29 ms·

Even the legal weed state senators were voting for this. It is mostly about shifting profits from mom and pop, low regulation hemp industry to wealthy corporat

Even the legal weed state senators were voting for this. It is mostly about shifting profits from mom and pop, low regulation hemp industry to wealthy corporations that own dispensaries that have gargantuan regulatory costs that gatekeep out most the competition. This ensures profits are captured by the wealthy rather than small family type setups. Wealthy former hemp companies will shift to the "legal" weed market, while the mom and pops will get completely wiped out.

goatlover 1y ago
Corporations are eroding democracy with their powerful lobbies. They have too much money and influence. And yet too much of the electorate has been convinced it's good for the economy to just let them and the super rich have free reign.
hemp_is_canvas 1y ago
76/100 senators voted to keep this provision.
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  I'm not sure how this relates to the above comment. EDIT: I'm assuming this is to point out it's a bipartisan effort. Well, yes, there isn't exactly a pro-people party.
  - hemp_is_canvas 1y ago
    It says that weed supporting stats voted for this. They did.
- CalChris 1y ago
  Both Senators in California, my state, voted for the ban. Neither has explained why.
  - GloriousKoji 1y ago
    I didn't want to believe you so I went to the source: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00614.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1... wtf.
    - cartoonworld 1y ago
      That’s not all that was added in there
  - henryfjordan 1y ago
    Newsom recently banned hemp-based THC at the state level anyway, so there's no real change in California. https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/us-states/california/news/15755424/california-passes-bill-to-ban-intoxicating-hemp-products-outside-cannabis-market https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/us-states/california/n... They were taking very low % hemp that is supposed to be for textiles and extracting the little THC there was into low quality vapes. Because they didn't need the state growers licenses to grow hemp, there was no mechanism to test for pesticides and such. When we do have all that infrastructure for legal THC regulation, why allow people to sidestep all that?
    - mothballed 1y ago
      I don't understand how this has anything to do with federal hemp law, under federal law marijuana doesn't have any testing requirements either as it's just plain illegal. So what does California have to gain in testing by dumping hemp into the marijuana bucket at a federal level, neither of which improves the testing requirements in California? California could simply require hemp to be tested, but making hemp federally illegal does nothing on that point. The only answer I can think of is that hemp grown outside of California was competing with california 'legal' weed, the testing angle is non-sensical since this change in law moves hemp from 'kind of required to be tested (but none of the DEA testing implemented, so it's done privately and sometimes not at all), but poorly' to 'illegal' and marijuana still at 'illegal'.
- cthalupa 1y ago
  Legal weed senators were voting for it because their constituents include people growing legal weed. The hemp product market competes with these constituents. The anti-weed senators were voting for it because they are anti-weed.
  - port11 1y ago
    Honest question but how is hemp competing with weed? Are these different plants?
    - cthalupa 1y ago
      The product being sold at your local dispensary is produced, marketed, distributed, and sold by an entirely different chain of businesses and people than the product being sold at your local head shop. THCa/Delta8/similar products are produced under an oversight in the hemp legislation and different businesses are taking advantage of that than those involved in the legal marijuana trade.
    - hnuser123456 1y ago
      It's the same plant, but hemp refers to the leaves and plant matter that isn't the THC-rich flower buds.
      - henryfjordan 1y ago
        They are the same species, but it's a Brussel-sprouts vs Broccoli type situation where they started as the same plant but have been selectively bred for different purposes
        cthalupa 1y ago
        The THCa/Delta8 stuff is not brussel-sprouts vs. broccoli. They difference is in timing around harvest and process. They're growing many of the exact same cultivars as what is sold in a proper dispensary (and indeed, much of what is sold in dispensaries would actually qualify because they actually have very low levels of Delta9 in them) You can effectively just under-cure the exact same plant and get something that comes in under the limit.
harles 1y ago
> It is mostly about shifting profits from mom and pop, low regulation hemp industry to wealthy corporations that own dispensaries that have gargantuan regulatory costs that gatekeep out most the competition. That’s a big assertion that needs evidence. I’m strongly in favor of legalization but not deregulation. It was a pretty big loophole that allowed what’s essentially weed to sidestep the regulation their competitors faced - and there wasn’t great consumer awareness about the differences even though there were safety implications: https://drexel.edu/cannabis-research/research/research-highlights/2022/August/hemp-derived-cbd-thc-products-mislabeled/ https://drexel.edu/cannabis-research/research/research-highl... This law seems pretty well targeted in its scope, bringing the 2018 law back to what was intended (easy legal CBD/hemp, as long as there aren’t other things in there).
- hemp_is_canvas 1y ago
  Yet Kratom is legal, yt is recommending to me some product called "meth" (not joking) and there are a million new research drugs coming out every decade? It's just old-school think of the kids and not in my territory. We don't know how to regulate and handle this because our politicians and more and more our citizens don't understand what is being voted on or has been happening in their own states for 7 years. Have you used these products? It's a shame, the quality that I was getting just within the past 3 months was incredible and it is market not afraid to try new stuff. I'm sad, flower from OR, NC, OK, IN, and others will never legally hit my lungs. Back to the cartels? Or perhaps I should overpay by $200 with the comfort of having 0 clue where it comes from, again?
  - myvoiceismypass 1y ago
    > I'm sad, flower from OR, NC, OK, IN, and others will never legally hit my lungs You have the power to elect people that will actually represent you.
- mothballed 1y ago
  We are speaking of federal law here. There was absolutely no federal regulatory framework for marijuana. none. It's just plain illegal. Unless you can get one of a handful of research licenses, which is almost totally irrelevant. Hemp had some, fairly weak regulation. And theoretically, testing requirements, although they were deferred and deferred to the point they were basically done only privately with the idea the DEA would eventually get involved. Instead they're just dumped now into the marijuana bucket which has no federal regulation at all, or alternatively, at the state level the states could always define their regulatory framework to be agnostic to THC content of cannabis. So this does the exact opposite of what you had hoped.
roody15 1y ago
Exactly. This pattern I think accurately describes the state of the US economy in general over the last few decades. Wealthy extracting wealth from what’s left of the middle class and further extracting wealth from the already poor. The decline of the US is now openly visible and attempts to hide this through economic language / indicators / propaganda etc are now openly not reflecting reality and often come off as in a dark way comical. This applies to some other western nations like France, England and perhaps Germany.

goatlover 1y ago

Corporations are eroding democracy with their powerful lobbies. They have too much money and influence. And yet too much of the electorate has been convinced it's good for the economy to just let them and the super rich have free reign.

hemp_is_canvas 1y ago

76/100 senators voted to keep this provision.

MangoToupe 1y ago
I'm not sure how this relates to the above comment. EDIT: I'm assuming this is to point out it's a bipartisan effort. Well, yes, there isn't exactly a pro-people party.
- hemp_is_canvas 1y ago
  It says that weed supporting stats voted for this. They did.
CalChris 1y ago
Both Senators in California, my state, voted for the ban. Neither has explained why.
- GloriousKoji 1y ago
  I didn't want to believe you so I went to the source: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00614.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1... wtf.
  - cartoonworld 1y ago
    That’s not all that was added in there
- henryfjordan 1y ago
  Newsom recently banned hemp-based THC at the state level anyway, so there's no real change in California. https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/us-states/california/news/15755424/california-passes-bill-to-ban-intoxicating-hemp-products-outside-cannabis-market https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/us-states/california/n... They were taking very low % hemp that is supposed to be for textiles and extracting the little THC there was into low quality vapes. Because they didn't need the state growers licenses to grow hemp, there was no mechanism to test for pesticides and such. When we do have all that infrastructure for legal THC regulation, why allow people to sidestep all that?
  - mothballed 1y ago
    I don't understand how this has anything to do with federal hemp law, under federal law marijuana doesn't have any testing requirements either as it's just plain illegal. So what does California have to gain in testing by dumping hemp into the marijuana bucket at a federal level, neither of which improves the testing requirements in California? California could simply require hemp to be tested, but making hemp federally illegal does nothing on that point. The only answer I can think of is that hemp grown outside of California was competing with california 'legal' weed, the testing angle is non-sensical since this change in law moves hemp from 'kind of required to be tested (but none of the DEA testing implemented, so it's done privately and sometimes not at all), but poorly' to 'illegal' and marijuana still at 'illegal'.
cthalupa 1y ago
Legal weed senators were voting for it because their constituents include people growing legal weed. The hemp product market competes with these constituents. The anti-weed senators were voting for it because they are anti-weed.
- port11 1y ago
  Honest question but how is hemp competing with weed? Are these different plants?
  - cthalupa 1y ago
    The product being sold at your local dispensary is produced, marketed, distributed, and sold by an entirely different chain of businesses and people than the product being sold at your local head shop. THCa/Delta8/similar products are produced under an oversight in the hemp legislation and different businesses are taking advantage of that than those involved in the legal marijuana trade.
  - hnuser123456 1y ago
    It's the same plant, but hemp refers to the leaves and plant matter that isn't the THC-rich flower buds.
    - henryfjordan 1y ago
      They are the same species, but it's a Brussel-sprouts vs Broccoli type situation where they started as the same plant but have been selectively bred for different purposes
      - cthalupa 1y ago
        The THCa/Delta8 stuff is not brussel-sprouts vs. broccoli. They difference is in timing around harvest and process. They're growing many of the exact same cultivars as what is sold in a proper dispensary (and indeed, much of what is sold in dispensaries would actually qualify because they actually have very low levels of Delta9 in them) You can effectively just under-cure the exact same plant and get something that comes in under the limit.

harles 1y ago

> It is mostly about shifting profits from mom and pop, low regulation hemp industry to wealthy corporations that own dispensaries that have gargantuan regulatory costs that gatekeep out most the competition. That’s a big assertion that needs evidence. I’m strongly in favor of legalization but not deregulation. It was a pretty big loophole that allowed what’s essentially weed to sidestep the regulation their competitors faced - and there wasn’t great consumer awareness about the differences even though there were safety implications: https://drexel.edu/cannabis-research/research/research-highlights/2022/August/hemp-derived-cbd-thc-products-mislabeled/ https://drexel.edu/cannabis-research/research/research-highl... This law seems pretty well targeted in its scope, bringing the 2018 law back to what was intended (easy legal CBD/hemp, as long as there aren’t other things in there).

hemp_is_canvas 1y ago
Yet Kratom is legal, yt is recommending to me some product called "meth" (not joking) and there are a million new research drugs coming out every decade? It's just old-school think of the kids and not in my territory. We don't know how to regulate and handle this because our politicians and more and more our citizens don't understand what is being voted on or has been happening in their own states for 7 years. Have you used these products? It's a shame, the quality that I was getting just within the past 3 months was incredible and it is market not afraid to try new stuff. I'm sad, flower from OR, NC, OK, IN, and others will never legally hit my lungs. Back to the cartels? Or perhaps I should overpay by $200 with the comfort of having 0 clue where it comes from, again?
- myvoiceismypass 1y ago
  > I'm sad, flower from OR, NC, OK, IN, and others will never legally hit my lungs You have the power to elect people that will actually represent you.
mothballed 1y ago
We are speaking of federal law here. There was absolutely no federal regulatory framework for marijuana. none. It's just plain illegal. Unless you can get one of a handful of research licenses, which is almost totally irrelevant. Hemp had some, fairly weak regulation. And theoretically, testing requirements, although they were deferred and deferred to the point they were basically done only privately with the idea the DEA would eventually get involved. Instead they're just dumped now into the marijuana bucket which has no federal regulation at all, or alternatively, at the state level the states could always define their regulatory framework to be agnostic to THC content of cannabis. So this does the exact opposite of what you had hoped.

roody15 1y ago

Exactly. This pattern I think accurately describes the state of the US economy in general over the last few decades. Wealthy extracting wealth from what’s left of the middle class and further extracting wealth from the already poor. The decline of the US is now openly visible and attempts to hide this through economic language / indicators / propaganda etc are now openly not reflecting reality and often come off as in a dark way comical. This applies to some other western nations like France, England and perhaps Germany.