Researchers at Augusta University have identified a new method to treat fentanyl addiction using a cannabidiol, or CBD, based therapy. The new research, which was published in “Cannabidiol reverses fentanyl-induced addiction and modulates neuroinflammation” by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory’s bioRxiv, offers a promising alternative approach to combat the opioid epidemic, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of American lives.
Babak Baban, a neural immunologist and associate dean of research at AU’s Dental College of Georgia, has pioneered medical use of CBD. Baban partnered with Phillip Wang, a neuroscientist in the Medical College of Georgia’s Department of Neurology, to co-lead the collaborative research efforts to shed new light on effective treatments for fentanyl addiction.
Nearly 250,000 Americans have died from opioid overdose since 2018. At the center of the opioid epidemic is fentanyl.
“Our method is not only effective but also easily applicable, enabling individuals to navigate their journey to recovery safely and with minimal supervision. This is a vital step in addressing the broader social and health impacts of this pervasive issue.”
Babak Baban
When studying a mouse model of fentanyl addiction, the AU team found that fentanyl use dramatically elevated neural inflammation and significantly changed innate lymphoid cells (ILCs), part of the innate immunity in the brain, according to a press release. With mounting evidence implicating neural inflammation and ILCs in maintaining and modulating the functions of the central nervous system (CNS), this led them to hypothesize that altered CNS immune systems may also be crucial in fentanyl-induced maladaptation.
Baban and Wang have shown previously that CBD can reduce neural inflammation restore changes in ILCs, so they decided to apply a similar approach to fentanyl addiction. They found CBD treatment significantly reversed both the elevated neural inflammation and many addiction-related behaviors.
“With most labs focusing mainly on the neuronal and synaptic plasticity mechanisms of fentanyl addiction, the association between changes in neural inflammation, especially ILCs and addiction, is somewhat surprising and very interesting,” said Wang. “This study helps to improve our understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms subserving drug addiction.
“There is clearly a lot to be learned how inflammation and ILCs interact with learning and memory at behavioral level, with neural plasticity at the synaptic and neural network level, and with the reward pathways at the anatomical level.”
Topically applied nanoparticle-encapsulated cannabidiol cream helped prevent and repair damage to the skin from ultraviolet A radiation, according to a study.
“The impacts of ultraviolet (UV) radiation are well described from accelerated skin aging to skin cancer and, while sunscreens and other protective measures are certainly helpful, none of them are full proof,” Adam Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences and a member of Healio Dermatology’s Peer Perspective Board, told Healio. “We need other ways to address these exposures and cumulative exposures to UV radiation.”
According to a study conducted by Friedman and his colleagues and published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, CBD has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties that could potentially mitigate damage from ultraviolet A exposure, according to reports.
“UVA radiation is, in some cases, more dangerous than ultraviolet B,” Friedman explained. “For one, it doesn’t burn even close to as much as UVB, so you don’t really know you’re getting exposure.
“It also gets through clouds and penetrates deeper into the skin, which causes accelerated skin aging by destroying the support structures in the skin like collagen [and] elastin, as well as preventing rebuilding,” he added.
As a result, Friedman and his colleagues evaluated the potential of CBD as a topical photoprotective and possible reparative agent against UVA-induced skin damage in a prospective, single-center, pilot clinical trial.
In the study, 19 participants (age range, 22 to 64 years; Fitzpatrick skin types I-III) applied nano-CBD cream, formulated for the skin, or vehicle cream to random, blinded areas of the buttocks twice-daily for 14 days. The treated sites were then irradiated with three or less UVA minimal erythema doses. After 24 hours, the researchers obtained and examined punch biopsies for histology, immunohistochemistry and real-time polymerase chain reaction.
Results showed that 21% of the participants had less observable erythema on the parts of their skin that were treated with CBD cream vs. the areas that were treated with vehicle. Histology results confirmed that CBD-treated skin had reduced UVA-induced epidermal hyperplasia — a thickening of the epidermis — compared with the vehicle-treated skin (mean change from baseline, 11.3% vs. 28.7%; P = .01).
Immunohistochemistry also detected reduced cytoplasmic/nuclear 8oxo-guanine glycosylase 1 staining in CBD-treated skin vs. vehicle-treated skin, meaning the CBD-skin experienced less oxidized DNA modification (P < .01).
According to Friedman, their study also showed that in 50% of individuals, CBD cream stopped UVA-induced deletion of ND4 — a specific injury to DNA that occurs from UVA exposure — compared with vehicle-treated skin. Additionally, no side effects were reported.
So, what is the future of CBD cream in this indication? Will it replace sunscreen? According to the researchers, it absolutely will not.
“This isn’t a sunscreen,” Friedman emphasized. “The idea here is not that this will replace sunscreen but that it will prevent or repair damage.”
Friedman explains that the sun harms the skin by breaking it down and inhibiting the mechanisms that allow collagen to rebuild. However, CBD may be able to regulate that damage.
“It’s not just that CBD is inhibiting the sun,” he said. “I think it’s actually having a biological effect on the skin and helping move things just like how our own endocannabinoid system would do this.”
Practically applied, Friedman describes that the use of CBD cream to combat UVA rays could be akin to a moisturizer that is put daily on the skin.
While this study showed CBD’s potential as a sun-protectant for the skin, Friedman believes that its indications could expand.
“This isn’t simply about UV exposure,” he said. “We used UV exposure as a way to induce injury to show that CBD can be reparative and protective. But I think it’s not just in the setting of UV, it’s also in general in terms of overall skin health.”
The Italian government has placed CBD on the country’s list of narcotic drugs in defiance of a regional administrative court ruling and in contravention of European Union law.
The Ministry of Health said the designation is in line with Italian Presidential Decree 309/1990, the cornerstone of drug legislation in Italy. However, that contradicts a ruling by a regional court last year, which was based on a legally binding ruling applicable across the European Union.
The attack on CBD is only the latest move by the Italian government. The Ministry of Health first classified CBD as a narcotic and banned the compound from the market in October 2020 – only to rescind the order shortly thereafter, according to media reports.
Later, in a separate attempt in early 2022, the State-Regions Conference – a platform for dialogue and cooperation between the central and regional governments – updated language in a 2018 decree to classify hemp as strictly a medicinal plant.
In that case, four cannabis associations filed suit, and one year later, the decree was annulled by the Regional Administrative Tribunal of Lazio, which ruled it violated European law.
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.
In a June 10 announcement, the company said it has launched an investigation into two directors who it claims tried to “defraud” the business. Chill has accused Antonio Russo, chief commercial officer, and Trevor Taylor, chief operating officer, of seizing the company’s Chill.com website and transferring £314,000 ($400,000) to their private bank accounts in the United States without approval from the board.
That was after the company said in a June 3 announcement that it halted trading to deal with “allegations that had been raised around the use of inside information” by CEO Callum Sommerton. The allegations left its board “unable to currently provide the market with an accurate update of its financial and trading position,” the company said, according to media reports.
Russo and Taylor were left in control of Chill after Sommerton was suspended in April. Following an investigation, Sommerton was reinstated as chief executive on June 4 and launched a subsequent probe which discovered the domain and money transfers were made during his suspension.
Chill Brands said investigations ongoing regarding a number of deals related to its vape business, a sector the company entered with new products last year, also contributed to the trading stoppage.
Harry Chathli, non-executive chairman of Chill Brands, said the company’s board was “totally shocked by the extent of destructive behavior and actions of Mr. Taylor and Mr Russo.”
“It is evident that they have not acted in good faith and their actions have been motivated by self-interest rather than for the benefit of the company or its shareholders,” said Chathli. Chill is also investigating to see “if any professional advisers or persons had assisted them in their actions to defraud the business.”
According to the June 10 announcement, Eric Schrader, a non-executive director who had worked as an independent contractor for the company, has stepped down effective June 30.
Chill said it will try to recover the money transferred to Russo’s and Taylor’s bank accounts “through all legal means available” and “the Board will take appropriate action in relation to any misfeasance.”
Hemp is cannabis, and it should be subject to reasonable regulations of quality, safety and youth access.
By Rod Kight
The hemp industry is subject to numerous regulations. Aside from hemp production, which is regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) either directly or via USDA-required approval of state hemp plans, every state in the country has laws regarding hemp. Most states also regulate hemp products. Some states, such as California, Colorado and Oregon (to name a few), have very detailed hemp regulations that are much more stringent than federal regulations for their similar noncannabis product categories (i.e., foods, dietary supplements, etc.).
Other states, including but not limited to Florida, Tennessee and Texas, have detailed but less stringent regulations. Several states regulate hemp more generally, including Alabama, Indiana, Louisiana and Washington. To be clear, I am not making value judgments about any of these states’ regulatory schemes nor am I being comprehensive. The point I am making is that hemp and hemp products are subject to regulations of some sort, often stringent regulations, on a state-by-state level.
A hemp company that distributes products nationally, or even regionally, must deal with many compliance hurdles, including state laws that directly contradict other state’s laws, labeling requirements that are well beyond any labeling requirements under federal law, analytical testing, permitting, advertising, and age restrictions. Additionally, more and more states are imposing hemp-specific taxes. On top of this web of sometimes conflicting regulations, law enforcement is often behind the curve, and lawful hemp operators constantly live in fear of an unfounded, but stressful and expensive, raid of their businesses.
Additionally, the claim that hemp is “merely” regulated at the state level undercuts all the arguments regarding regulation promulgated by the marijuana industry since marijuana is federally illegal and is thus solely regulated by the states. This is particularly true since at the federal level, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the USDA and the Federal Trade Commission (not to mention the Drug Enforcement Administration) have all flexed their regulatory muscles at the hemp industry during its decade-long evolution. In short, the claim that the hemp industry is “unregulated” is simply false. Most of my time is spent advising clients on how to stay compliant with the patchwork of state and federal regulations governing the hemp industry.
Rod Kight
The hemp industry desires reasonable federal regulations
The hemp industry is often portrayed as populated by greedy “cowboys” who despise regulation and will do anything they can to sell contaminated bathtub gin products to unassuming consumers and to minors. In the popular trope, the hemp industry abhors and shuns regulations. This view is entirely unfounded. In nearly a decade of representing hemp companies, I have been fortunate to represent many of the largest and most well-known ones in the world. I have also enjoyed representing hundreds of small, mostly unknown hemp companies founded and operated by regular people who are following their dream of owning a business and expanding cannabis access to their fellow Americans.
Additionally, I have been privileged to represent and interact with many hemp associations and attorneys who represent hemp companies throughout the U.S. The common denominator of all of these people and companies is a desire to be subject to a single set of reasonable regulations. I am not aware of a single client of mine, or any other hemp executive, who does not agree with the statement, “The hemp industry should be subject to reasonable regulations regarding safety and access by minors.” Sure, cowboys exist in every industry, including the marijuana industry, but in the legitimate hemp industry, everyone is like-minded on this point.
What are “reasonable regulations”? First, and just like any other consumer packaged goods (CPG) industry, the hemp CPG sector should be subject to regulations regarding the quality and purity of its products. Moreover, marketing and labeling of hemp products should be uniform and provide the consumer with sufficient information about a product to make an informed decision about whether to purchase it and how to consume it. These types of regulations already exist for foods, dietary supplements and “vice” products, such as alcohol and tobacco. The hemp industry wants to be treated the same way with respect to quality control and marketing—no more, no less.
Second, access to hemp products by minors should be restricted. There is a lot of focus on “intoxicating” versus “nonintoxicating” products, however, classifying hemp products based on the potential for intoxication is a fool’s errand. Rather, all hemp products, with perhaps the exception of CBD isolate topicals, should be subject to age-gating, with the proviso that a minor’s parent or guardian can purchase a hemp product for the minor’s use and also provide authorization to third parties regarding its use by the minor.
I recognize that this proposal will annoy many people, but it is simple and avoids messy distinctions that are difficult to articulate and mostly unfounded in science, tricky regulations and an overall regulatory structure that will be resource intensive and, frankly, unnecessary. Distributors should be required to age-gate, but minors who need hemp cannabinoids should be able to access them with parental/guardian consent. I will also say that there are other ways to restrict access by minors and that my proposal is up for negotiation. Remember, however, that the point of this article is not to propose a detailed regulatory regime. Rather, it is to make it clear that the hemp industry agrees with age-gating and regulations regarding safety and quality.
A short note about convenience stores
Finally, I’d like to make a side comment about the sale of hemp products in convenience stores. I frequently hear the claim that “hemp products are sold in convenience stores” used as an argument about how bad and unregulated the hemp industry is. This is a red herring. Of all the possible distribution outlets for hemp products, convenience stores are among the best. Convenience stores have for decades been selling highly regulated products, such as alcohol and tobacco, that are subject to strict age-gating.
To be clear, I am in favor of all sorts of properly regulated distribution outlets for hemp products, from e-commerce sites to boutique hemp wellness centers. However, to claim that the hemp industry is somehow bad and unregulated because its products are sold at convenience stores, which are highly regulated and frequently subject to agency audits, licenses, high fines and even criminal action if certain products are sold to minors, is ridiculous. The “convenience store” argument against hemp should die because it is totally unfounded.
Conclusion
The hemp industry has been the subject of a smear campaign based on unfounded allegations that it is unregulated and that it opposes regulations. Both claims are untrue. The hemp industry is highly regulated by both federal and state laws. Additionally, the hemp industry favors reasonable regulations regarding product safety, consumer safety and access by minors. Reasonable people can differ on how these types of regulations should be written, but they are necessary and welcomed by the hemp industry.
Finally, the particular distribution outlet for hemp products is immaterial provided that hemp products are properly and uniformly regulated for quality and safety and that access by minors is restricted. To claim that an industry is unregulated and illegitimate because its products are sold at convenience stores, which happen to be some of the most regulated distribution outlets in the U.S., is a ridiculous argument that needs to be put to rest.
Hemp is cannabis, and cannabis should be subject to reasonable regulations regarding quality, safety and access by minors so that all consenting adults can have the access they need and that all Americans who desire to operate a legally compliant hemp business can take part in the burgeoning cannabis industry.
Rod Kightis an international cannabis lawyer. He represents businesses throughout the cannabis industry.
Italy’s Regional Administrative Court of Lazio (TAR) has ruled to suspend a decree that would make CBD oil a narcotic substance until January 16, 2024.
In early October, Business of Cannabis reported that the TAR of Lazio, the same regional court responsible for overturning a similar decree making hemp flower a narcotic in February, had suspended the decree until October 24.
This initial suspension has now been extended by nearly three months, with a new hearing to consider the decree’s merits to be held in mid-January following the submission of an appeal by the Ministry of Health.
According to the TAR of Lazio, there are no ‘established concrete dangers of inducing physical or mental dependence’ from CBD and there ‘does not appear to be, as things stand, any imminent risks for the protection of public health’.
It continued that this means “the conditions exist for suspending the contested measure, with the decision on the merits to be made shortly, due to the matter’s relevance, at the first public hearing available in the section’s calendar.”
Chill Brands said it will sell its nicotine-free CBD vapor products in U.K.-based WH Smith stores.
The cannabidiol-products company on Monday said a range will be for sale in an initial 150 of WH Smith’s 1,700 stores, according to a press release.
“These first outlets are WH Smith U.K. travel stores located in airports, train stations and other high-traffic hubs including Heathrow, Gatwick and Kings Cross Station. These areas benefit from an estimated combined daily footfall of more than 500,000 passengers per day,” it said.
Further to the agreement, it has now secured initial orders worth more than 350,000 Pounds ($428,365) from U.K. retailers, it added.
Chill Brands said that it continues to work to expand its retail distribution network in the U.K. and the U.S.
A U.S. congressional committee is scheduled to talk about hemp this week as lawmakers presumably will increase pressure on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to establish guidelines to regulate the CBD market.
A hearing set for 2 p.m. Thursday will look at “Hemp in the Modern World: The Yearslong Wait for FDA Action.”
The House Oversight and Accountability Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services session is open to the public and also may be viewed online, according to Hemp Today.
The session is also likely to address what some say is a lack of regulatory clarity and concern about the safety of synthetic delta-8 THC products.
The oversight committee, chaired by Rep. James Comer, is investigating the FDA’s failure to regulate hemp-derived CBD products as dietary supplements.
Lawmakers and the FDA have danced around CBD for nearly five years, with Congress repeatedly calling on the agency to set rules for the unregulated products, which emerged beginning late last decade and grew into a flourishing gray market.
“We are going to investigate why exactly the FDA has decided to ignore their regulation responsibilities related to CBD and other areas of jurisdiction,” said Rep. Lisa McClain, who serves on the committee.
“Without these regulations, dangerous products could make their way to the shelves while safe and credible CBD products could be prevented from entering the market,” McClain said.
The Hemp Access and Consumer Safety Act, which was also introduced last Congress but did not advance, would exempt “hemp, hemp-derived cannabidiol, or a substance containing any other ingredient derived from hemp” from certain federal restrictions while permitting officials to enact labeling and packaging rules, according to media reports.
Now lawmakers are gearing up to address FDA’s inaction at the subcommittee hearing formally.
A congressional committee has scheduled a hearing for next week focused on the FDA’s refusal to enact regulations to allow for the marketing of hemp-derived CBD products. And bipartisan and bicameral lawmakers have separately reintroduced a bill to fill the regulatory gap.
The House Oversight and Accountability Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services scheduled the hearing—titled “Hemp in the Modern World: The Years long Wait for FDA Action”—for July 27.
Rep. James Comer, who chairs the full committee, has sharply criticized FDA after the agency announced in January that it would not be developing CBD regulations, stating that there is not an available pathway to create such rules and it would require congressional action.
Meanwhile, Comer said in April that his panel would be launching an investigation into the matter, and he requested that the FDA turn over documents related to its decision not to regulate the cannabinoid. Even before the agency made that decision, the congressman expressed his intent to address the lack of rules.
Jonathan Miller, general counsel to the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, will be among those testifying at the meeting, the organization announced in a press release on Thursday.
