![](\"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/MM_Bill_Tracker_V5_blank-19.jpg\"){kind=tracking}
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
There\u2019s significant uncertainty around how a pending federal hemp ban will ultimately be enforced, but \u201cdivergent federal and state marijuana laws may provide some guidance,\u201d according to congressional researchers.<\/p>\n
With the recriminalization of most consumable hemp products set to take effect next November after President Donald Trump signed a spending bill containing the cannabis prohibition, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has released a report outlining the policy\u2019s potential impacts. And much of the analysis and considerations for lawmakers turn to existing marijuana policies.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn recent decades, a number of states have enacted laws relaxing state controls on marijuana and regulating the use of the substance for medical or recreational purposes,\u201d it says. \u201cMarijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance subject to stringent controls under federal law, and, notwithstanding changes to state laws, most activities involving medical and recreational marijuana violate\u201d the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are two key reasons why the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) does not comprehensively enforce the CSA with respect to marijuana,\u201d the report\u2014which includes a comprehensive analysis of the legislative history around hemp, a version of the cannabis crop that was federally legalized under the first Trump administration\u2014says.<\/p>\n
As was detailed in a separate recent CRS report<\/a>, DOJ \u201clacks the resources to prosecute all violations of the CSA and generally has not prioritized enforcement against small-scale violations or activities that comply with state law,\u201d the researchers said in the new document. \u201cIt remains to be seen to what extent DOJ will prioritize CSA enforcement against products containing psychoactive cannabinoids other than delta-9 THC.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIf Congress wishes to affect DOJ enforcement priorities, it has the legal authority to increase or decrease funding or dictate how the agency may use appropriated funds,\u201d the report says.<\/p>\n Another reason that for the limited enforcement action against state marijuana laws is the fact that, since 2014, Congress has approved annual appropriations legislation with a rider preventing the Justice Department from using its funds to interfere in states\u2019 medical cannabis programs.<\/p>\n While those same protections don\u2019t apply to recreational marijuana laws, CRS said that, in theory, if states were to reclassify consumable THC products that no long longer meet the federal definition of legal hemp as medical cannabis products instead, \u201cthe appropriations rider would apply to those products to the extent they are used for medical purposes in compliance with state law.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIf Congress wanted to alter the scope of the appropriations rider, including modifying how it applies to hemp-derived cannabinoid products, it could do so by legislation,\u201d it says. \u201cAnother consideration for Congress is that, to the extent hemp-derived cannabinoid products are classified as marijuana, any change to CSA regulation of marijuana would also apply to those products.\u201d<\/p>\n The report also takes into consideration the potential impact of a federal marijuana rescheduling proposal that was initiated under the Biden administration and is now pending action by Trump, who said in August that a decision on moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the CSA would come within weeks.<\/p>\n \u201cAs of the date of publication of this Legal Sidebar, DOJ has not taken final action on the rescheduling proposal,\u201d it says. \u201cCongress has broad authority to change the status of a controlled substance through legislation and could change the status of marijuana before or after DEA makes any final scheduling decision. Congress could choose to act with respect to marijuana generally or with respect to hemp-derived cannabinoid products in particular.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cFinally, the change to the federal definition of hemp may also affect state cannabis regulation,\u201d the report<\/a> continues. \u201cFederal and state cannabis laws generally operate independently, and both may apply simultaneously if there is no positive conflict between the two.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cHowever, the 2018 farm bill contains a provision that expressly prohibits states from regulating \u2018the transportation or shipment of hemp or hemp products \u2026 through the State.\u2019 As discussed in a CRS report, there has been significant litigation over whether federal law preempts certain state hemp regulations. It remains to be seen whether and how narrowing the federal definition of hemp will affect that litigation. If Congress enacted legislation to change how hemp-derived cannabinoid products are regulated, that could also affect the pending litigation. If Congress wishes to preempt or not preempt certain state regulations of hemp, it also has the authority to amend the preemption provision.\u201d<\/p>\n Hemp was federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill that Trump signed during his first term, with then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) leading the push to end criminalization of the crop at the time. But the senator has insisted that the policy change wasn\u2019t intended to allow consumable products with THC, so he\u2019s been determined to close what he describes as a \u201cloophole\u201d in the law.<\/p>\n Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) attempted to remove the hemp ban language from the spending bill Trump signed last month, but a majority of members voted to table his amendment.<\/p>\n Industry stakeholders, advocates and lawmakers are stressing the urgency of the situation. While the hemp ban won\u2019t take effect until one year after enactment, that still leaves little time in the congressional calendar to reverse course or create an alternative regulatory framework for products set to be banned.<\/p>\n Paul, meanwhile, said last month that\u00a0he\u2019ll soon file a bill to protect the hemp industry from the impending hemp ban<\/a>. And he also called out alcohol and marijuana interests for allegedly \u201cjoin[ing] forces\u201d to lobby in favor of the prohibitionist policy change, which will restrict access to a plant and its derivatives that are often used therapeutically.<\/p>\n The senator said the forthcoming legislation would make it so state policy regulating hemp cannabinoid products\u2014with basic safeguards in place to prevent youth access, for example\u2014\u201dsupersedes the federal law.\u201d<\/p>\n On the other end of the debate, Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), who helped secure the hemp re-criminalization language, said last month that he\u2019s not concerned about attempts to undercut the enacted law, brushing off arguments about the possible consequences of the policy change as \u201cdesperate mistruths from an industry that stands to lose billions of dollars by selling intoxicants to children.\u201d<\/p>\n Overall, there\u2019s been widespread outcry over the pending hemp re-criminalization law, drawing criticism from\u00a0parents of cannabis patients<\/a>,\u00a0veterinarians<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0influencers like Joe Rogan<\/a>, for example.<\/p>\n In response to the hemp ban, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) filed a bill that would\u00a0strike the contested provisions of the appropriations legislation<\/a>. But some stakeholders worry that approach could backfire, and they\u2019re hoping to see bipartisan bills introduced in he near future that would provide a robust regulatory model for intoxicating hemp products as a viable alternative to blanket prohibition.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, GOP political operative Roger Stone said last month that Trump was\u00a0effectively \u201cforced\u201d by Republican lawmakers to sign the spending bill<\/a>\u00a0with the hemp THC ban language.<\/p>\n However, a White House spokesperson said prior to the bill signing that\u00a0Trump specifically supported the prohibition language<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Democratic governor of Kentucky said last month that\u00a0the hemp industry is an \u201cimportant\u201d part of the economy that deserves to be regulated<\/a>\u00a0at the state level\u2014rather than federally prohibited, as Congress has moved to do.<\/p>\n Also, a leading veterans organization is warning congressional leaders that the newly approved blanket ban on consumable hemp products\u00a0could inadvertently \u201cslam the door shut\u201d on critical research<\/a>.<\/p>\n While many hemp stakeholders say the ban would effectively eradicate the industry\u2013even applying to\u00a0nonintoxicating CBD products that people use for medical reasons<\/a>\u2014there\u2019s latent hope that they can strike a compromise deal with lawmakers before the prohibition is implemented this time next year.<\/p>\n Lawmakers such as Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) also say that window could provide an opportunity to advance legislation to create an alternative regulatory model for consumable hemp products.<\/p>\n \u2014 Since 2018, cannabis products have been considered legal hemp if they contain less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis.<\/p>\n The new\u00a0legislation\u00a0specifies that, within one year of enactment, the weight will apply to total THC\u2014including delta-8 and other isomers. It will also include \u201cany other cannabinoids that have similar effects (or are marketed to have similar effects) on humans or animals as a tetrahydrocannabinol (as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services).\u201d<\/p>\n The new definition of legal hemp will additionally ban \u201cany intermediate hemp-derived cannabinoid products which are marketed or sold as a final product or directly to an end consumer for personal or household use\u201d as well as products containing cannabinoids that are synthesized or manufactured outside of the cannabis plant or not capable of being naturally produced by it.<\/p>\n Legal hemp products will be limited to a total of 0.4 milligrams per container of total THC or any other cannabinoids with similar effects.<\/p>\n Within 90 days of the bill\u2019s enactment, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other agencies will need to publish list of \u201call cannabinoids known to FDA to be capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant, as reflected in peer reviewed literature,\u201d \u201call tetrahydrocannabinol class cannabinoids known to the agency to be naturally occurring in the plant\u201d and \u201call other known cannabinoids with similar effects to, or marketed to have similar effects to, tetrahyrocannabinol class cannabinoids.\u201d<\/p>\n The language slightly differs from provisions included in legislation that had previously advanced out of the House and Senate Appropriations panels, which would have banned products containing any \u201cquantifiable\u201d amount of THC, to be determined by the HHS secretary and secretary of agriculture.<\/p>\n The post Ongoing Marijuana Conflict Between States And Feds Could Provide \u2018Guidance\u2019 On How New Hemp Ban Will Be Enforced, Congressional Report Says<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s significant uncertainty around how a pending federal hemp ban will ultimately be enforced, but \u201cdivergent federal and state marijuana laws may provide some guidance,\u201d according to congressional researchers. With the recriminalization of most consumable hemp products set to take effect next November after President Donald Trump signed a spendingContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":458,"featured_media":84736,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18,81],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84735"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/458"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=84735"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84735\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":84737,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84735\/revisions\/84737"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/84736"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84735"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84735"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84735"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nMarijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills<\/a> in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters<\/a> pledging at least $25\/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don\u2019t miss any developments.<\/strong>
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/MM_Bill_Tracker_V5_blank-18.jpg\"){kind=tracking}
<\/a>
\nLearn more about our marijuana bill tracker<\/a> and become a supporter on Patreon<\/a> to get access.
\n\u2014<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n
\nRead More: Ongoing Marijuana Conflict Between States And Feds Could Provide \u2018Guidance\u2019 On How New Hemp Ban Will Be Enforced, Congressional Report Says<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"