So far only about 2113 comments have been submitted! It is critical that the Department receive as many unique and substantive comments as possible.
PUBLIC COMMENTS MATTER! Even though the interim rule has already been made effective, USDA must still finalize it before it becomes permanent, and they are required to take into account—and respond to—all substantive comments submitted by the public.
Comments need not be lengthy, or beautifully written. But in order to be taken into account, they must be substantive, unique (no form letters), and clearly state how the rule directly impacts the commenter’s personal and/or business interests.
These are the key points a comment should cover: Identify a specific issue, topic or provision in the rule, state how it impacts you directly, and suggest an alternative that would better serve or protect your interests.
Identify credentials and experience that support your position. If you are commenting in an area in which you have relevant personal or professional experience (i.e., scientist, attorney, farmer, distributor, retailer, etc.), say so. Support your position with specific examples from your personal experience: how does the rule impact you or your business? What specific costs, burdens or missed opportunities result?
It certainly helps if you also have concrete information about the rule’s impacts to others in your community or field of business, but with a day left to submit it’s fine to skip the research paper and simply write from your own experience. That is ultimately the most powerful story to tell.
Please feel free to use this cheat sheet to build your comments!
A key House committee has officially announced that a vote on a comprehensive marijuana legalization bill is scheduled for this week.
The House Judiciary Committee said on Monday that the panel will mark up legislation introduced by Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), which would federally deschedule cannabis and address social equity, on Wednesday at 10:00 AM ET. The announcement confirms what sources familiar with the planned development told Marijuana Moment last week.
Nadler’s Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act has been lauded by advocates for its emphasis on restorative justice for communities most impacted by the drug war.
It calls for a five percent federal tax on marijuana sales, and that revenue would be used to fund programs such as job training, legal aid for those affected by prohibition and small business loans for individuals who are socially and economically disadvantaged. The bill also seeks to lift barriers to licensing and employment in the industry.
Additionally, the legislation would expunge the records of those with prior cannabis convictions, provide for resentencing, block federal agencies from denying public benefits or security clearances as a result of marijuana use and protect immigrants from being denied citizenship over cannabis.
“Our marijuana laws disproportionately harm individuals and communities of color, leading to convictions that damage job prospects, access to housing, and the ability to vote.” Nadler said in a press release. “Recognizing this, many states have legalized marijuana. It’s now time for us to remove the criminal prohibitions against marijuana at the federal level. That’s why I introduced the MORE Act, legislation which would assist communities disproportionately impacted by the enforcement of these laws.”
Text of an amendment in the nature of a substitute from Nadler that Judiciary members will take up was also released on Monday. It includes a new “findings” section that discusses racial disparities in marijuana enforcement, the growing state-level legalization movement and the challenges that individuals from disadvantaged communities face in participating in the market.
“The communities that have been most harmed by cannabis prohibition are benefiting the least from the legal marijuana marketplace,” one provision reads. “A legacy of racial and ethnic injustices, compounded by the disproportionate collateral consequences of 80 years of cannabis prohibition enforcement, now limits participation in the industry.”
Much of the language of the new section is borrowed from a resolution that Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, introduced last year.
“Our federal cannabis policies have been rooted in the past for far too long. As states continue to modernize how we regulate cannabis, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that our policies are fair, equitable, and inclusive,” Lee said in a press release. “I’m pleased that this critical bill includes key tenets from my own legislation to right the wrongs of the failed and racist War on Drugs by expunging criminal convictions, reinvesting in communities of color through restorative justice, and promoting equitable participation in the legal marijuana industry.”
Legalization advocates cheered the committee’s move to take the first congressional vote on ending cannabis prohibition.
“A supermajority of Americans, including majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents, support regulating the use of marijuana by responsible adults,” NORML Political Director Justin Strekal said. “Thanks to the leadership of the House Judiciary chairman, never in history have we been closer to ending the failed policy of marijuana criminalization and providing pathways to opportunity for our brothers and sisters who have suffered under its oppressive reign.”
“The MORE Act is the most comprehensive marijuana policy reform bill ever introduced in Congress and is backed by a broad coalition of civil rights, criminal justice, drug policy, and immigration groups. Those who oppose this legislation moving forward are defenders of a failed status-quo that ruins the lives of otherwise law-abiding adults on a daily basis, overwhelming enforced against the poor and communities of color.”
“The data speaks for itself—low-income communities and communities of color have disproportionately borne the brunt of the devastation brought on by marijuana prohibition,” Queen Adesuyi, policy manager of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, said. “The MORE Act is the most robust bipartisan legislation so far not only to end federal marijuana prohibition, but also to ensure that the communities that have been hardest hit by prohibition are not left behind.”
“It would be a tragic mistake to have the only marijuana reform bill that passes this Congress be one that solely benefits the industry, despite both the unprecedented support for legalization nationally amongst Americans and all the harm that we know federal prohibition has caused to individuals and communities across this country,” she said. “Fortunately, by ensuring the MORE Act moves forward, several leaders in the House are showing that they understand that this is a matter of fundamental justice that the US Congress needs to address.”
Committee members on both sides of the aisle will be able to introduce amendments to the legislation, but it’s generally expected to advance out of the panel and onto the floor. That said, its fate in the Republican-controlled Senate is far from certain.
The House of Representatives made history on Wednesday, passing landmark legislation that would protect U.S. banks that provide services to legitimate cannabis businesses in states where cannabis is legal.
“Prohibition is over,” said Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), who introduced the bill. “Our bill is focused solely on taking cash off the streets and making our communities safer.”
The Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act passed 321 to 103 with substantial support on both sides of the aisle. Walking into the vote on Wednesday, the bill tallied about 200 sponsors ー 26 of whom were Republican.
A Congressional aid familiar with the SAFE Banking Act said that drumming up bipartisan support was partially the point ー that padding the bill with a broad base of support will increase its odds when it heads to the Republican-controlled Senate, where it faces a much heavier lift.
With support from about 30 percent of the Senate ー including only five Republican Senators ー some suggest it won’t have enough traction to pass. But comments earlier this month from Senate Banking Chair Mike Crapo reignited proponents’ hopes. He told Politico that he hopes to address cannabis banking issues by the end of the year.
“We’re working to try to get a bill ready,” he told Politico. “I’m looking to see whether we can thread the needle.”
Following passage of the bill in the House, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), one of the bill’s lead sponsors in the Senate, urged his fellow Senators to deliver SAFE Banking to President Trump’s desk. And Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who introduced the Senate version of the bill, was hopeful of its momentum.
“While we continue to work to address broader issues related to the harmful legacy of cannabis prohibition across the country, I am hopeful that we can get the SAFE Banking Act moving quickly through committee, to the Senate floor, and ultimately, to the President’s desk,” Merkley said in a statement.
Meanwhile in the House of Representatives, proponents celebrated. Cheers could be heard throughout the chamber the moment votes in favor surpassed 290, or two thirds of the chamber ー the margin needed to pass a bill under suspension of the rules. Perlmutter was especially excited. He’s been working to push versions of the legislation through with sponsor Rep. Denny Heck (D- Wash.) since 2013.
“After six years of working on this bill, the SAFE Banking Act will go a long way in getting cash off our streets and providing certainty so financial institutions can work with cannabis businesses and employees,” Perlmutter said in a statement.
But even as they celebrated, proponents of wider legalization acknowledged the need for further reform ー especially for social justice. In the weeks leading up to the House vote on the bill, criticism emerged from within the Democratic party, as well as from advocacy groups, which argued such a bill undermines more comprehensive and socially focused reform. Three Democratic Presidential candidates ー and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ー have criticized the bill for not doing enough to repair damages from the War Drugs.
But proponents of the bill argued social justice and incremental financial reform don’t have to be mutually exclusive. In the hours leading up to the vote, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer released a statement affirming the concerns of advocates and his colleagues, and calling for more action on cannabis equity following passage of the bill by the House.
“I am proud to bring this legislation to the Floor, but I believe it does not go far enough. This must be a first step toward the decriminalization and de-scheduling of marijuana, which has led to the prosecution and incarceration of far too many of our fellow Americans for possession,” Hoyer said in a statement.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), chair of the House Committee on Financial Services, which passed the bill in March after days of amendments and deliberation, said much of the same.
“This bill is but one important piece of what should be a comprehensive series of cannabis reform bills,” she said.
Many of SAFE Banking’s more prominent cosponsors, including Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Rep. Early Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Rep. Perlmutter, and Rep. Waters, also support more comprehensive and socially focused cannabis legislation like the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) in July.
We, the undersigned, registered, qualified voters of California, residents of the country (or City and County) referenced on the signature page of this petition, hereby propose amendments of the Health and Safety Code, relating to cannabis, hemp, marijuana, and petition the Secretary of State to submit the same to the voters of California for their adoption or rejection at the next succeeding general election or at any special statewide election held prior to that general election or otherwise provided by law.
The proposed statutory amendments read as follows:
Cannabis Hemp Heritage Act of 2020
AN ACT TO AMEND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF CALIFORNIA:
I. Add Section 11362.4 to the Health and Safety Code of California, such laws and policies shall control any contrary laws and policies:
(a) No person, business, or corporate entity shall be arrested or prosecuted, be denied any right or privilege, nor be subject to any criminal or civil penalties for the possession, cultivation, transportation, distribution, use, or consumption of cannabis hemp marijuana, as provided in this Act, including:
(1) Cannabis hemp industrial products.
(2) Cannabis hemp medicinal preparations.
(3) Cannabis hemp nutritional products.
(4) Cannabis hemp euphoric use and products.
(b) Definition of terms:
(1) (A) The terms “cannabis hemp” and “cannabis hemp marijuana” mean the natural, non-genetically modified plant cannabis hemp, hemp, cannabis, marihuana, marijuana, cannabis sativa L, cannabis Americana, cannabis chinensis, cannabis indica, cannabis ruderalis, cannabis sativa, or any variety of cannabis, including any derivative, concentrate, extract, flower, leaf, particle, preparation, resin, root, salt, seed, stalk, stem, or any product thereof.
(B) The term “non-genetically modified plant” means a plant in which the genetic material has not been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.
(2) The term “cannabis hemp industrial products” means natural cannabis hemp, and all products made from cannabis hemp that are not designed or intended for human consumption, including, but not limited to: clothing, building materials, paper, fiber, fuel, lubricants, plastics, paint, seed for cultivation, animal feeds, veterinary medicine, oil, or any other product that is not designed for internal human consumption; as well as cannabis hemp plants used for crop rotation, erosion control, pest control, weed control, or any other horticultural or environmental purposes, for example, the extraction of atmospheric carbon dioxide and toxic soil reclamation.
(3) The term “cannabis hemp medicinal preparations” means natural cannabis hemp, and all products made from cannabis hemp that are designed, intended, or used for human consumption for the treatment of any human disease or medical condition, for pain relief, or for any healing purpose, including but not limited to the treatment prevention, or relief of: Alzheimer’s and pre-Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, arthritis, asthma, cancer, cramps, epilepsy, glaucoma, lupus, migraine, multiple sclerosis, nausea, premenstrual syndrome, side effects of cancer chemotherapy, fibromyalgia, sickle cell anemia, spasticity, spinal injury, stress, easement of post-traumatic stress disorder, Tourette syndrome, immunodeficiency, wasting syndrome from AIDs or anorexia; use as an antibiotic, antibacterial, anti-viral, or anti-emetic; as a healing agent, or as an adjunct to any medical or herbal treatment. Mental conditions including, but not limited to bipolar, depression, attention deficit disorder, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are also conditions considered for medical use.
(4) The term “cannabis hemp nutritional products” means natural cannabis hemp grown for consumption by humans and animals as food, including but not limited to: leaf, root, seed, seed protein, seed oil, essential fatty acids, seed cake, dietary fiber, or any preparation or extract thereof.
(5) The term “cannabis hemp euphoric products” means natural cannabis hemp intended for consumption by people for personal, recreational, meditative, spiritual, religious, or other purposes, other than cannabis hemp industrial products, cannabis hemp medicinal preparations, or cannabis hemp nutritional products.
(6) The term “personal use” means the consumption of cannabis hemp by people 21 years of age or older for any relaxant, meditative, religious, spiritual, recreational, or other purposes other than sale.
(7) The term “commercial production” means the production of cannabis hemp products for sale or profit under the conditions of these provisions.
(c) Industrial cannabis hemp farmers, manufacturers, processors, distributors, medicinal collectives, and retailers shall not be subject to any special zoning requirements, licensing fee, or tax that is excessive, discriminatory, or prohibitive.
(d) Cannabis hemp and cannabis hemp medicinal preparations are hereby reclassified and de-scheduled from California Uniform Controlled Substances Act. Licensed physicians shall not be penalized for, nor restricted from approving or recommending cannabis hemp for medical purposes to any patient, regardless of age. No tax shall be applied to cannabis hemp medicinal preparations. Sufficient community outlets shall be allowed to provide reasonable and discreet access for patients. No recommending physician shall be subject to any professional licensing review or hearing as a result of recommending or approving the medical use of cannabis hemp
(e) Personal use of cannabis hemp euphoric products.
(1) No permit, license, or tax shall be required for the non-commercial cultivation, transportation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis hemp.
(2) No person shall be required to submit to testing for inactive and/or inert residual cannabis metabolites as a condition of any right or privilege including, employment or insurance, nor may the presence of such metabolites be considered in determining employment, other impairment, or intoxication. Testing for active (not metabolized) cannabis may be used and considered in determining employment, impairment, or intoxication. Cannabis users’ right to bear arms shall not be restricted.
(3) When a person falls within the conditions of these exceptions, the offense laws do not apply and only the exception laws apply.
(f) Commerce in cannabis hemp euphoric products shall be limited to adults, 21 years of age and older, and shall be regulated in a manner analogous, and no more onerous than California’s beer and wine model. For the purpose of distinguishing personal from commercial production, 99 flowering female plants and 12 pounds of dried, cured cannabis hemp flowers, but not leaf, produced per adult, 21 years of age and older, per year shall be presumed as being for personal use.
(g) The manufacture, marketing, distribution, or sales, between adults, of equipment or accessories designed to assist in the planting, cultivation, harvesting, curing, processing, packaging, storage, analysis, consumption, or transportation of cannabis hemp plants, industrial cannabis hemp products, cannabis hemp medicinal preparations, cannabis hemp nutritional products, cannabis hemp euphoric products, or any cannabis hemp product shall not be prohibited, except as provided in this Act.
(h) No California law enforcement personnel, State or local employees of any kind, or funds shall be used to assist or aid and abet in the enforcement of Federal cannabis hemp marijuana laws involving acts that are hereby no longer illegal in the State of California.
(i) Any person who threatens the enjoyment of these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor. The maximum penalties and fines of a misdemeanor may be imposed.
II. Repeal, delete, and expunge any and all existing statutory laws that conflict with the provisions of this initiative.
I. Enactment of this initiative shall include: the case by case review for the purpose of sentence modifications, amnesty, immediate release from prison, jail, parole, and probation, and/or clearing, expunging, and deletion of all cannabis hemp marijuana criminal records for all persons currently charged with, or convicted of any non-violence cannabis hemp marijuana offenses included in, or modified by, this initiative, which are hereby no longer illegal and/or applicable in the State of California. People who fall within this category that triggered an original sentence are included within this provision.
2(a) Within 60 days of the passage of this Act, the Attorney General shall develop and distribute a one-page application, providing for the destruction of all cannabis hemp marijuana criminal records in California for any such offense invalidated by this Act. Such forms shall be distributed to district and city attorneys, made available at all police departments in the State, and made available electronically at https://www.courts.gov/forms.html to persons hereby affected. Upon filing such form with any Superior Court and a payment of a fee of $10.00, the Court shall liberally construe these provisions to benefit the defendant in furtherance of the amnesty and the dismissal provision of this section. Upon the Court’s ruling under this provision the arrest record shall be set aside and be destroyed. Such persons may then truthfully state that they have never been arrested or convicted of any cannabis hemp marijuana related offense which is hereby no longer illegal in the State of California. This shall be deemed to be a finding of factual innocence under California Penal Code Section 851.8 et seq.
III. Within 6 months of the passage of this Act, the legislature is required upon thorough investigation, to enact legislation using reasonable standards, which are compatible with the provisions of this Act to:
1. License concessionary establishments to distribute cannabis hemp euphoric products in a manner analogous to California’s beer and wine industry mode. Sufficient community outlets shall be licensed to provide reasonable commercial access to persons of legal age, so as to discourage and prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, such products. Any license or permit fee required by the State for commercial production, distribution, or use shall not exceed $1,000.00. Regulation, penalties, and enforcement shall be in a manner analogous to, and no more onerous than, California’s beer and wine model.
2. Place an excise tax on commercial sale of cannabis hemp euphoric products, analogous to California’s beer and wine model, so long as no excise tax or combination of excise taxes shall exceed 10% of the retail price of the products. Fifty percent of the excise tax revenues collected shall be made available for the research, development and promotion of industrial, nutritional, and medicinal hemp industries in California.
3. Determine an acceptable and uniform standard of impairment based on scientifically acceptable performance testing, to restrict persons impaired by cannabis hemp euphoric products from operating a motor vehicle or heavy machinery, or otherwise engaging in conduct that may affect public safety.
4. Regulate the personal use of cannabis hemp euphoric products in enclosed and/or restricted public places.
IV. Pursuant to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the people of California hereby repudiate and challenge Federal cannabis hemp marijuana prohibitions that conflict with this Act.
V. Severability: If any provisions of this Act, or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid by any court, the remainder of this Act, to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of such provisions to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.
VI. Construction: If any rival or conflicting initiative regulating any matter addressed by this Act receives the higher affirmative vote, then all non-conflicting parts shall become operative.
VII. Purpose of Act: This Act is an exercise of the police powers of the State for the protection of the safety, welfare, health, and peace of the people and the environment of the State, to protect the industrial and medicinal uses of cannabis hemp, to eliminate the unlicensed and unlawful cultivation, selling, and dispensing of cannabis hemp; and to encourage temperance in the consumption of cannabis hemp euphoric products. It is hereby declared that the subject matter of this Act involves, in the highest degree, the ecological, economic, social, and moral well-being and safety of the State and all of its people. All provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of these purposes: To respect human rights, to promote tolerance, and to end cannabis hemp prohibition.
The chairman of the influential House Judiciary Committee authored a message to NORML’s email list on Monday—a notable signal of how the cannabis legalization movement has entered the mainstream corridors of power on Capitol Hill.
“America has a moral responsibility to pass my legislation to end the prohibition of marijuana and take on the oppression at the heart of the War on Drugs,” Nadler wrote. “I’m proud to work with NORML to create a more just national marijuana policy.”
The bill will “once and for all end the destructive policy of federal marijuana prohibition in America” and “remedy the widespread inequities and injustice this policy has brought upon tens of millions of Americans,” the chairman told the legalization group’s members.
Beyond descheduling cannabis, the MORE Act would create processes for the expungement and resentencing of prior convictions and prevent government agencies from blocking access to federal benefits or impeding citizenship status for immigrants due to marijuana use.
Additionally, it would levy a five percent federal tax on cannabis sales, with some revenue earmarked for job training and legal aid programs for people impacted by prohibition enforcement as well as loans for small marijuana businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged people.
Its introduction comes amidst what observers are saying is the most marijuana-friendly Congress in history. Less than eight months into the two-year session, dozens of cannabis proposals have been filed, seven hearings have been held on the issue and legislation to increase marijuana businesses’ access to banking services has cleared a key committee.
“With Chairman Nadler’s leadership, we believe that the MORE act will likely be the first bill to end federal marijuana criminalization ever to pass in a chamber of Congress,” NORML Political Director Justin Strekal said in an interview. “Representative democracy is not a spectator sport. Now is the time for the majority of Americans who support legalization to demand reform from their legislators, just as Mr. Nadler’s message to our members indicated.”
“In 1977, I cast my first vote as a freshman member of the State Assembly to decriminalize marijuana in my home state of New York,” the chairman wrote to NORML’s supporters. “Since then, I have been committed to ending the criminalization of marijuana. The criminalization of marijuana is a mistake and caused grave harm, disproportionately to those who are poor or people of color, and we must take action.”
“Criminal justice involvement deprives individuals from low-income communities of color equal access to economic opportunity,” the groups wrote. “Incarceration robs families and communities of breadwinners and workers. Thus, any marijuana reform bill that moves forward in Congress must first address criminal justice reform and repair the damage caused by the war on drugs in low-income communities of color.”
Calling the proposal an important step “to bolster communities ravaged by the war on drugs,” the groups are pushing congressional leadership to see that it is “swiftly marked up and immediately scheduled for floor consideration” following the August recess.
“The hysteria around marijuana is starting to lift as states across the country lead the way in reforming their marijuana laws. It is time for the federal government to follow suit,” Nadler wrote in the new message to NORML’s list. “Marijuana is a public health and personal freedom issue, not a criminal one. We can no longer afford the moral or financial costs of the War on Drugs.”
Also last month, a Judiciary subcommittee held a hearing on marijuana prohibition at which members of both parties express broad support for ending or scaling back federal prohibition, with disagreement mostly focusing on the details or competing proposals to do so.
It slipped under the radar on Thursday, but the United States Department of Agriculture just descheduled tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
The USDA issued a bulletin on May 28 as a legal opinion for hemp production. It basically authorizes interstate delivery of hemp and legalized THC derived from hemp.
First, let’s address the interstate transportation or shipment of hemp.
Up until December 2018, hemp was considered illegal like cannabis, but the 2018 Farm Bill legalized it. However, it still couldn’t cross state lines. So, farmers in states where all forms of marijuana were illegal could grow hemp but then had few options to sell their crops. Farmers such as the ones in Kentucky who had pushed Senator Mitch McConnell to get the Farm Bill signed in the first place.
Now they can sell those crops to producers in other states or at least extract the hemp oil and sell that derivative product.
This solves the farmer problem for McConnell who was getting backed into a corner to figure out how to help these individuals sells their hemp crops. Happy Kentucky farmers means reelection.
The second item within this USDA bulletin is the subject of THC, which is the part of the cannabis plant that produces a psychoactive response in the brain or the feeling of getting high. The bulletin was in response to the 2018 Farm Bill and it read, “By amending the definition of marijuana to exclude hemp as defined in AMA 297A, Congress has removed hemp from schedule I and removed it entirely from the CSA (Controlled Substances Act). In other words, hemp is no longer a controlled substance. Also, by amending schedule I to exclude THC in hemp, Congress has likewise removed THC in hemp from the CSA.”
Typically, cannabis plants can produce buds or flowers that have a high level of THC. Hemp plants tend to have very little THC in them. However, that doesn’t mean there is no THC or that the hemp plants couldn’t be modified to contain more THC.
Mark Singleton, the owner of Singleton Investments said, “This removes the argument of .3% THC.” He is referring to the designation that hemp-derived CBD is legal as long as there is less than .3% THC. If hemp THC is legal then it doesn’t matter whether it is .3% or not.
Let’s step back for a moment and review this .3% line in the sand for cannabis.
The .3% level is a designation for which there is little information as to how that number was determined. It is often referred to but there is little documentation as to how regulators arrived at that level.
One historian said that at one time a study was done to determine at which point people got high when consuming cannabis and that .3% was the midrange and thus it stuck. Some people needed less and some didn’t get buzzed until it was more than .3%, so the scientists just picked the middle point and called it a day. Random and possibly no longer true.
Anyway, there is some debate now over this USDA bulletin and whether the words “in hemp” mean THC can’t be extracted from hemp because then it would no longer be in the plant. Several people have suggested that the phrase hemp-derived products covers hemp extractions even if it includes THC. It’s a new bulletin and is sure to be tested very quickly.
Singleton believes that THC derived from hemp will quickly become popular and farmers will set up extraction facilities within their states and begin shipping across state lines. “It solves McConnell’s problem. He’s got the largest plant extraction facility in the entire country. Located in Kentucky,” said Singleton, who says he’s on McConnell’s speed dial.
If hemp-derived THC is now legal and can cross state lines, it will be close to impossible for law enforcement to determine the difference between cannabis-derived THC and hemp-derived THC. This USDA bulletin could have effectively descheduled cannabis. Singleton believes Congress will be forced to act quickly to legalize cannabis since the USDA has jumped the gun.
In May, New York Representative Hakeem Jeffries and Senator Chuck Schumer introduced a bill, HR2843, in both Houses removing cannabis from the CSA and it included a social justice component. “I believe this bill will have at least 100 co-sponsors by June 15 and has the best chance to get passed,” said Singleton. “If the Safe Banking Act doesn’t get passed first, then I think this one will. I know the cannabis industry wants the States Rights Act passed, but it’s going nowhere. These have the most support.”
Indeed, no one in the cannabis industry expected the USDA to be the ones to legalize THC and it looks as if this is the next domino to fall.
