Bipartisan senators say they’re confident that a final deal on rules for hemp THC products will be reached, despite conflicting opinions about how to navigate the issue among key lawmakers.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has been leading the charge to prevent an outright prohibition of consumable hemp items containing THC—a policy change he and other industry stakeholders say would “destroy” the market that was federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill.
A deal was tentatively reached earlier this week to strip language that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) supported which would’ve prevented the sale of hemp products containing any “quantifiable” amount of THC. Paul’s amendment to remove those provisions was filed alongside what seems to be a separate compromise option that would ban synthetic cannabinoid products such as delta-8 THC.
“They both want a good market for hemp farmers, because that’s a significant crop in Kentucky, which is why I think we’ll get this,” Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) told Marijuana Moment on Wednesday, referencing negotiations between Paul and McConnell. “We kept going backwards. I thought we actually had something figured out, but we didn’t.”
“We’ll figure it out. We’ll continue to work on it,” he said.
Paul took a decisive stand to prevent the hemp ban language from going into the Senate’s spending bill covering Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies (Ag/FDA), threatening to procedurally block the underlying measure from advancing as long as the cannabis provisions were kept intact.
That resulted in an initial deal to strip the language, but the next step is to codify the revision with Paul’s amendment to Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins’s (R-ME) substitute language for a House-approved spending bill.
Marijuana Moment reached out to Paul’s office for comment, but a representative did not respond by the time of publication.
Meanwhile, longtime cannabis reform advocate Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) sided with his colleague, Paul, telling Marijuana Moment on Wednesday that the proposed hemp ban “really destroys the CBD industry, which I’m not okay with.”
“So we’re trying to work out an alternative,” he said, while conceding that he agrees with McConnell that there is an area of federal hemp law that he also wants to see changed.
“That is when hemp is used for hallucinogens. That was never the idea” behind legalizing the crop, he said. “Blocking that is absolutely fine.”
“But when it blocks production of CBD? No. I think a lot of people have CBD as an ingredient that they feel contributes towards health, and it’s part of what makes the hemp industry financially feasible here,” he said. “So it’s good for the consumer, good for the economy, good for the [agriculture] farmer. And so I want to see a definition that preserves CBD.”
He added that while the definition of hemp proposed by the committee before the deal with Paul would preserve “industrial” products such as fiber and grain, Canada already supplies the U.S. with such products, so it would not meaningfully contribute to the industry’s domestic economic health.
Approached by Marijuana Moment to weigh in on the hemp debacle on Wednesday, McConnell declined to comment—smirking as he was asked how he expected the pending appropriations legislation to end up handling the hemp issue.
One of Paul’s two newly filed amendments would exclude from the definition of federally legal industrial hemp any product containing “cannabinoids that are not capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant” as well as those that “are capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant” but “were synthesized or manufactured outside the plant.”
It would otherwise maintain the legal status of plants with “delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent in the plant on a dry weight basis” and derivative products unless they have a “delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of more than 0.3 percent, as determined based on the substance, form, manufacture, or article of the product.”
It should be noted that, regardless of what ultimately happens on the Senate side, the broad hemp product ban provisions are still included in the House version of the agriculture appropriations bill, so it’s possible the the language could end up making it into the final version of legislation sent to the president’s desk later this year.
Under the legislation that advanced through the Senate Appropriations Committee earlier this month, consumable hemp products with any “quantifiable” amount of THC would be banned.
Paul told Marijuana Moment late last month that the proposal—which largely mirrors provisions of a House version of the spending bill, championed by Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD)—would “completely destroy” the industry.
On the House side, while Harris amended report language attached to the chamber’s bill clarifying that it’s not the intent to stop people from accessing “industrial or non-intoxicating hemp-derived cannabinoid products with trace or insignificant amounts of THC,” the bill itself still says that products containing any “quantifiable” amounts of THC couldn’t be marketed. And it’s rare to find CBD items without any natural traces of THC.
Paul recently filed a bill that would go in the opposite direction of Harris’s ban, proposing to triple the concentration of THC that the crop could legally contain, while addressing multiple other concerns the industry has expressed about federal regulations.
The senator introduced the legislation, titled the Hemp Economic Mobilization Plan (HEMP) Act, in June. It mirrors versions he’s sponsored over the last several sessions.
Harris, for his part, told Marijuana Moment that he’s not concerned about any potential opposition in the Senate—and he also disputed reports about the scope of what his legislation would do to the industry.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report last month stating that the legislation would “effectively” prohibit hemp-derived cannabinoid products. Initially it said that such a ban would prevent the sale of CBD as well, but the CRS report was updated to exclude that language for reasons that are unclear.
The hemp language is largely consistent with appropriations and agriculture legislation that was introduced, but not ultimately enacted, under the last Congress.
Hemp industry stakeholders rallied against that proposal, an earlier version of which was also included in the base bill from the subcommittee last year. It’s virtually identical to a provision of the 2024 Farm Bill that was attached by a separate committee last May via an amendment from Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL), which was also not enacted into law.
A leading alcohol industry association, meanwhile, has called on Congress to dial back language in the House spending bill that would ban most consumable hemp products, instead proposing to maintain the legalization of naturally derived cannabinoids from the crop and only prohibit synthetic items.
Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) President and CEO Francis Creighton said in a press release that “proponents and opponents alike have agreed that this language amounts to a ban.”
Separately, key GOP congressional lawmakers—including one member who supports marijuana legalization—don’t seem especially concerned about provisions in the bill despite concern from stakeholders that it would put much of the hemp industry in jeopardy by banning most consumable products derived from the plant.
—
Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.
Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—
Jonathan Miller, general counsel at the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, told congressional lawmakers in April that the market is “begging” for federal regulations around cannabis products.
At the hearing, Rep. James Comer (R-KY) also inquired about FDA inaction around regulations, sarcastically asking if it’d require “a gazillion bureaucrats that work from home” to regulate cannabinoids such as CBD.
A report from Bloomberg Intelligence (BI) last year called cannabis a “significant threat” to the alcohol industry, citing survey data that suggests more people are using cannabis as a substitute for alcoholic beverages such a beer and wine.
Last November, meanwhile, a beer industry trade group put out a statement of guiding principles to address what it called “the proliferation of largely unregulated intoxicating hemp and cannabis products,” warning of risks to consumers and communities resulting from THC consumption.
The LCB contributed reporting from Washington, D.C.
The post Bipartisan Senators Say Deal On Hemp Is Within Reach As New Amendment To Ban Synthetic Cannabinoids Is Filed appeared first on Marijuana Moment.
