“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

“Defendants are free to implement the law as they see fit, including accepting applications, holding a lottery, and issuing adult-use recreational and social equity cannabis licenses.”

By Christopher Shea, Rhode Island Current

A federal court order that blocked Rhode Island regulators from awarding cannabis retail licenses is now lifted, clearing the way for a new application process already underway.

U.S. District Court Judge Melissa DuBose on Friday dissolved the preliminary injunction she issued against the Rhode Island Cannabis Control Commission on April 8 now that the state’s 2022 Cannabis Act Act no longer requires all retail license holders to be majority-owned by Rhode Island residents.

“Defendants are free to implement the law as they see fit, including accepting applications, holding a lottery, and issuing adult-use recreational and social equity cannabis licenses,” DuBose, a Biden appointee, wrote.

DuBose indicated in a July 22 order she would grant the state’s motion to dissolve the April ruling once the three lawsuits challenging Rhode Island’s residency requirements were kicked down from Boston’s appellate court, which happened August 11.

Under the new law signed by Gov. Dan McKee (D) on June 10, applicants are defined as a person or a business who has “made an application for issuance of a license or certificate to own or engage in a cannabis business.”

The amended Cannabis Act voided the original application process, and the Cannabis Control Commission opened a new one on August 7. Online submissions for the state’s three license types will be accepted through Monday, November 23.

“The General Assembly’s passage of SB 3313 removed provisions deemed likely to violate the Constitution and because of that, the controversy at issue in the preliminary injunction is no  longer immediate or real,” DuBose wrote.

The legal challenges began in May 2024, when California cannabis entrepreneur Justyna Jensen sued the Cannabis Control Commission in U.S. District Court in Providence, arguing Rhode Island’s residency requirement for licenses under the original Cannabis Act violated interstate commerce protection. That same month, Florida resident John Kenney filed a second federal lawsuit against the commission objecting to the residency requirement. A California resident filed a third lawsuit on similar grounds on November 24, 2025.

DuBose initially dismissed the complaints in February 2025 since two were filed before the commission enacted the state’s inaugural cannabis regulations in May 2025. But the cases were revived in December by Boston’s federal appeals court, which demanded DuBose rule based on the merits of the cases.

Her April ruling barred the Cannabis Control Commission from holding a lottery to award licenses and reviewing the 97 license applications submitted for 20 new retail cannabis licenses.

Because of the state’s recent changes, regulators filed a motion in late June to dissolve DuBose’s preliminary injunction arguing the complaints against the residency requirement were moot.

Kenney and his attorneys supported the state’s request. Jensen and her legal team opposed it, claiming the new law still disadvantaged out-of-state applicants because they would have to secure property in Rhode Island on a short timeline in order to qualify for a retail license.

DuBose was unpersuaded by Jensen’s argument.

“She has had years, not months, to scour the Rhode Island market in search of a suitable property,” DuBose wrote in Friday’s ruling. “She has also had at least four months to search for property since this court entered its injunction.”

Jeffrey Jensen, Justyna’s husband and attorney, did not immediately respond to request for comment Monday.

Charon Rose, spokesperson for the Cannabis Control Commission, said the agency welcomed DuBose’s decision to dissolve the injunction but declined to comment further amid the ongoing litigation.

No applications for adult-use retail licenses have been submitted as of Monday afternoon, Rose confirmed in an email. The commission has received 32 interest forms from prospective social equity applicants, with 13 applying for initial screening for the license type reserved for people adversely affected by the war on drugs.

Social equity businesses must 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.

The certification process will remain open through September 11.

This story was first published by Rhode Island Current.

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