In a recent op-ed for Marijuana Moment on October 15, Michelle Minton from Reason Foundation argued that states should handle regulations on intoxicating cannabinoid products similarly, regardless of whether they’re derived from state-licensed marijuana or federally legal hemp. She believes that regulatory consistency is key in this area.
OG Article: here
View our Fair Use Policy: here
Shortly after, on October 27, Michael Bronstein from the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp (ATACH) responded, expressing concern that Reason Foundation “fails to provide a solution” to the challenge of unregulated hemp-derived products, especially those that are chemically modified analogues of natural cannabinoids. Bronstein’s view reflects his worry about the safety and oversight of these products.
Minton’s original piece, however, referenced an 80-page proposal she co-authored, outlining a comprehensive approach to regulate intoxicating hemp-derived products separately from non-intoxicating ones. This proposal calls for age restrictions on purchasing these products, along with mandatory registration for manufacturers and transparent labeling that includes accurate testing information.
One of the key points raised is the pricing disparity between state-licensed marijuana products and their hemp-derived counterparts. Licensed marijuana products face high compliance and tax costs, making them significantly more expensive than illicit marijuana or intoxicating hemp-derived products. Adding to this challenge is limited consumer access to legal marijuana. Even in states with commercial marijuana markets, restrictions like statewide retail license caps and local bans make purchasing legal marijuana inconvenient. In California, for instance, almost half the population lives over 60 miles from the nearest licensed retailer, whereas federally legal hemp-derived products are available in gas stations, grocery stores, or online, with interstate shipping options.
Minton and her co-author argue that if state regulations and taxes for marijuana weren’t so restrictive, there might not even be a market for intoxicating hemp-derived products.
Bronstein also made the case that consumers prefer natural marijuana and that it should be fully legalized. Minton agrees, but adds that the hemp-derived market has grown due to its accessibility and lower costs under its current regulatory structure. The Reason Foundation’s recommendations aim to level the playing field, ensuring that intoxicating hemp-derived products meet reasonable safety and age restrictions while advocating for streamlined regulations on state-licensed marijuana.
To address market disparities, they propose that states issue a single cannabis retailer license, allowing qualified retailers to sell both hemp-derived and state-licensed marijuana products. Retailers would also need to obtain a cannabis excise tax certificate and apply a consistent, lower tax rate across all intoxicating cannabis products.
Bronstein raised concerns about chemically modified hemp products containing THC analogues, which are less common in natural cannabis. Minton’s team counters that federal rulings suggest cannabinoids derived from naturally extracted CBD are not considered “synthetic.” For instance, the Ninth Circuit determined that a product’s legal standing depends on its source rather than its manufacturing method. They distinguish these products from fully synthetic, dangerous compounds like “spice.”
Minton acknowledges that modified cannabinoids in hemp products are still not fully understood but points out that little evidence suggests they are riskier than natural THC variants. Although this topic is complex, she believes that, with a closer look, Bronstein and his organization might find broad alignment with the Reason Foundation’s stance.
Comments