I can only imagine that being a cannabis regulator is a challenging and usually thankless job. The law is relatively new and constantly evolving. Operators are always pushing science faster than regulators can promulgate thoughtful new rules. And of course, there are no shortage of bad actors in the cannabis business.
That said, Budding Trends has taken a tough stance against cannabis regulators when it feels it is warranted. And there was no shortage of materials.
We would like to take this opportunity to review a recent letter from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services announcing a significant reversal of Governor Mike Parson's executive order that would have banned all “psychoactive cannabis products.” I would like to praise you.
The governor's order, by its terms, would effectively destroy the state's market for products containing THC derived from cannabis. To be fair, the stated purpose of this order – keeping psychoactive cannabis products out of the hands of children – is a noble goal, and one that any responsible operator of a cannabis-derived THC business would want to pursue. But it is a shared goal. Unfortunately, the plain language of this order goes even further and threatens to halt the sale of most cannabis products in Missouri.
Richard Moore, deputy director and general counsel for the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, comes to the rescue. In a recent letter, Moore “clarified misconceptions about the Department's efforts to protect Missourians and their children from psychoactive cannabis products, sometimes referred to as intoxicating cannabis products.” As part of this clarification, and in furtherance of the Department's commitment to “transparency in enforcement efforts,” the Department will focus on (1) hemp-derived THC products intended for children and (2) “any deception, “Fraud, falsehood” is limited. “Any falsehood, false promise, misrepresentation, misrepresentation, or concealment, suppression, or omission of material fact in connection with the sale or advertising of (hemp-derived THC products).”
However, the department has no intention of initiating enforcement action against other cannabis-derived THC products. Specifically, “emp or cannabidiol (CBD) products that have been collected through extraction and have not been transformed into new substances (such as hemp protein powder, hemp milk, hemp flower, hemp tea or other beverages, CBD gummies, “Beverage additives (such as CBD), or foods containing CBD” are not the focus of the department's enforcement efforts.
This is both a worthy goal stated by the Governor to eliminate fraudulent cannabis operators and those seeking to sell cannabis-derived THC products to children, and to maintain cannabis policies implemented by the Missouri Legislature. I believe this is a fair compromise that achieves the following.
It would be good to see more states consider this approach. As an example of the opposite approach, consider a recent post about a possible ban on hemp beverages in Mississippi. Consider also the very different approach taken by South Carolina's attorney general. I will write about this in the coming days.
And perhaps most importantly, Congress will consider whether a similar compromise can be made when considering federal hemp policy in the next farm bill in the coming months.
