MJBiz - September/October 2024 - 56

VIEWPOINT Michael Bronstein
Clearing the Pathway
for Hemp Regulation
Clarifying congressional intent for THC is a necessary step
toward cannabis reform
T
he U.S. Congress is caught
up in a political haze over
what to do with hemp.
In 2018, Congress was told
hemp laws were for " rope, not
dope. " But the industry's hemp
debate today is entirely about
dope.
When Congress passed the
Farm Bill in 2018, it was never
lawmakers' intent to legalize
hemp products that could be
manipulated to get consumers
high. That is, however, what
happened.
The green wave of product
development resulted in a rush
of intoxicating " hemp " products
that are sometimes harmful,
often synthetically produced and
nearly always unregulated.
Congress is now up to speed.
The argument that hemp
intoxicants should remain
unregulated under the Farm
Bill so that a market Congress
never intended can continue to
operate is as contested as many
other marijuana reform efforts in
Washington, D.C.
It's time to acknowledge where
Congress is and seek common
ground within the industry.
Not a Legalization Platform
Simply put, there is no interest
among members of Congress to
use the Farm Bill as a platform
to legalize marijuana. The
Agriculture Improvement Act, or
Farm Bill, is about agriculture,
not finished consumer products.
Even those on the committees
who support wider cannabis
legalization don't believe this is
the way to do it.
Even worse, the industry is now
in the position of arguing that
the " derivatives " language in the
Farm Bill justifies the entire crop
of unregulated hemp intoxicants.
That would mean synthetic THC
products have stronger legal
footing than natural THC, an
impossible position to defend.
Yet, this is precisely what those
touting " Farm Bill-compliant "
synthetic THC are asking the
entire industry to do, further
dragging both marijuana and
hemp into a state of regulatory
uncertainty.
Complicating things more, the
committees responsible for the
Farm Bill, which is updated every
five years, lack the jurisdiction to
establish the needed regulatory
framework. Congressional
agriculture committees are in no
position to give the Food and
Drug Administration guidance
or authority to include THC in
consumer products, which is
what we all are after.
Even if there were the will
among members of Congress
to create a pathway to legalize
intoxicating cannabis and a
willingness to use the Farm Bill
to do it, the necessary regulatory
framework cannot be created
there.
56 September-October 2024 | MJBizMagazine
There is no better example
than CBD.
Six years after passage of the
2018 Farm Bill, Congress still
hasn't provided operators with a
pathway to market, and CBD in
food is considered unlawful.
Congress doesn't want to act
on cannabinoids it intentionally
legalized in the Farm Bill, much
less the intoxicants it didn't.
Will Closing the Loophole
Change Anything?
Taking a step back, it's worth
asking: What changes if Congress
closes the so-called hemp
loophole?
It has always been illegal under
the Food, Drug and Cosmetics
Act to add THC to food, ship
it across state lines or sell it to
consumers, whether the THC was
derived from hemp or marijuana.
Claims that " Farm Bill-compliant "
hemp intoxicants are " federally
legal " have never been true.
Making these products truly
legal-and not simply unenforced
against-requires more than
just removing them from the
Controlled Substances Act.
In fact, the Drug Enforcement
Administration always has
considered products converted
from CBD into THC to be illegal,
classifying them as Schedule 1.
When the DOJ recommended
rescheduling marijuana, it
specified that synthetic
THC-the stuff being sold under
MJBiz - September/October 2024

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of MJBiz - September/October 2024
