The AGs argue that the 2018 federal Farm Bill, which legalized hemp with low levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), unleashed a flood of intoxicating hemp products across state lines. Their proposed solution is for Congress to impose a nationwide prohibition. The irony is that nearly all of these AGs represent states that have already enacted laws governing these products, ranging from outright bans to treating them like alcohol or folding them into their existing frameworks for legal cannabis. Their request for a federal ban is a direct repudiation of the work done by their own democratically elected legislatures.  

This dynamic is perfectly illustrated by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. His state has regulated intoxicating hemp edibles and beverages since 2022—a year before establishing the state’s adult-use cannabis market—recently imposing new rules on hemp product testing. After facing backlash for signing a letter asking Congress to recriminalize products made legal under Minnesota law, his office clarified that he actually favors a carve-out for those states with “adequate regulatory schemes in place.” That nuance, absent from the AGs’ letter itself, only highlights the contradiction that these chief legal officers, sworn to uphold the laws of their states, are demanding a federal policy that would nullify them.  

Constitutionally, the framework for this issue is clear. Under the long-standing interpretation of the “Commerce Clause,” states retain the authority to regulate or ban any class of product they deem threatening to public health or safety, provided their laws do not discriminate against out-of-state producers. Congress does not interfere with this state-level power by authorizing interstate hemp commerce. However, it is up to states to implement their own rules. If attorneys general are concerned that their state laws are being violated, the responsibility of enforcement rests with them, not Congress.  

It is not surprising that attorneys general are struggling to enforce state-level restrictions on hemp. However, their frustration is the inevitable consequence of adopting overly restrictive and unenforceable regulatory regimes, rather than a loophole in federal law. As governments have learned repeatedly throughout history, prohibition—and even heavy-handed regulation—does not eliminate demand but pushes it toward unregulated alternatives. This is a lesson these officials should understand firsthand from their own states’ experiences regulating cannabis markets.  

It is therefore shocking that some of the signatories represent states like Arizona, California, and Colorado, which regulate hemp cannabinoid products under the same strict rules governing their legal marijuana markets. This raises the question of what these signatories believe a federal ban would accomplish, other than dismantling their own functional regulatory systems and handing the market back to illicit actors. 

Other states are pioneering more innovative models for hemp regulation that could effectively address the AGs’ concerns, if given time. Kentucky, a leading hemp producer, has created a sophisticated dual-track system for regulating hemp-derived products based on their potential to cause intoxication. The Kentucky Department of Public Health maintains an evolving list of cannabinoids categorized as “intoxicating” or “nonintoxicating.” Intoxicating products can be sold outside of the state’s medical marijuana dispensaries but are subject to strict manufacturing and quality controls, with a pathway for out-of-state products to enter Kentucky’s market legally. This approach fosters a compliant market capable of meeting consumer demand, demonstrating that there are many paths to ensuring public safety around adult products.  

The outcome of these state-level approaches is still unfolding. But building an effective regulatory regime that can balance public safety and market realities takes time and experimentation. What is certain is that granting the AGs’ request would bring this regulatory innovation to a screeching halt, preventing state legislatures from developing the very solutions needed to resolve the enforcement problems currently causing frustration.  

A federal hemp ban will prove no more successful than state-level prohibitions because neither eliminates demand. Just as overtaxed and overregulated marijuana markets once drove consumers to hemp, a federal hemp ban will only push them toward more harmful alternatives or back to illicit marijuana.  

The most effective solution to the problem of unregulated hemp products is a workable regulatory framework that businesses can comply with and that consumers will accept. State regimes that give adult consumers access to a variety of legal and reasonably priced state-authorized products would do far more to eliminate unregulated products than any ban. Fortunately, this work is already well underway in many states. Their attorneys general should support that effort rather than asking Congress to interfere.  

The post State attorneys general ask Congress to undermine their state hemp laws  appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Rather than yielding to Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s demand for an outright ban, Abbott has called for a special session in July to develop a regulatory framework that protects consumers while preserving the thriving legal industry. This is the right move, and the Texas legislature should seize the opportunity to implement policies that balance public safety, personal choice, and economic freedom.  

SB 3 was a classic example of politics being led by moral panic rhetoric rather than sound policy and public welfare. Proponents, led by Patrick, sold the measure on fears about hemp with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)–the chemical that gives marijuana its intoxicating effects—and framed prohibition as necessary to protect schoolchildren. In reality, the bill would have not only banned those hemp products with any detectable amount of THC, but also those with any other cannabinoid except cannabidiol (CBD) and cannabigerol (CBG). But, since even non-intoxicating CBD products typically contain trace amounts of THC and other cannabinoids, even these would not have escaped SB 3’s prohibitions.   

History has repeatedly shown that the prohibition of substances doesn’t eliminate demand; it simply drives the market underground, where unregulated producers are not held accountable for safe manufacturing practices, accurate labeling, and ensuring intoxicating products are only sold to adults. Instead, prohibition puts consumers at even greater risk while also increasing the effort and resources needed to enforce the law. Texans already experience this firsthand with cannabis, where prohibition has merely resulted in mass arrests and a thriving illicit market worth an estimated $6 billion.   

A ban on hemp-derived THC would have done the same, forcing consumers toward unregulated products, stimulating illicit and cross-border sales, and actually increasing youth access through these unregulated and age-unrestricted channels. Pediatric patients and veterans who rely on hemp products for therapeutic purposes would have been particularly harmed by the ban, forced to rely on unregulated products or turn to potentially more dangerous substances, like opioids. On top of that, it would have devastated a burgeoning market that supports around 50,000 jobs and generates $8 billion in tax revenue for the state annually, according to industry data.   

In his veto statement, Abbott agreed with SB 3 proponents on the need for immediate and strong regulation of consumer hemp products. However, he also rightly acknowledged that SB 3 would have clashed with federal law—the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp and its derivatives. If approved, the measure would have faced immediate legal challenge, as it constituted an uncompensated taking of private property and business investments. Abbott warned that it would also inadvertently “make felons of other innocent Texans, like pharmacists stocking health supplements, veterans treating PTSD, and parents caring for epileptic children with FDA-approved medications.”   

Instead of SB 3’s prohibitionist approach, Abbot wants lawmakers to use the July special session to craft sensible regulations. Similar to Reason Foundation’s recommended framework for state regulation of hemp products, he suggests that lawmakers approach regulating these products similarly to alcoholic beverages. He also detailed specific provisions he’d like to see lawmakers adopt, including limiting sales to retailers that restrict access to minors, imposing testing and labeling requirements, outlawing public consumption, restricting permissible THC levels in products, limiting individual purchases, and allowing local governments to ban or limit retail hemp sales.   

To strike the right balance, there are several key issues that the Texas legislature will need to carefully negotiate.   

Issue 1: Potency limits  

The first and perhaps most complex of these issues will be how limits on THC potency are set and determined. Currently, Texas—like many other states—follows federal law, which limits hemp products to no more than 0.3% THC by dry weight. Because THC is measured based only on the dry portion of products, this standard allows companies to produce hemp products—particularly in beverage and edible form, since their weight is primarily comprised of water or gelatin—with as much THC as marijuana products while still adhering to THC thresholds for legal hemp.   

In its final form, SB 3’s prohibition on hemp products with cannabinoids other than CBD or GBG was a draconian standard that would have effectively outlawed most hemp products. The House committee substitute for SB 3 (CSSB 3), on the other hand, abandoned this approach in favor of THC limits based on milligrams per serving and package. This milligram-based limit is far more accurate in terms of gauging products’ potential for intoxication and is an increasingly popular approach among states to close the “dry weight loophole.”    

Under the House substitute version of the bill, hemp products would have been limited to no more than 10 mg of THC per serving and 100 mg per package (with stricter limits for certain products). While this is both more practical and sensible than the original bill, it still fails to distinguish between high-THC and very low-THC hemp products—treating them all the same despite vast differences in psychoactive risk.   

Some states, like Minnesota, have adopted a two-tiered system for hemp products, imposing lighter regulations on products with minimal THC (e.g., less than 5 mg per package) that are extremely unlikely to cause intoxication even if consumed in full. Reason Foundation encourages Texas lawmakers to consider a similar approach in order to ensure that low-THC hemp products—particularly those used for therapeutic purposes—will remain accessible and affordable without unnecessarily burdensome restrictions.   

Issue 2: Purchasing limits and privacy concerns  

Another contentious issue will likely be if—and how—the legislature should impose purchasing limits on individuals. In his veto proclamation, Abbott explicitly endorsed such limiting purchases “in a given period,” though he did not specify exactly what those limits ought to be. While some states, like Washington and Oregon, track cannabis purchases through state-run databases to enforce daily limits, this will likely raise concerns in Texas about government overreach, surveillance, and data security. For example, thousands of cannabis consumers across the U.S. had personal data leaked—including photographs of their government-issued photo IDs—after a point-of-sale system used throughout the cannabis industry was breached. Moreover, a person’s presence on a state purchasing database could endanger their rights to possess a firearm or could be used as evidence against them in a family court proceeding.  

Fears over data privacy and surveillance can deter customers, potentially pushing some to opt for purchasing hemp through unregulated channels. This would not only put those consumers at greater risk from unregulated products but would also thwart the underlying goal of regulatory oversight. If Texas lawmakers opt to impose limits on individual purchases, they should do so in a way that protects the rights and privacy of consumers.   

The easiest way to do this would be to impose such restrictions only on shops, not individuals. This would be similar to Michigan’s rules, which impose limits on how much recreational cannabis can be sold per transaction but do not require tracking of individual consumers. Oregon, which also imposes per-transaction limits on cannabis sales, explicitly bars dispensaries from collecting or retaining this sort of customer data over privacy concerns.   

While these approaches would allow customers to work around purchasing limits by visiting multiple shops, it would still be more effective at deterring large purchases than would be achieved in the illicit market. In their special session, Texas lawmakers will have to decide if strict enforcement of purchasing limits is worth the trade-offs when it comes to protecting consumer privacy and encouraging compliance.   

Issue 3: Local bans and market fragmentation  

Another recommendation Abbott suggested is giving local governments the option to prohibit or limit hemp sales. While this might sound like a reasonable concession, it could lead to access issues that would undermine the regulated market. California cannabis law, for example, includes a similar provision that has led to around half of the counties in the state banning cannabis sales. As a result, nearly half the state’s population lives in “pot deserts” where the closest legal dispensaries might be more than 60 miles away. Unsurprisingly, this has continued to fuel illicit sales with consumers searching for more convenient, if unregulated, options. If Texas enshrines local bans, it may stifle industry growth and undermine enforcement by encouraging similar illicit activity. However, if legislatures deem such provisions as necessary, they should be careful to include safeguards to avoid or address access deserts if they arise, such as by allowing the state to preempt local bans in underserved areas.   

Issue 4: Licensing fees   

While the House committee substitute version of SB 3 established a relatively reasonable fee structure for licensing hemp businesses, such details were conspicuously absent from the bill’s final form. Had it been enacted, this version of the law would have given the regulatory agency the power to dictate licensing fees through rulemaking without additional feedback from the legislature. How much or how little to charge hemp businesses for the privilege of operating within Texas will likely be a major subject of the July special session, and for good reason. Fees that are too high can artificially restrict the market in ways the legislature didn’t anticipate or desire. In particular, exorbitant licensing cost can price out small businesses and consolidate the market in the hands of those companies with deep pockets or political connections.   

In addition to contradicting Texas’s business-friendly stance, market consolidation poses a threat to the state’s ability to enforce its laws, as would-be entrepreneurs and customers opt to stay in the illicit market for the simple fact that they cannot afford licensure. To avoid this outcome, Texas should avoid excessively high licensing fees and create a tiered fee structure with cheaper options for small or micro-businesses. Several states, including California, New York, and Michigan, have adopted this sort of tiered licensing fees based on business scale. This approach not only encourages greater participation in the legal market but also reduces consolidation and increases competition, keeping consumer prices low.   

Issue 5: Interstate commerce and out-of-state products  

Yet another issue legislators ought to weigh carefully during their special session is how Texas should regulate out-of-state hemp products. This is a critical issue both in terms of complying with constitutionally protected interstate commerce—and avoiding legal challenge—as well as establishing a market which encourages compliance and consumer safety. Even if hemp products were not federally legal and states were thereby prevented from entirely blocking interstate commerce, law enforcement simply does not have the ability to stop the flow of products across state borders. Without a viable path for legitimate products to legally enter Texas’ market, consumers would have no way to verify whether those products are sanctioned by the state and meet Texas’ safety standards.      

While all versions of SB 3 made some allowance for out-of-state hemp products, all failed to adequately address the issue. In its original and final form, SB 3 would have allowed the sale of out-of-state hemp products so long as they were produced, processed, and tested in compliance with Texas law. Yet, that would have applied to such a small segment of the hemp market—those products with no detectable THC—that it would have done little to curtail cross-border distribution, leaving consumers of these other hemp products without clarity. The House committee substitute version of SB 3 set out a robust pathway for out-of-state hemp products to become certified for sale in Texas but included a “Texas origin” requirement for hemp flower, essentially limiting legal hemp flower to hemp grown within the state. This would have almost certainly been successfully challenged as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s dormant commerce clause by creating a bias against out-of-state economic interests.   

A better option for Texas would be to follow Kentucky’s approach, where out-of-state products can be sold in the state so long as they register with regulators and meet baseline testing, labeling, and quality rules. This streamlined path to interstate commerce allows Kentucky consumers to trust that products available to them are free of contaminants, accurately labeled, and regulated by their state, regardless of their origin. Texas should seriously consider doing the same.   

Issue 6: Protecting civil liberties and avoiding overcriminalization  

The last issue likely to generate debate in the legislature’s special session is how violations of the law ought to be treated. Past versions of SB 3 included needlessly punitive enforcement measures—such as criminal penalties and jail time for possession of unsanctioned hemp products—that risked turning minor infractions into criminal offenses and trampling Texans’ civil liberties.   

A glaring omission from all versions of SB 3 was any safeguard against warrantless searches or seizures based solely on the odor of hemp or possession of legal hemp products. This loophole would perpetuate the same types of discriminatory policing practices state-level marijuana legalization hoped to address—where the odor of marijuana served as a pretext for searches and seizures. Even with federal legalization of hemp, law enforcement unable to distinguish hemp from marijuana by sight or smell, continue the same sort of unjustified stops and searches. To protect Texans’ civil rights, legislators should incorporate explicit language into any proposal that protects people from being stopped, searched, detained, or arrested solely on the basis of law enforcement seeing or smelling hemp—or marijuana since their scent is the same—unless they have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.   

Iterations of SB 3 also treated minor violations—like small-scale possession, minor breaches on THC limits, and open containers in vehicles or minor THC breaches—as criminal misdemeanors rather than civil infractions. This ignores the reality that many violations can stem from unintentional errors (e.g., lab testing variances) and lack of consumer awareness. Lawmakers can address this by reserving harsh criminal penalties for willful violations of the law’s most serious provisions, such as falsifying lab reports or large-scale illegal distribution, while treating minor or accidental violations as civil infractions. Not only would this protect consumers from unnecessary policing, it would also ensure law enforcement resources are being used efficiently and focused on major violations rather than policing people’s hemp use.   

A conservative approach to drug legalization  

In addition to infuriating Patrick, Abbott’s veto of SB 3 has exposed the growing rift between prohibitionist hardliners and those conservatives who acknowledge the failure of the War on Drugs. Even prominent right-wing voices, like former National Rifle Association spokesperson Dana Loesch, criticized SB 3 for “idiotically expanding government” while ignoring parental responsibility.   

The upcoming special session offers Texas lawmakers an opportunity to bridge this divide and gives Texas a chance to demonstrate how conservative states can responsibly regulate adult-use substances without resorting to big-government overreach and freedom-stomping bans. To succeed, legislators must carefully listen to stakeholders, reject fear-driven narratives, and prioritize consumer welfare. Crafting a light-touch regulatory framework—one that fosters compliance, promotes agency coordination, and affords both businesses and regulators sufficient clarity and flexibility—can ensure public safety without sacrificing economic opportunity or personal freedom.   

The governor made the right call. Now it’s time for the legislature to follow through with a regulatory system that keeps Texans safe and free.  

The post Hemp in Texas: Regulation—not THC prohibition—is the sensible path forward    appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Many Texans are adamantly opposed to Senate Bill 3 becoming law. The state’s farmers, veterans, small business owners, civil rights advocates, and medical patients are among those who have spoken out against the proposed de facto hemp ban.

While considering Senate Bill 3, both chambers of the Texas legislature heard from thousands of constituents and had a unique opportunity to build consensus with a new regulatory approach to hemp, balancing public health and safety with product accessibility. Instead, unfortunately, the state legislature prioritized the concerns of the alcohol and beverage industries and pursued a prohibition approach to hemp.

The legislature’s analysis of the bill finds significant flaws. The analysis estimates a $27 million revenue loss to the state’s General Fund over the next two years and millions more in losses at the city and county levels. Beyond this financial impact, SB 3 would result in devastating criminal justice consequences by creating nine new criminal offenses for conduct pertaining to consumable hemp products, including two third-degree felony offenses.

The Texas hemp industry is booming, supporting an estimated 50,000 jobs valued at over $8 billion. Senate Bill 3 would effectively dismantle this industry, create widespread confusion amongst consumers and public safety officers, and likely lead to a proliferation of unsafe and unregulated product sales in Texas.

The concerns raised in SB 3 regarding the quality and safety of novel and potentially intoxicating hemp products are warranted. Similarly, the desire to prevent youth access to potentially intoxicating hemp products and to impose reasonable manufacturing and testing standards on consumable hemp products is worthy of consideration.

However, SB 3 adopts an overly blunt approach that risks undermining its goal of consumer health protection by inadvertently driving individuals toward unregulated markets or products and criminalizing patients. 

Senate Bill 3 would effectively outlaw all hemp and CBD products in Texas

A critical point of concern is the bill’s proposed limit on the allowable concentration of THC in hemp products. Generally, a THC concentration of 1% is considered the threshold at which cannabis products begin to exhibit intoxicating or psychotropic effects. Senate Bill 3 proposes to cap the concentration of THC, as well as any cannabinoid other than CBD or CBG, at 0.0001% on a dry weight basis. This standard is 3,000 times lower than the federal government’s 0.3 percent delta-9 THC limit and 10,000 times below the 1% threshold generally recognized as the point at which products begin to exhibit intoxicating effects.  

While the intent to control intoxicating products is understandable, this extreme limit is neither practical nor scientifically justified. Hemp naturally contains trace amounts of THC, and eliminating it entirely is virtually impossible without rendering the product unusable. By setting such a low threshold, SB 3 would effectively outlaw nearly all hemp-derived products, including those that pose no risk of intoxication and those with proven therapeutic benefits on which many Texas patients rely, such as high-dose CBD products that contain THC at non-intoxicating levels.  

A ban on THC and other cannabinoids will harm Texas patients and consumers 

The proposed 0.0001% THC limit would have far-reaching consequences for the hemp industry and consumers. While several states have enacted regulations on hemp-derived cannabinoids, including limits on allowable THC, none have set a threshold as low as that proposed in SB 3. Even states that classify all forms of THC as controlled substances make exceptions for the trace amounts found in hemp.

For example, in states like Kentucky and Tennessee, which have robust hemp regulations, THC limits are aligned with the federal standard of 0.3%. These states have successfully implemented testing and labeling requirements to ensure consumer safety without resorting to outright bans. In contrast, SB 3’s approach would make Texas an outlier, effectively outlawing all hemp products. 

This situation is particularly concerning for patients and families who depend on hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) to treat seizure disorders, such as Dravet Syndrome, a rare and severe form of childhood epilepsy. For these patients, high-dose CBD products, which may contain trace levels of THC above 1%, can be a lifeline that offers relief from debilitating symptoms that are often inadequately managed by conventional medications.  

These individuals need assurance that the CBD products they rely on are safe, free from harmful contaminants, and accurately labeled for proper dosing. Rather than providing this necessary reassurance, SB 3 would eliminate their legal access to effective CBD products in the state. Consequently, patients would be forced to forgo essential therapy, travel out of state to purchase it, or turn to unregulated markets, exposing them to potentially greater risks from contamination or improper labeling than the risks posed by intoxicating hemp products. Perhaps even more concerning, rather than protecting these patients and facilitating their access to safe and regulated hemp products, SB 3, as written, would criminalize those patients who seek out such products from states where they are legal and regulated.  

SB 3 would criminalize patients and consumers 

Another critical concern is the criminal penalties established by SB 3 for the possession of hemp products containing trace amounts of cannabinoids other than CBD or CBG. This provision would disproportionately harm patients and consumers who rely on these products for medical or wellness purposes.

For example, a parent legally purchasing a full-spectrum CBD product in a neighboring state to treat their child’s epilepsy could face a Class A misdemeanor simply for bringing the product into Texas. Similarly, a veteran using a hemp-derived product to manage chronic pain or PTSD symptoms could be criminalized for possessing a product that is legal under federal law and in most other states.  

This criminalization is not only unjust and cruel toward patients but also counterproductive. It would not stop the flow of legal hemp products into Texas; it would only drive consumers to unregulated markets, where products are more likely to be untested, unsafe, or mislabeled.

Moreover, the lack of access to effective products regulated by and legal in Texas will stimulate demand for unregulated and out-of-state products, potentially imposing insurmountable challenges for Texas law enforcement in determining the origin and content of products found in people’s possession.  

SB 3 conflicts with federal law and interstate commerce 

The 2018 federal Farm Bill legalized hemp with a THC concentration of no more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis, creating a clear federal standard for hemp production and interstate hemp commerce. By setting a THC limit 3,000 times lower than the federal standard, SB 3 would put Texas at odds with both federal law and the laws of other states. This conflict raises serious legal and practical concerns.  

Hemp is a national industry, with products like CBD oils, edibles, and supplements traded legally across state lines. SB 3 would not only disrupt this market by creating confusion and inconsistency for businesses and consumers but may also violate the Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause (DCC).   

The Constitution’s framers were expressly motivated to replace the original form of American government, as articulated under the Articles of Confederation, to prevent the states from erecting trade barriers. Through the years, courts’ interpretations of the dormant commerce clause (DCC) have generally held that states cannot enact policies that impede the free movement of goods, persons, or capital within the union. While SB 3 applies its restrictions uniformly to hemp products produced inside or outside of Texas, its extreme divergence from federal and other state standards could be seen as an undue burden on interstate commerce, potentially making the law vulnerable to legal challenge. 

Economic impact on Texas 

SB 3 would also have devastating economic consequences for Texas businesses, crippling a thriving industry and undermining the livelihoods of thousands of Texans. In 2022, the hemp industry in Texas was valued at $8 billion, supporting roughly 50,000 jobs in the state. This industry has also become a lifeline for farmers, particularly smaller operations that rely on hemp as a profitable and sustainable crop. However, for hemp to remain a viable agricultural commodity, farmers depend on robust end markets for their crop. SB 3’s restrictions would decimate these markets, reducing demand for hemp crops and causing widespread harm to the state’s economy.  

Hemp cultivation for cannabinoid extraction, particularly CBD and other beneficial compounds, has become a critical revenue stream for Texas farmers. In 2023, hemp flower and cannabinoid extraction accounted for over 30% of the total harvested hemp acreage nationwide, generating $241 million in income for farmers.

In Texas, where hemp fiber and grain markets are still underdeveloped, cannabinoid production is one of the few economically viable uses for the crop. Without a market for cannabinoids, many farmers would lose a significant source of income, forcing them to abandon hemp cultivation altogether or relocate to states with more reasonable regulations.  

Senate Bill 3’s consequences may be particularly harmful for farmers operating on smaller acreage. Unlike traditional crops, hemp offers higher profit margins and the flexibility to adapt to market demands. For many of these farmers, hemp represents a rare opportunity to compete in an increasingly consolidated agricultural sector. SB 3’s restrictions would disproportionately harm these smaller operations, which lack the resources to pivot to other crops or absorb the financial losses caused by a collapsing hemp market. 

The economic impact of SB 3 would extend beyond the hemp industry. Nationally, the market for hemp-derived cannabinoids is booming, with industry experts estimating its value at between $28 billion and $36 billion in annual sales. Texas, with its favorable climate and agricultural expertise, is well-positioned to capitalize on this growth. However, SB 3 would stifle innovation and investment in the state, pushing businesses, entrepreneurs, and investors to more hemp-friendly states like Tennessee and Kentucky. These states have embraced the economic potential of hemp, creating thousands of jobs and generating millions in tax revenue. By contrast, Texas risks losing its competitive edge and becoming a cautionary tale of missed opportunities. 

Reasonable hemp regulations  

If the aim is to protect consumers from unregulated products while keeping potentially intoxicating hemp products away from minors, we encourage Texas lawmakers to develop a sensible regulatory framework governing hemp products. Reason Foundation’s recently published study, A Framework for Federal and State Hemp-Derived Cannabinoid Regulation, offers detailed recommendations for state regulation of the production, testing, labeling, and sale of both intoxicating and non-intoxicating hemp products without imposing arbitrary or prohibitive THC limits that could hinder consumer access and expand illicit markets.

A sensible regulatory framework would include:  

• Safe manufacturing standards for hemp-derived goods; 
• Final product testing requirements to ensure products are free of harmful contaminants; 
• Packaging standards for clear and accurate labeling; 
• Age restrictions on the purchase of intoxicating hemp products; and 
• Restricted sales of intoxicating hemp products to outlets with established age-gating practices.  

By implementing a framework that prioritizes transparency, product quality, and compliance, Texas could more effectively ensure consumer safety than through blanket prohibitions. This approach would protect consumers, support public health, and promote a regulated, orderly market without creating the undesirable consequences associated with prohibition.   

Conclusion 

In conclusion, Reason Foundation urges Governor Abbott to veto Senate Bill 3 in its current form. While the intent of protecting consumers is commendable, the bill’s provisions would inadvertently harm those who rely on hemp products for therapeutic benefits and other hemp consumers in the state.

A previous version of this commentary was first published on March 5, 2025.

The post Why Gov. Greg Abbott should veto Texas Senate Bill 3 appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The concerns raised by Senate Bill 86 regarding the quality and safety of novel and potentially intoxicating hemp products are warranted. However, we believe that SB 86 adopts an overly restrictive approach that risks undermining its goal of consumer health protection by inadvertently driving individuals toward unregulated markets and products. 

The proposed THC limit is excessively low 

A critical point of concern is the bill’s proposed definition of “intoxicating hemp products” as those with greater than 0.5 milligrams of delta-9 THC per serving, greater than 2 milligrams of delta-9 THC per package, or greater than 0.5 milligrams of THC other than delta-9 THC.  

Generally, a THC concentration of 1% is considered the threshold at which cannabis products begin to exhibit intoxicating or psychotropic effects. In terms of edible products, a concentration of 1% THC in a 10-gram package would amount to 100 milligrams of THC per package. The limit proposed by SB 86, capping total non-delta-9 THC to 0.5 milligrams per package, would be 200 times below the generally accepted threshold for intoxication.  

SB 86 would classify most natural hemp products as “intoxicating”  

Because it is virtually impossible to eliminate trace levels of THC from hemp extract, SB 86’s excessively low THC threshold would effectively define all naturally-derived hemp products as “intoxicating hemp,” requiring consumers to purchase these products through Ohio’s marijuana dispensary system. This mandate includes products that pose no risk of intoxication and those clinically demonstrated to provide therapeutic benefits. 

Restricting sales of hemp products, including those with therapeutic uses, would greatly increase burdens for both businesses and consumers in the state. As of March 2025, 312 local governments have imposed moratoriums that prohibit adult-use cannabis businesses, limiting access for around 15% of the state’s population. Even where consumers have access, products available at dispensaries may be significantly more expensive due to regulatory costs compared to products sold outside of the dispensary system.  

This situation is particularly concerning for patients and families who depend on hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) to treat seizure disorders, such as Dravet Syndrome, a rare and severe form of childhood epilepsy. For these patients, CBD can be a lifeline, offering relief from debilitating symptoms that are often inadequately managed by conventional medications. These individuals need assurance that the CBD products they rely on are safe, free from harmful contaminants, and accurately labeled for proper dosing.  

Rather than providing this necessary reassurance, SB 86 would greatly reduce their legal access to regulated CBD products. As a result, patients may be forced to forgo essential therapy, travel out of state to purchase it, or turn to unregulated markets, exposing them to potentially greater risks than those posed by intoxicating hemp products. 

Reasonable hemp regulations  

If the aim is to protect consumers and keep potentially intoxicating hemp away from minors, we encourage Ohio lawmakers to develop a sensible regulatory framework governing hemp products. Reason Foundation’s recently published study, A Framework for Federal and State Hemp-Derived Cannabinoid Regulation, offers detailed recommendations for state regulation of the production, testing, labeling, and sale of both intoxicating and non-intoxicating hemp products without imposing arbitrary or prohibitive THC limits that could hinder consumer access and expand illicit markets.

A sensible regulatory framework would include:  

• Safe manufacturing standards for hemp-derived goods; 

• Final product testing requirements to ensure products are free of harmful contaminants; 

• Packaging standards for clear and accurate labeling; 

• Age restrictions on the purchase of intoxicating hemp products; and 

• Restricted sales of intoxicating hemp products to outlets with established age-gating practices.  

By implementing a framework that prioritizes transparency, product quality, and compliance, Ohio could more effectively ensure consumer safety than through excessive restrictions or prohibitions. This approach would protect consumers, support public health, and promote a regulated, orderly market without creating unintended harm.    

Conclusion 

Reason Foundation urges the committee to exercise caution with SB 86. While the intent to protect consumers is commendable, the bill’s provisions would inadvertently harm those who rely on hemp products for therapeutic benefits, as well as other hemp consumers in the state. Instead of pushing hemp products into the overly restrictive marijuana dispensary system, we urge members to develop a more balanced regulatory framework for hemp products.  

Such an approach would allow Ohio to maintain oversight of the hemp market, enforce standards that safeguard consumer welfare, promote responsible access to products, and prevent the proliferation of unregulated and potentially harmful markets or products.  

The post Ohio Senate Bill 86 would needlessly restrict the hemp industry appeared first on Reason Foundation.

• Since the 2018 Farm Bill federally legalized hemp and its derivatives, the hemp cannabinoid market has grown into a $3 billion interstate industry, including both non-intoxicating therapeutic products like cannabidiol (CBD) and intoxicating hemp products that mimic the psychoactive effects of marijuana. Courts have interpreted federal statute to mean that even chemically modified and intoxicating hemp extracts are federally legal hemp products. 
• Consumer demand for these products has surged, in part due to federal marijuana prohibition and restrictive state cannabis laws that limit consumer access. While less than 30% of legal cannabis businesses were profitable in 2024, hemp cannabinoids have proved a lifeline for farmers and other businesses, generating $241 million in farm income in 2023 alone.  

The risk of overregulation or prohibition 

• Despite its economic and consumer benefits, the hemp market faces growing threats from heavy-handed state regulation and outright bans. In the absence of federal product standards, many states have adopted reactionary policies that mimic the burdensome rules stifling the cannabis industry or outlaw intoxicating hemp cannabinoids. 
• Prohibition and excessive restrictions on products consumers want have well-documented consequences, including fueling illicit markets that operate without oversight, compromising public health with unregulated and mislabeled products, increasing youth access due to lax age-verification, burdening law enforcement with low-priority enforcement efforts, undermining legitimate businesses, and depriving states of tax revenue. 

A smarter approach to regulation  

• Intoxicating hemp products pose no greater risk to society than other intoxicating goods, like alcohol or marijuana. With thoughtful regulation, they can be produced safely and sold responsibly, ensuring consumer protection while fostering economic growth. To achieve this, Reason Foundation’s Model Legislation for Optimal State Regulation of Hemp Cannabinoids recommends that states adopt hemp cannabinoid regulations that:  
  • Establish clear, science-based product safety and manufacturing standards; 
  • Regulate, don’t ban, naturally occurring and synthesized hemp cannabinoids; 
  • Ensure age restrictions and responsible retailing;  
  • Mandate reasonable testing and labeling requirements; and 
  • Avoid excessive fees and taxes that undermine legal market viability. 

Full Backgrounder: Optimal framework for the state regulation of hemp cannabinoids

The post Optimal framework for the state regulation of hemp cannabinoids  appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The concerns raised in Senate Bill 3 regarding the quality and safety of novel and potentially intoxicating hemp products are warranted. Similarly, the desire to prevent youth access to potentially intoxicating hemp products and to impose reasonable manufacturing and testing standards on consumable hemp products is worthy of consideration. However, we believe that SB 3 adopts an overly blunt approach that risks undermining its goal of consumer health protection by inadvertently driving individuals toward unregulated markets or products and criminalizing patients. 

SB 3 would effectively outlaw all hemp and CBD products 

A critical point of concern is the bill’s proposed limit on the allowable concentration of THC in hemp products. Generally, a THC concentration of 1% is considered the threshold at which cannabis products begin to exhibit intoxicating or psychotropic effects. SB 3 proposes to cap the concentration of THC, as well as any cannabinoid other than CBD or CBG, at 0.0001% on a dry weight basis. This standard is 3,000 times lower than the federal government’s 0.3 percent delta-9 THC limit and 10,000 times below the 1% threshold generally recognized as the point at which products begin to exhibit intoxicating effects.  

While the intent to control intoxicating products is understandable, this extreme limit is neither practical nor scientifically justified. Hemp naturally contains trace amounts of THC and eliminating it entirely is virtually impossible without rendering the product unusable. By setting such a low threshold, SB 3 would effectively outlaw nearly all hemp-derived products, including those that pose no risk of intoxication and those with proven therapeutic benefits on which many Texas patients rely, such as high-dose CBD products that contain THC at non-intoxicating levels.  

A ban on THC and other cannabinoids will harm Texas patients and consumers 

The proposed 0.0001% THC limit would have far-reaching consequences for the hemp industry and consumers. While several states have enacted regulations on hemp-derived cannabinoids, including limits on allowable THC, none have set a threshold as low as that proposed in SB 3. Even states that classify all forms of THC as controlled substances make exceptions for the trace amounts found in hemp.

For example, in states like Kentucky and Tennessee, which have robust hemp regulations, THC limits are aligned with the federal standard of 0.3%. These states have successfully implemented testing and labeling requirements to ensure consumer safety without resorting to outright bans. In contrast, SB 3’s approach would make Texas an outlier, effectively outlawing all hemp products. 

This situation is particularly concerning for patients and families who depend on hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) to treat seizure disorders, such as Dravet Syndrome, a rare and severe form of childhood epilepsy. For these patients, high-dose CBD products, which may contain trace levels of THC above 1%, can be a lifeline that offers relief from debilitating symptoms that are often inadequately managed by conventional medications.  

These individuals need assurance that the CBD products they rely on are safe, free from harmful contaminants, and accurately labeled for proper dosing. Rather than providing this necessary reassurance, SB 3 would eliminate their legal access to effective CBD products in the state. Consequently, patients would be forced to forgo essential therapy, travel out of state to purchase it, or turn to unregulated markets, exposing them to potentially greater risks from contamination or improper labeling than the risks posed by intoxicating hemp products. Perhaps even more concerning, rather than protecting these patients and facilitating their access to safe and regulated hemp products, SB 3, as written, would criminalize those patients who seek out such products from states where they are legal and regulated.  

SB 3 would criminalize patients and consumers 

Another critical concern is the criminal penalties established by SB 3 for the possession of hemp products containing trace amounts of cannabinoids other than CBD or CBG. This provision would disproportionately harm patients and consumers who rely on these products for medical or wellness purposes. For example, a parent legally purchasing a full-spectrum CBD product in a neighboring state to treat their child’s epilepsy could face a Class A misdemeanor simply for bringing the product into Texas. Similarly, a veteran using a hemp-derived product to manage chronic pain or PTSD symptoms could be criminalized for possessing a product that is legal under federal law and in most other states.  

This criminalization is not only unjust and cruel toward patients but also counterproductive. It will not stop the flow of legal hemp products into Texas; it will only drive consumers to unregulated markets, where products are more likely to be untested, unsafe, or mislabeled. Moreover, the lack of access to effective products regulated by and legal in Texas will stimulate demand for unregulated and out-of-state products, potentially imposing insurmountable challenges for Texas law enforcement in determining the origin and content of products found in peoples’ possession.  

SB 3 conflicts with federal law and interstate commerce 

The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp with a THC concentration of no more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis, creating a clear federal standard for hemp production and interstate hemp commerce. By setting a THC limit 3,000 times lower than the federal standard, SB 3 would put Texas at odds with both federal law and the laws of other states. This conflict raises serious legal and practical concerns.  

Hemp is a national industry, with products like CBD oils, edibles, and supplements traded legally across state lines. SB 3 would not only disrupt this market by creating confusion and inconsistency for businesses and consumers but may also violate the Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause (DCC).   

The Constitution’s framers were expressly motivated to replace the original form of American government, as articulated under the Articles of Confederation, to prevent the states from erecting trade barriers. Through the years, courts’ interpretations of the dormant commerce clause (DCC) have generally held that states cannot enact policies that impede the free movement of goods, persons, or capital within the union. While SB 3 applies its restrictions uniformly to hemp products produced inside or outside of Texas, its extreme divergence from federal and other state standards could be seen as an undue burden on interstate commerce, potentially making the law vulnerable to legal challenge. 

Economic impact on Texas 

SB 3 would also have devastating economic consequences for Texas businesses, crippling a thriving industry and undermining the livelihoods of thousands of Texans. In 2022, the hemp industry in Texas was valued at $8 billion, supporting roughly 50,000 jobs in the state. This industry has also become a lifeline for farmers, particularly smaller operations that rely on hemp as a profitable and sustainable crop. However, for hemp to remain a viable agricultural commodity, farmers depend on robust end markets for their crop. SB 3’s restrictions would decimate these markets, reducing demand for hemp crops and causing widespread harm to the state’s economy.  

Hemp cultivation for cannabinoid extraction, particularly CBD and other beneficial compounds, has become a critical revenue stream for Texas farmers. In 2023, hemp flower and cannabinoid extraction accounted for over 30% of the total harvested hemp acreage nationwide, generating $241 million in income for farmers. In Texas, where hemp fiber and grain markets are still underdeveloped, cannabinoid production is one of the few economically viable uses for the crop. Without a market for cannabinoids, many farmers would lose a significant source of income, forcing them to abandon hemp cultivation altogether or relocate to states with more reasonable regulations.  

The consequences may be particularly harmful for farmers operating on smaller acreage. Unlike traditional crops, hemp offers higher profit margins and the flexibility to adapt to market demands. For many of these farmers, hemp represents a rare opportunity to compete in an increasingly consolidated agricultural sector. SB 3’s restrictions would disproportionately harm these smaller operations, which lack the resources to pivot to other crops or absorb the financial losses caused by a collapsing hemp market. 

The economic impact of SB 3 would extend beyond the hemp industry. Nationally, the market for hemp-derived cannabinoids is booming, with industry experts estimating its value at between $28 billion and $36 billion in annual sales. Texas, with its favorable climate and agricultural expertise, is well-positioned to capitalize on this growth. However, SB 3 would stifle innovation and investment in the state, pushing businesses, entrepreneurs, and investors to more hemp-friendly states like Tennessee and Kentucky. These states have embraced the economic potential of hemp, creating thousands of jobs and generating millions in tax revenue. By contrast, Texas risks losing its competitive edge and becoming a cautionary tale of missed opportunities. 

Reasonable hemp regulations  

If the aim is to protect consumers from unregulated products while keeping potentially intoxicating hemp products away from minors, we encourage Texas lawmakers to develop a sensible regulatory framework governing hemp products. Reason Foundation’s recently published study, A Framework for Federal and State Hemp-Derived Cannabinoid Regulation, offers detailed recommendations for state regulation of the production, testing, labeling, and sale of both intoxicating and non-intoxicating hemp products without imposing arbitrary or prohibitive THC limits that could hinder consumer access and expand illicit markets.

A sensible regulatory framework would include:  

• Safe manufacturing standards for hemp-derived goods; 

• Final product testing requirements to ensure products are free of harmful contaminants; 

• Packaging standards for clear and accurate labeling; 

• Age restrictions on the purchase of intoxicating hemp products; and 

• Restricted sales of intoxicating hemp products to outlets with established age-gating practices.  

By implementing a framework that prioritizes transparency, product quality, and compliance, Texas could more effectively ensure consumer safety than through blanket prohibitions. This approach would protect consumers, support public health, and promote a regulated, orderly market without creating the undesirable consequences associated with prohibition.   

Conclusion 

In conclusion, Reason Foundation urges the committee to reject SB 3 in its current form. While the intent of protecting consumers is commendable, the bill’s provisions would inadvertently harm those who rely on hemp products for therapeutic benefits and other hemp consumers in the state. Instead of outright prohibition, we urge members to develop a more balanced regulatory framework for hemp products.  

Such an approach would allow Texas to maintain oversight of the hemp market, enforce standards that safeguard consumer welfare, promote responsible access to products, and prevent the proliferation of unregulated and potentially harmful markets or products.  

The post Texas Senate Bill 3 would harm the state’s hemp industry appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Many of these extracts and cannabinoids are non-intoxicating, but some are THC variants that have an intoxicating effect similar to delta-9 THC or can be chemically modified into an intoxicating THC variant. Courts have interpreted the federal statute to mean that even chemically modified hemp extracts are federally legal hemp products because the dispositive factor for this determination is the provenance of the material and not the method of manufacture. 

The rapid growth of hemp-derived cannabinoids, such as delta-8 THC, coupled with federal inaction for regulatory clarity, presents both challenges and opportunities for state governments. Emerging inconsistencies in state approaches to cannabis regulation, product safety concerns, potential access to intoxicating substances by minors, and an uneven playing field for businesses highlight the urgent need for thoughtful, evidence-based policy solutions at the state level. 

Reason Foundation’s model legislation offers a clear and practical framework for states seeking to regulate adult-use hemp cannabinoids effectively. This model balances consumer protection, public safety, and transparency while promoting compliance and fair competition within the industry. By setting forth homogenized standards for products containing intoxicating cannabinoids, it also lays the groundwork for future interstate commerce in other legal cannabis products, including those originating from state-regulated marijuana.   

This model legislation would implement the recommendations that Reason Foundation senior policy analyst Michelle Minton and research director Geoffrey Lawrence developed in their joint paper, “A Framework for Federal and State Hemp-Derived Cannabinoid Regulation.” It is designed to foster safety, transparency, and fair competition within the marketplace for cannabis products. It draws from best practices in states with successful programs and incorporates lessons from those facing regulatory pitfalls.  

Key Features

• Establishes a streamlined permitting and registration regime for manufacturers and sellers of hemp cannabinoid products

• Simplifies licensing categories to reduce barriers for small businesses and promote equitable opportunities

• Implements robust product testing and labeling standards

• Restricts sales of hemp cannabinoid products to individuals under the age of 21

• Reduces unnecessary taxation to curb illicit-market competition and level the playing field between “hemp” and “marijuana” businesses

Learn More

To download the full text of the Cannabis Regulatory Reform Act and explore how it can be tailored to your state’s needs, see below: 

Model Legislation: Optimal State Regulation of Hemp Cannabinoids 

The post Model legislation for optimal state regulation of hemp cannabinoids  appeared first on Reason Foundation.

In an October 27 response, Michael Bronstein of the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp (ATACH) argued that Reason Foundation “fails to provide a solution” to what he views as a problem of unregulated hemp-derived products, many of which are chemically modified analogues of natural cannabinoids.

My colleague’s original op-ed referenced a detailed 80-page proposal for a cohesive approach to regulating hemp-derived products, which we co-authored. In that proposal, we delineate hemp-derived products that have intoxicating properties from non-intoxicating products and propose alternative regulatory paths. We recommend that minors should be restricted from purchasing intoxicating products and that manufacturers of these products should be required to register with state authorities and include accurate and detailed testing results on their product labels.

We also point out that these products largely exist because the compliance and tax costs confronting state-licensed marijuana products make those products uncompetitive on a price basis with competing offerings, including both illicit marijuana and intoxicating hemp-derived products.

Further confounding this problem, consumer access to legal marijuana is highly restricted. Even in states that offer a commercial marijuana market, statewide caps on retail licensure or provisions that allow local governments to ban these retailers make it difficult to purchase marijuana legally.

In California—the world’s largest commercial marijuana market—nearly half of residents live more than 60 miles from the closest legal retailer. By contrast, competing products derived from federally legal hemp are sold in gas stations, grocery stores, or even over the internet and can be shipped across state lines.

If the tax and regulatory structure for state-licensed marijuana weren’t so restrictive, a market for hemp-derived products might never have emerged.

Mr. Bronstein argues that consumers want natural marijuana, and it should be legalized. While his cursory reading of our position might have convinced him that was a point of conflict, in fact, we couldn’t agree more.

But we also recognize that the total market for hemp-derived products has quickly grown larger than for state-licensed marijuana because its regulatory structure offers key advantages that allow consumers easier access at lower cost.

Our recommendations aim to balance the playing field by subjecting intoxicating hemp-derived products to reasonable standards for product safety and age restrictions while simultaneously reducing the regulatory thicket confronting state-licensed marijuana products.

We propose that states issue a single cannabis retailer license, allowing any retailer who can demonstrate competence in age-gating products to sell both hemp-derived and state-licensed marijuana products. Retailers would also need to acquire a cannabis excise tax certificate and collect a uniform tax on all intoxicating cannabis products at rates far lower than what many states currently charge.

We understand Mr. Bronstein’s assertion that the chemically modified extracts used in hemp products give users a high contain THC analogues that are not highly prevalent in natural cannabis.

However, as our review of federal court rulings and agency pronouncements makes clear, the prevailing jurisprudence is that cannabinoids are not deemed “synthetic” if they result from the conversion of a natural cannabinoid like CBD that was extracted from federally legal hemp. The Ninth Circuit held that “the source of the product—not the method of manufacture—is the dispositive factor for determining whether a product is synthetic.” By contrast, wholly synthetic cannabimimetic agents like “spice” are both dangerous and illegal.

We openly acknowledge the modified cannabinoids marketed as hemp products are poorly understood, but so are many cannabinoids that are naturally prevalent in the cannabis plant. At this time, there’s scant evidence that THC isomers like delta-8 are more dangerous than the mainstream delta-9 variant.

It’s often difficult to distill a complex and detailed policy proposal into a few words, but we believe Mr. Bronstein and his association would find broad agreement with Reason Foundation’s position upon closer study.

A version of this commentary first appeared at Marijuana Moment.

The post A single cannabis retailer license type would benefit both marijuana and hemp businesses appeared first on Reason Foundation.

According to Gallup, marijuana consumption has more than doubled since 2013. Recreational marijuana is now legal in 24 states, medical marijuana is legal in 40 states, legalization is on four state ballots this November, the Biden administration has taken the long overdue step of rescheduling cannabis, and both major party presidential candidates, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, have signaled at least acceptance that legal marijuana is the future.

Yet, legal marijuana markets are faltering across the country, and there are numerous state-level efforts to ban hemp and CBD products.

Colorado and Massachusetts are seeing their legal marijuana dispensaries shutter, California’s cannabis industry seems on the verge of collapse, and in 2024, only about a quarter of U.S. marijuana businesses have reported turning a profit. The underlying problem is federal law and the complex web of state regulations that suffocate legal companies with high costs and inefficiencies. Sadly, many states appear poised to make the same regulatory mistakes with legalized hemp.

Marijuana and hemp, both derived from Cannabis sativa L., are chemically similar, but their regulatory paths couldn’t be more different. Marijuana has been federally prohibited since 1970. Hemp, on the other hand, was federally legalized in the 2018 Farm Bill, triggering an interstate market boom that states are now trying to stop or regulate.

Freed from federal prohibition, hemp has rapidly outpaced legal marijuana sales, rivaling even the craft beer industry in size. Hemp’s industrial uses—like textiles and building materials—are important, but it’s the cannabinoid-rich products created from hemp extract that are driving its market growth. As a result, concerned lawmakers across the country are imposing reactionary restrictions and outright bans because some of these hemp products have intoxicating effects similar to marijuana.

Cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive hemp derivative, is perhaps the most well-known hemp extract product. Widely recognized for its therapeutic benefits, CBD has become popular as a health product and an effective treatment for childhood seizure disorders. But the rise of intoxicating cannabinoids, like delta-8 THC, has triggered alarm among state lawmakers and legal marijuana businesses alike.

Delta-8 THC offers similar psychoactive effects to marijuana but, unlike marijuana, is not prohibited or controlled at the federal level. As a result, delta-8 products have flooded states, even those like Texas that have not legalized marijuana sales.

Consumers have far greater and easier access to hemp products, with products crossing state lines, available through online vendors and places like gas stations and convenience stores and sometimes even available for legal purchase by minors.

In contrast, legal marijuana sales remain tightly restricted to licensed dispensaries only in states where it is legal. Licensed marijuana businesses, overburdened by heavy regulation, are understandably frustrated by new competition from lightly regulated hemp products. Moreover, some concerns about youth access and the safety of novel hemp products are warranted. But the answer isn’t to burden hemp with equally stringent rules or outright prohibition.

Unfortunately, we’ve seen a wave of drastic measures proposed or adopted by states. Over 90 state bills were introduced to regulate hemp products this year. More recently, Missouri Gov. Mike Parson (R) ordered a state-wide ban on intoxicating hemp products. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) introduced emergency regulations prohibiting hemp products with detectable levels of THC. New Jersey followed suit, and Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) has urged the state’s legislature to prioritize banning delta-8 products next year.

While these policies are framed as consumer protection, they risk causing more harm than good, driving consumers toward illicit and truly unregulated products and cutting off access to therapeutic products because it is nearly impossible to extract non-intoxicating cannabinoids, like CBD, from hemp without trace levels of THC.

Instead, state lawmakers should aim for sensible regulations focused on consumer protection and transparency in both industries. Hemp cannabinoids and the products created with them are no more inherently dangerous than marijuana or marijuana products. The only difference is that while the manufacture and sales of marijuana products are held to overly stringent standards, hemp is often held to few, if any.

Rather than rushing to impose bans and restrictions on hemp that won’t help people or the economy, states should instead impose reasonable regulations on both hemp and marijuana to ensure the quality, safety, and viability of both industries. As a recent Reason Foundation study detailed, states can do this by implementing manufacturing, testing, labeling standards, and age restrictions for hemp while reducing unnecessarily restrictive and overly burdensome rules that stymie legal marijuana businesses.

The current piecemeal approach to regulation puts consumers at risk and hampers the ability of even willing actors to comply with a maze of state rules. Unlike legal marijuana’s unspooling mess, it’s far easier for lawmakers to get it right on hemp today. Unencumbered by federal prohibition of hemp, states can craft policies that balance consumer protection with market flexibility, coordinate with other states to standardize rules for a more coherent interstate market, and foster fair and healthy competition between legal hemp and marijuana products.

The cannabis and hemp industries should be working with states to seize this chance to build a thriving, sensibly regulated hemp industry that works for consumers, businesses, and regulators alike.

A version of this commentary first appeared in Marijuana Moment.

The post Banning hemp products won’t protect public health or foster fairness for marijuana businesses appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Hemp, a variant of the cannabis plant, was legalized at the federal level in 2018. Though hemp and marijuana both come from the same plant, the critical difference is that hemp must contain less than 0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Anything higher is classified as marijuana.

Hemp has many commercial uses, from textiles to building materials, but one of its most significant applications is the extraction of cannabinoids. Cannabidiol (CBD) is a non-intoxicating cannabinoid, and clinical trials have proven it reduces seizures in epileptic children. However, extracting cannabinoids like CBD from hemp without trace levels of THC is nearly impossible.

Gov. Newsom is targeting intoxicating hemp products, including those made by chemically converting CBD into forms of THC. However, Newsom does not distinguish between intoxicating products and those with proven therapeutic value. As a result, the standard of “any detectable quantity” would remove CBD therapies from the market even though they pose no threat of intoxication.

The proposal would harm families like Paige and Matt Figi’s, who turned to CBD to treat their daughter, Charlotte, whose severe epilepsy resisted conventional therapies. By age 5, Charlotte was suffering 300 seizures a week and lost the ability to walk, talk, and eat on her own. Hospitals told Charlotte’s parents there was nothing more they could do. The Figis tried CBD, and from that first treatment until her death at age 13 due to suspected COVID-19, the Figis say Charlotte was virtually seizure-free.

Charlotte’s story helped spur medical cannabis legalization across the country. Today, 38 states have legalized some form of medical use, and nine have specifically legalized CBD. Yet, Newsom’s plan would block families like the Figis from accessing this life-changing therapy.

States that have legalized marijuana often impose onerous and costly restrictions due to ongoing federal marijuana prohibition. With federal hemp legalization, however, hemp manufacturers can operate free of both federal rules and state marijuana regulations. Ironically, restrictions on marijuana sales allow hemp manufacturers to offer intoxicating products that compete with marijuana at more outlets and lower costs.

In 2024, over 10 states enacted legislation regulating hemp-derived cannabinoids, and many states are considering similar proposals. Most of these bills have focused on barring sales to minors, ensuring product safety, limiting THC content, and restricting sales of intoxicating hemp to licensed dispensaries. But no state has gone as far as banning hemp products with any detectable THC, as Gov. Newsom proposes.

Newsom previously backed legislation that would have regulated hemp products, imposing rules on hemp similar to those governing marijuana, including manufacturing and labeling standards, limiting sales to dispensaries, and capping THC at 0.3% total or no more than 1 milligram per container. But that measure failed, in part due to concerns raised by patients and parents like the Figis, who feared that forcing all CBD sales into the dispensary system would lead to prohibitively high prices and strip access entirely for many patients since many Californians live more than 100 from the nearest dispensary.

Newsom’s concerns about consumer safety and youth access to intoxicating hemp products are valid. But a ban goes unnecessarily far and will undermine his goals. It would strip patients of access to vital therapies and push consumers toward illicit products without oversight.

If protecting consumers is the goal, California should heed the lessons it learned from legalizing marijuana. Rather than a ban, California should require hemp producers to adhere to the same testing and labeling standards as marijuana and limit sales of intoxicating products to retailers with track records of age-gating adult products.

At the same time, the state should reduce burdensome regulations on marijuana businesses, enabling them to compete in an evolving cannabinoid landscape. By striking this balance between safety, access, and fairness, California can protect patients, consumers and marijuana businesses without restricting access to life-changing cannabis therapies.

A version of this column first appeared in the Orange County Register.

The post California’s emergency hemp rules could block access to life-saving therapies appeared first on Reason Foundation.

In the wake of the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp and its derivatives across the country, an unexpected flood of hemp-derived cannabinoid products hit the market and has sparked a whirlwind of interest—and concern—among state lawmakers. Unlike marijuana, which for now remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law, hemp-derived cannabinoids, such as cannabidiol (CBD) and delta-8 THC, occupy a murkier legal and regulatory landscape. This ambiguity, along with a lack of guidance from federal authorities, has left states grappling with how to ensure consumer safety, prevent underage access, facilitate interstate commerce, and support existing marijuana markets.

The growing popularity of hemp-derived products has stimulated significant legislative attention in recent years, with over 90 regulatory proposals introduced in state legislatures in 2024 alone and 14 states adopting restrictions or prohibitions to some degree. A small but growing number of states have sought to legalize and regulate intoxicating hemp derivatives as general consumer goods, similar to alcoholic beverages or tobacco, or by incorporating them into their existing regulations governing medical or recreational marijuana. Yet, the continued proliferation and evolution of hemp-derived cannabinoid products has exposed significant gaps in existing regulatory paradigms.

State regulations governing hemp products vary widely and are unevenly enforced, creating a patchwork of rules that can change dramatically from one state to the next. Unlike the market for marijuana, which has remained largely intrastate due to federal prohibition, federally legal hemp products can cross state lines more freely. This has resulted in a marketplace where consumers face an increasingly confusing array of products of uncertain quality while businesses must navigate a shifting and uncertain regulatory environment. Additionally, lawmakers and regulators must continually update or amend rules in response to the emergence of new products, consumer behaviors, and industry dynamics.

This piecemeal approach leaves consumers at risk, strains state resources and hampers the ability of even willing actors to comply with state rules. This paper advocates for a cohesive approach to regulating hemp cannabinoid products that includes action by both federal and state policymakers.

Our paper presents a series of recommendations for both federal and state authorities aimed at harmonizing standards across testing, labeling, packaging, and taxation for all cannabis products. By implementing these measures, states can enhance compliance and market competitiveness, reduce costs, and ensure consumer safety as both marijuana and hemp markets evolve.

Ensuring consumer safety and minimizing youth access to potentially intoxicating products can also be achieved through state regulations that differentiate between high-THC and low-THC hemp products. We recommend states adopt labeling standards by which high-THC product labels must provide detailed potency disclosures and risk warnings, while low-THC products may adhere to general consumer goods standards. Consistent advertising restrictions across all cannabis products will also avoid bias based on the source of cannabinoids.

The disparity in tax and regulatory burdens between marijuana and hemp products also fosters an uncompetitive landscape between the two product categories. High costs in state-regulated marijuana markets, such as those in California, push consumers toward cheaper alternatives, including both illicit marijuana and less-regulated hemp. To level the playing field, states should reduce the tax and compliance costs imposed on legal marijuana businesses, aligning them more closely with those for hemp producers. Imposing a single, uniform excise tax on all intoxicating cannabis products would simplify the tax system and reduce incentives for consumers to seek cheaper, illicit options.

Restrictive licensing frameworks for marijuana businesses also contribute to its competitive disadvantage compared to hemp, limiting market entry, innovation, and consumer access, with artificial scarcity raising prices and pushing consumers toward alternatives. In contrast, intoxicating hemp products can be produced in any state, shipped to a variety of retailers, and sold directly to consumers even in states without legal marijuana sales. This dynamic distorts the market in favor of hemp products, sometimes sold under transient branding and lacking clear originating information for the producer, which consumers might not choose if legal marijuana were more affordable or available.

Regulators ought to be aware of who is selling intoxicating cannabis products, but regulatory schemes should not push market participants toward the hemp market merely because marijuana licensing is too costly or unavailable. We recommend states adopt a middle-ground approach between overly restrictive marijuana licensing regimes and the lack of any such framework for hemp. In particular, we suggest state law at least require hemp producers to register with state regulatory authorities while also drastically reducing both financial and non-financial barriers to entry into the marijuana market. This may include allowing any retailer who can demonstrate competence over inventory management for age-gated products to become eligible to retail both hemp cannabinoid and marijuana products.

Finally, to fully realize the potential of a national cannabis market, particularly in light of the emerging hemp derivatives sector, states must also permit the interstate sale of marijuana products. As these authors argued in a prior paper, existing bans on out-of-state marijuana products are unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and exacerbate the competitive advantage hemp currently enjoys. State lawmakers should agree to remove bans on the import of marijuana and allow state-licensed producers to export to purchasers in other states. In addition, lawmakers should take steps to align packaging, labeling, and testing protocols to facilitate a robust and legal interstate market.

The rapidly evolving cannabis industry presents both opportunities and challenges for state regulators. By adopting a more unified and flexible approach to both hemp and marijuana regulation, states can enhance market competitiveness, reduce costs, and protect consumers. Embracing these recommendations will position states to lead in the burgeoning cannabis sector while ensuring consumer safety and market integrity.

Read the full Policy Brief here:

The post A framework for federal and state hemp-derived cannabinoid regulation appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Analysis by researchers at Reason Foundation and Harvard University finds that states permitting adult-use of recreational marijuana tend to have fewer vaping-related lung injuries, suggesting that legalizing marijuana could be a partial solution to reducing vaping illnesses.

The Center for Disease Control started a panic over legal vaping products, only to later say vaping-related illnesses were primarily caused by black market THC products containing vitamin E acetate, which is found only in illicit products. 

Despite the increased legalization of cannabis in the US, the FBI’s latest crime data release shows arrests for drugs increased in 2018. 

Some doctors and researchers think that the risk of psychosis from marijuana is low and research into other areas of cannabis science and policy should be prioritized. 

Legislation, Regulation, and Markets

One Kentucky state representative is proposing legalizing marijuana and using the subsequent tax revenue to pay down unfunded pension liabilities. 

Michigan’s recreational cannabis market opened recently and is experiencing high demand. The legislature is also considering forcing marijuana businesses to reach labor peace agreements. 

Illinois, which also recently opened its recreational market, is already experiencing shortages.

Illinois also made changes to its cannabis law related to the expungement of past marijuana crimes, banking, DUI policy, and more. 

Some of Massachusetts’ recommendations for determining marijuana-impaired driving have little or no connection to driving while impaired by THC. Roadside sobriety assessments conducted by drug recognition experts remain the best option.  

Nevada’s flawed marijuana licensing process has led to corruption and lawsuits.  

Evidence

A time-series analysis from Washington state and Colorado finds “no significant” increase in crime after marijuana legalization.

In a simulated driving experience, researchers found that smoking cannabis led to an acute decrease in driving speed but otherwise had no significant acute or residual impacts on driving performance.

After controlling for pre-use cognitive ability, researchers from the University of Colorado found that regular cannabis use has no significant impact on cognitive ability. 

Johns Hopkins researchers find cannabis products are typically advertised in six major categories: psychoactive effects, physical effects, social effects, sensory profile, therapeutic and curative claims, and negatives/warnings. However, the researchers also conclude, “Online cannabis retailers are making potentially unsubstantiated product claims.”

A new study claims extreme binge drinking at your 21st birthday party can cause permanent brain matter damage. 

An estimate of e-cigarette use in 2019 suggests that roughly 27 percent of high schoolers and 10 percent of middle school students vape e-cigarettes. Among those who vape, only 18 percent reported regularly engaging in the behavior.

The post Drug Policy Newsletter: Drug Arrests Increase, Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana, and More appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The case is a blow to the state’s marijuana legalization movement overall and shows how the licensing process can become subject to corruption when not set up correctly.

Nevada is one of 11 states to have legalized recreational marijuana and among five states that have placed statewide limits on the number of marijuana licenses that will be granted, although Nevada does so only at the retail level.  When the Legislature finally authorized a commercial system for medical marijuana in 2013—13 years after voters had approved a constitutional amendment approving its use—it allowed for a statewide maximum of 60 medical marijuana dispensaries.  No limitations were placed on the number of cultivation centers or processors.

Later, when advocates filed the initiative to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes that passed in 2016, they allowed that number to roughly double to 130 dispensaries.

The original licensing process for medical marijuana was fraught with problems.  Clark County, the state’s most populous county and also home to Las Vegas’s lucrative tourist market, decided to award licenses using its own criteria before the state had chosen which applicants would be approved.  This resulted in some applicants being approved at the state level but denied licenses in Clark County, and vice versa. A series of lawsuits followed.  Complicating matters further, several Clark County commissioners were exposed as receiving large campaign donations from applicants immediately before voting on which dispensaries would receive county medical marijuana licenses.

The initiative to legalize recreational marijuana then granted existing medical marijuana licensees the exclusive ability to apply for recreational licenses for the first 18 months after the state began to accept applications.  The Nevada Department of Taxation, which regulates the industry, allowed these businesses to apply to co-locate a recreational license with their existing medical marijuana businesses shortly before the recreational program went live in July 2017.  It would subsequently make all additional, statutorily authorized licenses available in a second application period that spanned a few weeks in September 2018. This would effectively ensure that businesses that didn’t already possess medical marijuana licenses in Nevada would never be able to apply for a recreational dispensary license, regardless of what clouds might hang over that original process.

At a February 2018 hearing where state lawmakers approved the department’s proposed regulations to govern the application process, I testified that the draft regulations ran afoul of statutory protections meant to ensure the process would be fair and objective.  The voter-approved initiative required the process to be “impartial and numerically scored.” However, the regulations contained scoring criteria that demonstrated bias toward some applicants. For example, total tax revenues already collected from each applicant was a criterion, although only existing dispensaries paid retail excise taxes and dispensaries sell inventory at marked-up rates, which effectively guaranteed only existing dispensary licensees would score well. They also failed to clarify the scoring system being used and instead declared the Department of Taxation could, arbitrarily, assign different weights to each scoring criteria every time it opened an application period.

Lawmakers considered these concerns briefly but were advised by legislative counsel they had no choice but to pass the regulations as written because the existing emergency regulations would expire later that week.

Once the Department of Taxation announced it would accept applications in September 2018, it notified applicants they would be eligible to receive only one dispensary license in each jurisdiction where they applied.  This was a last-ditch effort to ensure fairness in execution, if not in written law.

This is where things really went haywire. Despite its written guidance, the Department of Taxation awarded several entities multiple dispensary licenses within the same jurisdiction.  Only 17 of 127 companies that applied received any of the 61 licenses made available and more than half of those licenses went to just four companies.  The winners were heavily associated with a group of insiders at the Nevada Cannabis Coalition and court records show that the group’s attorney, Amanda Connor, enjoyed privileged access to department staff despite written warnings from the state against such activity.

Nevada Department of Taxation Deputy Executive Director Jorge Pupo was wined and dined by applicants and acknowledged that he changed the application in ways favorable to these applicants.  For instance, he allowed applicants to be considered separate companies simply by altering their names slightly or setting up shell entities.  The department also circulated different versions of the application to different applicants—some required a specific street address and others did not, which is important because securing an address adds up-front costs to an applicant that may be lost if they don’t get a license.

After applicants who were denied licenses filed suit against the department, additional discrepancies came to light. According to court records, the department hired temporary workers to score the applications without providing significant training or oversight to those workers.  Points awarded for gender and racial diversity among ownership groups invited gamesmanship from applicants, who hired or promoted frontmen to boost their scores. Ultimately, though, what led Judge Gonzalez to issue an injunction against the state’s licensing decisions was the Department of Taxation’s decision to not require background checks on owners with less than a five percent stake in licensed businesses.  That ran afoul of a statutory requirement that all owners the state’s marijuana industry submit to background checks.

Nevada’s mishandling of marijuana licensing is sadly the predictable result of a flawed regulatory structure and is likely to be repeated elsewhere.  First, states contemplating marijuana legalization should take caution not to place arbitrary limits on the number of licenses. This only invites the types of political gamesmanship and corruption seen in Nevada. Nevada should move quickly to open up its licensing process and allow the market to balance supply naturally against demand.

The Reason Foundation’s conceptual framework for marijuana regulation cautions against these limits.  It also recommends specific agency structures and basic licensing criteria that would help states avoid the types of problems seen in Nevada.  We’ve found a warm reception for many of those recommendations in places like Michigan, but forecast looming difficulties in places like Illinois.

Nevada’s experience now offers a cautionary tale that other states should seek to avoid.

This column originally appeared in The Nevada Independent.

The post Nevada’s Flawed Marijuana Licensing Process Leads to Corruption and Lawsuits appeared first on Reason Foundation.

In wake of the bill’s passage, though, a growing demand has also materialized for hemp extracts such as cannabidiol, or “CBD” for short.  CBD is the primary ingredient in an FDA-approved drug that reduces the frequency and severity of epileptic seizures in children and may hold other health benefits.

Now, a handful of states are beginning to craft the types of commercial hemp programs foreseen in the 2018 Farm Bill.  Although most states had already created pilot programs to study hemp cultivation under the authority of the previous Farm Bill passed in 2014, the programs allowed under the 2018 iteration are expressly intended to allow full-scale commercialization.  The first states to establish one of these commercialization programs will likely be able to shape much of the emerging hemp industry because these early movers will form templates that guide future actions by other states.

In May, Florida passed legislation authorizing the creation of a state hemp program and its state agriculture department has already circulated draft rules to implement the program.  Likewise, North Carolina lawmakers are currently debating legislation to create a state hemp program and the bill has already passed the state senate.

These two early-moving states have key differences in their proposed approaches to hemp regulation.  Both states would expressly legalize cannabinoids extracted from compliant hemp at the state level, matching current federal law.  One wrinkle federally is that the Food and Drug Administration has not yet approved these extracts to be included in food or cosmetic products that enter into interstate commerce.  North Carolina’s proposed law would permit CBD-infused products to be sold within the state’s borders but only after those products are approved by the FDA.  

Florida would allow these products to be sold without FDA approval, provided they are manufactured to standards set by the relevant state agencies.  For example, foods would have to be produced in a facility that meets state food safety standards, lotions would be governed by the state’s Drug and Cosmetic Act, and CBD-infused alcoholic beverages would be regulated by Florida’s Division of Alcoholic Beverages.  

This approach is similar to pending legislation in California, which would allow CBD products to be sold within the state’s borders even prior to FDA approval.  Measures like this are significant because earlier this year then-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb warned that it could take another three years, or longer, for the FDA to approve rules governing CBD-infused products.

In other ways, though, Florida’s draft rules fall short of those in North Carolina.  The current legislative draft in North Carolina includes an express immunity for licensees from prosecution under the state’s controlled substances act even if their hemp crop winds up with more than the federal limit of 0.3 percent THC by dry-weight volume.  There are many reasons this could happen inadvertently, such as genetic mutations or simply having to wait too long before harvest. THC develops in higher concentrations the longer a cannabis plant is left in the field. North Carolina also requires only growers and manufacturers to acquire licenses and not retail stores that simply sell the final products.  Florida would require retailers to be licensed as well.

Florida would also require growers to await clearance from the state agriculture department before they can harvest a hemp crop.  But this wait time could allow more THC to develop in the plants, which could force the growers to then destroy the entire crop if it exceeds legal levels.  Language in the draft rules would create incentives for farmers to minimize their lot sizes in ways that could be inefficient. They’d be doing so simply to minimize the risk of having their plants destroyed if state regulators cause too many delays prior to harvest that lead to unacceptable THC levels in that batch.  Florida could fix these issues by allowing farmers to harvest their plants and then quarantine them pending the results of lab tests conducted by state regulators.

As more states explore hemp programs, they will look to these early states as examples.  So it’s important that the first states get it right.

The post A Comparison of the Proposed Hemp Programs in North Carolina and Florida appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Over the past century, state and federal agencies have developed a myriad of policy approaches for regulating the cultivation, production, and sale of cannabis and cannabis-based products. Although many Americans living today have grown up in a policy environment of strict federal prohibition and have been socialized to accept that approach as the cultural norm, cannabis has been a significant agricultural product within the United States for much of its history.

Historically, Americans have farmed cannabis for several purposes. Most early interest in cannabis was for its stalks and fibers which were the primary material from which early American textiles were produced, as well as cordage and paper. Secondly, cannabis seeds and seed oil were also a historical feedstock for both humans and animals. Third, the flowers and leaves of the cannabis plant produce unique chemical compounds called the “cannabinoids” that can exert medical and psychoactive effects on humans. While scientists have identified more than 100 cannabinoids, the most famous is delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which produces a temporary psychoactive effect when consumed. Not all strains of cannabis produce significant amounts of THC, but among those that do, the dried leaves, flowers, resins and fertile seeds of those plants are legally defined today as marijuana. The remaining portions of the plant, and, in the case of low-THC strains of cannabis, the whole plant, are commonly classified as industrial hemp.

Cannabis farming played a central role in the founding of the American republic. In fact, it was a primary motive for British colonization of the original American colonies. Sailcloth and cordage made from cannabis fibers were essential for maintaining the British fleet, and the island nation had limited land on which to grow the necessary supplies of both food and cannabis. King James ordered every property owner at Jamestown to grow a minimum of 100 cannabis plants for export to England. Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, these quotas were expanded and the American colonies were restricted from trading cannabis with other nations so that any cannabis not consumed domestically would be shipped back to England. England’s demand for cannabis fiber was so great that the Crown began to offer free transportation to America, free land and free seeds to induce additional migration to the colonies for cannabis cultivation. The Crown ultimately offered to purchase one pound of colonial cannabis fiber for as much as two pounds of tobacco—a new cash crop that unexpectedly flourished in the colonies.

Given the centrality of cannabis in the settling of the American colonies, it is little surprise that many of the American founders, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, were cannabis farmers or processors. Further, their writings indicate that Washington, Jefferson and other major figures in American history not only harvested cannabis for its fibers but also enjoyed smoking or cooking with the flowering parts of the plant. The original drafts of the American Declaration of Independence were likely written on paper made from cannabis fibers, and Betsy Ross stitched the first American flag out of cannabis-based fabric. Although the demand for cannabis fiber declined following the Civil War, the first Federal Reserve notes were still printed on paper made from cannabis fibers, and the original ten-dollar bill displayed a drawing of American farmers harvesting cannabis.

By the early 20th century, however, many countries in the West grew increasingly alarmed at the potentiality for cannabis to be consumed for its inebriating effects.5 Following World War II, these concerns culminated in the passage of a series of federal legislation that made it either difficult or illegal to produce cannabis in any form, including for purely industrial purposes.

Prior to and throughout the century-long debate on the federal treatment of the cannabis plant, however, individual states have developed a wide range of policy alternatives to regulate its production, sales, and use. Although many states very recently have taken widely publicized actions to regulate cannabis within their own borders, states have been developing unique policy regimes to accomplish that same task dating back to the late 19th century.

This paper makes three facts particularly clear. First, cannabis played a central role in the forming of the American republic. Second, states have historically taken the lead in regulating the market for cannabis products that contain the psychoactive cannabinoid THC within their own borders. Third, federal action to outlaw marijuana was unfounded on the science, was used as justification for growth of the federal bureaucracy, and has created tense friction with state governments regarding the federal allocation of powers under the U.S. Constitution.

There is no evidence that states intend to relinquish to federal agencies the power to regulate marijuana within their borders. To the contrary, a growing number of states are passing laws to legalize marijuana for either medical or recreational purposes as a direct affront to federal assertions of power under the Filburn interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Although early versions of these laws were almost exclusively passed by voter initiative, state lawmakers have increasingly considered legalization statutes through the legislative process. In 2018, Vermont became the first state to legalize marijuana for recreational use by a legislative act, indicating antipathy from even state policymakers toward the federal assertion of power in this area.

Predicting the future is difficult, and no one knows how this conflict will ultimately be resolved. Congress may elect to end the federal prohibition of marijuana at any point, such as through a reclassification under the Controlled Substances Act or another means. It has recently taken similar action with regard to low-THC strains of cannabis, or hemp, which is now protected from prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act when grown under a license issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture pursuant to provisions of the 2018 Agriculture Act. Alternatively, Congress might restore the traditional interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause by reserving to the states the undisputed power to regulate marijuana within their borders.

On the other end of the spectrum, Congress may elect to crack down more forcefully on state marijuana programs and the businesses they license. One thing is for certain though: The status quo, given all the staunchly competing interests, is untenable.

Full Brief — Cannabis and States’ Power: A Historical Review Of State Efforts And Authority To Regulate Cannabis

The post A Historical Review of State Efforts and Authority To Regulate Cannabis appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Idaho State Police seized 6,701 pounds of legal hemp and are being sued by the owners as a consequence.  

In 2017, over 151,000 pounds of processed marijuana were destroyed by federal agents.

A Canadian medical marijuana patient with multiple sclerosis was arrested for violating Canada’s THC per se driving level, but was later found to be unimpaired by a drug recognition officer and was released with the charges dropped.

Denver’s voters will have a chance to decriminalize psilocybin, the main chemical compound in psychedelic mushrooms, this May.

A California cannabis testing lab had multiple equipment failures leading to faulty results, but the incident also shows that legal marijuana products are under more scrutiny for health purposes than the black market ever would be.  

Massachusetts is going to be relying more heavily on drug recognition experts to enforce marijuana driving and impairment laws.

Regulating marijuana effectively may mitigate many of the risks it presents.

Legislation, Regulation, and Markets

Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis called on President Trump and the federal government to allow marijuana businesses to bank normally and legally, saying that cash businesses encourage crime.

Some California lawmakers are acknowledging that high tax levels and too much red tape are stunting the legal marijuana market’s growth.  

A new report concluded that a state-run bank for marijuana in California would not be a cost-effective or reliable long-term solution, emphasizing the need for continued reform at the federal level.   

A Florida circuit judge struck down Florida’s hard cap on dispensaries, the second ruling against the law in the last year.   

Florida’s governor has asked the legislature to end the ban on smoking.

Evidence

Occupational licensing requirements, which restrict who is eligible for work in the cannabis industry, harm workers, consumers, and the economy.

In order to regulate marijuana and driving, law enforcement should focus on impairment as verified by drug recognition experts, not per se THC levels.

The post Reason Foundation’s Drug Policy Newsletter, February 2019 appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The post Environmental Costs of Hemp Prohibition in the United States appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The environmental performance of industrial hemp products is of particular interest because, to a large degree, environmental inefficiencies impose costs on society as a whole, not just on the producers and consumers of a specific good. Many commodities which came to replace traditional uses of industrial hemp in the United States in the last century and a half have created significant environmental externalities.

Assessments of industrial hemp as compared to hydrocarbon or other traditional industrial feedstocks show that, generally, hemp requires substantially lower energy demands for manufacturing, is often suited to less-toxic means of processing, provides competitive product performance (especially in terms of durability, light weight, and strength), greater recyclability and/or biodegradability, and a number of value-added applications for byproducts and waste materials at either end of the product life cycle. Unlike petrochemical feedstocks, industrial hemp production offsets carbon dioxide emissions, helping to close the carbon cycle.

The positive aspects of industrial hemp as a crop are considered in the context of countervailing attributes. Performance areas where industrial hemp may have higher average environmental costs than comparable raw materials result from the use of water and fertilizer during the growth stage, greater frequency of soil disturbance (erosion) during cultivation compared to forests and some field crops, and relatively high water use during the manufacturing stage of hemp products.

Overall, social pressure and government mandates for lower dioxin production, lower greenhouse gas emissions, greater bio-based product procurement, and a number of other environmental regulations, seem to directly contradict the wisdom of prohibiting an evidently useful and unique crop like hemp.

The post Illegally Green: Environmental Costs of Hemp Prohibition appeared first on Reason Foundation.