A congressional committee voted on Thursday to approve legislation aimed at increasing marijuana businesses’ access to banks.
Following multiple days of lengthy debate and consideration of several amendments, the House Financial Services Committee voted 45 to 15 to advance the legislation to the full body.
Floor action has not yet been scheduled, but cannabis reform advocates are hopeful that the committee approval of the banking bill is a sign Democrats are ready to move broad marijuana reforms this year.
Indeed, House Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern (D-MA) said in a radio interview on Wednesday that he expects the chamber to vote on legislation to end federal marijuana prohibition within a matter of “weeks.”
“We will guide it to the House floor for a vote, which I think it will pass with an overwhelming vote—Democrats and I think a lot of Republicans as well,” he said. “If we have a strong bipartisan vote that will increase the pressure on the Senate to do something.”
All of the party’s major 2020 presidential candidates now support outright legalization, as do a majority of its voters, according to polls.
The banking bill “addresses an urgent public safety concern for legitimate businesses that currently have no recourse but to operate with just cash,” Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) said at the start of the committee’s proceedings, which began on Tuesday and carried over through a second Wednesday meeting to votes on Thursday morning.
“However, I also consider this bill as part of a holistic approach toward providing criminal justice reform to those who have been harmed by criminalization of marijuana, and should not by any means be the only bill the House takes up on the important issue of cannabis reform,” she said.
While some surveys also show that a smaller majority of GOP voters back ending cannabis prohibition, Republican lawmakers in Congress had blocked marijuana amendments from even being considered over the course of the past several years during their House majority.
Last week, top Republicans on the Financial Services Committee requested that Waters delay the vote on the banking legislation, writing in a letter that they had several “unanswered questions” about the measure.
“Some on my side support the measure as written. Many oppose it,” Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), the panel’s top Republican, said in his opening remarks at the committee meeting. “Most important for this committee, we need to ensure that we’re doing our due diligence before proceeding. One committee hearing is not enough to fully understand the consequences of this bill. It is a massive change in federal policy.”
That the vote went ahead over GOP objections is a sign that the effective marijuana roadblock on Capitol Hill has been lifted by the chamber’s new Democratic majority.
Under the approved bill, federal banking regulators would not be able to punish financial institutions just because they work with marijuana businesses that are legal under state or local laws, or those of an Indian tribe.
Currently, while a growing number of banks are opening accounts for cannabis businesses as more state policies change, many remain reluctant to do so out of fear of violating federal money laundering or drug laws. As a result, many marijuana growers, processors and sellers are forced to operate on a cash-only basis, which can make them targets for robberies.
Legally-authorized cannabis businesses are forced to operate w/ cash only, which sometimes makes them targets for violent criminals. #HR1595, the #SAFEBankingAct will address this issue by creating a safe harbor that allows banks & credit unions to provide services to these biz.
— Financial Svcs Cmte (@FSCDems) March 27, 2019
The legislation approved by the committee, the Secure And Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act, currently has 152 cosponsors—more than a third of the entire House, which is far more support than any previous standalone cannabis bill has earned. Twelve Republicans have cosponsored the legislation.
The SAFE Banking Act’s approval by the financial services panel is only the third time in history that a standalone marijuana reform bill has cleared a congressional committee. Last year, other committees voted to advance legislation encouraging the Department of Veterans Affairs to study medical cannabis and to require the Department of Justice to license additional growers of marijuana for research, but those proposals never made it to the House floor for action.
“It is our job to address this and no longer ignore it. I have brought this legislation up for six years,” Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), the SAFE Banking Act’s lead sponsor, said prior to the vote. “The people of this country sort of took it into their own hands, state by state, to pass initiative for medical marijuana or for cannabis oil or fully legal.”
Committee Acts On Amendments
Prior to voting to advance the bill to the House floor, the committee took action on a number of proposed changes to the legislation.
Perlmutter put forth an amendment to his own bill, which was adopted via a voice vote. In addition to clarifying the definition of the financial services that are covered by the bill and specifying that its provisions would protect Federal Reserve banks, new additions would require the federal government to study diversity and inclusion in the marijuana industry—a key concern of legalization advocates seeking to undo the damage of the war on drugs, which has been waged in a racially disproportionate manner.
The new language would require federal financial regulators to publish annual reports tracking “information and data on the availability of access to financial services for minority-owned and women-owned cannabis-related legitimate businesses” and to issue “regulatory or legislative recommendations for expanding access to financial services” for those populations.
In addition, the amended bill directs that the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study “on the barriers to marketplace entry, including in the licensing process, and the access to financial services for potential and existing minority-owned and women-owned cannabis-related legitimate businesses.”
Also during the committee markup, Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) moved a separate amendment that would extend protections to so-called “de novo” banking institutions that are seeking charters or master accounts from a Federal Reserve bank. It was adopted via a voice vote.
My friendly amendment to the cannabis banking bill passed unanimously! Clarifies that *new* banks/credit unions are also protected by the bill. We need to level the playing field for new market entrants, in this growing industry and across our economy. https://t.co/IUYBMrszRq
— Rep. Katie Porter (@RepKatiePorter) March 27, 2019
Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH), one of the bill’s lead Republican cosponsors, filed an amendment expanding the legislation’s protections to insurance companies. It too was passed in a voice vote.
An amendment from Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO) directs the Government Accountability Office to study previous reports that banks are required to file on their marijuana business customers to understand how effective they are in identifying bad actors. It was supported by the bill’s sponsors and approved on a voice vote.
Tipton filed an another amendment aimed at making sure drug cartels and organized crime networks aren’t able to benefit from the bill’s provisions, but he withdrew it instead of forcing a vote.
Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI) moved to delay the bill’s effective date until marijuana is federally descheduled, but withdrew the amendment rather than force a vote.
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) sought to attach an amendment that would add “legal entities operating in accordance with federal law” to those covered by the bill. In introducing the measure, he made reference to prior federal investigations of banks working with firearms dealers and payday lenders. It was ruled non-germane, however.
Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY) filed an amendment that would have delayed the bill’s enactment until the Treasury secretary certifies it wouldn’t leave any financial institution more susceptible to illicit financial activity and money laundering, and that it doesn’t inhibit their ability to comply with federal regulations. It was defeated in a voice vote and then again in roll call vote by a margin of 33 to 27.
Another Barr amendment would have restricted the bill’s reach to only protect hemp businesses instead of those that deal with marijuana. It also lost on both a voice vote and a recorded vote. The latter went down 42 to 18.
An amendment from Rep. John Rose (R-TN) would have required banks to attest that they have internal controls ensuring that no funds have been deposited in their institutions that are associated with illegal organizations. It too was rejected in voice and roll call votes, with the latter tallying 33 to 27.
A second Huizenga amendment would have postponed enactment until federal financial regulators are able to issue guidance to banks. It was rejected with a voice vote, and a roll call was requested, which came out 35 against to 25 for.
Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) offered an amendment to withdraw the bill’s protections from banks that serve marijuana businesses located within 1,000 feet of schools, youth centers, public parks, child care facilities, public housing, civic centers or designated drug-free zones. It was rejected via a voice vote, and then in a roll call vote by a margin of 34 to 26.
During the broader debate on the bill, Rep. Denny Heck (D-WA), who along with Perlmutter is a leading sponsor of the proposal, spoke about a Colorado marijuana dispensary security guard who was killed during an attempted robbery as an example of the public safety harms of blocking banking access. He added that allowing cannabis industry operators to store their profits in regulated financial institutions would “enhance supervision and audibility of marijuana businesses.”
Banking Is Just The First Step For Federal Marijuana Reform
The banking legislation, which was the subject of a separate lengthy committee hearing last month, is seen by advocates as just the first step in an ambitious cannabis reform agenda they want the Democratic House to pass this year. Several more far-reaching bills to change marijuana’s legal status so that states can implement their own policies without the looming threat of federal interference have not yet been scheduled for hearings. Other pending proposals seek to address medical cannabis access by military veterans, the removal of roadblocks to research and tax rates for marijuana firms.
“Congress must take the long view that all these efforts—and I will work to ensure that when it comes to passing [the banking bill] that the House does not take a ‘one and done’ approach but that we will also comprehensively work, especially with our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, on a series of marijuana related reforms,” Waters, the Financial Services Committee chair, said prior to the vote.
This country is in need of criminal justice reform, including addressing the historic racial & social inequities related to the criminalization of #marijuana. That is why @FSCDems support the #SAFEBankingAct which complements other cannabis reforms introduced by @HouseDemocrats pic.twitter.com/tl2x97vXVl
— Financial Svcs Cmte (@FSCDems) March 27, 2019
Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) said at the Wednesday meeting that she will be exploring ways to expand credit opportunities for marijuana businesses, particularly those owned by women and minorities, in her role as chair of the House Small Business Committee.
Late last year, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) authored a “blueprint” memo that lays out a step-by-step process Democratic leaders could take to federally legalize marijuana by the end of 2019. Passing a banking bill is a key part of his plan.
A good start in our blueprint to legalization, but it's just the beginning. We will continue to work so all marijuana related bills see their day this Congress. The STATES Act, Veterans Equal Access, decriminalization, industry equity, and restorative justice all coming soon! https://t.co/5P1Zt0tY4m
— Earl Blumenauer (@repblumenauer) March 27, 2019
“This is a historic and critical step forward for the nation’s burgeoning cannabis industry. Lawmakers seem to recognize the urgency and public safety implications of ensuring cannabis businesses can access banking services,” Steve Hawkins, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, said in a press release. “Regardless of where members stand on legalization, they can agree that it is in the public interest to make banking available to cannabis businesses in states where it is legal.”
NORML Political Director Justin Strekal also praised the committee’s action.
“This is a positive step forward to address an untenable tension between state-legal cannabis marketplaces and federal marijuana prohibition,” he said. “Ultimately, the banking issue is just one symptom of the toxic and cruel policy of federal marijuana criminalization. In order to truly bring the vibrant marijuana economy out of the shadows, actions need to be taken by Congress to end federal prohibition and the discrimination that comes with this failed policy.”
Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Cory Gardner (R-CO) are expected to file companion legislation on access to financial services for marijuana businesses in the Senate soon. A prior bill during the last Congress garnered 20 cosponsors in the chamber but did not receive a hearing or vote.
Connecticut Officials Release Updated Marijuana Tax Revenue Projections For Next Five Years
Connecticut officials have released projections for marijuana tax revenue the state is expected to generate over the next five years after retail sales launch.
The state Office of Fiscal Analysis published an infographic illustrating the anticipated revenue timeline. Connecticut stands to earn $4.1 million in state and local cannabis taxes for the 2022 fiscal year, the report says, but that rises to a yearly haul of $73.4 million by the 2026 fiscal year.
The nonpartisan office’s estimates fall significantly short of past projections that were touted by supporters in recent years as they pushed for legalization. But lawmakers have said repeatedly that the point of enacting the reform—which took effect on July 1—wasn’t to make money but was principally about ending racially discriminatory prohibition enforcement and promoting civil liberties.
Certain provisions of the state’s marijuana law were made immediately effective this month such as allowing adults 21 and older to possess up to 1.5 ounces of cannabis. However, Gov. Ned Lamont (D) said other provisions like retail sales will take additional time to roll out. That’s largely why the projections for next year’s tax revenue are so low.
In contrast, Illinois sold about $670 million in cannabis and took in $205.4 million in tax dollars last year.
For the first two fiscal years covered in the new Connecticut analysis, it says all of the revenue will support administrative costs via the general fund. After that, 15 percent will go to the general fund, with the remaining revenue being divided between social equity (60 percent) and substance misuse treatment programs (25 percent).
As regulators work to stand up the adult-use market, they’ve launched a website this month that provides up-to-date information on the new law.
“Passage of this new law was an important step forward in ending the failed war on drugs as adults over the age of 21 can now legally possess and consume cannabis in Connecticut,” Lamont said in a press release. “Now begins the important work of standing up a fair, well-regulated marketplace for businesses and consumers that prioritizes public health, safety, and social equity.”
Beyond outlining what’s currently legal and prohibited, the web page also features a tab on diversity and inclusiveness in the industry and how the legislation seeks to promote social equity.
While personal possession for adults is legal now, there’s a delayed rollout of home grow. Medical cannabis patients can start growing up to six plants starting on October 1. When it comes to recreational marijuana, adults in the state can begin cultivating for personal use on July 1, 2023.
Beginning July 1, 2022, individuals in the state can also petition to have other cannabis convictions erased, such as for possession of marijuana paraphernalia or the sale of small amounts of cannabis.
Montana Hemp Growers Awarded $65 Million For ‘Deceptive’ Deal
The civil judgment, the second-highest ever awarded in Montana, highlights volatility and growing pains in the CBD market.
By Amanda Eggert, Montana Free Press
Hemp, a crop that largely flew under the radar in Montana when it was planted under a pilot program three years ago, is now central to one of the largest civil awards in the state’s history. A jury in Wolf Point last month awarded 25 eastern Montana farmers $65 million in compensatory and punitive damages, finding that a handful of Canadian and American businessmen had committed negligence, fraud and deceit in failing to fulfill contracts, leaving the crops unpaid for and languishing in fields. The award brings into focus the volatility associated with the emerging market for CBD, a compound in the cannabis plant that’s created a global market worth between $1 and $2 billion annually.
In 2018, hemp production in Montana was booming. As federal regulations around growing hemp loosened, dozens of Montana farmers saw an opportunity to diversify their operations with a crop that farmers in Canadian provinces to the north had grown successfully for decades. Montana farmers planted 22,000 acres of hemp in 2018, more than any other state at that time. But most of it was never used.
The vast majority of those acres were grown for a company called USA Biofuels, which entered into contracts with more than two dozen farms in northeastern Montana for 20,000 acres of hemp. Per those contracts, the farmers would be provided seed and paid $100 per acre at the time of planting. Come harvest, they would be paid another $400 per acre of hemp grown on dryland, and $600 per irrigated acre. The farmers liked the certainty presented by this arrangement. It would make them less beholden to the wild swings of the commodities market for crops like wheat, which was doing so poorly at the time it was hardly worth selling.
Early on, there were indications USA Biofuels wouldn’t keep up its end of the deal. The company was late delivering the seed and issuing the initial payment. The farmers were repeatedly told the promised $100 per planted acre was coming soon. Then, six week later than expected, they received their initial payment — but not from USA Biofuels. Vitality Natural Health, LLC, a Canadian company, issued the payment instead. Montana farmers wouldn’t see another check from either company.
Despite swathing and baling the product as directed, the farmers didn’t receive the rest of the money promised to them by the contract. But USA Biofuels wouldn’t let them sell it elsewhere, either, threatening legal action if the farmers tried.
Ross Johnson, a Great Falls attorney who represented 25 plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the AWOL purchasers and their Canadian and American executives, said USA Biofuels was a shell company without assets or a bank account, and that the businessmen involved in the deal were hoping to cash in on America’s emerging market for CBD by securing a large supply of hemp and building out processing and distribution capabilities before taking the business public.
Some of the defendants named in the lawsuit stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars if the venture resulted in a successful IPO, Johnson said, but “the whole house of cards would have tumbled right off the bat if they let the farmers sell their crop [to someone else].”
So the crop sat, Johnson said, turning into a “rotting pile of biomass” that months earlier Vitality had valued at between $350-$400 million when applying for a commodity dealers license from the Montana Department of Agriculture. (Based on concerns about Vitality’s ability to meet its contractual obligations, the department issued the company a conditional commodities license, which it didn’t renew.) Though at least one of the farmers was able to secure another buyer for the product long after it was harvested — it was used in a kitty litter product — nearly three years on, many of the hemp bales grown for USA Biofuels are still in the fields where they were grown.
Beau Anderson, who farms in Bainville and just across the border in Williston, North Dakota, said the hemp he grew, more than 500 acres worth, is still sitting on his farm. Occasionally he checks on the hemp bales to see how they’re holding up, hoping they’re still a viable product. He said he grew the hemp to supplement his other crops, including wheat, lentils, chickpeas, canola, corn and barley, because it “was something new, something exciting and something that was [supposed] to be profitable.”
It didn’t turn out that way. The three-year ordeal has generated “a lot of personal anguish,” he said, and eaten up a significant amount of his time. Anderson said he’s been especially frustrated with the defendants’ poor business ethics, given that he was a point person who got many of his neighbors involved.
For a time, Anderson kept tabs on the various businesses involved. He heard about a Canadian company, Eureka 93, absorbing Vitality, which was the company the Montana Department of Agriculture worked with most closely on the commodities license. He read about Eureka 93’s IPO on the Canadian stock exchange, an effort that faltered shortly thereafter when the shares started crashing and the Ontario Securities Commission halted trading in September 2019. Anderson also read about the reshuffling of Eureka 93’s executive team, which included the resignation of founding CEO Owen Kenney, one of the defendants named in the lawsuit.
“They’re done,” Anderson said. “As far as I know, the big company that was in Canada [Eureka 93] is bankrupt.”
The attorney representing the defendants did not respond to requests for an interview for this story. An email sent to an address associated with Eureka 93 was returned as undeliverable, and calls to numbers associated with several of the companies named in the lawsuit and their key executives were not returned.
Anderson said he’s hopeful the lawsuit’s outcome sends a message that “you don’t roll in and try to dupe a bunch of farmers [to grow] what could be a worthwhile commodity for the region without any money,” but he knows there’s still another hill to climb: collecting the money the jury awarded. He said he doesn’t expect that any of the farmers will become millionaires out of the deal, but he’ll be pleased if they’re able to collect even 10 percent of what the jury awarded the 25 plaintiffs.
Given the number the jurors landed on after deliberating for 3 and a half hours following the five-day trial that concluded June 25, Johnson said they appear to have been similarly troubled by the defendants’ actions, awarding the plaintiffs $65 million to be paid by the various defendant businesses and individuals. Most of the award, $56 million, is for punitive damages, which are intended to penalize bad actors and discourage similar behavior in the future. The award is significantly more than the $1 million in punitive damages per defendant that Johnson asked for.
“[The defendants] were gambling with the farmers’ livelihood, their land and their labor, for the shot that they might hit a big IPO. And when it went south, they just tried to ride off into the sunset with the hope that nothing would happen to them, but the jury in Wolf Point didn’t want that to happen,” Johnson said.
Johnson added that, to his knowledge, the judgment is the second-largest jury award ever granted for a civil trial in Montana. (In 2014, a jury awarded nearly $250 million to the families of two teens killed in a car crash involving a Hyundai sports coupe.)
Johnson doesn’t normally practice this type of law — he primarily works in personal injury law — but said he felt compelled to get involved when he heard about the farmers’ plight in 2019 from personal connections in the agriculture industry.
“I grew up farming and ranching in north-central Montana, and I cannot tell you how unnerving it is just to imagine that people would consider being this deceptive and fraudulent when doing business with others,” he said. “I had a soft spot for the farmers.”
Growing, Processing And Selling Hemp
Though the business side of the undertaking left a sour taste in the mouths of the farmers involved, Anderson said the crop actually grew pretty well. It tolerated eastern Montana’s temperamental weather and grew several feet high. He produced between 1,000 and 3,000 pounds of hemp biomass (including the plant’s stem, seed head and flower) per acre.
Had the deal progressed as planned, the hemp would have been processed for CBD, or cannabidiol, which is a key ingredient in products marketed to treat a number of health conditions ranging from epilepsy and anxiety to pain and insomnia. (Hemp and marijuana are both types of the cannabis sativa plant, but marijuana has a much higher concentration of the psychoactive compound Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, than hemp. The Montana Department of Agriculture oversees the production of hemp, which is mandated to contain less than 0.3 percent total THC. Production of the recently voter-approved adult-use marijuana, which typically has a THC concentration ranging from 15 to 25 percent, will be overseen by the state Department of Revenue, said Andy Gray, the Montana agriculture department’s hemp program coordinator.)
Gray said some varieties of hemp are very well suited to Montana’s climate, particularly hemp that’s grown for fiber or grain. Varieties grown for CBD are a bit more finicky, he said, and tend to grow better indoors than outside, where they’re subject to the elements.
Gray said the potential applications of hemp are vast. “It can be used for everything and anything from car doors to speakers to clothing to bioplastic,” he said. Varieties grown for grain find their way into protein powders, granola bars and milk substitutes.
Gray said hemp grown for CBD became ensnared in a “get rich quick” rush that has since started to level out, both statewide and nationally.
Markets factored heavily into the arguments posed by the defendants in their trial brief. Mark Parker, a Billings-based attorney for several of the defendants, argued that the businessmen’s dealings weren’t representative of fraudulent or deceptive business practices so much as a reflection of the boom-and-bust economic cycles that have been associated with everything from the fur trade and copper mining to oil extraction and heirloom grain varieties. The brief also hints that the plaintiffs’ unfamiliarity with CBD oil production contributed to the outcome.
“Without a doubt, most of [the farmers] signed contracts for money,” the brief reads. “When it came time to go back into the market and sell the commodity, the market had so profoundly collapsed, there was no money to honor the commitments. Thus, about everyone began blaming each other for the collapse, but the cause is clear — it is part of the human condition.”
That argument doesn’t hold much water with Johnson, who laughed when asked if he thinks there’s merit to it. “That’s why the farmers entered into the contract in the first place, so they wouldn’t have to endure boom and bust cycles,” he said. “It was a set price for them.”
By the time the eastern Montana farmers were able to seek other buyers for their product without fear of legal retribution from USA Biofuels, it had been sitting out in the elements for several seasons, and supply was starting to catch up to demand.
“Because of the 2018 farm bill [which clarified legal hemp production], national acres were way way up [in 2019], so there was a lot of hemp grown nationally,” Gray said. “With all that supply, it kind of crashed the market on the CBD price of hemp.” In 2019, about 60,000 acres of hemp were planted in Montana. By 2020, that number had dropped to close to 12,000 acres.
Montana has seen a flip-flop in the percentage of hemp grown for CBD as compared to hemp grown for grain or fiber in the last couple of years. Gray said that in 2018 and 2019, 80 percent to 90 percent of the hemp plants grown in Montana were CBD varieties, with the remainder being fiber or grain varieties. In 2020, 80 percent of Montana hemp was grown for grain or fiber, and 20 percent for CBD.
Gray said hemp production in Montana has seen plenty of fluctuations in the last three or four years, but he still thinks there’s a path forward for farmers who want to grow the crop. “We see a future for hemp in Montana, primarily in the grain and fiber segment [of the market.]”
Photo courtesy of Brendan Cleak.
Florida Regulators Blast Oregon Hemp Products And Encourage Consumers To Buy Local In New Alert
Florida regulators are calling out Oregon hemp businesses over products that they say contain rocks and sticks and have failed to meet regulatory guidelines on allowable THC content. Instead, consumers should buy local products made in Florida, officials say.
The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) recently released a consumer alert to warn Floridians about complaints it has received concerning poor quality hemp items from Oregon. Separate new guidance was issued on the cannabinoid delta-8 THC, a psychoactive compound that is increasingly being marketed and catching the attention of regulators.
“The department routinely finds violative products and conducts investigations based on consumer complaints,” FDACS said in the Oregon hemp warning. “Recently, the department has received several consumer complaints regarding shipments of hemp from Oregon.”
Those concerns are concentrated in three areas. The complaints have noted issues with Oregon hemp shipments for plants containing “rocks, sticks and other foreign material,” fraudulent certificates for laboratory analyses and items containing more than 0.3 percent THC, which is the allowable limit under federal statute.
“The department actively inspects for sanitary operating conditions and tests for label accuracy and contaminants unsafe for human consumption,” the notice states. “The department will continue to work with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Oregon Department of Agriculture to contact firms in Oregon, notify consumers, and request remedial actions be taken.”
Regulators advised consumers to seek out products from businesses approved by USDA and to look for items that have a “Fresh From Florida” logo for quality assurance.
“Not only are you getting a product that is subject to Florida’s comprehensive seed to sale inspections, you’re also helping support Florida farmers,” the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) said.
Nikki Fried, who heads FDCAS as commissioner of agriculture and consumer services, has publicly stated that she’s a medical cannabis cardholder in the state—and she’s also running for governor. Prior to winning elected office, she previously lobbied on behalf of a plant farm that was later bought out by a major cannabis company.
Fried has made cannabis policy a priority throughout her tenure, and her agency has separately released new guidance on the marketing of delta-8 THC.
“The FDACS team is on the ground daily working to make sure the rules are being followed and that hemp extract products do not contain contaminants unsafe for human consumption,” it said. “Over the past year, the department has observed a growing interest in the sale of Delta-8-tetrahydrocannibinol (“Delta-8-THC”) and received numerous inquiries regarding its safety.”
It cautioned that the “until comprehensive, nationwide standards are adopted, consumers have no way of knowing what post-processing steps were taken to ensure the safety of these products” containing delta-8.