4 ms·

76/100 senators voted to keep this provision.

MangoToupe 11mo 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 11mo ago
  It says that weed supporting stats voted for this. They did.
CalChris 11mo ago
Both Senators in California, my state, voted for the ban. Neither has explained why.
- GloriousKoji 11mo 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 11mo ago
    That’s not all that was added in there
- henryfjordan 11mo 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 11mo 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'.
    - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
      In general this kind of excuse is used by incumbents to pass laws to thwart competition. You have some regulatory framework which has already been created by captured regulators, so it has a couple of rules that it ought to have (always the ones pointed to in order to justify it) and then others that exist merely to exclude competitors or make sure fixed costs are high enough that only large incumbents can meet them. The latter set of rules are unreasonable so the market finds a way around them. The incumbents then call this a "loophole" and insist that the competitors be forced into the entire framework rather than just the subset of reasonable rules they'd be able to satisfy without being destroyed. Which destroys them, as intended.
  - cthalupa 11mo ago
    > They were taking very low % hemp that is supposed to be for textiles and extracting the little THC there was into low quality vapes. This is not at all what was happening. These aren't some special strains or cultivars where there is a remnant of THC that is getting squeezed out from a large quantity of plants to make a small quantity of product - they are same strains and cultivars being used by the legal dispensaries. It is a matter of timing and process - harvest and undercure the flower and it will not have converted enough THCa to Delta9 THC to hit the legal limit. In fact, many legal operations follow similar timing on harvesting and similar processing - the flower in your local dispensary is still mostly THCa, and a good chunk of it is likely under the limit for D9 THC as well. Much if it is effectively the exact same thing under a different label. > When we do have all that infrastructure for legal THC regulation, why allow people to sidestep all that? I do agree here. There's no need for the unregulated market when a proper legal market exists.
cthalupa 11mo 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 11mo ago
  Honest question but how is hemp competing with weed? Are these different plants?
  - cthalupa 11mo 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 11mo ago
    It's the same plant, but hemp refers to the leaves and plant matter that isn't the THC-rich flower buds.
    - henryfjordan 11mo 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 11mo 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.

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 11mo ago
It says that weed supporting stats voted for this. They did.

CalChris 11mo ago

Both Senators in California, my state, voted for the ban. Neither has explained why.

GloriousKoji 11mo 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 11mo ago
  That’s not all that was added in there
henryfjordan 11mo 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 11mo 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'.
  - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
    In general this kind of excuse is used by incumbents to pass laws to thwart competition. You have some regulatory framework which has already been created by captured regulators, so it has a couple of rules that it ought to have (always the ones pointed to in order to justify it) and then others that exist merely to exclude competitors or make sure fixed costs are high enough that only large incumbents can meet them. The latter set of rules are unreasonable so the market finds a way around them. The incumbents then call this a "loophole" and insist that the competitors be forced into the entire framework rather than just the subset of reasonable rules they'd be able to satisfy without being destroyed. Which destroys them, as intended.
- cthalupa 11mo ago
  > They were taking very low % hemp that is supposed to be for textiles and extracting the little THC there was into low quality vapes. This is not at all what was happening. These aren't some special strains or cultivars where there is a remnant of THC that is getting squeezed out from a large quantity of plants to make a small quantity of product - they are same strains and cultivars being used by the legal dispensaries. It is a matter of timing and process - harvest and undercure the flower and it will not have converted enough THCa to Delta9 THC to hit the legal limit. In fact, many legal operations follow similar timing on harvesting and similar processing - the flower in your local dispensary is still mostly THCa, and a good chunk of it is likely under the limit for D9 THC as well. Much if it is effectively the exact same thing under a different label. > When we do have all that infrastructure for legal THC regulation, why allow people to sidestep all that? I do agree here. There's no need for the unregulated market when a proper legal market exists.

cthalupa 11mo 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 11mo ago
Honest question but how is hemp competing with weed? Are these different plants?
- cthalupa 11mo 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 11mo ago
  It's the same plant, but hemp refers to the leaves and plant matter that isn't the THC-rich flower buds.
  - henryfjordan 11mo 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 11mo 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.