January 28, 2022
Hemp Needs Your Help in MN and VA…and D8 Updates
Hemp extracts are on trial in Minnesota. The case is State v. Loveless, in which a Minnesota man was criminally convicted for possessing a vape cartridge containing a liquid THC product. Last September, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, ruling that Minnesota’s scheduling of THC as a controlled substance does not exclude hemp products and state law’s 0.3% THC designation for hemp does not apply to a liquid THC mixture. The decision threatens many hemp products, including tinctures and other liquid products containing any amount of hemp-derived THC, even when it may be well below the 0.3% standard for hemp. The case is now on appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, where industry groups are organizing in opposition.
A new bill in Minnesota, SF 376, does not fully resolve the specific issue in the Loveless case, but it makes headway and is worth supporting. The bill expands the definition of food additive to include hemp extracts, allows the sale of hemp extracts as food, and makes clear that a food is not adulterated due to containing hemp. Hemp extracts would be subject to the bill’s food product and labeling requirements. Minnesota Hemp Supporters are encouraged to use our State Action Center to urge lawmakers to pass SF 376.
We need your help defeating two bills in Virginia. HB 897 and SB 391 concern edible hemp products, which would include any hemp product intended to be consumed orally or that contains a hemp extract. Edible hemp products could not contain alcohol or nicotine or be packaged or labeled for use by persons under 21. HB 897 imposes a .25mg THC per unit dose/1mg THC per package concentration limit.
Additionally the bills shift regulatory authority over regulated hemp products to the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority, which regulates marijuana. For years, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has overseen hemp products. All smokable and edible hemp products would be treated as regulated hemp products, covered under a comprehensive regulatory scheme, and subject to maximum THC concentrations. It is unclear if the bills would apply immediately to hemp products already in the market. In general, the bills are overly restrictive and burdensome, and we join with the Virginia Hemp Coalition in opposing them. Virginia Hemp Supporters are encouraged to use our State Action Center to urge lawmakers to defeat HB 897 and SB 391.
Last week, we featured three states’ different approaches to regulating delta-8 THC. One of the bills, HB 1054—South Dakota’s attempt to prohibit and criminalize D8—failed in committee.
A new bill in Hawaii, HB 1886, is similar to South Dakota’s unsuccessful effort in that it adds D8 to the definition of THC and prohibits selling any hemp product that contains a cannabinoid created through isomerization.
In Indiana, SB 209 narrows the definitions of hemp product and low THC hemp extract by referring to total THC instead of delta-9 THC. The bill adds isomers, salts, and salts of isomers to the definition of synthetic drug, and is being viewed as targeting D8.
The Roundtable has not taken a position yet on any D8 bills, and we’d love to hear your thoughts. Please let us know your thoughts by sending an email to [email protected]