

We know this is a significant change, and we want to give you as much time and support as possible to prepare. For more information or to contact us, visit our Support Center.

Source link

“Cannabis lobbying groups are arming prohibitionists by demonizing hemp—helping those who have been at war with cannabis for decades… I’ve rarely seen a more self-defeating campaign.”

By Aaron Edelheit, Mindset Capital

Are cannabis organizations working to advance reform? Or are they arming the very prohibitionists who want to stop all THC commerce?

Some regulated cannabis companies and cannabis lobbying groups are hard at work fighting hemp, which they see as unfairly competing with more regulated state-cannabis companies. They celebrated last November when Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) snuck a ban into a government funding bill. But knowingly or not, these same organizations are now working side by side with prohibitionists whose cult-like coalition includes politicians and interest groups who want to keep all cannabinoids illegal.

In my opinion, cannabis lobbying groups are arming prohibitionists by demonizing hemp—helping those who have been at war with cannabis for decades. Today’s prohibitionist movement runs on funding from those who hate THC. Every win against their hated enemy, THC, brings prohibitionists more donations, more influence, more media coverage.

The prohibitionists will do anything to win. Beyond misleading and using scare tactics, they have employed canvassers for the Massachusetts ballot initiative who misled signatories about what they were signing. This is more than just politics or business: people are being incarcerated and having their lives ruined, and families are being torn apart because of a plant that should be regulated, not banned.

The hemp ban gave them momentum: sustained energy, paid media, influencer campaigns, political muscle. Now Massachusetts faces the first ballot initiative to roll back a state-legal market, bought and paid for by prohibitionists. The op-eds and influencer campaigns are in full swing, timed perfectly ahead of a federal rescheduling decision.

What the regulated cannabis industry may not understand, is that by aligning themselves with the prohibitionists they are now fighting the president of the United States. President Donald Trump wants the ban delayed so that there is time for common-sense regulation, and it has been reported that he is personally lobbying senators to give Congress time to get it right.

I’ve rarely seen a more self-defeating campaign. The cannabis industry is waiting on rescheduling, tax relief and eventually banking access, while actively opposing the one person who controls all three.

So, here’s my plea to cannabis companies fighting hemp: stop pushing for a total ban. Don’t fight the first president to deliver real cannabis reform. If you want a fight, fight for smart regulation, not alongside the prohibitionists.

Aaron Edelheit is the CEO of Mindset Capital, a private investment firm with investments in cannabis and hemp beverage companies.

Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan.

Source link

Source link

The UK’s long-running project to regulate CBD (cannabidiol) products has taken another major step forward, seeing thousands of products make it to the final phase of the novel foods approval process. 

Yesterday, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) announced that its 12-week public consultation to discuss the authorisation of three applications, which represent nearly 3000 CBD isolate products. 

After almost a decade, this marks the final step towards the UK becoming the first country to officially regulate the non-intoxicating cannabis extract, in what the European Industrial Hemp Association (EIHA) called ‘a crucial milestone confirming the safety profile of hemp-derived CBD’. 

It comes just six weeks after the new board of the FSA met with industry stakeholders to discuss its plan of action to move the process forward, a promise that, so far, it appears to be delivering on. 

First products reach the final stage of the novel foods approval process

Three applications have now passed the ‘risk management’ phase, meaning that the FSA is preparing to make recommendations to government ministers to officially authorise these products for sale, becoming the first regulatory body in the world to do so. 

These three dossiers, RP07, RP350, and RP427, were the first to pass through the risk assessment phase last year. The former two received their first positive safety assessments in April, and RP427 followed in August. 

Chanelle McCoy, the producer of Pureis, said in a press release: “This progress comes after a decade of time and significant investment in a comprehensive suite of Safety Clinical and toxicology studies to support its Novel Food application since its initial submission in January 2020.  

The company’s namesake, founder and CEO said she ‘commends the FSA’ and that this work has set a ‘new global standard’ for CBD regulation, which she hopes can be replicated across the world.  

Daniel Kruse, President of EIHA and CEO of EIHA projects GmbH, commented: “Years of coordinated investment and research have brought us here. Achieving the safety assessment and now advancing into the risk management phase shows that cooperation works. At the same time, the coming months will be crucial: the details matter, and we must make sure this framework can truly support both industry and consumers.” 

• Chanelle McCoy / Pureis
• RP07
• 11 products

• Cannaray
• RP350
• 43 products

• EIHA Consortium
• RP427
• 2718 products

Public consultation phase: ‘The details matter’

On August 28, 2025, the FSA announced the launch of a 12-week public consultation, which will shape the key elements of the request to government ministers for approval. 

This is perhaps the most critical phase of the process to date, as it will inform the regulatory pathway for CBD products for years to come, and potentially influence models elsewhere in the world. 

With many of the stipulations for approval remaining highly controversial this will represent a last-ditch effort to iron out some of these issues with the regulator. 

Each of the three application holders has now received a draft risk management recommendation from the FSA. 

Over the course of the next three months, the consultation will seek to establish the terms of authorisation, such as permitted food categories, the 10 mg/day acceptable daily intake (ADI), and the required safety labelling

As Francesco Mirizzi, Managing Director of EIHA, noted: “It is… important to underline that the consultation period will be key: we will raise a number of points to ensure that the final authorisation, definition and conditions for CBD novel foods are fit for purpose, viable for businesses, and safe and transparent for consumers.”

The FSA’s consultation, launched on 28 August 2025 and open until 20 November 2025, invites feedback on the three applications, targeted at food businesses, trade associations, enforcement authorities, consumer groups and the wider public across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with Food Standards Scotland (FSS) running a parallel process later in the summer.

The consultation seeks views on the proposed terms of authorisation, including permitted uses, labelling and safety conditions, alongside any evidence on the economic or consumer impacts of authorising CBD foods. 

Under the Windsor Framework, authorised CBD products placed on the GB market would also be eligible for sale in Northern Ireland through the Northern Ireland Retail Movement Scheme, although NI-based firms would not be permitted to manufacture their own CBD foods.

Responses can be submitted via the FSA’s online survey or email. Once closed, the FSA and FSS will publish a summary of responses within three months and use this input to inform final recommendations to ministers before any authorisations are granted.

According to the Cannabis Trades Association (CTA), which has played a key role in engaging with the regulator on behalf of industry stakeholders, alongside EIHA, a number of key issues are set to form the bulk of discussion over the coming months. 

• Daily intake: The fixed 10 mg/day limit does not reflect body-weight differences; a mg/kg model could provide more accurate guidance.
• Product scope: Restricting approvals to isolates and synthetic CBD risks excluding broad-spectrum hemp products favoured by consumers, potentially driving demand to the unregulated market.
• Labelling: Full warning statements may be impractical for small packs; a tiered model with core on-pack messages and extended information via QR code or leaflet is suggested.
• THC limits: The proposed 0.00001% w/w threshold is unrealistic given testing variability and inconsistent with the Home Office’s 1 mg/container exemption; harmonisation is needed.
• Data protection: Five-year exclusivity could disadvantage SMEs relying on the Public List; an equivalence route would help balance innovation and fair access.
• Enforcement: Divided responsibilities between local authorities (Novel Foods) and police (controlled substances) create complexity; stakeholders argue for a joint FSA–Home Office protocol.

Once the consultation comes to a close, and the terms of authorisation have been established, Ministers in England, Wales and Scotland will then decide whether to approve the applications. 

Since regulatory reforms came into force in April 2025, ministerial decisions now take effect immediately and are published on the official registers of authorised products, rather than being delayed by secondary legislation.

While there is a meaningful change in both the transparency and proaction from the FSA, many questions remain surrounding how companies currently on the public list move ahead or choose to reformulate, an option only announced last month. 

Looking further ahead, should a regulatory pathway be formally established, it remains unclear how new players can enter the market. 

This article was originally published by Business of Cannabis and is reprinted here with permission.

New analysis has found that NHS access to medical cannabis could boost the UK’s economy by £13.3 billion over the next decade by returning thousands back to work.

Widening NHS access to medical cannabis could add £4.5 billion to the economy over five years, and £13.3 billion over a decade, according to an economic analysis by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr).

The research, commissioned by Curaleaf Clinic, also suggests NHS access could help thousands of people with long-term health conditions return to work, while reducing hospital admissions for those eligible by 28% a year.

Since its legalisation in 2018, private prescriptions for cannabis-based medicines have already contributed around £283 million in Gross Value Added (GVA) by helping people get well and back to work.

Roughly 2.8 million people in the UK are currently locked out of employment due to long-term illness2. Polling3 conducted alongside the Cebr study, found 62% of those who have been out of work and prescribed medication believe they have exhausted all traditional treatment options.

Those behind the research say the findings reveal a missed opportunity to improve lives, relieve pressure on the NHS, and support the government’s five-year plan to get more people working.

“Our analysis shows that appropriately prescribed medical cannabis can help people with chronic conditions return to work,” commented Pushpin Singh, Managing Economist at the Centre for Economics and Business Research.

“Expanding NHS access would benefit patients while delivering significant productivity gains and cost savings to the UK economy.”

READ MORE: Economic analysis finds medical cannabis could save NHS £4 billion each year

Out of work and out of options

Many people who have experienced unemployment due to long-term illness are frustrated with traditional medications. In total, 55% who have been prescribed medication report they provide little relief and 48% say they negatively affect their quality of life.

Being excluded from the workforce also takes a heavy emotional toll. Over half report a loss of self-esteem (56%) and declining confidence (52%), while 46% feel helpless. Mental health is also affected, with 47% saying unemployment has harmed their wellbeing and 39% experiencing feelings of embarrassment.

Fatma Mehmet, a patient at Curaleaf Clinic, says medical cannabis has helped her regain her independence.

“Living with chronic pain took a huge toll on my physical and mental health. As someone independent and career-driven, not being able to get out of bed and go to work made me feel as if my identity was being stripped away,” she says.

“When I felt like I was at rock bottom and out of options, I discovered medical cannabis. I now have the ability to work, lead a team, and regain my independence. Expanding medical cannabis via the NHS would mean greater choice for more people, which can only be a good thing.”

A roadmap towards improving access 

However, there is interest in medical cannabis as an alternative therapy with nearly half (44%) who have not previously been prescribed it saying they would consider trying it if it were more widely available on the NHS.

Nearly two-thirds of UK adults (64%) believe people with chronic ill-health should have more treatment options to get back to work, while 71% of those directly affected say medical cannabis should be made more widely available if it can help.

But 40% of those who have struggled with employment due to a diagnosed long-term health condition are still unaware that medical cannabis is a legally available treatment in the UK, and 33% describe the current system as confusing, inaccessible or unclear.

“As a doctor, I see daily how chronic illness doesn’t just affect someone’s health – it removes them from the workforce, creates economic hardship, and leads to a cascade of social and psychological problems that can worsen the cycle of ill health,” says Dr Simon Erridge, Director of Research at Curaleaf Clinic.

“This analysis shows that medical cannabis isn’t just a health issue – it’s an economic one too. Our goal is to give people affected by poor health more choice and control in their treatment, helping them build independence and, where appropriate, re-enter the workplace. This report highlights a way forward.

“We urgently need a roadmap towards improving access to medical cannabis via the NHS for suitable patients,  with the required investment in essential research to deliver this.”

Cannabis Health Symposium 2025 – advancing clinical practice in CBMPs

As patient access grows and prescribing frameworks evolve, health professionals need up-to-date, evidence-based guidance. The Cannabis Health Symposium 2025 brings together clinicians, prescribers, pharmacists, and researchers to explore the latest clinical evidence, policy updates, and real-world applications of cannabis-based medicines.

What to expect:

• Evidence-led sessions on prescribing, safety, and efficacy
• Policy and regulatory updates for UK healthcare settings
• Practical insights from frontline clinicians and researchers
• Networking with peers, prescribers, and industry leaders

Join us in London for a day of clinical education and discussion on the future of cannabis in healthcare.

Source link