The federal ban on intoxicating hemp products would shut down about 68.1% of U.S. hemp-related businesses, according to a Whitney Economics report outlined by The Denver Gazette. The ban, which was set to take effect in November was delayed one month in August, via an amendment to a federal funding bill. 

The Whitney Economics analysis found that, in addition to the closures, 15.5% of hemp businesses would need to lay off employees, 6.9% would remain in business but would see less revenue, and 3.2% would relocate, presumably outside of the U.S. 

The report also suggests that states would lose between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion in tax revenue and between $46.6 billion and $59.6 billion in potential retail losses.  

“Given the high levels of potential business failures and relocations, the economic impact of the current hemp laws, if enacted is rather profound, a reduction of total industry wide revenues by $35.1-$41.3 billion, 29,523-36,744 fewer employers and 188,961-225,861 displaced workers, earning between $7.5-$8.9 billion in wages.” — Whitney Economics, “2026 U.S. Hemp Cannabinoid Report,” via the Gazette 

The U.S. Hemp Roundtable has suggested that between 90% and 95% of current hemp products sold in the U.S. would be eliminated from the market under the ban, according to the Gazette. 

Whitney Economics surveyed 496 hemp businesses across 35 states to compile the report.  

Ganjapreneur: Offering daily insights since 2014, the leading digital business journal for cannabis industry professionals. Subscribe to the newsletter to join our community of over 40,000 ganjapreneurs.

Source link

Josh Turek, the Democratic nominee in a U.S. Senate race in Iowa this year, says it’s time to federally legalize, regulate and tax marijuana.

The candidate, currently a state representative, told voters at an Iowa State University football tailgate that he thinks cannabis’s longtime restrictive Schedule I status is “ridiculous.”

Turek told one man that he liked a cannabis leaf hat he was wearing. That prompted a woman to tell the Senate candidate that he should “fix” federal marijuana laws, adding that she has “so much pain” and “would like to be able to take gummies at night.”

Turek, who was born with spina bifida and is in a wheelchair, said he has “dealt with so many individuals with disabilities” and that cannabis is “one of the few ways that they see relief from their spasms.”

He suggested that marijuana isn’t harmful enough to be prohibited “in the grand scheme of things, when you’re looking at the health implications from tobacco or from alcohol.”

“Or opioids,” the woman voter chimed in. “I do not want to take opioids.”

“Absolutely,” Turek replied. Policymakers will “always reach out for Big Pharma,” he said, but not for “anything natural.”

“I would love to be able to address that federal level,” the candidate said. “I think it should be legalized and regulated, and let’s tax it. You’ve seen it with other states.”

In 2023, Turek cosponsored a bill in the Iowa House of Representatives to legalize adult-use marijuana and expand the state’s current medical cannabis program by allowing doctors to recommend it for any medical condition they see fit.

Turek’s opponent for the Senate seat, U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson (R), voted against a bill to federally legalize marijuana on the House floor in 2022. She did, however, support separate legislation in 2021 to ease the cannabis industry’s access to banking services.

Meanwhile in Iowa, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rob Sand recently explained why he thinks marijuana should be legalized and treated like alcohol, even if he thinks it’s “dangerous.”

“Marijuana is a dangerous drug,” he said. “You shouldn’t abuse it, but we also shouldn’t throw people in prison just for using it. We should treat it the way we treat alcohol. Alcohol is a dangerous drug. You shouldn’t abuse it, but we don’t throw you in prison just for having a beer when you get home.”

Separately, Iowa regulators are circulating proposed rules changes to remove the residency requirement for patients in the state’s medical cannabis program while also ensuring that military veterans qualify for reduced registration fees.

The residency-focused part of the regulatory change from the state Department of Health and Human Services is meant to comply with provisions of a bill that Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) signed into law in June.

In addition to allowing out-of-state residents to register in the medical cannabis program if they have a certification from an Iowa healthcare provider legislation, that legislation also doubles the number of medical cannabis dispensaries that are allowed to operate in the state.

Also this session, Iowa lawmakers considered a bill to create a state-regulated therapeutic psilocybin program for patients with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Last year, the governor vetoed earlier legislation that would have allowed doctors in the state to immediately prescribe a synthetic form of psilocybin in the event of federal approval of the psychedelic substance by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), arguing that it “surrenders state authority to make an informed determination about classification to federal officials.”

Source link

For the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA), New Zealand provides a particularly relevant case study for neighbouring governments that continue to prohibit or heavily restrict lower-risk nicotine products. Executive Coordinator Nancy Loucas argues that the results challenge predictions that regulated vaping access would derail progress against cigarettes.

Smoking decreases as vaping increases (worldwide)

These figures contrast dramatically with the U.S. youth smoking epidemic of previous decades. They also complicate the argument that introducing alternative nicotine products must inevitably renormalise cigarette smoking. Naturally, population trends alone cannot prove vaping caused declining smoking rates; taxation, smoke-free laws, changing social attitudes, prevention campaigns and other factors all contribute.

That distinction is really important. While it’s crucial to prevent young people from starting nicotine, tackling vaping and eliminating smoking are not the same public health goals. Cigarettes are especially dangerous since the combustion process creates a toxic mix that leads to most tobacco-related diseases.

Evidence for vaping as a smoking cessation tool keeps strengthening

In seven trials with 2,544 participants, nicotine vaping increased quit rates by 59% compared to NRT. To put it simply, about eight to ten out of every 100 people using nicotine e-cigarettes managed to quit for at least six months, while roughly six out of 100 who used patches, gum, or other NRT were successful.

That places vaping firmly within the evidence-based smoking cessation toolkit rather than merely making it an alternative consumer product.

A model to follow

New Zealand has increasingly attempted to combine adult access with measures intended to prevent youth uptake. Its government explicitly recognises less harmful alternatives such as vaping as practical tools for smokers trying to quit. CAPHRA argues that this approach deserves particular consideration across Asia, where millions continue to smoke while several governments favour prohibition or severe restrictions on vaping.

There are important qualifications. New Zealand authorities acknowledge that illicit cigarettes could account for part of the accelerated reduction in legal tobacco sales, while persistent smoking inequalities remain, particularly among Māori and more deprived communities. These challenges reinforce the need for targeted cessation support rather than complacency.

The undeniable case for tobacco harm reduction

New Zealand’s experience may not prove that vaping alone caused its remarkable decline in smoking. However, it does show that widespread access to vaping goes hand in hand with decreased smoking rates.

Punished for Success? New Zealand’s “Dirty Ashtray” Reveals The FCTC’s Embedded Bias

Source link

Canada’s federal government recently published cannabis industry sales data for June 2026, and the industry set a new monthly sales record. According to Statistics Canada and as initially reported by StratCann, Canadian cannabis retailers sold $517.8 million (CAD) worth of cannabis in June 2026.

The setting of a new monthly record in Canada seemed to generate quite a bit of discussion among cannabis industry members and observers, yielding comparisons between the size of Canada’s legal cannabis market and the State of California’s market. There has also been considerable discussion in recent days about international cannabis imports and exports, with Germany setting a new quarterly record for cannabis imports in Q1 2026, data demonstrating that Australia imported a record total of medical cannabis in 2025, and Brazil’s medical cannabis import authorizations increasing significantly in the first half of 2026.

As the global cannabis industry becomes increasingly more connected, the United States continues to largely remain in ‘cruise control,’ at least from an international cannabis perspective. That is evident in cannabis import data from other countries, with Germany serving as a great example. Germany is currently the top destination for medical cannabis exports from other legal markets.

According to Germany’s Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM), Germany imported medical cannabis from 22 different countries between 2024 and 2026, with Canada as the top source by far. Portugal is in second place on the list, followed by Denmark and North Macedonia. The Czech Republic exported more medical cannabis to Germany in Q1 2026 compared to North Macedonia, but has historically trailed behind. The United States is not on the list at all.

Australia currently ranks second for medical cannabis imports, having imported over 81 tonnes of medical cannabis products in 2025. By comparison, Germany imported roughly 205 tonnes of medical cannabis in 2025. Similar to Germany, Canada is the top source for medical cannabis imports in Australia, although it is losing ground to Thailand.

In 2024, Australia imported about 1.1 tonnes of medical cannabis from Thailand and 62.1 tonnes from Canada. However, in 2025, Australia imported roughly 20.7 tonnes from Thailand and 49.1 tonnes from Canada. South Africa, New Zealand, and Colombia are other top sources for medical cannabis imports to Australia, but much like in Germany, the United States is absent from the import data.

The federal government in the United States is in the process of rescheduling cannabis from its current status as a Schedule I substance to Schedule III. Once that rescheduling process is complete, medical cannabis companies in the U.S. will finally have a path to make meaningful inroads into the global export market. With that being said, there will no doubt be some headaches for U.S. companies along the way.

For starters, medical cannabis exports will have to comply with the standards of other markets, such as the Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards in European markets. The standard is by no means impossible for U.S. companies to meet, but it will require U.S. companies to adjust some of their practices. There is also the logistical consideration of shipping cannabis to far away markets, often over long periods of time. Markets in the U.S. are currently siloed and limited to state borders. Cannabis that is cultivated and harvested does not travel very far in the U.S., which is obviously different compared to exporting cannabis halfway around the world. It is not an insurmountable issue, but it is something that U.S. companies have historically not had to face.

Additionally, there is the basic math involved. Cannabis producers in the United States are certainly capable of producing large amounts of cannabis. There is no doubt about that. However, are U.S. producers capable of producing large amounts of cannabis that can meet the standards of other markets and do it in a way that makes U.S. cannabis economically viable in other markets? U.S. cannabis will have to compete with cannabis produced in places like Thailand and Colombia, where it is much cheaper to cultivate. Just as Canada is losing international market share to other countries, the United States will also have to compete in an increasingly crowded export market.

Another consideration is the rise of domestic production in legal cannabis markets. Many legal countries have historically relied on cannabis imports because their own production was either prohibited or their production infrastructure was not developed. But as time goes by, many of those same countries will increasingly produce their own medical cannabis, reducing the reliance on imports from other markets. Cannabis is, at the end of the day, an agricultural crop, and there will always be a need for imports and exports of it, but with the U.S. having already ceded such a big head start to other nations, it will be interesting to see if it can catch up or not. Only time will tell.

Source link