The deadline to submit comments to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on proposed regulations for hemp was Wednesday—and advocates, stakeholders and lawmakers had a lot to say.
In the three months since USDA published an interim final rule for hemp, which was federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill, more than 4,600 individuals and organizations took the opportunity to weigh in, with many recommending certain revisions before rules for the crop are finalized.
On Wednesday alone, more than 1,000 comments were posted—a significant number considering that the public comment deadline was initially set for the end of last month until USDA extended it based on the volume of responses.
Here’s what lawmakers, stakeholders and advocates had to say about USDA’s proposed regulations:
While many celebrated the department’s commitment to quickly developing rules for the crop, there have been widespread, bipartisan concerns about select provisions that the industry and its supporters say could hamper its growth and create unnecessary burdens for farmers.
Several members of Congress, including entire congressional delegations representing Virginia, Maine, Colorado and Connecticut, have sent letters to USDA outlining requests for changes to the rules. Most inquiries identify the same specific concerns: 1) the negligence threshold for the allowable amount of THC is too low and doesn’t account for factors such as drought that can cause potency levels to spike, 2) the 15-day testing window before harvest is too short and 3) requiring testing to be conducted at Drug Enforcement Administration-licensed laboratories is onerous and will cause delays.
“Colorado continues to see tremendous growth in this industry and we are excited for the economic potential of this new crop,” the state’s congressional delegation wrote in a letter sent on Tuesday. “Therefore, it is critical the USDA establish a regulatory structure that allows our farmers to succeed.”
Colorado is a leader in every step of the hemp supply chain, maintaining a careful balance of regulatory oversight and economic support.
It is critical that the USDA establish a regulatory structure that allows our farmers to succeed. https://t.co/Isqausxc7l
— Rep. Joe Neguse (@RepJoeNeguse) January 30, 2020
“While the [interim final rule] begins to formulate a much needed regulatory structure, there are key provisions that are unnecessary, burdensome, and could hurt Colorado’s hemp industry,” they said.
The Connecticut congressional delegation made similar points in a letter sent to Agriculture Secretary Sonny Purdue on Wednesday.
As the @USDA continues to create a path forward for #hempfarming, I joined my colleagues from CT & @bryanhurlburt in sending a letter to @SecretarySonny advocating for a system that ensures farmers have the flexibility they need to enter the hemp industry. https://t.co/Pm7qUWa3Mq
— Rep. Joe Courtney (@RepJoeCourtney) January 30, 2020
“While [the proposed rules] help define the path forward for our farmers who wish to grow hemp, they contain a number of restrictive requirements that may prevent these very people from even taking advantage of the new agricultural opportunity,” the lawmakers said. “Our state’s hemp farmers want an opportunity to grow hemp, and have it treated the same as any other agricultural commodity. The rule as currently written assumes hemp is a controlled substance until it is proven otherwise.”
USDA also heard from Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) and the state’s attorney general and agriculture commissioner, who submitted comment on Wednesday identifying eight areas in the proposed rules that they argue need “modification.” Those areas include issues with regulations around sampling periods, lab certification requirements, THC thresholds and disposal protocol.
“As an early mover state in hemp, we understand the pivotal role a workable regulatory structure plays in allowing a new industry to flourish and we appreciate the hard work your staff has undertaken to construct a framework for states to operate their own hemp programs,” the letter, a hard copy of which was submitted on Colorado-grown hemp paper, states. “We understand that establishing a regulatory framework is a difficult task and we appreciate your willingness to consider the alternative approaches to regulating hemp as well as the legal issues set forth in this document.”
In a press release, Polis said “Colorado is the top state for hemp production, and we are proud of our work to increase good jobs and honored to help the Department of Agriculture figure out what we already know about hemp in Colorado.”
“We want to unleash this industry to grow and innovate. The proposed interim final rule, as currently written, does not support best practices in hemp production at a critical time in the development of this important industry,” he said. “The recommended changes we’ve put forward will support the hemp industry while establishing appropriate guidelines.”
The advocacy group Vote Hemp sent its comments on Wednesday, stating that it “believes the USDA has taken steps in the right direction in drafting the [interim final rule], however certain provisions do raise serious concerns for our stakeholders, hemp producers, processors and manufacturers.”
The negligence threshold, sampling protocol, testing and disposal requirements and laboratory restrictions were among the group’s chief concerns.
“We appreciate that the Agency also wants to get feedback after the 2020 growing season,” Vote Hemp said, adding that it recommends that USDA hold “another comment period in the 2nd half of 2021 and issue a final rule in the fall of 2021 after having more time to see how the new [interim final rule] has been working.”
“We sincerely appreciate your consideration of these comments and look forward to working with the Agency to ensure a strong and successful hemp industry,” the group said.
On Monday, Vermont’s agriculture department submitted comments to USDA, expressing similar concerns about the regulations.
Again, the top problems the state agency identified concern the THC threshold, sampling protocol and laboratory certification requirements.
“We believe our suggestions will improve the hemp program making it better for small growers while creating more opportunities for those making a living from hemp,” Vermont Agriculture Secretary Anson Tebbetts said in a press release. “I hope the USDA will consider providing States with the necessary flexibility to be able regulate hemp production while providing Vermont farmers with greater certainty and less risk.”
Michigan’s agriculture department said in comments submitted Wednesday that it “looks forward to working with USDA to develop and implement a strong industrial hemp program that’s compliant with the intent of the Hemp Farming Act of 2018 and is economically viable for Michigan hemp growers and processors.
The letter focused primarily on the THC threshold, with the department arguing that the “regulatory fear that hemp could potentially exceed a 0.3 percent concentration of THC and the unfair suspicion that it will be grown and used for illicit purposes must be balanced with the reality that all but three states have legalized Cannabis sativa L in at least some form or fashion.”
“Throughout North America, the combined legality of hemp at the federal level, and marijuana at the state level, has resulted in many positive outcomes including, but not limited to, new business opportunities, job creation, increased state sales tax revenue, and improved quality of life,” the letter states. “These positive outcomes far outweigh the perceived negative consequences of growing hemp that marginally exceeds 0.3 percent.”
The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) sent in its comments on Tuesday, reiterating that the proposed testing window is too short, the THC threshold is too low and the laboratory requirements are unnecessary, among other concerns.
“On behalf of NASDA state and territorial members, we are grateful for your dedicated work in establishing a federal program that facilitates the growth of a promising new industry while accommodating the diverse needs and challenges of farmers across our country,” the organization wrote. “Given their own diverse resources and challenges, our members will benefit from greater clarity from USDA in meeting the requirements of the 2018 Farm Bill. We ask that you incorporate these concerns, as well as the feedback from our individual members, as you advance a final rule.”
Outside of the practical, agriculture-specific provisions, others have raised questions about finance implications. The American Bankers Association (ABA) said in comments submitted Wednesday that it sees three possible problems with the interim final rule.
In a letter sent today to the @USDA, ABA recommended several changes to an interim final rule that would facilitate banks offering services to hemp growers and hemp-related businesses. Read the letter: https://t.co/ZhIiMGeK3U
— American Bankers Association (@ABABankers) January 29, 2020
Federal guidances stipulates that hemp businesses are entitled to financial services, but it requires them to be licensed—and currently, USDA’s rules only allow federal, state and local enforcement officials to access the licensing database, so ABA wants to expand access to banks. ABA also said licenses should be able to be automatically renewed to avoid uncertainty. Finally, it is seeking clarification on what happens to licenses when “unanticipated events, such as a death or illness, occur between planting and harvesting.”
“ABA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the USDA interim final rule on domestic hemp production. We believe that, with important changes to the rule, farmers will be encouraged to consider a crop which has a great deal of promise for a variety of uses, including clothing, construction, and as a replacement for plastics,” the letter concludes. “However, some of the practical limitations, as discussed above, must be addressed to ensure that risks are appropriately mitigated and that farmers and their lenders feel comfortable supporting this industry.”
Of course, these comments represent just a small fraction of the more than 4,600 that have been submitted. Many individuals engaged in the hemp industry also shared their thoughts and concerns, though many echoed the same points about excess restrictions and requirements.
“Enforcing these regulations will be impossible to uphold and will create an extra stress on farmers who already have so many variables to contend with in a new emerging industry,” one commenter wrote. “Free the industry, move out of the small farmers way. Stop favoring large corporate interest.”
Another person wrote that the “0.3 percent THC requirements are not founded in any science and just downright silly.”
“These strict requirements will do nothing but hurt the farmers as well as the end product that is produced,” they said. “I recommend at least a 1 percent THC threshold, which would allow farmers to focus on producing quality CBD biomass without the added worry of losing everything because of a meaningless percentage.”
A commenter based in Kentucky expressed frustration over the rule’s proposed 10-year ban on participation in the hemp industry by certain people with prior felony drug convictions.
“I believe that it is hypocritical, and cruel to restrict these persons from the hemp/cannabis industry,” the comment states. “We love our neighbors and family members—we need them to have every opportunity to get their lives back. Judicial consequences have failed tremendously in the war on drugs.”
It remains to be seen how much stock USDA will put into the public comments, but in any case, it’s clear that not only is interest in the regulations strong and widespread, but recommendations on changes are largely consistent.
This story has been updated to include comments from the Colorado congressional delegation.
Photo courtesy of Brendan Cleak.
Kansas Medical Marijuana Hearings Cancelled After Senate GOP Leader Reroutes House-Passed Bill
A House-passed bill to legalize medical marijuana in Kansas seems to be in jeopardy, with GOP Senate leadership moving the legislation out of a committee and into a different panel where it may sit in legislative limbo, resulting in the cancellation of hearings that were scheduled to be held this week.
Advocates are concerned about the decision by Senate President Ty Masterson (R), who withdrew the cannabis reform legislation from the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee days before hearings were to be held on Tuesday and Wednesday. It was then re-referred to the Senate Interstate Cooperation Committee, which Masterson chairs and where the bill’s fate is unclear.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that medical marijuana legalization is off the table for Kansas in 2022, but it does seem to signal that the reform might need to be enacted through another vehicle, either in the legislature or at the ballot, as top Democratic lawmakers in the state are pursuing.
“We certainly hope that this action is just making sure that this bill meets any concerns that Senate leadership may have concerning this historic legislation,” Kevin Caldwell, a legislative manager at Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), told Marijuana Moment. “This bill had widespread bipartisan support in the House last session. We hope Senate President Masterson quickly holds a committee hearing and advances this legislation.”
When the proposal was being advanced in the House last year during the first half of the two-year session, members amended an unrelated bill that previously cleared the Senate to make it the chamber’s vehicle for the policy change. Because of that, it was ruled “materially changed” last May and sent to the Senate for committee consideration.
Now there’s a question of whether lawmakers will be motivated to introduce another separate bill and try to move it through both chambers, requiring another House vote. The Senate president seemed to temper expectations in recent remarks, telling The Kansas City Star that “not a single member” of his caucus has expressed that the issue “was important to them.”
That’s not how Kansas Democrats feel, however. House Minority Leader Tom Sawyer (D) and Assistant Minority Leader Jason Probst (D) said this month that they will be introducing proposals to let voters decide on legalizing medical and adult-use marijuana in the state. At the time, Sawyer said he was “hopeful” that the legislature might separately advance the House-passed legalization measure.
Marijuana Moment is already tracking more than 1,000 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.
“The people of Kansas deserve to know if senators support the overwhelming majority of people who want to alleviate patients’ suffering with a medical cannabis program,” MPP’s Caldwell said. “Now is the time to show compassion to their fellow citizens and vote this bill out of committee.”
“Kansas is one of fourteen states left without a medical cannabis program,” he said. “We have faith that the Kansas Senate will pass this legislation this session and this is just another step in that process.”
Michael Pirner, Masterson’s communications director, told the Star that “medical marijuana legislation is not a priority of Senate leadership,” but did signal the issue may still be considered before the year is over.
“The subject matter has clearly matured and we expect it to be considered at some level this session,” he said. “There are many more pressing topics on the Senate agenda.”
The bill as drafted contains several significant restrictions, including a ban on smokeable cannabis. Members of the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee did get a briefing on the issue at a meeting last week ahead of the expected, now-cancelled formal hearings before the panel.
Meanwhile, the constitutional amendment that the Democratic leaders are proposing would provide for a more comprehensive program that lawmakers would need to implement.
Gov. Laura Kelly (D), for her part, wants to see medical cannabis legalization enacted, and she said at a briefing with reporters on Friday that she “absolutely” thinks the bill could pass if “everything else doesn’t take up all the oxygen.”
She previously pushed a separate proposal that would legalize medical cannabis and use the resulting revenue to support Medicaid expansion, with Rep. Brandon Woodard (D) filing the measure on the governor’s behalf.
Kelly has she said she wants voters to put pressure on their representatives to get the reform passed.
The governor also said in 2020 that while she wouldn’t personally advocate for adult-use legalization, she wouldn’t rule out signing the reform into law if a reform bill arrived on her desk.
Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan.
Marijuana Banking Bill Sponsor Says He’s ‘Gonna Get That Darn Thing Passed’ Before Leaving Office
Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) is retiring from Congress at the end of this session, but he says that he’s going to work to pass his marijuana banking bill before his time on Capitol Hill comes to an end.
The congressman spoke to Colorado Public Radio last week about his decision not to run for reelection this November and his disappointment that, while the House has approved the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act five times now in some form, the Senate has failed to advance it under both Republican and Democratic leadership.
“That one still has me pretty irritated,” Perlmutter said, referring to the fact that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has effectively blocked his bipartisan legislation. When there was a GOP Senate majority, he was told the bill was “too big and too broad.” Then with a Democratic majority, he’s told that it’s “too narrow and too limited.”
Schumer and his colleagues who are working on a federal legalization bill have repeatedly said that they do not want to see the SAFE Banking Act pass before comprehensive reform is enacted that addresses equity issues. Supporters of the banking bill argue that the incremental policy change is necessary for promote public safety and, importantly, it stands a much stronger chance of getting to the president’s desk with bipartisan support.
Nonetheless, Perlmutter said he plans to spend his remaining months in office pushing to get the job done.
“I have not given up on that one,” he said. “I’m gonna get that darn thing passed this year while I still serve out my term.”
Listen to Perlmutter discuss the marijuana banking legislation, starting around 10:24 into the audio below:
Asked whether he thinks President Joe Biden would be inclined to sign the measure if it did get to his desk, the congressman said “absolutely.”
“Treasury Secretary [Janet] Yellen is somebody who has been talking to me about this for years,” he said. “I feel very good that it would pass. We’re at 47 states that have some level of marijuana use, all the territories and District of Columbia, and they need to have legitimate banking services.”
“It’s just a no brainer in my opinion,” he said. “And yeah, I’m a little bit irritated, but we’re gonna keep working on it and get it passed this year.”
The last attempt that Perlmutter made to enact the reform was by adding its language to a must-pass defense bill, but it was ultimately sidelined following bicameral negotiations and did not make it into the final version. The congressman told Marijuana Moment last month that he sees other potential vehicles to advance the bill and has spoken with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) about it.
Even some Republicans are scratching their heads about how Democrats have so far failed to pass the modest banking reform with majorities in both chambers and control of the White House. For example, Rep. Rand Paul (R-KY) criticized his Democratic colleagues over the issue last month.
Top Federal Drug Official Says ‘Train Has Left The Station’ On Psychedelics As Reform Movement Spreads
A top federal drug official says the “train has left the station” on psychedelics.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Director Nora Volkow said people are going to keep using substances such as psilocybin—especially as the reform movement expands and there’s increased attention being drawn to the potential therapeutic benefits—and so researchers and regulators will need to keep up.
The comments came at a psychedelics workshop Volkow’s agency cohosted with the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) last week.
The NIDA official said that, to an extent, it’s been overwhelming to address new drug trends in the psychedelics space. But at the same time, she sees “an incredible opportunity to also modify the way that we are doing things.”
“What is it that the [National Institutes of Health] can do to help accelerate research in this field so that we can truly understand what are the potentials, and ultimately the application, of interventions that are bought based on psychedelic drugs?” Volkow said.
The director separately told Marijuana Moment on Friday in an emailed statement that part of the challenge for the agency and researchers is the fact that psychedelics are strictly prohibited as Schedule I drugs under the federal Controlled Substances Act.
“Researchers must obtain a Schedule I registration which, unlike obtaining registrations for Schedule II substances (which include fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine), is administratively challenging and time consuming,” she said. “This process may deter some scientists from conducting research on Schedule I drugs.”
“In response to concerns from researchers, NIDA is involved in interagency discussions to facilitate research on Schedule I substances,” Volkow said, adding that the agency is “pleased” the Drug Enforcement Administration recently announced plans to significantly increase the quota of certain psychedelic drugs to be produced for use in research.
“It will also be important to streamline the process of obtaining Schedule I registrations to further the science on these substances, including examining their therapeutic potential,” she said.
At Thursday’s event, the official talked about how recent, federally funded surveys showed that fewer college-aged adults are drinking alcohol and are instead opting for psychedelics and marijuana. She discussed the findings in an earlier interview with Marijuana Moment as well.
Don't miss out on the @NIDAnews, @NIAAAnews, & @NIMHgov-sponsored virtual Workshop on Psychedelics as Therapeutics: Gaps, Challenges, and Opportunities, Jan. 12‒13, 2022. Learn more and register: https://t.co/S1zttkoYXq pic.twitter.com/C2Qrk6FN9a
— NIDAnews (@NIDAnews) January 10, 2022
“Let’s learn from history,” she said. “Let’s see what we have learned from the marijuana experience.”
While studies have found that marijuana use among young people has generally remained stable or decreased amid the legalization movement, there has been an increase in cannabis consumption among adults, she said. And “this is likely to happen [with psychedelics] as more and more attention is placed on these psychedelic drugs.”
“I think, to a certain extent, with all the attention that the psychedelic drugs have attracted, the train has left the station and that people are going to start to use it,” Volkow said. “People are going to start to use it whether [the Food and Drug Administration] approves or not.
There are numerous states and localities where psychedelics reform is being explored and pursued both legislatively and through ballot initiative processes.
On Wednesday—during the first part of the two-day federal event that saw nearly 4,000 registrants across 21 time zones—NIMH Director Joshua Gordon stressed that his agency has “been supporting research on psychedelics for some time.”
Tune in today and tomorrow for the @NIH workshop on Psychedelics as Therapeutics, which will examine findings on psychoplastogens for treating depression, post-traumatic stress, and substance and alcohol use disorders. https://t.co/Qzxte5xJt9
— Joshua A. Gordon (@NIMHDirector) January 12, 2022
“We can think of NIMH’s interests in studying psychedelics both in terms of proving that they work and also in terms of demonstrating the mechanism by which they work,” he said. “NIMH has a range of different funding opportunity announcements and other expressions that are priorities aimed at a mechanistic focus and mechanistic approach to drug development.”
Meanwhile, Volkow also made connections between psychedelics and the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic. She said, for example, that survey data showing increased use of psychedelics “may be a way that people are using to try to escape” the situation.
But she also drew a metaphor, saying that just as how the pandemic “forced” federal health officials to accelerate the development and approval of COVID-19 vaccines because of the “urgency of the situation,” one could argue that “actually there is an urgency to bring treatments [such as emerging psychedelic medicines] for people that are suffering from severe mental illness which can be devastating.”
But as Volkow has pointed out, the Schedule I classification of these substances under federal law inhibits such research and development.
The official has also repeatedly highlighted and criticized the racial disparities in drug criminalization enforcement overall.