The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has scheduled a Dec. 2 public meeting on a proposal to lower cannabis to a less dangerous Schedule III classification under U.S. law.
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has scheduled a Dec. 2 hearing on its proposal to lower the classification of marijuana to the less dangerous level of Schedule III, according to a public announcement late Monday.
The DEA had never issued any timeline for its process to potentially change the Schedule I classification of cannabis for the first time since the Controlled Substances Act went into effect in 1970. Still, some in the cannabis industry had hoped for a final decision before the U.S. election.
The DEA had already received 43,000 comments on its proposal, initially made on May 21, with a comment period that closed late in July. The DEA said the comments included requests to hold a public hearing.
DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said she would determine who will participate in the hearing and name a presiding officer to run the meeting, which will take place on Dec. 2 at 9 a.m. Eastern Time at 700 Navy Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
The government said the meeting may also be moved to a different location, continued from day to day, or recessed to a later date without notice.
The Mary Miller Amendment will kill the hemp industry, including its industrial sector.
By Rod Kight, Jonathan Miller and Chris Fontes
When the Mary Miller Amendment (MMA) passed the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, I wrote an article about how it is specifically designed to kill the hemp cannabinoid industry. Unfortunately, and even though this industry generated $28 billion in revenue last year, there are groups that want it dead, including a small cartel of marijuana corporate conglomerates who seek to destroy the hemp industry so they can control the entire cannabis supply chain to the exclusion of small hemp businesses.
In addition to deploying millions of dollars into lobbying efforts to shut down the hemp industry, these conglomerates have launched a massive disinformation campaign about hemp products and child safety that is largely bereft of substantive factual support.
But that’s not all. In addition to killing the hemp cannabinoid industry, the MMA will also kill the industrial hemp industry. Aside from the marijuana cartel, there are others who do not care about the hemp cannabinoid industry but who do care about industrial hemp. These groups are fine with the MMA because, to their understanding, it does not impact “industrial” hemp. This view is not only incorrect, but it is a direct result of the disinformation campaign referenced above. To be clear, the MMA will kill all hemp, including “industrial hemp.” This is because the MMA does the following:
It changes the definition of “hemp” so that total THC must not exceed 0.3 percent. Some people have argued that the MMA merely codifies current U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) policy in measuring THC in the field. That’s not true because the MMA goes well beyond measuring THC in the field to making a sweeping change to the current definition of “hemp” in the Farm Bill. Contrary to popular belief, THCa, the nonpsychoactive precursor to THC, is not mentioned in the Farm Bill’s definition of hemp. Importantly, it is not part of the legal “metric” for determining whether cannabis material is lawful “hemp.” In fact, the opposite is true. The current definition of hemp specifically includes its “acids.” (THCa is one of many acids the plant produces. The “a” in THCA stands for “acid.”) The only statutory reference to THCa in the Farm Bill is via an inference.
The Farm Bill directs the USDA to use a “post-decarboxylation” method to test hemp in the field. This means that a hemp crop cannot be harvested unless it passes a total THC test, which accounts for the THCa concentration. In other words, even though THCa is never mentioned in the Farm Bill, it is implied by virtue of the required post-decarboxylation test that must take place before a hemp crop can be harvested. Once this test is passed, the hemp crop may be harvested. Thereafter, the concentration of THCa is irrelevant and, under the Farm Bill, the sole metric to distinguish between lawful hemp and unlawful marijuana is the concentration of delta-9 THC, not THCa. This is a critical point since most harvested hemp crops would fail if the THCa concentration was included as the compliance metric in defining harvested hemp, something that the MMA would require. Notably, grain crops require late flowering and will have no legal pathway if the MMA becomes law and “total THC,” rather than delta-9 THC, becomes the new legal compliance standard.
It excludes viable seeds from the definition of “hemp” when they come from a plant with total THC that exceeds 0.3 percent, even though cannabis seeds contain almost no THC, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration itself considers them to be lawful. Notably, all grains, including hemp seeds, are “viable” before they are rendered nonviable.
Credit: 24K Productions
As discussed above, the MMA’s requirement that all post-harvest material pass a post-decarboxylation test would deem all hemp seeds from such plants to be Schedule 1 controlled substances. Given that as much as 88 percent of harvested hemp plants fail a total THC test and are illegal marijuana under the MMA, the grain market will collapse if the MMA is enacted into law. I should note that this specific provision has nothing to do with health, safety or anything else along those lines. Rather, it is solely about consolidating power in the hands of a few corporate marijuana conglomerates who perceive all competition, even from hobbyist home growers, as a threat to their bottom lines.
It excludes “quantifiable amounts” of THC, including THCa, from the definition of “hemp.” Hemp is cannabis. It is not some other species of plant. One of the most notable and fundamental characteristics of the cannabis plant is that it expresses THC. By eliminating all THC, the MMA would render all hemp, including industrial hemp, a Schedule 1 controlled substance since ALL hemp plants express THC in quantifiable amounts.
The founder of one of the top cannabis laboratories in the country informed me that his lab can detect THC at levels down to picograms per milliliter (0.0001). This roughly equates to a drop of THC in an Olympic-sized pool. Moreover, even if an industrial hemp plant could be grown with no quantifiable amounts of THC, the fiber market is not currently viable enough on its own to support an industry. It does not produce sufficient revenue to support testing labs, regulators’ budgets or the bottom lines of most businesses. Given time, this will change, but only if the entire hemp industry is allowed to survive and thrive.
Rod Kight
The MMA pulls the rug out from underneath the multibillion-dollar hemp industry that Congress created in 2018. This includes the grain and fiber sectors. Even though the MMA is promoted as an effort to close the so-called hemp loophole, what it will really do is kill the entire legal hemp industry while giving away billions of dollars to the illegal marijuana industry. If Congress truly believed that hemp products constitute a public health crisis, then it would have enacted legislation requiring the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or another federal agency to oversee it many years ago. The fact that it hasn’t done this belies the shrill cries of concern of the marijuana cartel’s disinformation campaign that mask its true intent to destroy its hemp competitor.
Moreover, there are better ways to address safety than by killing the hemp industry, including by promulgating regulations that prohibit access by minors, mandating quality control in production and standardizing labeling so adults can make educated decisions about what products they choose to purchase. These three regulatory zones, what I call the “Three Pillars,” have been addressed in hemp industry-sponsored bills in state legislatures throughout the country, many of which have been defeated due to intense lobbying against them by the marijuana industry.
Finally, for proponents of “industrial” uses for hemp who also think that it is OK to give the illegal corporate marijuana cartel a giveaway while destroying thousands of legal small businesses, be aware that MMA will kill the entire hemp industry, including the industrial sector that they purport to support.
Today, the Bloom brand announced a partnership with Cresco Labs to expand distribution across the state of Florida. Launching in November 2024, Bloom’s Surf all-in-one vape will be exclusively produced by Cresco Labs in Florida and available at all 33 Sunnyside dispensaries throughout the Sunshine State.
Florida is the seventh state in which Bloom products will be available to consumers. Bloom is currently available in California, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, and New York, with New Jersey and Virginia also slated for launch in Q3 and Q4, respectively.
“Cresco’s Sunnyside is hands-down the right retailer to bring Bloom to Florida. Bloom’s products were originally developed for medical markets, designed for patients who rely on cannabis as medicine with a focus on a consistent and accessible product experience,” said Casey Ly, co-founder and co-CEO of Bloom. “Sunnyside’s focus on product education, a welcoming shopping experience and convenient locations makes them the ideal partner. We look forward to introducing our top-selling classic strains at all 33 locations this fall.”
According to BDSA analytics, Bloom is one of the top five fastest-growing cannabis brands in the U.S. Founded in 2014 and celebrating ten years of business this year, Bloom is still focused on its core mission: to provide consumers with a vaping experience that replicates flower consumption, according to a press release.
“Our patients want high-quality cannabis products that are effective and easy to use, and Bloom’s innovative hardware design provides a precise, flavorful vaping experience that patients will love,” said Connie Woolsey, vice president of retail of Cresco Labs. “Sunnyside offers a wide variety of innovative and quality cannabis products in the Florida market and we are looking forward to expanding our line with Bloom products.”
Bloom will launch its Classic line products in its proprietary Surf device in .5g and 1g formats. Bloom’s Live line will launch later, in Q4 2024.
In light of the widespread nullification of federal marijuana prohibition, the rising public support for legalization, and the potential excise revenues, policymakers are compelled to seriously consider significant reforms to federal marijuana policy. Last December, members of Congress introduced the STATES 2.0 Act, which would remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, federally legalize its sale and use, and allow for interstate commerce.
A defederalized marijuana prohibition policy would allow states to decide for themselves whether cannabis would be legal within their borders—which they have already been doing for decades—and how that legal cannabis market would be taxed, writes the Tax Foundation.
What legal markets already exist are burdened by federal prohibition and punitive taxation, which keeps prices substantially higher than illicit markets. Bolstering black markets is a common unintended consequence of prohibition, and marijuana has been no different—even with existing state legalization. Revisions to federal cannabis policies, such as those in the STATES 2.0 Act, would give much-needed reform to a market struggling with a messy policy landscape.
Regulating Cannabis Markets
Instead of enforcing marijuana prohibition through the Drug Enforcement Administration, the STATES 2.0 ACT would rely on the Food and Drug Administration to regulate marijuana products permissible in US markets and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) to track products and collect taxes. Federal and state law enforcement would be able to shift focus and budgets away from petty offenses for marijuana possession toward removing more dangerous substances from illicit markets and preventing violent and property crimes.
The recent failings of the FDA to properly facilitate a legal vaping market may call into question its ability to do the same for cannabis, and there are more efficient ways to ensure product safety. However, the STATES 2.0 Act specifies that no premarket approval would be required, which would preclude the type of disaster inflicted on the vaping market.
Allowing legitimate businesses to manufacture and sell cannabis products, as well as allowing banks to do business with a legal cannabis industry, would do much to enable a safe, legal market to undercut the existing black markets dominated by cartels.
The STATES 2.0 Act would allow interstate commerce in cannabis and cannabis products when traveling between states that have provided for legalized cannabis within their borders, even if passing through states that have chosen to keep marijuana illegal.
TTB would be responsible for administering a national track-and-trace system. Similar track-and-trace systems are already in place within states that have legalized recreational marijuana, allowing states to track marijuana plants from seed to consumer sale.
A federal system administered by TTB could incorporate existing state systems into a national database. TTB would also enforce consistent and timely tax collections.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a lawsuit on Monday against California businessman Robert Newell and one of his former companies, Black Hawk Funding. They alleged that Newell orchestrated a $38 million “Ponzi-like” scheme to defraud investors.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California, alleges that 63-year-old Newell raised $37.7 million from about 200 investors nationwide between 2016 and 2019 to ostensibly invest in legal marijuana businesses. Instead, he “engaged in various undisclosed and unauthorized uses of the funds, including making Ponzi-like payments to investors and paying for the expenses of unrelated entities.”
Newell founded Black Hawk Funding in 2011, originally with a focus on the real estate industry, but he pivoted to cannabis following recreational legalization in California in November 2016, according to the lawsuit. Newell acted as the principal financial adviser to three private funds: Verde Ventures Inc., Verde Holdings Inc., and Verde Partners Inc, according to Green Market Report.
Another separate corporation, National Asset Valuation Services, was also created by Newell “as a conduit to misappropriate money” from two of the three funds, the SEC lawsuit alleges.
“Newell engaged in a scheme and deceptive course of business to defraud investors by creating a false impression that the Verde Funds were more successful than they were, which allowed Newell to continue raising funds from investors and to enrich himself at the expense of the investors,” the SEC alleged in the suit.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued warning letters to five companies for illegally selling copycat food products containing delta-8 THC and introducing them into the marketplace in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
These warnings are part of the FDA and FTC’s ongoing joint effort to take action against companies selling illegal copycat food products containing delta-8 THC. In June 2023, the two agencies worked together to warn six other companies about selling edible food products containing delta-8 THC in packaging that could easily be confused for foods sold by popular national brands.
All six of those companies no longer have such products in stock.
“Inadequate or confusing labeling can result in children or unsuspecting adults consuming products with strong resemblance to popular snacks and candies that contain delta-8 THC without realizing it,” said FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Namandjé Bumpus. “As accidental ingestion and/or overconsumption of delta-8 THC containing products could pose considerable health risks, the companies who sell these illegal products are demonstrating complete neglect for consumer safety.
“The FDA will continue to work to safeguard the health and safety of U.S. consumers by monitoring the marketplace and taking action when companies sell products that present a threat to public health.”
In June 2022, the FDA warned consumers about children accidentally ingesting food products containing delta-8 THC. From Jan. 1, 2021, to Dec. 31, 2023, the FDA received over 300 adverse event reports involving children and adults who consumed delta-8 THC products.
Nearly half of these reports involved hospitalization or emergency department visits, and approximately two-thirds of these adverse events followed ingestion of delta-8 THC-containing food products such as candy or brownies. Adverse events included, but were not limited to, hallucinations, vomiting, tremors, anxiety, dizziness, confusion, and loss of consciousness.
A federal judge has given hope to 10 companies looking to block the enforcement of a new Iowa law, which they argue unfairly prevents them from selling products containing hemp-derived THC.
During a hearing about their request for an injunction against the law, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Rose stated that their argument that the law is unconstitutional is unlikely to succeed. However, she acknowledged that there may be merit to their claim that the state is applying the law in a discriminatory manner.
The Hemp Amendments, a law passed by the Iowa Legislature during this year’s session, became effective on July 1. Under this law, the sale of hemp products to individuals under the age of 21 is prohibited. It also mandates compliance with new regulations that restrict the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) allowed in a serving and requires specific labeling, according to media sources.
Rose already turned down an injunction request by two of them: Field Day, a Johnson County maker of THC sparkling water, and Climbing Kites, a Des Moines-based joint venture of the Lua and Big Grove breweries, maker of a THC-containing seltzer. She rejected their argument that the law was unconstitutional because it failed to define a serving size but said at the time that she had “serious concerns” about how the law would be enforced.
California cannabis brands and retailers are implementing new initiatives for vape packaging and disposal in response to a state law that went into effect July 1.
New requirements under California Business and Professional Code 26152.1, include a ban on using the term “disposable” to describe marijuana vape products in advertising, labeling and marketing.
The rules also mandate that THC oil, vape pens, and batteries be disposed of at hazardous waste collection facilities or other approved businesses, according to media reports.
The burden of disposing of defective, returned or used vape products likely will now fall on retailers.
“The consumers themselves, however, have no real recycling solutions that are dedicated to cannabis products, specifically vaporization products,” said Jeremy Green, CEO and co-founder of Los Angeles-headquartered Final Bell Holdings, which provides supply-chain services for California and Canadian brands.
The proposed Miller Amendment was designed to kill the hemp cannabinoid industry.
By Rod Kight
As everyone reading this article likely knows, the Miller Amendment unexpectedly passed a bloc vote in the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture on May 23. In a last-minute turn of events, chairman Glenn Thompson ordered an “en bloc” vote on all amendments rather than voting on them individually.
This was presumably done because he knew that he did not have enough votes to pass the Miller Amendment on its own. Unfortunately, the tactic worked. This is especially frustrating given that the chairman has previously expressed interest in retaining the current definition of “hemp” for the next farm bill.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the Miller Amendment was specifically designed to kill the hemp cannabinoid industry. This is because the Miller Amendment:
changes the definition of “hemp” so that total THC must not exceed 0.3 percent;
expressly excludes viable seeds from a marijuana plant from the definition of “hemp” even though they contain almost no THC and the DEA itself considers them to be hemp;
expressly excludes cannabinoids that the plant produces but which are synthesized or manufactured outside the plant from the definition of “hemp” even if they are produced using cGMP or other internationally accepted quality control standards and are identical to the naturally occurring ones; and
expressly excludes “quantifiable amounts” of THC, including THCa, and “any other cannabinoids that have similar effects (or which are marketed to have similar effects) on humans or animals as THC” from the definition of “hemp.”
Taken together, these provisions of the Miller Amendment strike a deadly blow to the entire hemp cannabinoid industry. If enacted into law, the hemp industry as we know it will no longer exist. If you read the provisions carefully, it should be clear that the Miller Amendment was not written by a hack or even someone who is simply concerned about so-called “intoxicating cannabinoids.”
This amendment was written by insiders with a very specific agenda. Presently, the author is not known to me. Still, this policy has been the subject of a major lobbying push by a select group of major marijuana organizations to erase the hemp industry.
Chris Roberts, writing for MJBizDaily, reported that the“U.S. Cannabis Council—members of which include many multistate marijuana operators—circulated a letter asking lawmakers to exclude from the new Farm Bill any hemp-derived product with ‘detectable quantities of total THC and any other intoxicant that can be derived from hemp, including other forms of THC.’”
The U.S. Cannabis Council is not the only villain in the war against hemp, but its members include some of the worst actors. It and its members actively advocate for cannabis policy that:
promotes the interests of a small handful of large corporate marijuana companies (i.e., marijuana monopolists) over the interests of small businesses;
advocates for limited licensure and vertical integration;
uses repurposed “Reefer Madness” fearmongering tactics about cannabis intoxication to further its cause; and
has initiated a “total war” against hemp with the express goal of completely destroying the hemp cannabinoid industry in what amounts to a bloody turf war.
Rod Kight
For anyone who did not previously believe that last point about Big Marijuana’s “total war” against hemp or who has ever asked “why can’t we all just get along?,” today’s congressional shenanigans should be ample proof of Big Marijuana’s end goal of completely eradicating the hemp industry. The Big Marijuana lobby and the monopolistic corporations it serves are willing to resort to backhanded political tactics and otherwise go the distance to take over the cannabis industry to the complete exclusion of the hemp sector. It is time to unite and fight back. This is our rallying cry: Hemp is cannabis. What is good for the hemp industry is good for the cannabis industry.
As I discussed in a recent keynote speech at Noco, the hemp industry is emerging as the paradigm for the future of cannabis. By defeating the Big Marijuana monopolists and promoting reasonable laws/regulations, such as the three-pillar approach (see below), we have an opportunity to rewrite the cannabis story and to create an industry where small businesses and farmers can thrive and consumers have access to a wide array of safe cannabis products through a variety of distribution channels.
Rather than focusing on cannabis intoxication, vertical integration, expensive licensing, prohibiting home-grow, a zero-sum turf war or any other such nonsense, the three-pillar approach addresses three reasonable regulatory “zones” for consumer safety and a healthy industry: (1) age gating, (2) quality control for production and manufacturing, and (3) standardized and informative labeling and marketing. Read/listen to more on the three pillars here. I welcome your input.
Fortunately, a lot of marijuana companies are beginning to see the “hemp light.” I regularly receive calls from marijuana companies who have decided to pivot to the hemp industry as the path forward for their businesses. They see hemp as a commonsense solution, not a “loophole,” and want assistance making the journey. Hemp is the great uniter, and we welcome anyone who believes in fair play, reasonable regulations and a healthy cannabis economy.
Here are some suggestions on how to join the fight and help hemp win the war against oppressive monopolistic interests:
Call your federal lawmakers today and let them know that you support hemp. Tell them to “vote no” to the Miller Amendment and to retain the current definition of hemp.
Support the organizations that are fighting for hemp with your donations: the American Healthy Alternatives Association, the Hemp Roundtable, the Midwest Hemp Council and the Hemp Industries Association. These organizations are leading the fight against a well-funded greed machine, and they cannot do it without your support. If you want the hemp industry to survive, then donate money to these organizations today! Don’t screw around. Do it now.
Call “bullshit” on the organizations that purport to be pro-cannabis but advocate against hemp. Hemp is cannabis, and these organizations are working against your interests. Inform and educate your friends, colleagues, customers, competition, lawmakers, lobbyists, news media and anyone else who has any interest in cannabis that there is a war raging against hemp that will impact the future of cannabis. NOW IS THE TIME!
Stay up to date on news about the farm bill and state-level bills that deal with hemp. We are in a critical time for the industry, and things are moving very rapidly. You owe it to yourself and to the industry to stay informed.
Finally, set aside differences with your competition and focus instead on creating a united hemp industry that is dedicated to a positive future for cannabis. If we win, there will be plenty of time to compete, but if we lose, there will be no industry.
The future of cannabis will be determined by what is happening right now. Act accordingly.
On June 14, Next Level Ventures, a Seattle-based marijuana vape maker, filed a counterclaim in federal court in California. The company claims that Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co. has been engaging in a “years-long battle to unlawfully restrain competition in the closed cannabis vaporizer market” based on false patent claims.
Smoore, which markets vape devices under its CCell brand, has not yet responded to the claim, according to court records.
In its counterclaim, Next Level pointed out that vaporizer technology claimed by Smoore was “displayed and offered for sale” as early as the 2016 Marijuana Business Conference & Expo (the predecessor to MJBiz’s MJBizCon), according to media reports.
That happened before Smoore filed for patent protection.
At least one patent Smoore is using to pursue claims was “fraudulently obtained,” Next Level alleges.
According to Next Level’s counterclaim, Smoore’s complaint to the ITC was motivated by flagging sales.
Smoore’s market share for products sold under the CCell brand fell from 80% of the market “to approximately 50-60%” by 2022, Next Level’s counterclaim alleges.
