For decades, cannabis policy has tried to divide one plant into different legal categories based largely on THC concentration.

We call one version hemp and another marijuana, even though both come from the same cannabis plant. We then attempt to maintain that legal distinction through THC testing, cultivation rules, product definitions and criminal law.

That framework has become increasingly difficult to defend as the cannabis industry has evolved.

There may be a much simpler way to regulate cannabis:

Regulate the plant according to its intended use and regulate cannabinoid products according to how they are sold to consumers.

Hemp Was Supposed to Be an Agricultural Commodity

The 2018 Farm Bill removed hemp from the federal Controlled Substances Act and created a pathway for commercial cannabis production outside the marijuana system.

The federal definition focused primarily on the plant and its delta-9 THC concentration. It did not limit hemp to one particular end use.

That makes sense because cannabis is an extraordinarily versatile agricultural crop.

It can be used for:

• Fiber
• Grain
• Food ingredients
• Animal products
• Building materials
• Bioplastics
• Cannabinoids
• Pharmaceuticals
• Research
• And potentially many other products

Adult-use cannabinoid products are another possible end use of the same crop.

The problem is that policymakers increasingly attempt to regulate the agricultural crop based on what might eventually be manufactured from it.

Cannabis is the crop. What we make from it should determine how the finished product is regulated.

The Pre-Harvest THC Test Is an Artificial Line

Current hemp policy uses THC concentration before harvest to help determine whether cannabis qualifies as hemp.

Raising the current threshold to 1% would provide farmers with considerably more cultivation tolerance, reduce unnecessary crop destruction and create a more realistic harvest window.

But there is a larger question:

Why does agricultural cannabis ultimately need a THC threshold at all?

Different cannabis cultivars and phenotypes express different cannabinoid profiles.

That does not make them different agricultural species.

We do not normally determine whether an agricultural crop itself is legal by measuring one chemical constituent and then predicting what someone might eventually manufacture from it.

Cannabis should not have to change legal identities as its chemistry changes.

The 1% Rule Is a Practical Bridge

Eliminating THC as the legal dividing line for cannabis cultivation may be a significant policy change.

If Congress is not prepared to take that step immediately, a 1% pre-harvest standard offers a practical bridge.

The critical words are:

Pre-harvest.

During this transition, the test should determine whether the crop was lawfully produced through the agricultural pathway.

It should not become a THC ceiling that follows the crop through harvesting, drying, storage, extraction, manufacturing and distribution.

Once the crop passes the lawful pre-harvest standard, it should remain a lawful agricultural commodity through legitimate processing.

Its legal status should not disappear simply because its chemistry changes after harvest.

That distinction is far more important than whether the number is 0.3% or 1%.

1% Is Not a Product Specification

This distinction is critical.

The proposed 1% THC standard discussed here is a pre-harvest agricultural standard.

It is not a specification for finished products.

It does not mean cannabis must remain below 1% THC after harvest.

It does not mean extracts must contain less than 1% THC.

It does not mean adult-use cannabinoid products must contain less than 1% THC.

And it does not mean a processor must somehow keep cannabis below 1% as cannabinoids become concentrated during extraction and manufacturing.

The 1% number applies at the pre-harvest testing point—not throughout the life of the crop.

During the transitional framework, its purpose is simply to determine whether a commercial crop was lawfully produced through the agricultural pathway.

Once that determination has been made, the 1% threshold has done its job.

The harvested material can then move through legitimate drying, processing, extraction and manufacturing without repeatedly having to qualify under the original agricultural threshold.

Finished products would be regulated according to what they actually are.

A fiber product would be regulated as a fiber product.

A food product would follow applicable food rules.

A medical cannabinoid product would follow the appropriate medical or pharmaceutical pathway.

An adult-use cannabinoid product would follow standards established for adult-use products.

1% answers a temporary agricultural question: Was this crop lawfully produced under the agricultural pathway?

It does not answer the completely different question:

What may legally be manufactured or sold from that crop?

Those are separate regulatory decisions.

Pre-Harvest Status Is What Solves the Work-in-Process Problem

Simply changing 0.3% to 1% does not solve the work-in-process problem.

Cannabinoid concentrations do not remain frozen when a pre-harvest sample is taken.

Cannabis changes through maturation, harvesting, drying, storage, extraction and manufacturing.

THCA can convert to delta-9 THC through heat and time.

Extraction concentrates cannabinoids.

Manufacturing can change cannabinoid concentrations even further.

If cannabis must continually remain below the agricultural THC threshold throughout all of those stages, the fundamental problem remains.

The solution is making the pre-harvest test the determination that the crop was lawfully produced.

Once the crop passes that test, the harvested material should remain lawful through legitimate processing.

Otherwise we create the absurd possibility that cannabis can be legally harvested on Monday and become contraband later because it dried, concentrated or underwent normal manufacturing.

A lawful agricultural commodity should not have to continually requalify as lawful.

The finished product can then be regulated based on what it becomes.

THC Is THC

Another weakness in current cannabis laws is the tendency to treat THC differently depending upon where it came from.

But the delta-9 THC molecule does not carry a hemp or marijuana label.

THC created through the decarboxylation of THCA is THC.

THC produced through conversion from CBD is THC.

THC extracted from cannabis traditionally called marijuana is THC.

The end molecule is the same.

The logical place for regulation is therefore the finished product and its intended use—not the molecule's origin story.

Adult-Use Cannabinoid Products

This leads to another important change in terminology.

Rather than attempting to create another version of marijuana regulation, a better category may be:

Adult-use cannabinoid products.

Products intended for adult consumers because of their psychoactive effects can be regulated as adult-use cannabinoid products regardless of whether the cannabinoids originated from CBD, THCA, delta-9 THC or another lawful cannabis constituent.

That marketplace can have appropriate rules for:

• Age restrictions
• Product testing
• Accurate labeling
• Packaging
• Manufacturer and distributor accountability
• Retail sales

The crop remains an agricultural commodity.

The finished consumer product carries the consumer protections.

That is a much cleaner regulatory line.

What About THCA Flower?

THCA flower provides an excellent example of why cultivation and finished-product regulation should be separated.

If cannabis was lawfully produced under the agricultural standard, increasing THCA or THC concentrations after harvest should not retroactively transform the crop into illegally produced marijuana.

That does not automatically answer how finished high-THCA flower should be sold.

A state could determine that flower packaged and marketed for psychoactive consumption belongs within its adult-use cannabinoid marketplace.

Those are two different questions:

Was the crop legally produced?

And:

How may the finished product legally be sold?

Separating those questions eliminates much of the confusion surrounding THCA flower.

Medical Cannabis Is a Different Pathway

Medical cannabis provides another reason to separate cultivation from end use.

Cannabis produced for legitimate medical or pharmaceutical purposes can operate within the regulatory framework established for those products.

Cannabis intended for general agricultural production can operate through the agricultural pathway.

Cannabinoid products intended for adult consumers can operate through a separate 21+ adult-use cannabinoid product system.

Same plant.

Different end uses.

Different regulatory systems.

The regulatory pathway should follow what the cannabis is being used to produce rather than requiring the plant itself to carry a permanent legal identity.

Cannabis Has Uses Far Beyond Cannabinoids

Long before today's debate over hemp, marijuana, THCA and adult-use cannabinoids, cannabis activist and author Jack Herer was making a much simpler argument.

Herer, author of the influential 1985 book The Emperor Wears No Clothes, became one of the best-known advocates for hemp and cannabis in the United States.

His advocacy focused heavily on the extraordinary range of things that could be produced from the cannabis plant—not simply marijuana, but fiber, paper, food, fuel, medicine and other industrial products.

His broader message is particularly relevant to today's debate:

Cannabis is one plant with many possible uses.

Herer's argument was made decades before CBD, THCA flower, delta-8 THC or today's hemp-derived cannabinoid industry existed.

Yet the basic idea fits today's regulatory problem remarkably well.

We've spent decades trying to determine what a cannabis plant is by measuring its THC concentration.

Perhaps the better question is what we're going to do with it.

Cannabis grown for fiber enters the fiber market.

Cannabis grown for grain enters agricultural and food markets.

Cannabis used to manufacture medicine enters the medical system.

Cannabis used to manufacture products intended for psychoactive effects enters the regulated adult-use cannabinoid market.

The plant doesn't need to change identities every time its intended use changes.

Cannabis is the crop. What we make from it determines how the finished product should be regulated.

What About Illegal Growing and Diversion?

One obvious objection to this framework is:

If we stop using THC concentration to distinguish hemp from marijuana, how do we prevent illegal cultivation and diversion?

But marijuana regulation has already provided a real-world experiment in aggressive diversion controls.

State marijuana systems can include:

• Individual plant tags
• Security cameras
• Transportation manifests
• Inventory reconciliation
• Restricted facilities
• Seed-to-sale tracking

Yet those systems have not eliminated illicit cultivation or diversion.

That reveals an important distinction:

Tracking cannabis is not the same thing as preventing diversion.

A database can record where a licensed business says a package went.

A plant tag does not physically prevent someone from moving cannabis.

A camera does not make diversion impossible.

And cannabis grown completely outside the licensed system was never entered into the tracking system in the first place.

An illegal grower does not tag plants.

Requiring every legitimate farmer to participate in marijuana-style seed-to-sale tracking does not magically provide visibility into cannabis grown entirely outside the legal system.

We Already Have Another Experiment: Hemp

There is another real-world experiment worth examining.

Hemp-derived cannabinoid products have been sold in the United States since the 2018 Farm Bill took effect in 2019.

Many of those products now exist in the same basic forms found in state marijuana dispensaries:

Flower.

Vape products.

Gummies.

Tinctures.

Concentrates.

Beverages.

Other cannabinoid products.

The legal pathways are different, but the finished products can be remarkably similar.

Yet hemp-derived products entered something much closer to normal American commerce.

They have been produced by independent manufacturers.

Sold through distributors.

Transported through ordinary commercial networks.

Purchased through normal wholesale relationships.

Sold through independent retail stores and online businesses.

And much of this industry has been built by farmers, manufacturers and small businesses rather than exclusively through vertically integrated marijuana companies.

America has effectively conducted two different cannabis regulatory experiments at the same time.

Two Different Cannabis Models

The marijuana model generally treats cannabis itself as a tightly controlled commodity.

Plants can be individually tracked.

Facilities can require extensive security.

Products move through closed state systems.

Transportation can be tightly controlled.

Seed-to-sale tracking can follow inventory throughout the supply chain.

The hemp model developed differently.

Cannabis and cannabinoid products entered interstate commerce.

Independent manufacturers and distributors developed.

Small retailers purchased products from suppliers in other states.

National competition emerged.

And a substantial cannabinoid marketplace developed without a universal national seed-to-sale system.

That does not mean the hemp marketplace has been perfect.

It hasn't.

There have been legitimate concerns involving age access, testing, labeling, packaging, inaccurate potency claims and irresponsible operators.

Those problems should be addressed.

But addressing those problems does not necessarily require transforming hemp commerce into the marijuana regulatory model.

We can require adult sales.

We can require appropriate testing.

We can require truthful labeling.

We can establish packaging standards.

We can register manufacturers and distributors.

We can require invoices and commercial records.

We can enforce the rules against businesses that violate them.

None of that necessarily requires a government tag on every cannabis plant.

What Have We Learned Since 2019?

This may be one of the most important questions policymakers should ask.

Since 2019, cannabinoid products with many of the same forms—and in some cases similar effects—as products sold through state marijuana dispensaries have been sold through something much closer to ordinary commerce.

That marketplace operated for years without a universal marijuana-style seed-to-sale system.

Meanwhile, state marijuana systems have operated under much more intensive controls, yet illicit cultivation and diversion still exist.

Neither system is perfect.

But we should learn from both.

Take what worked from hemp:

• Interstate commerce
• Small-business participation
• Independent manufacturers, distributors and retailers
• Normal commercial relationships
• Competition
• Relatively simple supply-chain documentation

Fix what hasn't worked:

• Age access
• Testing
• Labeling
• Packaging
• Product standards
• Manufacturer and distributor accountability

Perhaps the lesson isn't that hemp needs to become more like marijuana.

Perhaps the lesson is that marijuana regulation doesn't need to be the model for every form of cannabis commerce.

Diversion Is an Enforcement Problem, Not a Botanical Definition

A THC test does not tell us whether cannabis has been diverted.

A plant tag does not guarantee that cannabis won't be diverted.

And seed-to-sale tracking does not prevent someone from establishing an entirely unlicensed grow.

Tracking systems may assist regulators with audits and investigations within licensed markets.

But they should not determine the underlying legality of the agricultural crop.

If a licensed business diverts cannabis, enforce the law against that business.

If someone operates an illegal commercial grow, enforce the law against that operation.

If someone sells adult-use cannabinoid products outside the regulated marketplace, enforce those rules.

Punish the illegal activity rather than treating every cannabis plant as potential contraband.

The objective should not be tracking cannabis simply because cannabis exists.

The objective should be creating a legal, transparent marketplace with practical enforcement against illegal activity.

The Economics Matter Too

There is also an economic cost to maintaining separate regulatory worlds for hemp and marijuana.

Today, businesses can handle essentially the same cannabis plant and similar cannabinoid products while operating under dramatically different economic systems.

One system resembles ordinary American commerce.

The other has generally been built around closed state markets, extensive licensing requirements, restricted supply chains, cannabis-specific tracking systems and significant compliance costs.

Those differences affect farmers, manufacturers, laboratories, trucking companies, packaging companies, landlords, banks, insurance companies, payment processors and ultimately consumers.

From a $739 Million Crop to a Multibillion-Dollar Consumer Industry

The economic opportunity isn't theoretical.

According to USDA's 2025 National Hemp Report, the value of American hemp production reached $739 million in 2025—an increase of 64% in a single year.

That represents agricultural production itself—not the retail value of all the products eventually manufactured from that crop.

USDA valued outdoor floral hemp production at approximately $574 million, seed hemp at $49.7 million, fiber hemp at $13.5 million, and grain hemp at $8.09 million in 2025.

Those are very different agricultural markets coming from the same crop.

But economic activity doesn't stop at the farm gate.

Hemp grown for cannabinoids enters an entire downstream economy involving extraction, manufacturing, laboratories, packaging, distribution, transportation and retail.

Whitney Economics' 2026 national survey estimates the U.S. hemp-derived cannabinoid sector at a $38.7 billion total addressable market, approximately 36% larger than in 2023. The firm estimates that the sector supports approximately 350,000 jobs and $13.9 billion in wages.

Those figures measure something very different from USDA's agricultural-production figure.

USDA measures the value of hemp produced by American farmers.

Whitney Economics estimates the much larger downstream marketplace associated with hemp-derived cannabinoid products.

Together they illustrate something important:

The value of cannabis doesn't end when the farmer harvests the plant.

Agricultural production becomes raw material for processors.

Processors supply manufacturers.

Manufacturers purchase packaging and laboratory services.

Distributors move products.

Retailers employ workers and sell products to consumers.

A single agricultural crop creates economic activity throughout an entire supply chain.

Regulation Has a Cost

Every regulatory requirement eventually becomes part of the cost of producing and selling a product.

Plant tags cost money.

Seed-to-sale software costs money.

Special transportation requirements cost money.

Duplicative testing costs money.

Complex licensing systems require employees, attorneys, consultants and compliance departments.

Restricted banking and payment processing increase financial costs.

When those requirements address a demonstrated public-safety problem, they may be justified.

But regulation should still answer a basic question:

What problem are we solving, and is there a simpler way to solve it?

If the objective is preventing minors from purchasing cannabinoid products, regulate the sale.

If the objective is ensuring products are accurately labeled, regulate labeling.

If the objective is preventing contaminated products from reaching consumers, require appropriate testing.

If the objective is identifying who manufactured and distributed a product, require business registration, invoices and traceable commercial records.

None of those objectives necessarily requires the government to follow an individual cannabis plant from seed to sale.

The Cost of the Federal Divide Is Measurable

The economic difference is particularly visible in banking and taxation.

After hemp was removed from the Controlled Substances Act, federal banking regulators clarified that banks do not have to file suspicious-activity reports simply because a customer is engaged in lawful hemp production.

State-legal marijuana businesses remain in a very different position.

Cannabis businesses can experience difficulty obtaining bank accounts, loans and payment-processing services. Businesses that obtain banking services can face higher fees because financial institutions incur additional compliance costs serving them.

Federal tax law creates another major difference.

Internal Revenue Code Section 280E prevents businesses trafficking in Schedule I or II controlled substances from taking many of the ordinary business deductions and credits available to other American businesses.

It is not a separate marijuana tax.

Instead, denying those deductions can substantially increase the amount of income on which a business is taxed.

Whitney Economics estimates that the inability of state-regulated cannabis businesses to take ordinary business deductions under Section 280E increased their federal tax burden by approximately $2.24 billion in 2025 alone and approximately $15 billion since 2018.

That distinction matters.

Cannabis businesses aren't necessarily paying a special “280E tax.”

They can be paying substantially more federal income tax because expenses that would normally reduce taxable income for another legal business cannot be deducted.

Whatever one's view of cannabis policy, that creates an extraordinary economic difference based largely on which legal category the cannabis falls into.

Small Businesses Pay the Highest Price

Large cannabis companies can spread regulatory costs across multiple facilities, large production volumes and thousands of transactions.

A farmer, independent manufacturer or small retailer cannot.

Excessive regulatory complexity therefore does more than increase costs.

It helps determine who can afford to participate in the market.

A regulatory system requiring enormous amounts of capital, specialized compliance personnel and vertically integrated operations creates significant barriers to entry.

A system based on ordinary business licensing, product testing, accurate labeling and normal supply-chain documentation creates considerably more room for farmers and independent businesses to compete.

The size of the hemp-derived cannabinoid economy makes this particularly important.

If Whitney Economics' estimate is reasonably representative, we're discussing a sector supporting roughly 350,000 jobs.

Those jobs extend beyond cannabinoid manufacturers and hemp stores into farming, extraction, laboratories, packaging, distribution, transportation, professional services and retail.

Much of that marketplace developed without requiring every participant to become part of a vertically integrated marijuana system.

That economic lesson should not be ignored.

Fifty State Markets Instead of One American Market

There is another significant economic inefficiency built into the current system.

Legal marijuana generally cannot move through interstate commerce.

States therefore effectively become individual cannabis economies.

Cultivation is duplicated.

Manufacturing is duplicated.

Testing infrastructure is duplicated.

Distribution networks are duplicated.

Compliance systems are duplicated.

Meanwhile, a producer in one state can have excess production while a business in another state cannot legally purchase it.

That is not how most mature American agricultural markets operate.

In normal commerce, production tends to migrate toward regions and businesses that can produce something efficiently.

Manufacturers specialize.

Distributors develop regional and national networks.

Retailers purchase from competing suppliers.

Competition pushes businesses toward efficiency.

Hemp demonstrated that cannabis can operate much more like that.

A farmer in one state can supply a processor in another.

A manufacturer can sell to distributors across the country.

A retailer in Pennsylvania can purchase from competing manufacturers in multiple states.

That is much closer to how most American industries operate.

Competition Is Consumer Protection Too

Consumer protection is usually discussed in terms of regulation.

Competition matters too.

When businesses compete across a larger marketplace, consumers have more choices.

Poor products can lose market share.

Manufacturers can specialize.

Retailers can change suppliers.

New companies can challenge established ones.

None of that eliminates the need for reasonable safety standards.

Adult-use cannabinoid products should have appropriate age restrictions, testing, labeling and packaging requirements.

But those protections can exist within a competitive national marketplace.

We do not have to choose between consumer protection and normal commerce.

Cannabis Could Become an American Agricultural and Manufacturing Industry

The larger economic opportunity goes well beyond THC products.

Cannabis can provide raw material for fiber, grain, food ingredients, building materials, bioplastics, pharmaceuticals, cannabinoid products and applications that may not yet exist.

A regulatory system built primarily around controlling THC risks forcing the entire plant—and every potential industry connected to it—through a structure designed around one possible use.

That is backwards.

Allow cannabis agriculture to function like agriculture.

Allow legitimate processors and manufacturers to participate in normal commerce.

Then regulate finished products according to what they actually are and the risks they actually present.

That doesn't mean eliminating regulation.

It means putting regulation where it has the greatest value while allowing competition, specialization and innovation everywhere else.

Cannabis is not only a regulatory question. It is an agricultural, manufacturing and economic opportunity.

Do We Ultimately Need a THC Cultivation Metric at All?

The 1% pre-harvest standard would be a major improvement over today's system.

But it should not necessarily be the final destination.

If cannabis cultivation itself becomes lawful, there is little reason to determine whether a field is legal solely by measuring THC concentration.

The more useful question becomes:

What is this cannabis being used to produce?

Cannabis destined for fiber or grain enters those markets.

Cannabis intended for medical or pharmaceutical products enters the appropriate medical pathway.

Cannabis intended for adult-use cannabinoid products enters the regulated adult-use pathway.

Cannabis intended for research follows the appropriate research rules.

THC concentration can still matter.

It can provide useful agricultural information.

It can identify cannabinoid profiles.

It can help determine product potency.

It can matter for labeling, dosing and consumer information.

But none of those functions necessarily requires THC concentration to determine whether the underlying agricultural crop is legal.

From Legal Threshold to Reporting Tool

That gives the 1% test a possible longer-term role.

Instead of functioning as the dividing line between a lawful crop and contraband, THC testing could become a reporting and classification tool.

Farmers could still test cannabis before harvest.

Regulators could still collect cannabinoid data.

Agricultural agencies could know what types of cannabis are being produced and in what quantities.

A crop below 1% could be reported as low-THC cannabis.

A crop containing 15% or 25% THC could be reported according to its actual cannabinoid composition and directed into the appropriate lawful market.

Crossing 1% would no longer automatically transform the field into an illegal crop.

The test would tell us something about the cannabis.

It would not determine whether the cannabis was contraband.

There are legitimate reasons for government to collect agricultural information.

We measure acreage.

We track yields.

We identify cultivars.

We monitor pests and disease.

We collect production statistics.

Cannabinoid composition can simply become another piece of agricultural information.

That creates a logical evolution:

Today: THC determines the legal identity of the plant.

Transition: A 1% pre-harvest standard determines whether the crop was lawfully produced through the agricultural pathway, and that determination does not follow the crop as a product specification.

Long term: THC becomes information about the crop rather than the reason the crop is legal or illegal.

Eventually the important question would no longer be:

“Did this plant cross 1% THC?”

It would be:

“Where is this cannabis going, and what is being made from it?”

What About Home Grow?

Home cultivation may be one of the clearest examples of why cannabis policy should focus on the activity rather than continually trying to determine whether a plant is hemp or marijuana.

If an adult is legally permitted to grow a limited number of cannabis plants for personal use, why should the legal identity of those plants depend on THC concentration?

Imagine someone legally growing four cannabis plants at home.

One tests at 0.2% THC.

Another at 0.8%.

Another at 5%.

Another at 20%.

They are all cannabis plants being grown by the same person, in the same place, for the same purpose.

Under the traditional framework, we become preoccupied with determining which are hemp and which are marijuana.

But what regulatory purpose does that serve?

If limited personal cultivation by an adult is lawful, requiring a homeowner to laboratory-test plants before harvest simply to determine which legal definition applies accomplishes very little.

Personal home cultivation shouldn't need a THC test at all.

Personal Cultivation Is Not Commercial Agriculture

Home grow also illustrates why different cannabis activities can have different rules without pretending they involve different plants.

A farmer producing cannabis commercially is participating in agriculture.

An adult growing a few plants at home for personal use is engaged in personal cultivation.

A manufacturer producing cannabinoid products for sale is engaged in manufacturing.

A retailer selling those products is engaged in commerce.

Those activities present different regulatory questions.

What About Homemade Edibles and Extracts?

Adults permitted to cultivate cannabis for personal use should generally be able to prepare it for their own consumption.

That could include drying and curing flower, making infused oils or butter, preparing edibles or using other reasonable home-processing methods.

Commercial manufacturing standards shouldn't automatically apply to someone preparing cannabis for personal consumption.

But personal use doesn't mean there can be no rules.

Extraction methods involving volatile or hazardous solvents can create fire, explosion or other risks extending beyond the individual consumer.

Those risks can be regulated without treating ordinary home preparation as commercial manufacturing.

Again:

Regulate the risk and the activity.

Giving Cannabis Away Is Different From Selling It

There is also an important distinction between genuinely sharing home-grown cannabis with another adult and operating a business.

A personal-use system could permit reasonable transfers between adults without compensation.

But the line should be clear.

A supposed “gift” attached to the purchase of an overpriced T-shirt, sticker or other item is functionally a commercial transaction.

The important distinction isn't whether the cannabis originated as hemp or marijuana.

It is whether someone has entered commerce.

Selling It Changes the Regulatory Question

Once someone begins selling cannabis or cannabinoid products, the regulatory question changes.

They're no longer simply growing cannabis for themselves.

They're participating in commerce.

That is where consumer protections become appropriate.

Commercial sellers can be required to operate through registered or licensed businesses.

Products can be tested.

Labels can identify cannabinoid content.

Packaging requirements can apply.

Age restrictions can be enforced.

Manufacturers and distributors can be identified.

Commercial records can establish where products came from and where they went.

Taxes can be collected.

Businesses that violate those rules can be held accountable.

None of that requires determining whether the original plant should forever be classified as hemp or marijuana.

Three Different Activities. One Plant.

A simpler framework emerges:

Personal cultivation

Adults may grow a limited number of cannabis plants for their own use without testing the THC concentration of each plant. Reasonable rules can address plant numbers, access by minors and genuinely hazardous processing.

Commercial agriculture

During the transition from today's hemp system, commercial growers could operate under a 1% pre-harvest standard. Passing that test establishes that the crop was lawfully produced through the agricultural pathway.

The 1% threshold is not a product specification and does not follow the crop through processing.

Longer term, THC testing could become a reporting and classification tool rather than a legal threshold.

Commercial cannabinoid products

When cannabis becomes a finished product offered to consumers, regulation follows the product and its intended use.

Adult-use cannabinoid products can carry age restrictions, testing requirements, labeling standards, packaging rules and appropriate manufacturer, distributor and retailer oversight.

That creates understandable regulatory lines based on what people are actually doing rather than microscopic differences in plant chemistry.

One Plant. Many Uses. Regulate the Use.

The cannabis plant does not know whether the law calls it hemp or marijuana.

Those are classifications humans created for regulatory purposes.

We can create better ones.

Cannabis is the crop.

Fiber, grain and industrial products are agricultural and commercial uses.

Medical cannabis is a regulated medical use.

Adult-use cannabinoid products are regulated consumer products.

Personal cultivation is personal cultivation.

Moving from 0.3% to a 1% pre-harvest standard would be a practical bridge.

But the real improvement isn't simply changing one number to another.

It is recognizing that once cannabis is lawfully produced, we should stop repeatedly asking whether the plant is hemp or marijuana as it moves through commerce.

Eventually, even the 1% line may no longer need to determine whether the crop is lawful.

It can become information rather than prohibition.

We now have years of experience with two very different approaches to cannabis commerce.

We should learn from both.

Instead of trying to regulate the plant based on what it might become, regulate what actually enters the marketplace.

Instead of using THC concentration to decide whether a farmer's crop is agricultural or criminal, use THC information where it actually matters—in product potency, labeling, consumer information and determining the appropriate market.

Instead of building every cannabis market around tracking the plant, build regulation around the activities and products that actually present risks.

One plant. Many uses. Regulate the use.