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

By Mike Simpson, Lovewell Farms via Rhode Island Current

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AG candidates: Please answer the following

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This story was first published by Rhode Island Current.

Source link

“Diagnoses are sometimes entered into medical records without…meaningful consideration of medically authorized cannabis use.”

By Etienne Fontan, Veterans Action Council

The 2013 release of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) introduced cannabis use disorder (CUD) as a new diagnosis, replacing the DSM-4 categories of Cannabis Abuse and Cannabis Dependence with a single, severity-based unified diagnosis.

This change was framed as a modernization of psychiatric classification, but it has had significant implications within systems such as the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) under the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

In Part 4 of our series on veterans’ cannabis issues that are illuminated by the Veterans Action Council’s (VAC) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, we turn our focus toward a problem affecting many veterans: the improper diagnosis of CUD within VHA.

CUD is defined as a pattern of cannabis use that causes clinically significant impairment or distress, assessed through criteria including impaired control, cravings, continued use despite harm, tolerance and withdrawal. The DSM-5 places these criteria on a continuum, classifying severity as mild, moderate or severe according to the number of criteria met.

However, the decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to merge cannabis abuse and dependence into a single diagnosis did more than streamline terminology. It fundamentally altered the threshold and breadth of diagnosis.

Under DSM-IV, abuse and dependence were distinct conditions with different clinical implications. Abuse generally referred to problematic patterns of use with social or legal consequences, while dependence suggested a more entrenched physiological and behavioral pattern.

By collapsing these into one category, DSM-5 widened the diagnostic net, capturing a broader range of individuals under a single label.

This shift was driven by concerns about inconsistency. Researchers and clinicians had long observed that the boundary between abuse and dependence was not always clear and that patients often moved between categories. DSM-5 sought to resolve this by treating substance use as a spectrum.

In theory, this improved diagnostic reliability and aligned cannabis with other substance use disorders. In practice, however, it also created circumstances in which individuals who previously would not have received a diagnosis or would have received a less severe diagnosis could now be classified as having a disorder.

This distinction is not merely academic. A diagnosis carries weight. It shapes treatment decisions, becomes part of a patient’s permanent medical record and influences how future providers interpret that patient’s history.

Within the VHA system, the broader definition of CUD has intersected with institutional practices in ways that many veterans and advocates find troubling.

Reports have surfaced describing situations in which a positive THC test, often obtained through routine screening, is followed by the assignment of a CUD diagnosis without a comprehensive clinical evaluation.

Such practices raise an important question: Is CUD always being applied as a carefully considered medical diagnosis, or has it, in some cases, become an administrative label? In a proper clinical setting, diagnosis should follow a thorough assessment that considers symptoms, context, medical history and the patient’s own explanation of their cannabis use.

It should involve a conversation in which the patient understands the criteria being applied and has an opportunity to explain whether their cannabis use is therapeutic, medically supervised or otherwise clinically appropriate.

Yet many veterans report that this process is not consistently followed. Diagnoses are sometimes entered into medical records without prior discussion, without documentation of a structured DSM-5 assessment and without meaningful consideration of medically authorized cannabis use.

This gap between diagnostic standards and real-world application undermines the principles DSM-5 was intended to advance. When patients use cannabis daily under state medical cannabis laws to manage chronic pain, PTSD or other conditions, they may satisfy certain DSM criteria despite experiencing improved functioning rather than impairment.

Cannabis occupies a uniquely complex position within American healthcare. Although it remains federally prohibited, it is legal for medical use in many states and is widely used by veterans seeking alternatives to opioids or other medications.

The DSM-5 framework does not explicitly distinguish therapeutic cannabis use from problematic use. As a result, individuals using cannabis as physician-guided symptom management may nevertheless fall within a diagnostic framework originally intended to identify psychiatric illness.

The consolidation of abuse and dependence into a single diagnosis has also contributed to what many describe as diagnostic inflation. When criteria are broadened and applied without careful clinical judgment, prevalence rates may increase—not necessarily because more patients have a true disorder, but because more individuals satisfy an expanded definition.

In large systems such as VHA—where diagnostic coding serves administrative, research and reporting functions—this creates the risk that consistency may take precedence over individualized assessment.

The role of institutions cannot be overlooked. The APA establishes diagnostic criteria, but organizations such as the VHA operationalize those criteria on a national scale. Their implementation determines how these definitions affect veterans’ lives.

The increasing emphasis on CUD within the VHA system has coincided with expanded drug screening practices and a historically cautious institutional approach toward cannabis. What has not kept pace, however, is the rapid evolution of scientific research examining both the potential therapeutic benefits and the limitations of medical cannabis.

None of this is to suggest that CUD is not a legitimate diagnosis. For some individuals, cannabis use becomes harmful and requires clinical intervention. The concern is not the diagnosis itself, but proportionality, accuracy and adherence to accepted diagnostic standards.

Additional Evidence From VAC FOIA Records

Internal VA records obtained through the VAC’s FOIA request raise important questions about how VHA applies CUD. In 2022, VA correspondence reported 134,790 veterans with cannabis-positive urine drug screens and 139,336 veterans identified as having CUD. While these figures alone do not prove improper diagnoses, they warrant scrutiny when compared with national epidemiologic data.

Research cited within the same FOIA records from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC-III) found that 7.3 percent of U.S. veterans reported cannabis use in the previous year, but only 1.8 percent met DSM criteria for CUD. This suggests that only a minority of cannabis users meet the diagnostic threshold and underscores the need for individualized clinical assessments rather than reliance on cannabis use alone.

The FOIA records also reveal that VA officials recognized the complexity of the issue.

In one email, VA Office of Research and Development Media Branch Chief Bruce I. Friedland acknowledged the need to “thread a needle” between addressing genuine cannabis-related substance use disorders and supporting research into cannabis as a potential therapeutic treatment.

In another email, Friedland sought guidance because VA lacked cannabis-specific resources for veterans who believed they had developed cannabis dependence.

Additional correspondence from UCSF physician Dr. Salomeh Keyhani recommended that veterans identified through urine drug screening be individually assessed for high-risk cannabis use and offered treatment when appropriate, consistent with the DSM-5 requirement for a comprehensive clinical evaluation rather than diagnosis based solely on laboratory findings.

VA research contained in the FOIA materials also found that nearly one third of reviewed patient records contained no documented discussion of cannabis between providers and patients. Of those that did, nearly half involved medical cannabis use rather than discussions of risks or harm reduction.

These findings reinforce the importance of patient-provider dialogue and individualized clinical judgment before assigning a psychiatric diagnosis.

For veterans managing complex medical conditions, inaccurate psychiatric diagnoses can affect treatment decisions, disability evaluations, provider perceptions and confidence in the medical record. Restoring integrity to CUD diagnosis requires rigorous application of DSM-5 criteria, informed patient participation, consideration of therapeutic cannabis use and periodic review of institutional practices to ensure administrative efficiency never replaces sound clinical judgment.

A diagnosis should ultimately serve the patient by guiding treatment and accurately reflecting clinical reality. The value of DSM-5 depends not only on how its criteria are written, but on how faithfully they are applied.

Etienne Fontan is a U.S. Army Desert Storm combat veteran and co-owner of Berkeley Patients Group, one of the nation’s longest-operating medical cannabis dispensaries. He serves on the Veterans Action Council, where he works on veterans’ access to cannabis, federal policy reform and international drug policy issues.

Source link

“At the state level, we probably have more questions than answers.”

By Makenzie Huber, South Dakota Searchlight

A federal change in medical marijuana’s legal classification should help South Dakota’s medical cannabis industry claim business tax deductions and gain access to banking, officials told state lawmakers Monday, but questions remain about the broader impact.

Whitney Brunner, administrator of the state’s medical cannabis program, told the legislative Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee during a meeting at the Capitol in Pierre that the federal government has shared little information about the change with the state—other than to request data.

“At the state level, we probably have more questions than answers,” Brunner said.

In April, the federal government moved medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under federal drug law. Schedule I drugs are considered to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule III drugs are recognized as having accepted medical uses and a lower potential for abuse.

Recreational marijuana remains a Schedule I drug under federal policy, even though 24 states and the District of Columbia allow recreational cannabis in various forms. South Dakota does not allow recreational marijuana use.

Medical marijuana has been legal in South Dakota since 2021, after voters approved it through a citizen-led ballot measure in 2020. Since then, South Dakota has built a regulatory framework—including licensing systems, testing requirements and oversight.

Brunner did not say whether South Dakota businesses will be required to register with the Drug Enforcement Administration to participate in the state program or what new compliance requirements they might face.

Kittrick Jeffries, chairman of the Cannabis Industry Association of South Dakota and owner of Puffy’s Dispensary in Rapid City, said some businesses are taking the initiative.

“A lot of our establishments within our association are currently going through the DEA inspection process to become licensed under the DEA,” Jeffries said.

Cannabis businesses have long been blocked from taking certain federal tax deductions because marijuana was classified as a Schedule I substance—meaning they couldn’t deduct ordinary business expenses the way other businesses can. Banks have also largely avoided working with cannabis businesses because marijuana remains broadly illegal under federal law, exposing financial institutions to regulatory penalties even in states where it’s legal.

The reclassification will allow medical cannabis businesses to claim deductions, said Nicole Ezeh, a presenter with the National Conference of State Legislatures. It should also ease banking access for the industry.

The federal changes come as South Dakota’s program is in transition. Brunner told lawmakers the department overhauled its medical cannabis inspection program over the last year, after inspectors were missing violations and citing establishments inconsistently.

“We realized last year, and it wasn’t a difficult realization to make, that we had a lot of work to do on inspections and our processes,” Brunner said.

The department created new procedures and training, reorganized its supervisor structure and added a formal process for businesses to challenge citations, Brunner said.

Rob Krogstad, who operates Bad River Cannabis in Fort Pierre, told lawmakers his business was fined $3,000 for two “clerical errors” that were corrected before inspectors left the building.

“There will be human error,” Krogstad said, adding that the fine forced the business to delay other operational expenses. He suggested a three-strikes approach for minor clerical errors, with immediate fines reserved for more serious violations.

A rules package moving through administrative review would “make this a little easier on establishments,” Brunner said. The package would simplify language around inventory tracking training and reduce how long businesses must store security camera footage—changes Brunner said would be less expensive and less “cumbersome.”

The rules package would also restructure the fines system, making first-offense minor violations result in a corrective action plan rather than an immediate fine.

This story was first published by South Dakota Searchlight.

Source link

President Donald Trump’s Dec. 18 executive order directing the Justice Department to officially classify cannabis as a less-dangerous drug with medicinal value under federal law is historic and transformative.

But marijuana rescheduling is also generating confusion, wild speculation and genuine misinformation in and around the $32 billion U.S. regulated cannabis industry.

On top of the practical questions, such as what exactly this does and when it happens, some wild theories and strange conjecture abound, including allegations this is all a looming Big Pharma takeover (not anytime soon) and that this means cannabis companies can claim federal tax relief going back years (don’t push your luck).

MJBizDaily participated in a webinar with Denver-based law firm Vicente LLP on Dec. 22 addressing these and a few other urgent issues. Some are points of law that will be argued (and re-argued) in court. Other question marks hinge on future action. But there are some known knowns.

Here are some of the industry’s most pressing and most-asked questions around marijuana rescheduling.

When is cannabis officially Schedule 3?

Unclear, but soon, or soonish – probably. Unless someone screws something up, and then it could be years.

On Dec. 18, Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to “take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III,” and to do so  “in the most expeditious manner in accordance with Federal law.” How fast is “the most expeditious”? No one knows – maybe not even the White House. “There is no deadline,” Shane Pennington, a partner with national law firm Blank Rome, recently told MJBizDaily.

In theory, the Justice Department could move quickly, declare the currently paused process left over from the Biden administration finished and publish a final rule in the Federal Register, the official record of what the federal government does – after which time final rules are usually effective in 30 days.

But there are complications. Critics dragged the Biden administration rescheduling process for taking too long, in part because the DOJ adhered to the process: taking public comment, responding to some of them, scheduling hearings before an administrative law judge – that is, building a record should the question come up in court of whether federal law was followed.

Legalization opponents have vowed to sue to stop rescheduling no matter what. If corners are cut and cannabis foes can convince a federal judge that the process wasn’t right, rescheduling could end up stuck in the courts. And United States court is rarely an expeditious process.

Does marijuana rescheduling mean 280E no longer applies in 2025? Is 280E relief retroactive?

For many operators, the top question relates to tax relief, how much of it and when. “Everybody’s super excited about not having to deal with 280E,” said Rachel Gillette, a Denver-based partner at Holland & Hart, in the understatement of the year.

But some operators appear to be ready to file their 2025 returns free from 280E or go even further and file amended returns going back years. They are certainly free to do so, but that seems to guarantee a fight with the Internal Revenue Service in tax court – which is probably where the issue was destined, anyway.

Keep in mind cannabis remains Schedule 1 until the above process plays out – that is, until sometime in 2026 at the earliest. That means cannabis was Schedule 1 for all of 2025 – which means 280E applies.

As some tax experts recently noted in Bloomberg Law, the Internal Revenue Service has generally never allowed retroactive amendments to prior year returns based on changes in the law. (Think about it this way: marijuana legalization has allowed certain past offenses expunged but only because of accompanying changes in the law allowing for expungements; Congress could in theory also allow past 280E bills wiped out, but seems unlikely to do so.)

“That’s the official position of the IRS,” Gillette noted.

However, that doesn’t mean some enterprising cannabis operators won’t push the issue anyway and file amended returns for past years and/or 2025 returns claiming immunity. But that means spoiling for a fight.

“Everything can be argued by a lawyer,” Gillette noted.

What does this mean for the hemp THC ban?

Very little, at least directly.

Thanks to the spending bill Trump signed into law last month to end the record-long government shutdown, the federal definition of hemp will change in November 2026. When it does, nearly all of the products keeping the $28.3 billion U.S. hemp sector afloat become illegal – at least under federal law. Many states still have hemp regulations that remain unchanged regardless of what the feds do – and exactly what they can do, if they do anything at all, is far from clear.

(If that sounds familiar, it should: That’s the status quo for state-regulated cannabis.)

Nothing in Trump’s executive order changes this, either on the state or the federal level. However, the order does direct top White House officials to “work with the Congress to update the statutory definition of final hemp-derived cannabinoid products to allow Americans to benefit from access to appropriate full-spectrum CBD products while preserving the Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose serious health risks.”

Keep in mind that Mehmet Oz, the director of the Centers for Medicaid Services, promised that senior citizens in the U.S. could see up to $500 in annual reimbursements for CBD products by April. It will be hard for them to have any products to reimburse if they can’t get anything – and the hemp industry has said that the limit, set to go into effect next year, of no more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container of finished product is unworkable.

Trump’s EO puts the executive and legislative branches on notice to revisit the hemp question. Presidential encouragement is likely to encourage action, but it does not guarantee it.

For hemp-derived THC beverages to enjoy federal protections or for full-spectrum CBD products to stay on the market, Congress must act.

What else does this mean for existing cannabis businesses?

For now, that’s pretty much it.

It’s true that other Schedule 3 drugs, like Tylenol with codeine and anabolic steroids, are legally obtained only via prescription and only from valid pharmacies via the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval process. It’s also true that botanical products, like cannabis flower, aren’t generally sold in pharmacies with a doctor’s note.

Few serious cannabis industry observers will tell you that the existing state-regulated dispensary/retail model is suddenly going to end or that cannabis somehow becomes more illegal when restrictions are relaxed. (That’s the whole point of relaxing restrictions – and cannabis was already Schedule 1, the strictest control available, and the feds didn’t shut it all down.)

More changes to federal law are almost certainly coming. Some could come as soon as 2026. But rescheduling isn’t meant to disrupt the existing industry, and by itself should not.

Chris Roberts can be reached at chris.roberts@mjbizdaily.com.

Source link