Add Row
Add Element
cropper
update
National Cannabis Newswire
update
Add Element
  • Home
  • Categories
    • news
    • trends
    • insights
    • industry
    • legalization
    • health
    • culture
    • advocacy
    • Brands
    • New Mexico Dispensaries
    • Arizona Dispensaries
November 13.2025
2 Minutes Read

What Trump's Bill Means for the Future of Hemp THC Products

Silhouette emblem of Cannabis Law Report with profile. Hemp THC Products Recriminalization.

Trump's Unexpected Shift: The Recriminalization of Hemp THC Products

In a surprising turn of events, President Donald Trump has inked a controversial spending bill that will recriminalize most consumable hemp-derived THC products, reversing his previous support for their legalization under the 2018 Farm Bill. This legislative decision comes after extensive debate regarding public safety and the regulation of a booming industry that has shifted dramatically since the legalization began.

Historical Context: The Road to Legalization

The 2018 Farm Bill was a watershed moment for the hemp industry in the United States. It legalized hemp and its derivatives, contributing to a market that has seen exponential growth, estimated at $28.4 billion. The accessibility of hemp-derived THC products has alarmed lawmakers and advocacy groups, particularly regarding the appeal of such products to children and teenagers. Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) emphasized these concerns during the recent House voting, arguing that unregulated intoxicating hemp products pose safety risks.

Implications for Consumers and Farmers

With the new provisions coming into effect one year after enactment, advocates fear the ban will extend to non-intoxicating CBD products that many rely on for medicinal use. Critics argue that the provisions put forth by the bill may decimate small businesses and farmers who have invested in the cultivation and sale of hemp products. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) noted that the delay might provide an opportunity for alternative regulatory frameworks to be put in place through potential legislative efforts.

The Industry's Reaction: Shock and Disappointment

The reaction from hemp advocates has been overwhelmingly negative. Many are concerned this move might threaten the livelihoods of thousands involved in the rapidly expanding sector. “What happened was sneaky, and it’s not how this country was supposed to work,” commented Steven Brown, CEO of a Minnesota-based hemp processing company. Major retailers that sell hemp-derived beverages, along with small brewers, fear the unpredictability this legislation brings to their markets.

Looking to the Future: Regulatory Changes Ahead?

The legislation redefines hemp, limiting consumption to products with a total tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of no more than 0.3 percent. This redefinition effectively closes what some lawmakers have called the “hemp loophole,” but raises questions about the future of numerous products that consumers now buy legally. As operators prepare for this possible halt in their markets, they are urged to think critically about how changes will impact business strategies and consumer approaches.

Conclusion: Adjusting to a New Reality

While the government shutdown forced expedited legislation, the resulting hemp provisions signal a challenging new reality for the industry. Stakeholders must navigate a complicated path of compliance that includes watching for potential regulatory changes. As discussions continue, the possibility of re-defining hemp legislation will remain a pressing issue, affecting not just businesses, but the entire cultural landscape surrounding hemp and cannabis products in America.

health

0 Views

0 Comments

Write A Comment

*
*
Related Posts All Posts

Why Cannabis Exclusion from South Africa's Agricultural Policy Is a Missed Opportunity

Update The Omission of Cannabis: A Major Misstep for South Africa In a crucial move for agricultural development, the South African government has recently acknowledged indigenous crops and medicinal plants under the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act. However, the exclusion of cannabis from this list has sparked significant concern among advocates and communities who recognize the plant's cultural and economic importance. The Economic Potential Ignored Recent estimates indicate that the economic potential of just the declared indigenous crops could exceed R12 billion annually. Yet, experts believe that if cannabis were positioned within the same regulatory framework, it could unlock an impressive R20 to R25 billion more each year for South Africa. This marks a stark contrast between what could be gained from inclusivity versus what is currently being sidelined. The Call for Policy Alignment The current regulatory environment leaves cannabis farmers in a legal gray area. While personal use is decriminalized, the absence of cohesive policies that integrate cannabis into the economic framework hampers growth. Advocates for cannabis reform emphasize the need for policy alignment between the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act, the Cannabis for Private Purposes Act, and other relevant legislation, thereby ensuring that the full potential of cannabis can contribute to rural economies and public health initiatives. Historical Context: Cannabis in South Africa Cannabis has long been part of the South African cultural and social fabric. Historically used for medicinal purposes and cultural rituals, its exclusion from government recognition raises questions about representation and fairness in policy-making. The traditional use of cannabis must be integrated into modern regulatory frameworks to strike a balance between progress and tradition. Comparative Analysis of Cannabis Policies Globally As noted in a recent report from the University of Bristol, several African nations have successfully navigated cannabis policy reform, recognizing the economic, social, and health dimensions tied to the plant. Countries like Zimbabwe and Ghana are beginning to establish legal frameworks that incorporate cannabis into their economies. South Africa stands to benefit from examining these models, learning from their successes while avoiding pitfalls. The Future of Cannabis Commercialization in South Africa The global cannabis market is projected to surpass USD 100 billion by 2030. South Africa's unique strengths—ideal growing conditions and renowned genetics—present an extraordinary opportunity. If progressive cannabis policies are implemented, they would not only create a vibrant industry but would also enable community engagement and social justice initiatives. Policymakers must realize that cannabis commercialization is no longer an if; it is a how. Legal frameworks need to close regulatory gaps, support traditional growers, and mitigate the complexities surrounding illicit markets. Final Thoughts on Policy Reform In light of the current landscape, stakeholders and advocates must press the government to reassess the decision to exclude cannabis. The potential economic benefits, alongside community and cultural significance, offer a compelling case for inclusion. Effective regulation could uplift many communities, bringing both health access and economic empowerment with it. The government is urged to align its agricultural policies to embrace cannabis fully, ensuring that it contributes positively to South Africa’s indigenous agricultural economy.

Trump Administration's 17th Deadly Strike: An Examination of U.S. Military Action Against Drug Traffickers

Update Understanding the Trump Administration's Military Strikes Against Alleged Drug Traffickers The Trump administration's military campaign in the Caribbean has escalated following the announcement of the 17th strike against a vessel purportedly involved in drug trafficking. On Thursday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reported the latest attack, bringing the total death toll to at least 69 individuals across these operations. This aggressive stance against what the administration claims are "narco-terrorists" reflects a new chapter in U.S. foreign policy concerning drug trafficking in the region. The Context of the Campaign Initiated in September 2025, this military effort has seen heightened tensions with Venezuela, particularly as President Donald Trump previously declared the U.S. is in "armed conflict" with drug cartels. Hegseth's recent statements suggest that these operations will continue until the alleged "poisoning of the American people" ceases. This perspective aligns with the administration's broader narrative of viewing drug traffickers as both criminal and terroristic threats to U.S. national security, a framing that has critical implications under international law and human rights standards. The Implications on International Law Critics of the strikes argue that they violate international laws, constituting extrajudicial killings given that the U.S. has not provided substantial evidence of imminent threats from the targeted vessels. Legal experts point out that under international maritime law, actions taken against vessels in international waters must be warranted by concrete evidence of wrongdoing, which has not been established. The implications of these operations raise significant concerns regarding human rights, with reports of civilian casualties increasing amid claims that many victims were fishermen and local workers, not drug traffickers. Congressional Oversight and Political Reactions The question of congressional oversight is becoming increasingly urgent as Senate Republicans recently rejected legislation aimed at checking Trump’s military engagements, particularly concerning Venezuela. While Republicans have generally expressed support for the administration's aggressive strategies, Democrats have pushed for more transparency and accountability regarding the legal bases and operational details of these strikes. As international scrutiny grows, the administration finds itself amid complex geopolitical dynamics that intertwine regional relations and humanitarian issues. Public Sentiment and Global Implications Public opinion varies widely on the appropriateness of these military actions, with a significant portion of Americans supporting aggressive measures against drug traffickers. This sentiment plays into the narrative of a dire public health crisis fueled by drug-related deaths, prompting calls for drastic interventions. However, the consequences of such military operations may further destabilize the region and provoke retaliatory actions by affected nations. Looking Ahead: Future Predictions and Considerations The ongoing actions by the U.S. military, as labeled by the Trump administration, pose profound questions about the balance between national security and human rights. As these strikes continue, the potential for escalation remains high, particularly if public support wanes or if Congress intensifies calls for oversight. In the broader context of U.S.-Latin American relations, these military actions risk complicating diplomatic engagements, while also attracting condemnation from international human rights groups and foreign leaders. The Ripple Effects in Latin America With tensions riding high, the implications of these strikes extend far beyond the immediate operational objectives. Countries like Colombia and Venezuela, historically intertwined with U.S. drug policy, may see an increase in anti-American sentiment, alongside complications in bilateral trade and cooperation. While the Trump administration frames its military campaign as a necessary effort to protect American lives, the broader consequences could create a domino effect that destabilizes the region further, echoing historical precedents of U.S. interventions. In conclusion, understanding the ongoing military operations within the Caribbean highlights a complex blend of national security interests, humanitarian concerns, and international law. As events unfold, the world watches how these decisive actions will shape not only U.S. foreign policy but also the future of drug trafficking and cartel dynamics in Latin America.

Ohio Woman's Trial Over Cannabis-Laced Candy Raises Questions on Workplace Safety and Legal Boundaries

Update Trial Date for Ohio Woman Accused of Marijuana-Laced Candy A jury trial is set for December 16 in Mansfield Municipal Court for a Mansfield woman accused of bringing candy infused with marijuana to work, raising significant legal and health concerns. The case has garnered local attention due to its implications regarding workplace safety and the legality of cannabis products, even in states where marijuana is legal for medical or recreational use. The Incident: A Risky Treat? According to the Mansfield police report, the woman allegedly distributed the candy among her coworkers at OhioHealth Mansfield Hospital. One victim, after consuming a few bites of the candy, reported feeling unwell, prompting them to seek medical attention. The ensuing investigation revealed that this incident could potentially violate laws regarding the adulteration of food and confection, leading to misdemeanor charges. Understanding the Legal Ramifications The nature of the charges the woman faces reflects ongoing debates about food safety and workplace regulations in Ohio. Adulterating food can carry serious legal consequences, especially in the healthcare environment, where safety is paramount. The woman's actions have raised questions regarding employee responsibilities and workplace norms in an era where cannabis use is becoming increasingly accepted but remains subject to complex legal frameworks. Voices from the Community: Perspectives on the Incident This case also highlights varying perspectives within the community about cannabis usage. While some advocates emphasize the need for a more comprehensive understanding of cannabis and its effects, others are strict about the appropriate use of substances in professional settings, especially where safety is a concern. How do local attitudes toward cannabis affect workplace policies, and how should employers respond to incidents like this? Health Concerns and Safety Protocols Health risks associated with accidental consumption of marijuana-infused products underscore the importance of clear regulations and education about edible cannabis. The victim's symptoms, which included facial numbness, necessitated a medical evaluation, illustrating the health risks posed when edibles are not properly labeled or understood by consumers. Building Awareness: What Can Be Learned? This incident is a crucial reminder of the need for clear communication and safety protocols in workplaces regarding cannabis, particularly in states where its use has been legalized. Education about the implications of sharing homemade edibles and ensuring that all employees understand what they are consuming could potentially prevent similar incidents. What’s Next? As the trial date approaches, it will be interesting to see how legal precedents unfold regarding workplace safety and employee rights in relation to cannabis use. This case may serve as a pivotal point, influencing future guidelines and best practices for handling cannabis in professional environments.

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

Core Modal Title

Sorry, no results found

You Might Find These Articles Interesting

T
Please Check Your Email
We Will Be Following Up Shortly
*
*
*