Four out of five marijuana users say they oppose the recriminalization of hemp THC products a spending bill President Donald Trump signed into law in November, just weeks before he ordered the rescheduling of cannabis and took steps to protect access to full-spectrum CBD.
However, the current law would redefine hemp in a way that industry players believe, after Trump legitimized the sector during his first term when it was federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill.
While there has been some division between marijuana and hemp interests over the THC ban that goes into effect next November, an overwhelming majority of cannabis users (82 percent) said they are waiting to oppose the policy change.
That’s according to a new survey conducted by cannabis telehealth platform NuggMD, which asked marijuana users to weigh in on the law’s provisions to recriminalize hemp THC.
Only 4% of respondents said they support the ban, while 15% have no opinion on the policy.
| Q: “The president recently signed legislation recriminalizing hemp-derived THC, which became legal in 2018. Do you support or oppose this policy?” |
|
n: |
% |
| I am against politics. Hemp THC must be legal. |
365 |
81.5% |
| I have no opinion on politics. |
67 |
15.0% |
| I support the policy. Hemp THC should be banned. |
16 |
3.6% |
The survey interviewed 448 cannabis users living in the state’s legal markets between December 4th and 14th, with a margin of error of +/-4.63 points.
The survey came just weeks before Trump signed an executive order directing the attorney general to complete the process of moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
Part of that announcement also has implications for the upcoming hemp law. The president’s executive order also asked Congress consider updating the definition of hemp to ensure that full-spectrum CBD is available to patients.
Another redefinition of hemp would be part of a novel proposal allow Medicare recipients to access non-toxic CBD that would be covered under the federal health care plan.
To make this happen, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will “enable a model that will allow certain CMS beneficiaries to benefit from receiving CBD at no cost on the basis of a physician’s recommendation,” a White House official announced in a briefing. Marihuana Moment first reported the leaked details ahead of the signing event.
“The December 18 Executive Order on Cannabis makes it clear that the White House has a real CBD agenda,” Andrew Graham, director of communications at NuggMD, told Marijuana Moment. “We looked at the popularity of recent congressional efforts to regulate hemp, because right now that policy is a big obstacle to that agenda.”
“Cannabis users are key players in this policy debate because they are directly affected by another ban on THC hemp, so their voice belongs in the conversation,” he said. “Also, there’s a practical question about the ban, because I don’t know how you would do a federal policy that bans THC but doesn’t ban CBD. Given the popularity of hemp THC products, I see this as a choice situation and I’m not going to pretend to know which side will prevail.”
Trump appeared to support a more flexible CBD policy over the summer shared a video calling for that exact reform while promoting the health benefits of cannabidiolespecially for the elderly.
Meanwhile, it would make way for the recently introduced bill in the Republican-led Congress stop implementing the hemp ban under established credit legislation.
Hemp companies and industry groups have warned about the potential ramifications of the ban, but despite states in support of cannabis rights and a recent social media post extolling the benefits of CBD, Trump signed the underlying spending measure into law without endorsing the hemp provisions.
GOP political operative Roger Stone recently said it was Trump effectively “forced” Republican lawmakers to sign the spending bill with language to ban hemp THC.
However, a White House spokesman said before signing the bill Trump was particularly supportive of the ban’s language.
The Democratic governor of Kentucky said that the hemp industry is an “important” part of the economy that deserves to be regulated at the state level—instead of being banned federally, as Congress has done—.
Additionally, a leading veterans organization is alerting Congressional leaders to the recently passed blanket ban on consumable hemp products. could inadvertently “close the door” on critical inquiry.
—
It’s Marijuana Moment tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelic and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters by pledging at least $25/month, you’ll get access to our interactive maps, charts, and audio calendars so you never miss a development.
Learn more about our marijuana bill tracking and become a Patreon supporter to gain access
—
Since 2018, cannabis products have been considered legal hemp if they contain less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC by dry weight.
The new legislation specifies that, within a year of taking effect, the weight will be applied to total THC—including delta-8 and other isomers. Also, “as tetrahydrocannabinol (or any other marketed cannabinoid) with similar effects in humans or animals (as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services).”
The new definition of legal hemp will also prohibit “any hemp-derived cannabinoid intermediate product marketed or sold as an end product or directly to an end consumer for personal or home use” as well as products containing cannabinoids that are synthesized or manufactured outside of the cannabis plant or are unable to produce it naturally.
Legal hemp products will be limited to a total of 0.4 milligrams of total THC or any other cannabinoid with similar effects per container.
Within 90 days of the bill’s passage, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other agencies must “publish a list of all cannabinoids known to the FDA to be naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant, as reflected in the peer-reviewed literature,” which include “all tetrahydrocannabinol classes known” in natural plants and “known cannabinoids.” cannabinoids that have or are marketed as having effects similar to cannabinoids of the tetrahydrocannabinol class.
The language differs slightly from provisions in legislation advanced out of the House and Senate Appropriations panels, which would have banned products with “quantifiable” amounts of THC, to be determined by the HHS secretary and the agriculture secretary.