For the first time since the 2018 Farm Bill became law, the Supreme Court of the United States will decide a case about hemp. The lawsuit, Medical Marijuana, Inc., et al. v. Douglas J. Horn, involves the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and asks whether product manufacturers can be held responsible for a person’s lost earnings and other job benefits under that powerful statute.
The plaintiff is a commercial truck driver who was fired for failing a random drug test after taking a CBD product that was marketed as THC-free. The plaintiff then filed a RICO claim and state law claims against the companies that marketed the CBD product. He asserted that his lost job earnings and benefits are “business or property” damages that are recoverable under RICO.
The federal district court dismissed the plaintiff’s RICO claim, finding for the companies that RICO does not provide for personal injury losses. However, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and reinstated the RICO claim. The Supreme Court agreed to take up the case. If the Supreme Court affirms the Second Circuit’s ruling, the plaintiff could recover up to three times his lost earnings, plus attorney’s fees.
The U.S. Hemp Roundtable has filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting the defendants’ position that Congress did not intend RICO to apply to personal injury losses. As the brief argues, expanding RICO has major implications for the hemp products industry.
Industry experts have stated that increased costs will be passed on to consumers, potentially making products unavailable to people who need them. Additionally, more liability may cause manufacturers, distributors, or retailers to exit the industry entirely, which will reduce economic opportunities for hemp farmers and businesses.
The case is expected to be heard during the court’s next session, which begins in October.
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.
Two years after marijuana was decriminalized in Thailand, nearly a hundred of its advocates marched to the prime minister’s office Monday to protest a possible ban on general use.
A health ministry drug control committee approved Friday a proposal to relist cannabis as a narcotic to be only allowed for medical and research purposes. The proposition is set to be submitted to the Office of the Narcotics Control Board this week and, if agreed on, will take effect on Jan.1, according to the AP.
Cannabis activists and entrepreneurs, some carrying potted marijuana plants, gathered at the United Nations headquarters in central Bangkok Monday as they prepared to head to the Government House, nearly 1 kilometer (0.62 miles) away.
Prasitchai Nunuan, a representative of a pro-cannabis network of individuals, addressed the protesters, saying that marijuana should be separately regulated by the health ministry instead of criminalizing the plant yet again. He accused the government of outlawing the drug to allow only a few interest groups to benefit from its medical uses.
More than 100 dispensaries in Ohio are on their way to selling recreational marijuana.
The Division of Cannabis Control has granted 110 dispensaries provisional licenses to sell medical and recreational products once they receive final approval.
Of the 110, Northeast Ohio has 36, Southwest Ohio has 29, and Central Ohio has 18. Franklin County has the most with 12, Cuyahoga has 11, and Hamilton has nine.
Click here to learn which facilities have a provisional license.
License applications must be approved or denied by Sept. 7, but the state and policymakers have continued to say that applications could be granted and recreational sales could happen by mid-June.
The passage of Issue 2 allowed adults 21 years of age and older to smoke, vape and ingest weed. According to media reports, Ohioans can grow up to six plants with up to 12 per household.
Ohio Cannabis Coalition’s Tom Haren is staying positive despite the delayed start date. “Rome wasn’t built in a day,” Haren said. “There is a lot of work that needed to get done.”
Consumers haven’t been able to buy weed legally because there is a process that takes place between getting a provisional license and getting a license with a certificate of operation.
The state has a list of requirements that shops need to meet, such as keeping visitor logs, having curbside and drive-through pickup and utilizing surveillance systems. Dispensaries will also have to demonstrate they can keep inventory aside to make sure medical patients continue having preferred access. Sellers will also have to do a test sale to a medical patient and a recreational consumer, among dozens of other tasks and evaluations.
Charlotte’s Web Holdings will elect new directors at its annual meeting on June 13. The company has proposed reducing the number of directors from seven to six.
The following directors’ terms on the company’s board of directors will expire effective June 13, 2024, and they will not stand for reelection:
John D. Held, who joined the board in May 2018 and serves as chairperson of the board and chair of the corporate governance and nominating committee;
Thomas Lardieri, who joined the board in August 2022 and serves on the corporate governance and nominating committee and as chair of the audit committee;
Alicia Morga, who joined the board in December 2022 and serves on the audit committee and the compensation committee.
“Charlotte’s Web is grateful for the valuable contributions and guidance that each of these directors have provided during their time on the board. Their expertise and dedication have been instrumental in navigating through critical phases of our transformation in a challenging unregulated category,” said Charlotte’s Web CEO William Morachnick in a statement.
The board has proposed to nominate the following current directors for reelection:
Jonathan Atwood, group head of business communications for BAT;
Matthew E. McCarthy (independent), former CEO and board member of Ben & Jerry’s Homemade and senior executive at Unilever;
Angela McElwee (independent), former president and CEO and board member of Gaia Herbs;
William Morachnick, Charlotte’s Web CEO and former president at Santa Fe Reynolds Tobacco International in Zurich, Switzerland.
In addition, the board has proposed to nominate Jared Stanley and Maureen Usifer as new appointments to the board.
South Carolina retailers are cautioned after recent hemp comments from a state solicitor.
By Rod Kight
“You can turn hemp into a THC product by adding an acid into a compound. Well, that creates the THC level increase to the point where it gives you that high, euphoric feeling. At the end of the day, if it gets you high, it’s illegal in South Carolina. Bottom line.” —Walt Wilkins, 13th Circuit Solicitor of South Carolina
Say what?
As reported in the Post and Courier in Greenville, South Carolina, prosecutor Wilkins went on to state: “It doesn’t matter to us if it’s delta-8 or delta-9 or delta-10 or delta-22. If the THC level is above (0.3 percent), it’s a Schedule I drug, and it’s illegal in South Carolina.”
Despite Wilkins’ strong rhetoric, South Carolina law provides no support for any of the above comments. Much like hemp laws throughout the country, the state defines hemp with respect to its concentration of delta-9 THC, not with any other cannabinoids or forms of THC or with the effect it produces when consumed.
The South Carolina Hemp Farming Act (HFA) broadly legalized hemp, the definition of which specifically includes, “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the nonsterilized seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with the federally defined THC level for hemp” (emphasisadded). Of course, the “federally defined THC level for hemp” is currently 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis.
Additionally, the HFA created a category of lawful “hemp products,” which it defines as “all products with the federally defined THC level for hemp derived from, or made by, processing hemp plants or hemp plant parts, that are prepared in a form available for commercial sale, including, but not limited to, cosmetics, personal care products, food intended for animal or human consumption, cloth, cordage, fiber, fuel, paint, paper, particleboard, plastics and any product containing one or more hemp-derived cannabinoids, such as cannabidiol” (emphasis added).
In other words, South Carolina law governing hemp does not define or limit any isomers or forms of THC other than delta-9. Lawful hemp and hemp products are distinguished from unlawful marijuana products solely by virtue of their concentrations of delta-9 THC, which cannot exceed 0.3 percent. All other cannabinoids, extracts, derivatives, acids, etc. are exempt from both the federal laws regulating controlled substances, regardless of their intoxicating effect.
Unfortunately, and as addressed in prior articles, South Carolina law enforcement, including the state attorney general, regularly twists the law into a word salad in order to enforce its priorities. One might assume those priorities are standard-issue prohibitionist in nature. However, I cannot fail to notice that Wilkins’ comments were almost immediately followed by news articles about a new South Carolina medical marijuana bill.1
As I have discussed on numerous occasions, new marijuana legislation is often accompanied by bills and law enforcement actions aimed at eliminating hemp, thus “clearing the field” for marijuana monopolies (e.g., the terrible hemp bill2 currently being proposed in the Florida legislature as the state considers legalizing recreational marijuana).
In a similar vein, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) recently released a memo stating that the following are not approved to be added to food or beverage products:
pure CBD isolate;
delta-8 THC, delta-9 THC or delta-10 THC; and
“full spectrum” whole-plant extract (i.e., “full spectrum hemp oil/extract” from biomass) if it includes health claims or bears any sort of declaration of THC or CBD.
In support of the memo, the DHEC leans heavily on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s well-known but rarely enforced position that CBD and THC cannot be added to food, an issue I testified to the FDA about during its hearing on cannabis. Leaving aside the fact that the FDA’s position is overbroad for the reasons I discussed in my testimony, its position has been widely known for almost a decade.
The DHEC’s letter was probably in response to South Carolina’s burgeoning hemp-derived beverage industry. The DHEC appears to have gotten word that intoxicating hemp beverages were being manufactured and distributed in the state and quickly whipped up a letter to stop them. As with Wilkins’ press conference, it seems more than coincidental that a new medical marijuana bill is being considered at the same time that the DHEC issues a letter that effectively shuts down the state’s hemp beverage industry.
As a South Carolina native who moved away after law school (Wilkins was in my law school class), I continue to be disappointed in my home state’s backward cannabis policies and priorities. Hopefully, legal action and/or a proper hemp bill will move things in the right direction. Until then, South Carolina is a bad place for hemp. This harms farmers, small businesses and consumers in the state.
Note: This article is commentary. It is not intended to be legal advice and should not be construed or relied upon as such.
Rod Kight is an international cannabis lawyer. He represents businesses throughout the cannabis industry.
Control of the U.S. cannabinoid market will be fueled by lobbying and lawsuits in 2024.
By Rod Kight
During the past six months, I have repeatedly been asked to predict what will happen with the U.S. Farm Bill. This is because the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, better known as the “2018 Farm Bill,” expired at the end of September. “Will it change?” “Will hemp be outlawed?” “Will I still be able to sell [insert THCa, delta-8 THC, D9 gummies, etc.]?” “What can we do to ensure that hemp remains legal?” Although I routinely discuss this with lobbyists and associations, the fact is that no one knows what will happen with the next Farm Bill.
Fortunately, that issue will not be decided for almost another year, which is plenty of time for the rapidly expanding hemp industry to grow even bigger.
(a) Extension.—Except as otherwise provided in this section and the amendments made by this section, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the authorities (including any limitations on the authorities) provided by each provision of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–334; 132 Stat. 4490) and each provision of law amended by that act (and for mandatory programs at such funding levels), as in effect on Sept. 30, 2023, shall continue, and the authorities shall be carried out, until the later of—(1) Sept. 30, 2024; or (2) the date specified in the provision of that act or the provision of law amended by that act.
President Biden is expected to sign the act.
This means that we will not likely have a new Farm Bill until the fall of 2024. Given that the 2018 Farm Bill is the basis for the hemp cannabinoid market, which Whitney Economics recently reported has a demand of $28.4 billion (more than the marijuana industry and on par with the craft beer industry), maintaining status quo for another year is a good thing for the industry.
Rod Kight
In addition to an additional window of time to continue its progress of bringing cannabis to people in the U.S., the extension will allow hemp companies to expand their sales and operations internationally. This is because hemp can cross borders, and many current hemp products meet the emerging standards set by countries who are creating cannabis programs.
This does not mean that the hemp industry will take a break from politics. In fact, the reality is quite the opposite. There is a growing dispute, known as the “Cannabis Civil War,” between the hemp and marijuana industries. At stake is control over the rapidly expanding and lucrative market in cannabinoids and cannabis products. I use the term “cannabis” in this context as a generic botanical term to encompass both federally legal hemp and federally illegal marijuana. In addition to intensive lobbying efforts by both sides of the cannabis industry, there have been a number of important decisions in recent lawsuits.
For this reason, I will spend the rest of this article discussing important rulings in four recent lawsuits filed by hemp companies and hemp organizations against various states regarding laws and rules that they contend violate state and/or federal law. My firm has worked with the hemp plaintiffs in some of these lawsuits.
Additionally, I will discuss the landmark ruling in a trademark dispute between two private parties that addressed the legal status of delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (D8 THC) and a decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals regarding D8 THC in the context of a criminal seizure. These cases appear to be the tip of the proverbial iceberg in the Cannabis Civil War, and I anticipate several more to follow.
BioGen v. State of Arkansas. In this case, several Arkansas hemp companies filed a lawsuit against the state, seeking an injunction prohibiting enforcement of Senate Bill 358, enacted on April 11, 2023, as “Act 629” (the Act). This bill criminalized all hemp products “produced as a result of a synthetic chemical process” and “[a]ny other psychoactive substance derived therein.”
The hemp companies argued that the Act is preempted (i.e., superseded) by the federal 2018 Farm Bill and that its provisions are unconstitutionally vague and thus void. The U.S. District Court agreed and entered an injunction barring enforcement of the Act. In its ruling, the court made three important findings: (1) the Act is preempted by federal law under the principle of “conflict preemption,” (2) the Act is preempted by federal law under the principle of “express preemption,” and (3) the Act is unconstitutionally vague and thus void.
Maryland Hemp Coalition Inc. v. Moore. The Maryland hemp industry sought an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of Maryland Code Ann. Alc. Bev. §36-1102, known as the Cannabis Reform Act (CRA), “against any person who was already lawfully in the business of selling hemp-derived products prior to July 1, 2023.”
In an expansive ruling in favor of the Maryland hemp industry, the Washington County Circuit Court found that “the interests of [the hemp industry] plaintiffs are not ‘merely academic, hypothetical or colorable,’ but rather, they are interests of survival, prosperity and, indeed, of life, liberty and property.”
In its ruling, the court addressed the issue of “whether the strict and exclusive licensing scheme under the CRA and as applied to the hemp industry is a valid exercise of legislative prerogative.” In finding it is not a valid exercise, and thus prohibiting enforcement of the CRA against the state’s hemp industry, the court ruled that the CRA “creates a monopoly that unfairly excludes many from their right to continue, or enter, a profession of their choosing, all to the detriment of the public.”
The Washington County Circuit Court went on to state that “[b]ased on the evidence and argument offered thus far, the court cannot find a rational basis to support the exclusive and exclusionary licensing scheme that has put plaintiffs out of their legitimate businesses.”
In short, the court found that the CRA creates an illegal monopoly, it unlawfully puts legitimate hemp companies out of business, and it is a “severe” and “Draconian” licensing scheme that fails to “actually benefit the communities found to have been impacted.” It also noted that the plaintiffs were not challenging the health and safety portions of the CRA.
Northern Virginia Hemp and Agriculture LLC v. the Commonwealth of Virginia. Several Virginia hemp companies sought an injunction prohibiting enforcement of SB 903, which state lawmakers enacted “in response to the growing concerns regarding delta-8 and other adulterated hemp products on the market.” The restrictions placed on hemp products by SB 903 are dramatic enough to destroy most of the state’s hemp industry.
The hemp company plaintiffs argued that SB 903 was preempted by federal law, namely the 2018 Farm Bill. The hemp companies made two preemption arguments. The first was based on federal and state definitions of hemp, and the second was related to the ability of Virginia hemp processors to ship or transport hemp through the commonwealth. The U.S. District Court found that these arguments failed, and the court denied the request for an injunction. Consequently, SB 903 is currently in effect.
The Travis County District Court ordered the DSHS to “remove from its currently published Schedule of Controlled Substances the most recent modifications of the definitions to the following terms: ‘*(31) tetrahydrocannabinols’ and ‘*(58) marihuana extract’ and any subsequent publications of the same (if any) until further order of this court.”The court further “enjoin[ed] the effectiveness going forward of the rule stated on DSHS’s website that delta-8 THC in any concentration is considered a Schedule I controlled substance.” Consequently, D8 THC is not a controlled substance in Texas.
AK Futures LLC v. Boyd Street Distro LLC.Unlike the cases summarized above, this case did not arise from a lawsuit filed by hemp companies. Rather, it arose in the context of an intellectual property dispute between the two private parties. The plaintiff, AK Futures (AK), makes vaping products. It sued Boyd Street Distro (Boyd) for infringing on its trademark and copyright rights by selling a fake version of its “Cake”-branded vaping products that contain D8 THC.
In an unusual defense, Boyd argued that AK’s case should be dismissed because its trademark rights were unenforceable based on its position that D8 THC is illegal under federal law. In ruling for AK, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the injunction issued by the lower court, ruling the 2018 Farm Bill legalized the D8 THC products. Specifically, the 9th Circuit held that D8 THC is not a controlled substance under the plain and unambiguous text of the 2018 Farm Bill and that it fits within the legal definition of “hemp.”
The court also found that the method of manufacture is irrelevant. Since most D8 THC is produced through an isomerization of cannabidiol rather than an extraction from the plant, this portion of the ruling is particularly notable.
Elements Distribution v. State of Georgia. This case arose out of a criminal seizure in which the plaintiff, Elements Distribution LLC (Elements), sought the return of business records, money and products from law enforcement. In February 2022, Gwinnett County, Georgia, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant upon a warehouse owned by Elements and seized business records, currency and edible and nonedible products containing D8 THC and D10 THC.
The warrant was issued based on the affidavit of a law enforcement officer that Elements had violated OCGA §16-13-30(b), which prohibits the possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute by possessing and selling products containing D8 THC and D10 THC. In ruling that Elements was entitled to a return of the seized items, the Georgia Court of Appeals found that the warrant authorizing the seizure was not supported by probable cause.
The state argued that even though D8 THC and D10 THC are not themselves controlled substances, edible products containing them are controlled substances unless those products also meet the definition of “hemp products” under OCGA §2-23-3 of the Georgia Hemp Farming Act. The court found the state’s argument to have “no merit” and ordered the state to return the items it seized from Elements.
As the cases above demonstrate, there is a growing body of case law regarding the legal status of hemp and hemp products, particularly D8 THC. Of note is an emerging trend by hemp companies to sue state agencies regarding laws and regulations that severely restrict distribution of the products they sell.
The 2018 Farm Bill, which is the foundational federal law regarding the legal status of hemp, has just been extended to Sept. 30, 2024. Meanwhile, the Whitney Economics report discussed at the beginning of this article found that total demand for hemp-derived cannabinoid products exceeds that of the marijuana industry and is on par with the craft beer industry.
The latter report and extension of the 2018 Farm Bill means we can expect to see the Cannabis Civil War—and lawsuits regarding hemp products—continue in 2024.
Based in Asheville, North Carolina, USA, Rod Kight is a world-renowned attorney in the cannabis industry.
Thousands of people who were convicted of use and simple possession of marijuana on federal lands and in the District of Columbia have been pardoned, the White House said Friday.
President Joe Biden announced that the clemencies are meant to rectify racial disparities in the justice system.
The categorical pardon builds on a similar round issued just before the 2022 midterm elections that pardoned thousands convicted of simple possession on federal lands.
Friday’s action broadens the criminal offenses covered by the pardon.
Biden is also granting clemency to 11 people serving what the White House called “disproportionately long” sentences for nonviolent drug offenses, according to the AP.
Biden, in a statement, said his actions would help make the “promise of equal justice a reality.”
No one was freed from prison under last year’s action, but the pardons were meant to help thousands overcome obstacles to renting a home or finding a job. Similarly, no federal prisoners are eligible for release as a result of Friday’s pardon.
But the order expands the grounds on which pardons are issued. In the last round, people were pardoned for simple possession under only one criminal statute.
Friday’s pardons also apply to several other criminal statutes, including attempted simple possession.
Martha Stewart CBD has launched a line of need-based CBD gummies.
The new line was developed in response to consumer demand for targeted solutions that address their most common needs: sleep, stress, and the discomfort of aches and soreness, according to press release.
Each product is formulated with higher levels of CBD and powerful co-active ingredients selected for their known efficacy.
“I’m often asked how I maintain my energy with such a busy schedule, and for me it’s essential to start each day well-rested, unbothered, and pain-free,” said Stewart, a chef, television personality and entrepreneur. . “I discovered CBD several years ago as a simple, effective, and natural solution to help address the discomforts of everyday life. Having benefited greatly from it myself, I set out to create a delicious and premium line of gummies that taste as good as they make you feel.”
In partnership with Marquee Brands and Canopy Growth Corporation, Stewart’s new solution-oriented formulations combine “her signature elevated flavor profiles with Canopy Growth’s unique consumer insights” and industry innovation. The new offerings include:
Sleep CBD Gummies: A berry medley with notes of Montmorency cherry, elderberry, and boysenberry;
Chill CBD Gummies: A citrus-forward concoction of tangerine, yuzu, and pomelo;
Extra Strength CBD Gummies: An orchard-inspired blend of pluot, apricot, and California red peaches.
“As consumers focus on finding the ways to feel their best, CBD use continues to grow, fueled by categories like gummies that have become an integral part of wellness routines,” said Tara Rozalowsky, chief growth officer and president for Canopy Growth, according to a press release. “Martha Stewart is a trusted household name because people of all ages turn to her for candid advice and simple, sensible solutions to everyday problems. The new Martha Stewart CBD needs-based gummies deliver just that – accessible, reliable relief when and where you need it most.”
