Rand Paul (R) warns the marijuana policy movement “has shifted hard to the prohibitionist-side” in the current debate about hemp products that are intoxicating. He is also concerned that the hemp industry could collapse “within two weeks” if the situation goes wrong.
But he thinks that one way to solve the problem could be by implementing regulations that are focused on cannabis consumables rather than the actual plant. It would ease the burden on farmers, while also ensuring public safety precautions when it comes intoxicants.
The Dales Report interviewed the GOP Senator on Wednesday about the current status of the negotiations regarding legislation concerning THC hemp, products that some members, such as Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY, have proposed banning.
There was a sense within the industry that Paul’s role in stripping the ban language from the Senate’s agriculture spending bill meant the market would be at least temporarily protected from such a policy change—but Paul warned that there’s still a possibility it could make it into the final appropriations legislation following a conference with the House, despite the fact that the chamber’s own version hasn’t advanced on the floor yet.
Paul said the issue at the center of the debate was the belief that hemp businesses were marketing to children products that contained high amounts of cannabinoids that are intoxicating, like delta-8-THC. McConnell’s reaction and that of California Governor Gavin Newsom were both knee-jerk reactions. Gavin Newsom (D).
The senator stated that “instead of having an ‘age regulation’ or some other sensible regulation, we believe they have written wording which would completely kill the industry.” On the congressional level, the provisions Paul is concerned about would redefine hemp–which was federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill that McConnell championed and President Donald Trump signed during his first term—to prohibit products with any quantifiable amount of THC.
The hemp industry says that a policy change will effectively eliminate the market.
“We think there needs to be a slow-down–put the brakes on things,” Paul said. As Congress moves through the appropriations bill, “our best hope” is that there won’t be any action in the coming weeks. Last month, the senator was able to use a procedural maneuver to convince McConnell that the ban on hemp would be removed from the Senate version of the bill. However, the House language remains unchanged.
Paul explained that there is no difference between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House does not have any [agriculture] “The prohibitionist language may still be included in the Senate bill because they are still going to confer on it.”
“I’ve talked to a lot of the players on this and tried to convince them to change the language—and we’ve at least had an audience and we presented things. “It’s not exactly what I like, but at least it is less offensive,” said he. We’re trying to prevent it being banned. “We hope for less bad at the moment, but we don’t know what that will mean.” It’s just like any other situation: people see the problem, they feel compelled to act, they speak emotionally, without considering what they are saying.
Paul acknowledges that there are regulations needed for the hemp industry, which were not included in the Farm Bill of 2018, that legalized this crop and its derivatives. But he says that outright banning the product isn’t the best solution. Paul said that “we should try to move the regulation of hemp from the plants to the products.”
I’ve said it for years. The farmers should not be tested. “I think that it is a complete waste of my time,” said he. The farmers are forced to plow their crops under if one of the plants exceeds the maximum. “I’d therefore be more generous with the farmer.”
The Senator referred to the definition federally of hemp that is legal, which is cannabis with no more than 0.3% THC dry weight.
The plants are useless because they can become anything. So I would say that if there is to be testing done, it needs to focus on the consumable. It should have limits, but I do think it needs to be within reasonable boundaries. To put it simply, I would say that you can have products that have higher THC content, or hemp products which have less THC. “One would be milder, legal everywhere and the other legal only in those states who legalized it.
Paul realized that it was “complicated,” given the multiple state and federal laws on cannabis, to come up with a framework of hemp regulations that fits his plan. The beoader prohibition on hemp containing any THC may lead to an increase in the number of people who turn to the black market.
“I’m sure that the illegal markets will grow if all people get into marijuana,” said he. “It won’t stop. The people will change. There may be an argument to say that smaller THC-based products are a more effective option, which many people like.
The main thing I am concerned about is the fact that I do not want to see a law passed in the coming two weeks that would completely destroy the hemp industry. That’s an enormous mistake. It’s unfair. Paul said, “It’s wrong.” I know a family of farmers in Northern Kentucky who do this. [and] It’s a lucrative business. “They’ve spent a great deal of energy and time in growing hemp and I wouldn’t like to drive them out of business.”
Senators have called attention to the vagueness of proposed hemp bans that give significant leeway to federal officials in determining a “quantifiable amount” of THC. The senator pointed out that if a prohibitionist is at the head of the designated authority, “all of a sudden, we will have no hemp industry.”
“I believe we must be very cautious.” He said that the logical step would be to test what was eaten after testing the plants.
Paul responded that “we worked diligently” on a solution with his staff, “trying to find a compromise”.
They say, at least on the surface, they’re not trying to eliminate it–but I think we are talking past each other in some ways,” he said. They say, at least on the surface, they’re not trying to eliminate it—but I think we are, in some ways, talking past each other,” he said.
The senator expressed his concern that “the whole industry” could become illegal within two weeks. “So people who are interested in this need to be calling their senators and congressmen and saying, ‘Look, there’s no reason to make something like this illegal—and can’t we figure out a way to regulate it without prohibiting it?'”
The spending bill, which is due to be passed in the coming week, could include a ban. Paul stated that the ban could be enacted in a report of a conference commission, as it is coming together. In the same manner that people try to influence me, I will also have to do so with these committee members. I’m not going to be part of the conference committee. I don’t belong to the committees who make these spending decisions.
I spent much of my time trying to convince them that we shouldn’t do a mistake. You can see that the legislative history is littered with mistakes. He said that people are always in a rush. “I’d rather not do anything for the moment and instead send it back to the Committee and let them study the issue for a full year. I don’t want us to ruin our industry.”
He also spoke briefly about the Trump proposal to shift marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act to Schedule III. Schedule I is “extraordinary” and “a barrier to business.” He would like the prohibition of drugs ended, but a Schedule III change “would be helpful.”
“I believe that the states tend to be more permissive.” [toward cannabis] And let adults decide for themselves on this. He said, “I would still say that pendulum has returned.” The pendulum will reach a point in the middle. “But I believe we should be careful not to ruin the livelihoods of people who have invested a great deal of time and money into their businesses.”
“But, I’m sure I can come up with a compromise that is reasonable.” Switch from testing the plants to testing what is being consumed. We’ll need a reasonable but small amount of THC. The THC is probably present in all of these products, since people use them because they are getting the desired effect. But that isn’t all bad. If it relaxes you, calms you [and] “If a hemp-based product can help you sleep better and reduce anxiety, then I would much prefer to recommend it to people over Oxycontin.”
Last week, Senator Lex 18 interviewed him and he made a similar comment.
Meanwhile, Paul recently filed a standalone bill that would go in the opposite direction of the hemp ban, proposing to triple the concentration of THC that the crop could legally contain, while addressing multiple other concerns the industry has expressed about federal regulations.
He introduced legislation in June entitled the Hemp Economic Mobilization Plan Act. It mirrors versions he’s sponsored over the last several sessions.
Harris, who championed the hemp THC ban in his chamber version of the agriculture spending legislation, told MEDCAN24 that he wasn’t concerned about any potential opposition to the hemp ban in the Senate—and he also disputed reports about the scope of what his legislation would do to the industry.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report in June stating that the legislation would “effectively” prohibit hemp-derived cannabinoid products. It was originally said that this ban would prohibit the sale of CBD products as well. However, the CRS updated its report to eliminate that wording for unclear reasons.
The hemp language is largely consistent with appropriations and agriculture legislation that was introduced, but not ultimately enacted, under the last Congress.
Hemp stakeholders protested this proposal. An earlier version was included last year in the base legislation from the subcommittee. It’s virtually identical to a provision of the 2024 Farm Bill that was attached by a separate committee last May via an amendment from Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL), which was also not enacted into law.
A leading alcohol industry association, meanwhile, has called on Congress to dial back language in the House spending bill that would ban most consumable hemp products, instead proposing to maintain the legalization of naturally derived cannabinoids from the crop and only prohibit synthetic items.
Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) President and CEO Francis Creighton said in a press release that “proponents and opponents alike have agreed that this language amounts to a ban.”
Separately, key GOP congressional lawmakers—including one member who supports marijuana legalization—don’t seem especially concerned about provisions in the bill despite concern from stakeholders that it would put much of the hemp industry in jeopardy by banning most consumable products derived from the plant.
—
MEDCAN24 tracks hundreds of marijuana, psychedelics, and drug policy legislation in state legislatures this year. Patreon members who pledge at least $25/month gain access to interactive maps, charts, and a hearing calendar.
Find out more about our marijuana law tracker. To get access, become a Patreon supporter.
—
Jonathan Miller, general counsel at the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, told congressional lawmakers in April that the market is “begging” for federal regulations around cannabis products.
Rep. James Comer asked sarcastically, “Would it take a gazillion home-based bureaucrats to regulate CBD and other cannabinoids?”
A report from Bloomberg Intelligence (BI) last year called cannabis a “significant threat” to the alcohol industry, citing survey data that suggests more people are using cannabis as a substitute for alcoholic beverages such a beer and wine.
Last November, meanwhile, a beer industry trade group put out a statement of guiding principles to address what it called “the proliferation of largely unregulated intoxicating hemp and cannabis products,” warning of risks to consumers and communities resulting from THC consumption.
MEDCAN24 could not exist without readers’ support. Please consider making a Patreon monthly pledge if you depend on our cannabis journalism for information.
