WHAT WAS ONCE CONSIDERED MARIJUANA CAN NOW BE FEDERALLY LEGAL HEMP

April 24, 2025

By: Thomas Bobrowicz – BF Extracts Hometown Hemp Shop, Harborcreek, PA

4/12/2025

Introduction: Understanding the Legal Framework and Regulatory Evolution of Hemp

Since the passage of the 2014 Farm Bill, the definition and regulation of hemp in the United States have undergone a historic transformation. What began as a limited pilot program for agricultural research has evolved into a fully legal, federally regulated industry encompassing a wide range of cannabinoids, extracts, and finished consumer goods.

The 2018 Farm Bill solidified hemp’s legal status by removing it and its derivatives from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) — establishing a precise definition based on delta-9 THC concentration and laying the groundwork for a national hemp economy. This framework has enabled the development of a multi-billion-dollar market that operates in full compliance with federal law, supports over 325,000 jobs nationwide, and serves both wellness and adult-use consumers.

However, the implementation of hemp regulation has not been without controversy. Agency rulemaking — particularly the USDA's decision to mandate post-decarboxylation "total THC" testing — has introduced regulatory barriers that go beyond the language and intent of Congress. Further confusion has arisen from state-level restrictions, conflicting interpretations of hemp product legality, and efforts by the marijuana industry to limit hemp’s market access.

This report traces the statutory origins, agency rules, legal challenges, and economic impact of the modern hemp industry. It also addresses misinformation surrounding safety, compliance, and cannabinoid effects, while offering recommendations for common-sense regulation based on federal law, science, and the protection of both consumers and small businesses.

By clarifying what hemp is — and what it is not — this report aims to inform lawmakers, regulators, and stakeholders about the true scope of federal hemp law, the unnecessary contradictions that burden cultivators, and the path forward for responsible, equitable cannabis policy in the United States.

The Evolution of Hemps Definition and Regulation in Federal Law

2014 Farm Bill (Agricultural Act of 2014, Section 7606)

The 2014 Farm Bill introduced a pilot program framework for the research and development of industrial hemp under state agricultural departments or universities. It did not legalize hemp nationwide, but permitted limited cultivation under strict oversight.

Definition of Industrial Hemp (2014):

“The plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”

🔹 Key aspects:

THC limit referred specifically to delta-9 THC, not THCA, delta-8 THC, or “total THC.”
Testing protocols were not federally standardized — states developed their own.

2018 Farm Bill (Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, Section 10113)

The 2018 Farm Bill federally legalized hemp, removed it from the Controlled Substances Act, and created a comprehensive legal framework for hemp cultivation, processing, and sale — subject to USDA oversight.

Definition of Hemp (2018):

“The plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”

🔹 Key updates:

Broadened the scope: Included cannabinoids, derivatives, and extracts.
Maintained the delta-9 THC limit.
Removed the word "industrial", framing hemp as an agricultural commodity.

In a legal opinion issued by the USDA's Office of the General Counsel, it was affirmed that the 2018 Farm Bill effectively removed hemp and its constituents, including THC, from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The memorandum explicitly states that "Congress has removed hemp from Schedule I and removed it entirely from the CSA," and further clarifies that by excluding THC in hemp from Schedule I, "Congress has likewise removed THC in hemp from the CSA." This legal interpretation confirms that compliant hemp and its derivatives are no longer classified as controlled substances under federal law. Source: USDA Legal Opinion to Secretary Sonny Perdue, May 28, 2019

This legal status has been reinforced by multiple federal court rulings. In Big Sky Scientific LLC v. Idaho State Police (2020), the Ninth Circuit recognized that hemp and its derivatives lawfully produced under the 2018 Farm Bill are federally legal during interstate transport. In AK Futures LLC v. Boyd Street Distro, LLC (2022), the Ninth Circuit held that delta-8 THC products derived from hemp are protected under the Farm Bill so long as they meet the 0.3% delta-9 THC limit. These rulings affirm that cannabinoids, including THC found in legal hemp, are not controlled substances when compliant with federal standards. Notably, while some lawmakers have cited a 2021 DEA opinion letter — which suggested that delta-8 THC synthesized from CBD is a controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act — this interpretation lacks legal authority and has been effectively rejected in court. The DEA's opinion, which was issued in response to an inquiry and not as a formal rulemaking, argued that synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols remain Schedule I substances. However, in AK Futures LLC v. Boyd Street Distro, LLC (2022), the Ninth Circuit explicitly rejected the DEA's position, ruling that delta-8 THC derived from hemp is protected under the 2018 Farm Bill as long as it meets the statutory delta-9 THC threshold. The court emphasized that the Farm Bill's definition includes 'all derivatives, extracts, and cannabinoids' from hemp, regardless of their method of production, provided they are compliant with the delta-9 standard. Further, in Anderson v. Diamondback Investment Group, LLC, the Fourth Circuit weighed in on THC-O, ruling that hemp-derived cannabinoids like THC-O fall within the Farm Bill’s definition of hemp so long as they are derived from hemp and do not exceed the 0.3% delta-9 THC limit. The court rejected the DEA’s classification of THC-O as a controlled substance based on synthesis, noting that the 2018 Farm Bill includes all cannabinoids, isomers, and derivatives regardless of production method — provided they are hemp-derived and compliant with the delta-9 threshold.

Post-Decarboxylation & Total THC Testing: Interim and Final Rules (2019–2021)

Importantly, the USDA's Interim and Final Rules introduced compliance requirements that were not explicitly directed by Congress in the 2018 Farm Bill. The statutory definition of hemp focuses solely on delta-9 THC concentration and makes no mention of THCA or "total THC."

“…with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”

The USDA, in developing its rules, opted to require post-decarboxylation testing to calculate Total THC = Δ9-THC + (THCA × 0.877) — a method intended to account for the potential conversion of THCA into delta-9 THC. This was not part of Congress’s original language and has been criticized for exceeding the intent of the Farm Bill.

However, the total THC requirement has inadvertently impacted not only cannabinoid-rich hemp cultivators but also those producing hemp for grain and fiber, who face similar preharvest testing challenges despite not cultivating for cannabinoid content.

While USDA justified this rulemaking under its authority to ensure consistency and enforcement, many stakeholders and legal experts have argued that it imposes stricter standards than the statute itself, creating unnecessary compliance burdens for lawful hemp cultivators — particularly those growing hemp for fibers and grains as well as those growing for cannabinoids including CBDA and THCA. The USDA General Counsel’s office has acknowledged that the Farm Bill only removed hemp from the Controlled Substances Act and made no requirement for total THC testing.

This has led to ongoing debate within the industry and among lawmakers regarding whether these rules should be revised to better align with the Farm Bill’s plain statutory language and legislative intent.

Changes in regulatory definitions — influenced in part by lobbying efforts from the marijuana industry — have imposed new burdens on hemp cultivators, particularly through the introduction of total THC compliance requirements. The 2018 Farm Bill did not define “total THC.” However, the USDA’s Interim Final Rule (October 31, 2019) introduced a significant shift:

Hemp must be tested for delta-9 THC concentration after decarboxylation, or through other similarly reliable methods, which effectively means accounting for THCA.

This method was solidified in the Final Rule (January 2021) and applies specifically to pre-harvest compliance testing for licensed hemp growers.

🔸 Important clarification:

Total THC testing is only required at the cultivation level — to determine whether a plant is legally hemp before it is harvested.
It does not apply to finished hemp products like flower, gummies, or oils (unless state law extends it).

Regulatory Contradiction: The Same Flower Can Be Marijuana or Hemp — Depending on the Route to Market

The 2018 Farm Bill legally defines hemp as:

“The plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant… with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”

This definition means that what was once classified as marijuana — including resinous, potent flower — can now be considered federally legal hemp as long as its delta-9 THC content is at or below 0.3%.

To enforce this, the USDA Final Rule requires cultivators to test crops prior to harvest, using a post-decarboxylation method that accounts for total THC (Δ9-THC +( 0.877 × THCA). If the crop tests below 0.3% total THC, it is legally hemp — and no further THC testing is required of the grower.

Once this pre-harvest compliance threshold is met, the crop is legally recognized as hemp and can be harvested and sold. From that point forward, the grower has fulfilled all federal compliance obligations regarding THC content, even though the plant’s chemical composition may continue to evolve.

✅ Naturally Grown THCA Hemp Flower

Many licensed growers successfully produce high-THCA flower that complies with the total THC requirement at pre-harvest.
Once this test is passed, the plant is legally hemp, and the grower has met all THC compliance obligations.
However, after harvest, the plant’s chemistry continues to evolve. THCA naturally degrades into delta-9 THC over time, especially with heat, light, and age — potentially increasing delta-9 levels in the finished flower.
Yet no further THC testing is required of the cultivator, and the product remains legally hemp under the Farm Bill.

✅ Infused THCA Flower

Produced by adding isolated THCA to compliant base material (CBD or CBG hemp flower).
Not subject to cultivation rules or pre-harvest testing.
Governed only by finished product testing, where delta-9 THC must remain ≤ 0.3%.
Can legally contain high total THC, even if chemically identical to cultivated flower.

Both products can look, smell, and function the same — but only the cultivated one must pass a time-sensitive test under federal regulation.

Post-Harvest Handling, THCA Degradation, "Whether Growing or Not" phrase, and Interstate Commerce

The 2018 Farm Bill defines hemp as:

“The plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”

The phrase "whether growing or not" indicates that hemp is classified based on its delta-9 THC content at all stages — while it is growing, after it is harvested, and even when it has been processed into derivatives or consumer products. This ensures that the plant and any resulting product — including flower, oil, extracts, or edibles — remains compliant as hemp, so long as it continues to meet the 0.3% delta-9 THC limit defined in the statute.

THCA Degradation and Post-Harvest Handling

After harvest, THCA can naturally degrade into delta-9 THC during drying, curing, storage, or transportation — especially when exposed to heat, light, or time. Although the "whether growing or not" clause implies the plant should remain compliant throughout its lifecycle, the pre-harvest test is what determines legal status. Once the crop passes that test, it is legally hemp.

Example: Legal THCA Flower at Time of Sale

If a THCA flower product was compliant at the time of sale — with a Certificate of Analysis (COA) showing delta-9 THC below 0.3% — the following points help protect its legal status:

Federal Law Focuses on Sale and Distribution: The 2018 Farm Bill regulates hemp at the point of sale and distribution. A COA proving pre-sale compliance indicates that the product met legal standards when it entered commerce.
The COA as Evidence of Due Diligence: A valid COA shows that the seller followed federal protocols. Even though the law does not explicitly address cannabinoid changes after sale, the COA documents that the product was legal at the time of transaction.
Lack of Specific Post-Sale Regulation: The 2018 Farm Bill does not regulate post-sale changes in THC content. Sellers are not liable for natural degradation that occurs after the legal sale, as long as the product was compliant when sold.
THCA Degradation is Well Known: Most regulators acknowledge that THCA naturally converts to delta-9 THC over time. If a product was compliant at sale, it is unreasonable to retroactively consider it illegal solely due to this natural change.
State-Specific Protections: Some states recognize the validity of a pre-sale COA and focus on whether the product was legal when it entered commerce — not its condition afterward.

Legal Comparison Examples: Changing Chemistry Without Changing Legality

To better understand how federal law treats cannabinoid shifts after compliance testing or sale, consider the following comparisons:

✅ Example 1: Hemp Flower Before and After THCA Degradation

Scenario	Before	After
COA Status	Compliant pre harvest: < 0.3% total THC.	No retesting required; delta-9 THC may rise due to THCA degradation.
Legal Status	Legally defined as hemp under the Farm Bill.	Still hemp; legality was determined at pre- harvest testing.
Cause of Change	Raw flower with high THCA, low delta-9 THC.	Time, heat, or light naturally converts THCA into delta-9 THC.
Regulatory Risk	None — documented compliance.	No federal violation; only risk is misinterpretation.

🍷 Example 2: Wine or Whiskey Aging

Scenario	At Bottling	Years Later
Alcohol Content	Legally labeled with 12% or 40% ABV.	Minor chemical shifts occur due to aging, oxidation, or evaporation.
Regulatory Status	Fully compliant with alcohol regulations.	Still legal and compliant — even if flavor or alcohol content slightly changes.
Consumer Impact	Safe, lawful, and labeled accurately at time of sale.	Still lawful — no retesting or re-certification required.
Legal Comparison	Compliance is fixed at bottling.	Law does not retroactively penalize natural aging effects.

🌿 Example 3: Herbal Supplements or Tea

Scenario	At Packaging	Months Later
Active Compounds	Tested and labeled for strength/potency (e.g., 500mg turmeric).	Natural degradation may reduce potency over time.
Regulatory Compliance	Meets FDA labeling and quality rules at time of manufacture.	Still compliant unless proven unsafe — no retroactive penalty.
Consumer Use	Product was safe and labeled legally.	Still safe and legal, even if not as potent.
Legal Comparison	COA or quality assurance is valid at sale.	No expectation to re-test unless new manufacturing occurs.
Enforcement	Based on inspection and documentation at time of sale.	Post-sale changes do not retroactively alter legality.

These comparisons highlight a consistent principle: Legal compliance is established at the point of required regulatory testing or sale, not based on how a product evolves afterward due to natural, expected processes.

The Contradiction

Cultivators must prove total THC compliance once, before harvest.
But their product continues to change chemically after that point — and may still be expected to remain compliant, even when no further THC testing is mandated.
Processors, by contrast, can create chemically similar or stronger products using CBG or CBD Rich Hemp Flower infused with THCA isolate and only need to monitor delta-9 THC in the final packaged form. CBG hemp flower is naturally low in delta 9 THC concentrations and in most cases contain zero delta 9 THC.

This isn’t a question of safety or intent — it’s a reflection of how two very different compliance pathways lead to the same endpoint, but with different levels of regulatory burden. It also demonstrates how what was once considered to be marijuana can now be federally compliant hemp.

Interstate Commerce Protections

Under the 2018 Farm Bill, hemp-derived products — including THCA flower — are federally legal and protected in interstate commerce. As long as the product was compliant during pre-harvest testing, it retains its federal legal status, even if post-harvest degradation alters its cannabinoid profile.

Although some states may impose stricter rules for in-state sales, they cannot prohibit the transportation or sale of federally compliant hemp products across state lines. The Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibit states from blocking federally legal commerce, even when their local laws differ.

Federal Legality of Hemp vs. Marijuana Programs

Despite widespread legalization at the state level, state-licensed marijuana programs remain federally illegal under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Marijuana is currently listed as a Schedule I controlled substance, and even if rescheduled to Schedule III, as has been proposed, these programs will still violate federal law unless marijuana is fully descheduled by Congress.

Rescheduling to Schedule III may offer limited benefits, such as allowing marijuana businesses to deduct ordinary business expenses under IRS Code Section 280E. However, it will not:

Legalize state-licensed marijuana programs federally,
Protect interstate marijuana commerce,
Eliminate DEA authority over marijuana activities,
Or remove criminal liability for operators who violate CSA provisions.

The Farm Bill: A Pathway to National Cannabis Legalization

The 2018 Farm Bill quietly created a federally legal path for certain cannabis products by redefining hemp as cannabis containing no more than 0.3% delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis. Unlike state marijuana programs, the hemp industry operates:

Fully within federal law,
Under USDA regulatory oversight,
With national protections for commerce and transport,
And without violating the CSA.

This legal foundation has allowed for the nationwide sale and distribution of hemp-derived cannabinoids — including CBD, delta-8 THC, THCA, and others — so long as the products remain compliant with the Farm Bill definition.

Parallel Markets: Legal Hemp vs. Illegal Marijuana

Hemp products and state-legal marijuana products may often appear chemically similar or serve the same consumer purposes, but they operate in legally distinct systems:

Category	Hemp Products (Farm Bill)	State Marijuana Programs
Federal Status	Federally legal under 2018 Farm Bill	Federally illegal under CSA (even if Schedule III)
Commerce	Allowed across state lines	Prohibited under federal law
Regulation	Overseen by USDA (cultivation); FDA and states (products)	State-regulated, no federal recognition
Tax Treatment	Can deduct business expenses	Subject to 280E unless fully descheduled
Compliance Cost	Lower federal regulatory burden	High compliance, reporting, and licensing costs

The hemp industry does not conflict with existing marijuana programs — it simply offers a federally lawful alternative. Instead of dismantling state programs, hemp law has demonstrated how national cannabis access can coexist with — and even outpace — the state-regulated marijuana industry.

Looking Ahead

Unless Congress fully deschedules marijuana, hemp-derived products will remain the only path to federally legal cannabis commerce. The Farm Bill framework has already opened the door, and continued access depends on preserving its integrity without forcing hemp into the burdensome regulatory structure built for federally illegal marijuana.

Why Marijuana Programs Are More Burdensome Than the Hemp Retail Industry

State marijuana programs and the federally legal hemp industry operate under dramatically different regulatory frameworks. Despite similar end uses, marijuana remains federally illegal, while hemp was legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill. The result: a burdensome, restrictive marijuana system versus a streamlined, accessible hemp retail market.

1. Federal Legal Status

Marijuana: Still a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Even Schedule III rescheduling doesn’t legalize it federally.
Hemp: Federally legal under the 2018 Farm Bill; removed from the CSA.

2. Licensing and Compliance Costs

Marijuana: High application fees, limited licenses, zoning restrictions, seed-to-sale tracking, and local opt-outs.
Hemp: Retailers generally require only standard business or food sales licenses; minimal red tape.

3. Tax Burdens

Marijuana: Subject to IRS 280E; cannot deduct ordinary business expenses.
Hemp: Standard tax treatment; full expense deductions allowed.

4. Interstate Commerce

Marijuana: Interstate commerce prohibited by federal law; must build in-state infrastructure.
Hemp: Interstate commerce protected under federal law, allowing nationwide sales and distribution.

5. Regulatory Philosophy

Marijuana: Treated like a high-risk pharmaceutical, despite being used by healthy adults.
Hemp: Treated like a consumer product; safety standards focus on testing, labeling, and age gating.

6. Historical and Political Factors

Marijuana: Burdened by the legacy of criminalization and shaped by restrictive federal guidance:

The Cole Memo (2013) allowed states to legalize marijuana but imposed strict federal conditions: prevent diversion to minors, cartels, other states, and avoid public health harms.
State programs were designed to show compliance with federal priorities, leading to extensive tracking, licensing, and enforcement mechanisms.
The Cole Memo was rescinded in 2018 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, creating uncertainty and reinforcing strict compliance culture in the states.

Hemp: Framed as agriculture and consumer access; grew out of pilot research and bipartisan farm legislation.

Conclusion
The contrast between hemp and marijuana markets highlights an urgent need to reassess overly burdensome state cannabis regulations. Hemp demonstrates how safe, adult-accessible cannabinoid markets can operate under fair, federally legal conditions. States should embrace regulatory parity and modernize cannabis policy accordingly.

The Cannabinoid Safety and Regulation Act (CSRA) and State-Level Adoption

As the federal government considers how to bring consistency to the regulation of hemp-derived cannabinoids, industry leaders have introduced the Cannabinoid Safety and Regulation Act (CSRA) — a model framework focused on three core pillars: age restrictions, product safety, and truthful labeling. The CSRA seeks to establish a national baseline for hemp-derived products that protects consumers while preserving interstate commerce and small business access.

The CSRA does not seek to impose the same structure as state-licensed marijuana programs. Instead, it respects the federal legality of hemp under the Farm Bill and provides a regulatory pathway that distinguishes hemp products from illegal marijuana.

Key Features of the CSRA Framework:

21+ age gating for psychoactive cannabinoid products.
Batch-level product testing for potency, contaminants, and consistency.
Truth-in-labeling requirements, including QR codes and full cannabinoid disclosures.
Clarity between naturally derived and synthetically modified cannabinoids.
State flexibility in enforcement while maintaining federal legality.

North Carolina: A Leading Example

North Carolina has begun implementing its own regulatory framework modeled after the principles of the CSRA. Under recent legislation, the state has:

Established age restrictions for the purchase of hemp-derived products.
Required labeling that includes QR codes, ingredients, and cannabinoid content.
Proposed restrictions on lookalike packaging that may appeal to minors.
Focused on consumer safety without banning federally legal products.

This approach balances public health protections with respect for the federal legality of hemp, offering a roadmap for other states that are considering how to regulate hemp products without disrupting compliant commerce.

By adopting policies aligned with the CSRA, states like North Carolina are helping to fill the regulatory gap left by the absence of federal FDA oversight — without resorting to prohibition or conflating hemp with marijuana.

National Economic Impact of the Hemp Industry

The hemp industry, legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill, has grown into a major national economic force. According to data from industry research firms including Whitney Economics, the hemp-derived products sector has surpassed $30 billion in total market value across retail, wholesale, and processing.

Jobs and Economic Footprint

The industry now supports an estimated 325,000 + jobs nationwide, spanning cultivation, manufacturing, retail, testing labs, distribution, and logistics.
These jobs are spread across all 50 states, representing one of the most geographically diverse agricultural and consumer product sectors in the country.
Hemp jobs include both agricultural labor and skilled trades in lab testing, compliance, extraction technology, product formulation, and consumer sales.

Small Business-Led Industry

Unlike the heavily capitalized marijuana sector, the hemp industry remains dominated by small and mid-sized businesses, many of which are family-owned. This decentralization has:

Promoted economic opportunity in rural and underserved areas.
Created access points for entrepreneurship that are far more inclusive than state-licensed marijuana programs.
Enabled direct-to-consumer innovation without the bureaucratic hurdles associated with state-run cannabis monopolies.

Tax Contributions

Hemp businesses contribute to local and state economies through:

Sales taxes on consumable products.
Property taxes from farming and retail operations.
Corporate and self employment taxes on tens of thousands of businesses
Employment taxes on hundreds of thousands of payroll-supported jobs.

This fast-growing, federally legal industry demonstrates how hemp can operate within lawful federal channels and deliver nationwide economic benefits — all without relying on the federally illegal marijuana infrastructure and all of the bureaucratic expenses that go with it.

Debunking the "Unsafe" Narrative Around Hemp-Derived Cannabinoids

Hemp-derived cannabinoids have become a focal point in both policy discussions and media narratives. Critics frequently claim that these products pose significant safety risks to consumers, fueling calls for strict regulations or outright bans. However, the data does not support these claims. In this section, we will break down the myths surrounding hemp-derived cannabinoids and demonstrate why the "unsafe" narrative is largely false.

Myth #1: Hemp-Derived Cannabinoids Are Causing a Public Health Crisis

Opponents of hemp-derived cannabinoids often cite rising poison control center reports and FDA warnings as evidence of a public health crisis. However, when viewed in context, these numbers fail to demonstrate widespread harm:

Between January 1, 2021, and February 28, 2022, national poison control centers received 2,362 exposure cases related to Delta-8 THC products. This number may sound alarming, but compared to the millions of consumers using these products, it represents an extremely small fraction of total users.
The hemp-derived cannabinoid market exceeded $28 billion in 2023, with millions of users consuming thousands of tons of product annually.
By comparison, common household products like acetaminophen (Tylenol) account for over 50,000 calls to poison control centers annually, yet they remain widely available and accepted.

The key takeaway? A fraction of adverse reports does not equal a crisis, especially when consumption numbers are so high.

Myth #2: Hemp-Derived Cannabinoids Are Like Spice/K2 (Synthetic Cannabinoids)

Some critics attempt to compare Delta-8 THC and other hemp-derived cannabinoids to synthetic cannabinoids like Spice or K2—dangerous, black-market chemicals designed to mimic THC. This comparison is completely false:

Synthetic cannabinoids like Spice and K2 are entirely lab-made chemicals that have no relation to naturally occurring cannabinoids.
Hemp-derived cannabinoids like Delta-8 THC and THCP are extracted from federally legal hemp and processed using well-established conversion methods.
The synthesis process is comparable to methods used in pharmaceuticals and vitamins—ensuring product purity when done correctly.

Equating hemp-derived cannabinoids to illicit synthetic drugs is a misleading scare tactic, ignoring the rigorous testing standards followed by reputable manufacturers.

Myth #3: Hemp-Derived Cannabinoids Are Full of Dangerous Chemicals

A common argument against synthesized cannabinoids is that they require acids and solvents for production, implying they are unsafe. However, chemical synthesis is a standard practice in countless industries, including pharmaceuticals and food production:

Vitamin C, aspirin, and many flavoring agents are synthesized using similar chemical processes and are widely accepted as safe.
Residual solvents and byproducts are removed through purification and lab testing, ensuring final products meet established safety standards.
Reputable hemp product manufacturers conduct third-party lab testing to confirm product purity, just as food and pharmaceutical industries do.

The concern should not be about whether a product is synthesized, but rather whether it is properly tested and manufactured under safe conditions.

Myth #4: The FDA’s Warnings Mean Hemp Products Are Dangerous

The FDA has issued warnings about certain hemp-derived cannabinoid products, but these warnings primarily focus on mislabeling and lack of regulation, not inherent product danger:

The FDA regulates only approved pharmaceutical cannabis products, such as Epidiolex, and has yet to establish clear guidelines for hemp-derived cannabinoids.
Most warnings highlight unverified health claims and inconsistent labeling, rather than direct safety concerns.
The FDA’s lack of regulation is a policy issue—not evidence of harm. Proper standards, such as age gating (21+), mandatory testing, and labeling transparency, would address these concerns.

Myth #5: Hemp-Derived Products Are Causing an Epidemic of Overdoses

Some fear-mongering narratives suggest that hemp-derived cannabinoids are leading to widespread overdoses. However:

Unlike opioids or alcohol, cannabinoids do not cause fatal overdoses.
Hemp-derived products have been used by millions without any evidence of widespread harm.
The vast majority of adverse effects are mild and temporary, such as drowsiness or dizziness, and occur when users consume excessive amounts.

Myth #6: Hemp-Derived Products Are Being Marketed and Sold to Children

Reality:
Comprehensive national surveys—including the Monitoring the Future (MTF) study and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)—show no evidence of a youth crisis related to hemp-derived cannabinoids. In fact, overall adolescent cannabis use declined following the 2019 expansion of hemp product availability under the Farm Bill.

Traditional marijuana use among teens has decreased since 2019. For example, past-year use among 8th graders dropped from 10.5% in 2018 to 7.1% in 2020.
Delta-8 THC, a hemp-derived cannabinoid, was tracked independently for the first time in 2023. Only 11% of 12th graders reported past-year delta-8 use—91% of whom were already marijuana users, suggesting overlap, not a new entry point.
Overall youth cannabinoid use has not increased—it has simply diversified, particularly in states without adult-use marijuana programs.

The Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey is a long-established and trusted source of adolescent behavior data. Conducted annually by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research and funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the survey has tracked teen drug and alcohol use since 1975 across 8th, 10th, and 12th grades.

Conclusion:
Adolescent cannabis use—including hemp-derived products like delta-8 THC—remains a relevant area for public health monitoring. However, current data do not support claims of a youth crisis or public health emergency. On the contrary, the rise of hemp-derived alternatives has occurred alongside declining or stable teen usage rates, reflecting responsible access and consumption patterns—not predatory marketing.

Importantly, the hemp industry supports responsible regulation, including age gating policies to restrict access to those under 21, and strongly opposes the manufacture or sale of look-alike products that mimic candy, snacks, or other items marketed to children. Industry leaders recognize the importance of protecting youth and maintaining high standards of packaging, labeling, and compliance.

Myth #7: Hemp Products Cause Psychosis

Reality:
There is no reliable scientific evidence showing that legally compliant hemp products cause psychosis in healthy individuals. This myth typically stems from studies involving heavy, prolonged use of highly concentrated THC, not the trace levels found in federally legal hemp products.

Hemp-derived products, including those containing delta-8 THC, THCP, or other minor cannabinoids, are legally required to contain no more than 0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight.
Concerns about cannabinoids like delta-8 THC or THCP are often speculative or anecdotal. To date, no large-scale clinical studies have demonstrated that these cannabinoids cause psychosis in healthy individuals when used responsibly.
Some cannabinoids—especially CBD and THCV—have shown potential antipsychotic effects, and are even being explored in psychiatric research settings.

About Delta-8 & THCP:

Delta-8 THC is a naturally occurring cannabinoid with similar effects to delta-9 THC, but typically reported as milder. While higher doses may produce psychoactive effects, there is no clinical evidence linking regulated delta-8 use to psychosis.
THCP is a rare cannabinoid with a stronger binding affinity to CB1 receptors than delta-9 THC, but it occurs in extremely small quantities in the plant. Most THCP products are synthetic isolates used in niche products. As with delta-8, scientific data on long-term effects is limited, and more research is needed.

While all cannabinoids should be used responsibly—especially by adults—there is no conclusive evidence that legal hemp-derived cannabinoids cause psychosis in the general population. Ongoing research and regulation are important, but current data support the industry's stance: regulated hemp products, used responsibly by adults, do not pose a psychosis risk.

The hemp industry continues to support age restrictions, product testing, and truthful labeling to ensure consumer safety and informed use.

Myth #8: Hemp Products Pose a Major Risk to Roadway Safety

Reality:

While impaired driving is a legitimate public safety concern, there is no evidence that federally legal hemp products have caused a significant increase in traffic accidents or fatalities — and current laws already allow for impairment-based enforcement.

🚗 What the Data Shows:

No national study has linked hemp-derived cannabinoids like delta-8 THC or THCA to an increase in car accidents.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) notes that cannabis-related impairment is difficult to measure, and blood THC levels do not correlate directly with impairment — especially for frequent users or consumers of legal hemp products.
States with adult-use marijuana legalization have not consistently shown increases in traffic fatalities. Some early reports were exaggerated or failed to account for other factors (e.g., population growth, alcohol use).

⚖️ Zero-Tolerance vs. Impairment-Based Enforcement

Some states, including Pennsylvania, still have zero-tolerance DUI laws for THC — meaning any detectable amount of THC in the blood, even from legal hemp use, could lead to criminal charges.
These laws are outdated and fail to distinguish between impairment and presence — putting lawful hemp users (including veterans, cancer patients, or CBD users) at risk of wrongful arrest.
Hemp-derived products often contain trace or delayed-conversion cannabinoids (like THCA), which may appear on a drug screen without causing impairment.

🔍 Key Distinctions:

Marijuana DUI	Hemp Product Use
Often consumed for psychoactive effects	May be non-intoxicating (e.g., CBD, CBG, THCA)
Higher likelihood of recent impairment	Effects are milder, delayed, or non-impairing
May contain significant delta-9 THC	Legally must contain ≤ 0.3% delta-9 THC

🧩 Policy Recommendation:

Rather than banning hemp products or punishing lawful users, states should:

Adopt impairment-based DUI standards, not zero-tolerance THC laws.
Train law enforcement in behavioral sobriety evaluations.
Ensure legal hemp use doesn’t result in automatic prosecution.

🔚 Conclusion:

Road safety matters — but so does fairness. Hemp products are legal, widely used, and not reliably linked to increased traffic danger. DUI laws should target actual impairment, not lawful cannabinoid use.

The Real Risk: Overregulation Driving Consumers to the Black Market

Rather than addressing safety concerns through logical, science-backed regulation, some lawmakers have pushed for outright bans on hemp-derived cannabinoids. This does not eliminate demand—it merely pushes consumers to unregulated markets, where:

Products lack lab testing, increasing risks of contamination.
Consumers lose access to safe, regulated alternatives.
The black market flourishes, mirroring the failures of prohibition-era policies.

Sensible Regulation, Not Fear-Driven Bans

The claim that hemp-derived cannabinoids are inherently unsafe is not supported by data. While responsible regulation is necessary to ensure product safety, fear-based narratives do not justify prohibition.

What we need is:

✅ Age Gating (21+) to prevent underage access.
✅ Mandatory Product Testing to ensure safety and purity.
✅ Transparent Labeling so consumers know exactly what they are purchasing.

By focusing on reasonable regulations, we can ensure that consumers have access to safe, legal products while preventing the spread of misinformation. The data is clear: hemp-derived cannabinoids are not the public health threat that opponents claim they are.

It’s time to reject the fear and focus on facts and responsible policies.

Clarifying the Risks – A Responsible Approach to Pediatric Cannabis Exposures

🔍 Introduction

As policymakers explore regulations around hemp-derived products, concerns have emerged about accidental exposures among children, particularly involving edible formats. While child safety is paramount, the language and framing used to describe these incidents have become misleading.

Terms like “poisoned” do not reflect the actual clinical outcomes in most cases, and they obscure the responsible steps already being taken by legitimate hemp businesses. This narrative offers a fact-based, solutions-oriented approach to regulating access while preserving the adult-use market.

📊 1. Pediatric Incidents Are Rare Compared to Adult Use

Millions of adults lawfully and safely consume hemp or cannabis products each year.

48.2 million U.S. adults used cannabis in 2021 (SAMHSA).
Only ~3,054 pediatric exposures to cannabis edibles were reported among children under 6 that same year (AAP).
That equates to 0.0063% of adult users correlating to an accidental exposure — an extremely low incidence rate.

🧠 2. Most Incidents Are Mild and Resolve Quickly

Despite media headlines, the medical data is reassuring:

Over 97% of reported pediatric exposures result in no long-term harm.
Most symptoms include drowsiness, loss of coordination, or vomiting.
Very few cases require hospitalization, and even fewer involve severe effects.
No deaths have been linked to cannabis edibles alone in these scenarios (CDC & Poison Control).

This contrasts with far more common — and dangerous — household risks like prescription drugs, cleaning chemicals, or alcohol.

⚠️ 3. “Poisoned” Is a Loaded and Inaccurate Term

When an adult consumes a 10 mg THC gummy, it’s called a dose. When a child consumes that same gummy accidentally, it’s often reported as a poisoning — despite both resulting in similar, temporary effects.

This mislabeling:

Stokes unnecessary panic
Conflates responsible adult use with negligence
Ignores the clear context: age-inappropriate ingestion, not toxicity

Even the American Association of Poison Control Centers uses the term “exposure,” not “poisoning,” in their reports.

🔐 4. The Real Solution: Regulation, Not Restriction

Instead of banning products or over-regulating small hemp businesses, the real solutions lie in prevention:

✅ Child-resistant packaging across all consumable formats
✅ Age-gating laws (21+) for in-person and online sales
✅ Labeling standards with clear warnings and dosage
✅ Parental education about safe storage and responsible use

These are low-cost, high-impact policies that protect children without punishing law-abiding consumers or businesses.

Let’s move beyond fear-based narratives and pursue smart, proportional legislation. Hemp products are not inherently dangerous — but like any adult-use product, they require safeguards.

By focusing on access control, packaging, and education — not fear — we can build a future where adult consumers and children are both protected.

The argument — “The government never intended to allow people to get high from hemp” — has been repeated often, especially by regulators, prohibitionist groups, and parts of the marijuana lobby.

🧱 It has very shaky legs left. Here’s why:

✅ 1. The Statute Doesn’t Mention Intent — It Sets a Standard

The 2018 Farm Bill doesn’t regulate effect or intent — it defines hemp by delta-9 THC concentration:

“...with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”

It makes no reference to:

Psychoactivity
Intoxication
Intent to consume for a particular effect

If Congress wanted to prohibit psychoactive effects, it could’ve:

Outlawed all intoxicating cannabinoids
Prohibited decarboxylation
Set potency caps or consumption restrictions

They didn’t. Instead, they created a chemical definition — not a use-based one.

✅ 2. Courts Have Already Rejected That Narrative

Federal rulings like:

AK Futures v. Boyd Street Distro
Big Sky v. Idaho State Police
Anderson v. Diamondback Investment Group

…have all upheld that hemp is legal based on its chemical content, not on how it’s used or whether it causes a high.

The Ninth and Fourth Circuits even ruled that delta-8 THC and THC-O, despite their effects, are legal if derived from compliant hemp.

✅ 3. “Getting High” Is Not Unique to Marijuana

Many legal substances can alter perception:

Alcohol (federally regulated, not banned)
Nicotine (addictive and psychoactive)
Caffeine (technically psychoactive)
Over-the-counter sleep aids and cough medicines

The law doesn’t ban “feeling something.” It bans unlawful substances — which hemp is not.

✅ 4. Congress Knew What It Was Doing

By 2018, cannabinoid science was not a mystery. Congress:

Expanded the definition of hemp to include “all cannabinoids, extracts, and derivatives”
Had four years of pilot program feedback under the 2014 Farm Bill
Was fully aware that cannabinoids like CBD and THCA could convert or produce effects

This wasn’t a loophole — it was intentional deregulation.

🧩 Summary:

The “they never intended for people to get high” narrative is more political than legal.

Courts follow the law, not assumed motives.

And legally, the hemp industry is on solid ground so long as products stay within the delta-9 THC limit.

Hemp Products Testing

The following outlines appropriate testing requirements for hemp-derived products based on their stage in the supply chain—cultivation and manufacturing.

Cultivation

Required Pre-Harvest Compliance Testing:

Total THC content (as required under state and federal law)

THIS ALLOWS HEMP FLOWER TO ENTER THE SUPPLY CHAIN

Recommended Post-Harvest Contaminant Testing:

Pesticides
Heavy Metals
Mycotoxins
Mold and Yeasts

Note: These tests are not currently required of cultivators in most jurisdictions, but manufacturers and retailers should consider them essential before accepting product.

Manufacturing

For Concentrates, Extracts, and Edibles:

Cannabinoid Content
Residual Solvents
Microbial Contaminants & Mycotoxins
Moisture Content & Water Activity
Foreign Matter Screening
Heavy Metals

✅ Benefits of Post-Cultivation Testing at the Farm Level

Prevents Contaminated Material from Entering the Supply Chain

If the raw flower fails, it can be destroyed or remediated before processing or packaging, avoiding wasted time and money for manufacturers or retailers.

Clarifies Accountability

If contamination is found after extraction or infusion, it's harder to prove whether the source was cultivation or manufacturing. Early testing clearly attributes responsibility.

Streamlines Compliance

Downstream businesses (manufacturers, white-labelers, retailers) can trust that the raw input meets safety thresholds before investing in further testing, packaging, or branding.

Aligns with FDA/Food Safety Standards

In traditional food and nutraceutical supply chains, ingredient suppliers are often required to provide contaminant test results before processing begins. This model fits hemp well.

🔄 Operational Impact

Role	What Changes
Cultivators	Would need to test harvested flower before transferring or selling to others
Manufacturers	Could rely on verified COA from cultivators instead of retesting
Retailers	Less risk of receiving unsafe flower from white-labeled bulk
Regulators	Easier to trace failures and enforce accountability

🧾 Summary Thought

Testing at the post-cultivation stage is a logical step if the product is intended to be consumed without further processing (as is the case with smokable flower, prerolls, and sometimes even infused products made from raw flower). It also provides more confidence for all downstream businesses and regulators.

Testing cured hemp flower for cannabinoid content is flawed because cannabinoid levels can vary across different parts of the same plant, natural decarboxylation alters the chemical profile over time, and post-compliance results are inherently inconsistent. This issue is further compounded by THC inflation—a misleading marketing tactic that distorts the true nature and effects of the product. Most consumers ultimately choose hemp flower based on appearance, aroma, and desired effects, such as Indica, Sativa, or a Hybrid of the two.

✅ 1. Cultivators Control the Source of Contamination

Pesticides, heavy metals, and mycotoxins typically originate during cultivation, from:

The soil
The water source
The environment
Improper pesticide or fungicide use

These contaminants cannot be removed after harvest without significant remediation (if at all).
Since manufacturers have no control over how the crop was grown, it makes no sense for them to bear the liability for contamination.

✅ 2. Post-Harvest Testing = Wasted Resources if Crops Fail

If testing isn’t done before manufacturers purchase or process the flower, it increases the risk of:

Wasted processing costs
Wasted packaging and branding
Regulatory violations if contamination is discovered late

Why would any responsible manufacturer purchase bulk hemp flower without knowing if it passed the contaminant panel?

That’s like buying milk without checking the expiration date.

✅ 3. Aligns with Standard Agricultural and Food Safety Protocols

In every other agricultural or food industry, the producer of the raw material is responsible for proving its safety:

Grain producers test for aflatoxins.
Produce growers test for pesticide residues.
Meat producers test for pathogens.

Hemp should be no different.
Most cGMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) frameworks require ingredient suppliers to provide contaminant COAs before those ingredients are processed.

✅ 4. Protects All Parties in the Supply Chain

Manufacturers can make buying decisions based on verified test results.
Retailers can trust the COA and labeling.
Consumers are protected from unsafe products.
Regulators have a clear line of accountability back to the cultivator.

📌 Suggested Framework

“Cultivators must provide a contaminant panel Certificate of Analysis (COA) from an accredited lab before transferring hemp flower to a licensed manufacturer or retailer. This COA must include results for pesticide residues, heavy metals, mycotoxins, and microbial contaminants.”

Closing Summary: A Legal, Economic, and Regulatory Turning Point for Hemp

Since the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills, the federal government has clearly defined hemp as a legal agricultural commodity — separate from marijuana — based solely on its delta-9 THC concentration. Despite ongoing confusion and conflicting enforcement practices, the statutory language, legal opinions, and multiple federal court rulings affirm that hemp and its lawful derivatives, including cannabinoids like THCA, delta-8 THC, and THCP, are protected under federal law when produced and marketed in compliance with the 0.3% delta-9 THC threshold.

This regulatory foundation has fostered the emergence of a $30 billion industry, supporting over 325,000 jobs nationwide and offering unprecedented opportunity for small businesses, farmers, and consumers. At the same time, inconsistent implementation — especially the imposition of “total THC” testing and evolving state restrictions — has created unnecessary burdens, regulatory contradictions, and legal uncertainty for hemp cultivators and retailers.

Despite repeated claims that Congress never intended for people to “get high” from hemp, the Farm Bill’s plain text and judicial interpretations reject that framing. Congress set a chemical threshold, not a use-based restriction. Courts have consistently upheld the legality of cannabinoids derived from hemp, regardless of their effects, as long as they meet federal compliance standards.

At a time when state marijuana programs remain federally illegal, the hemp industry represents a federally compliant cannabis market — one that:

Operates under national commerce protections,
Is not subject to IRS 280E or DEA interference,
And has the potential to offer safe, regulated access to adult consumers without the high costs and red tape of state cannabis licensing regimes.

Moving forward, Pennsylvania and other states have the opportunity to embrace cooperative regulation, guided by frameworks like the Cannabinoid Safety and Regulation Act (CSRA) — not prohibition. States can protect minors, ensure product safety, and reduce black market activity without criminalizing compliant hemp products.

Ultimately, this report has shown that hemp is not a loophole — it is the foundation of federally legal cannabis access. Protecting that access, supporting evidence-based policy, and correcting regulatory overreach will ensure that the promise of the Farm Bill is fully realized — not buried under the weight of misinterpretation, corporate lobbying, or prohibition-era thinking.

Back to blog