The Appellate court of Maryland ruled that Delta-8 and Delta-10 THC is illegal and the state law prohibiting businesses from selling products derived from hemp without a permit was constitutional.
You can also find out more about the following: ruling This decision overturns a lower-court’s ruling that granted a preliminary order to Maryland Hemp Coalition as well as several hemp farmers, consumers, retailers and producers who were challenging the licensing requirement of the Maryland General Assembly’s Cannabis Reform Act passed in 2023.
Injunctions were lifted that prevented officials in the state from enforcing CRA licensing requirements for businesses selling intoxicating hemp products.
The Maryland Appellate Court ruled, however, that products containing synthetic derivatives of hemp created through a chemical processing are still illegal.
The parties did not address the legality these products. This was written by Appellate judge Daniel A. Friedman. As we will explain in the following paragraphs, psychoactive hemp products derived from THC (also known as delta-8 or delta-10) are illegal and always have been. It is not legal because the ban has laxly enforced.
The judge also noted that hemp-derived intoxicants became popular across the country after the 2018 Farm Bill legalized commercial hemp cultivation because U.S. legislators did not It is not clear how to get there. Agricultural legislation regulates finished products.
Friedman writes that this may be a factor in the sale of these products by businesses across Maryland and America.
The judge clarified that the 2018 Farm Bill does not preclude state governments from more strictly regulating hemp markets than federal law. Since the Maryland Department of Agriculture has submitted Maryland’s hemp plan to U.S. Department of Agriculture by 2020, it was ruled that the 2018 Farm Bill doesn’t preempt state regulations.
Maryland’s General Assembly passed a hemp-cultivation program for the state in 2019. It also placed restrictions on hemp-derived products that are intoxicating.
Friedman wrote that “based on the history of regulation of hemp and products derived therefrom, the legal status for hemp-derived psychoactive product in Maryland before the Cannabis Reform Act’s enactment was clear.” The Maryland Farm Bill prohibited hemp-derived psychoactives. These products were available in abundance during the time of uncertainty caused by federal Farm Bill 2018.
The Cannabis Reform Act prohibits most psychoactive hemp products. This is a significant change. It does so by prohibiting products ‘not derived from naturally occurring biologically active chemical constituents.’ AB § 36-1102(c). Thus, because hemp-derived psychoactive products, including delta-8 and delta-10 THC, are derived from a chemical process … these products are prohibited.”
Maryland Hemp Coalition et. al. argued that the CRA had created an unconstitutional monopoly in Article 41 of Maryland Declaration of Rights due to a common rights exception. According to an appellate court, Maryland adopted a constitutional provision against monopolies in 1776.
In determining whether there is a right of intoxication for hemp-derived goods in the cannabis and hemp markets, the court examined the question. A common right was determined to not exist in the cannabis market due to the Schedule I federal classification of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act. It was also decided that Maryland’s laws on agricultural hemp did not give rise to a right.
Under the monopoly argument, the court ruled Maryland Hemp Coalition did not attempt to define the relative market—including the size of the market, the products involved, and the size of the monopoly in relation to the market—which Friedman opined was a relevant matter of law.
There were several alternatives for selecting a market relevant to the case:
- All products that are intoxicating (such as marijuana, hemp, alcohol or other drugs)
- Cannabis plant products include hemp, marijuana and other cannabis-related substances (nonintoxicating or intoxicating, for human consumption only, but not for nonhuman consumption).
- The only cannabis product that is intoxicating, hemp or marijuana
- Marijuana products
- Hemp products are the only ones that can be used
Friedman wrote, “The determination is the relevant market neither theoretical nor academic.” It affects a plaintiff’s ability to prove Article 41 claims. The type of analysis that a court does. And it impacts whether or not an alleged “monopoly” meets an exception in Article 41. … In fact, we think the failure to identify the relevant market led to confusion here. That is, the Hemp Coalition’s arguments could apply to at least two markets—the broader cannabis market or the limited hemp-derived psychoactive products market.”
Due to this ambiguity the Maryland Hemp Coalition was unable to succeed with its monopoly case that CRA is infringing on a right common.
The court also determined that the CRA was permissible in Article 41, because state cannabis regulations were “reasonably necessary” to protect the public interest, such as consumer safety, youth protections and initiatives for social equity that correct past discrimination.
Friedman wrote: “The Maryland General Assembly, after considering the potential dangers associated with cannabis and psychoactive hemp products, enacted a product safety requirement along with the Cannabis Reform Act as part of its response.” We hold that licensing was reasonable to protect public health, and falls under the exception of Article 41 for the public’s interest.
As a result of the court ruling, all Maryland businesses must first obtain a cannabis license before selling any intoxicating cannabinoid products—whether derived from marijuana or hemp.
The Appellate court of Maryland ruled that Delta-8 and Delta-10 THC is illegal and the state law prohibiting businesses from selling products derived from hemp without a permit was constitutional.
You can also find out more about the following: ruling The Maryland Hemp Coalition, several hemp producers, retailers, farmers, and consumers who challenged Maryland’s licensing requirements under the Cannabis Reform Act, which the Maryland General Assembly adopted in 2023, to regulate a market for adult use, have their decision reversed.
Injunctions were lifted that prevented officials in the state from enforcing CRA licensing requirements for businesses selling intoxicating hemp products.
Maryland Appellate Court ruled intoxicating products containing synthetic derivatives of hemp created through a chemical procedure remain illegal, despite state’s ability to enforce licensing requirements.
The parties did not address the legality these products. This was written by Appellate judge Daniel A. Friedman. As we will explain in the following paragraphs, psychoactive hemp products, such as delta-8 THC and delta-10, have been and remain illegal in Maryland. It is not legal because the ban has laxly been enforced.
The Judge also pointed out that the intoxicating hemp products were widely available after U.S. lawmakers passed the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp commercial cultivation. It is not clear how to get there. Agricultural legislation regulates finished products.
Friedman writes that this may be a factor in the sale of these products by businesses across Maryland and America.
Judge explained that, however, the 2018 Farm Bill didn’t prevent states from having their own hemp legislation more strict than federal laws. Since the Maryland Department of Agriculture has submitted Maryland’s hemp plan to U.S. Department of Agriculture by 2020, it was ruled that the 2018 Farm Bill doesn’t preempt state regulations.
Maryland’s General Assembly passed a hemp cultivation program for the state in 2019. It also placed restrictions on hemp-derived intoxicants.
Friedman wrote that “based on the history of regulation of hemp and products derived therefrom, the legal status for hemp-derived psychoactive product in Maryland before the Cannabis Reform Act’s enactment was clear.” While these products might have been widely available during the regulatory uncertainty caused by the federal Farm Bill of 2018, Maryland law prohibits the creation or use of hemp-derived products that are psychoactive.
The Cannabis Reform Act prohibits most psychoactive hemp products. This is a significant step. It does so by prohibiting products ‘not derived from naturally occurring biologically active chemical constituents.’ AB § 36-1102(c). Thus, because hemp-derived psychoactive products, including delta-8 and delta-10 THC, are derived from a chemical process … these products are prohibited.”
Maryland Hemp Coalition et.al. argued, in the suit, that the CRA created a constitutionally unconstitutional monopoly, under Article 41 of Maryland Declaration of Rights, because of a “common right” exception. Maryland, the court of appeals stated, was the first to pass a constitution anti-monopoly clause in 1776.
In determining whether there is a right of intoxication for hemp-derived goods in the cannabis and hemp markets, the court examined the question. A common right was determined to not exist in the cannabis market due to the Schedule I federal classification of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act. It was also decided that Maryland’s laws on agricultural hemp did not give rise to a right.
Under the monopoly argument, the court ruled Maryland Hemp Coalition did not attempt to define the relative market—including the size of the market, the products involved, and the size of the monopoly in relation to the market—which Friedman opined was a relevant matter of law.
There were several alternatives for selecting a market relevant to the case:
- All products that are intoxicating (hemp marijuana alcohol other drugs
- Cannabis plant products include hemp, marijuana and other cannabis-related substances (not intended for human consumption or intended to be consumed).
- The only cannabis product that is intoxicating, hemp or marijuana
- Marijuana products
- Hemp products are the only ones that can be used
Friedman wrote that “the determination of the market relevant is not theoretical or academic.” It affects a plaintiff’s ability to prove Article 41 claims. The type of analysis that a court does. And it impacts whether or not an alleged “monopoly” meets an exception in Article 41. … In fact, we think the failure to identify the relevant market led to confusion here. That is, the Hemp Coalition’s arguments could apply to at least two markets—the broader cannabis market or the limited hemp-derived psychoactive products market.”
The court ruled that, due to the ambiguity of the case, Maryland Hemp Coalition could not succeed in its monopoly claim that the CRA violates a collective right.
Additionally, the court found that the CRA can be justified under Article 41 as the cannabis regulations of the state are “reasonably needed” in the interests of the public, which includes consumer safety and youth protections.
Friedman wrote that “The Maryland General Assembly took into consideration the risks of cannabis products in general and hemp-derived products in particular and created, as a result, a licensing requirements alongside product safety standard under the Cannabis Reform Act.” We hold that licensing was reasonable to protect public health, and falls under the exception of Article 41 for the public’s interest.
As a result of the court ruling, all Maryland businesses must first obtain a cannabis license before selling any intoxicating cannabinoid products—whether derived from marijuana or hemp.
Cannabis Law Resources for Poland
Browse essential legal pages on cannabis sales and cultivation in Poland. You can use these resources to learn about the requirements for certifications, permissions and compliance.
-
Polish News Registration and Interests of Cannabis Businesses
-
Permissions for Cannabis Sales in Poland
-
Authorization for Importing or Manufacturing Medical Products
-
Permission for Manufacturing or Importing Medical Products
-
Certificate of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)
-
Registration of Medical Products in Poland