By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Amidst the focus on reopening the government, a little-noticed piece of legislation threatens to cripple the burgeoning $26 billion hemp industry. The regulation, with a limit of 0.4 milligrams of THC per container, effectively bans THC-infused drinks and edibles, impacting over 95% of hemp products. Industry leaders like John Peterson and Ken Meyer express concern over the potentially devastating consequences, including complications for the grain, fiber, and non-cannabinoid sectors, urging for more thoughtful regulation instead of an outright ban. The House of Representatives recently voted to pass the regulation.
Read the original article here
SD hemp farmers react to tight restrictions on THC in hemp-based products with a mixture of frustration, concern, and a touch of defiance. It seems the new regulations are hitting hard, impacting their ability to cultivate and sell products that contain even trace amounts of THC.
From what I gather, the changes are quite significant. The rules appear to be drastically limiting the permissible THC content in hemp products, making it nearly impossible for farmers to grow and harvest traditional CBD-rich hemp flower. It’s essentially forcing them to pivot towards cultivating varieties that are naturally lower in THC, like those rich in CBG, CBDV, and THCV. This shift will likely require new investments in different strains, farming techniques, and potentially, processing methods.
One of the biggest concerns voiced is about the future viability of the hemp industry as a whole. Many farmers have invested significant time, money, and effort into this market. Suddenly, facing such a drastic change puts all that in jeopardy. There’s a palpable fear of losing their livelihoods and the fruits of their labor.
Another significant worry revolves around access to products for consumers. It seems that there are a lot of people who rely on hemp-derived products, particularly CBD oil, for managing chronic pain and other health issues. Tighter restrictions could potentially limit access to these products, leaving many people feeling anxious and uncertain about their ability to maintain their health regimens.
The timing of these restrictions is also a point of contention. Some people think it’s an unnecessary overreach, particularly when other mood-altering substances are legal. The fact that the law was passed after a significant decline in alcohol consumption is a bit suspect for some. The general sentiment appears to be that the government is taking away something that helps people mellow out, without providing any viable alternative.
Beyond the immediate impact on the market, there’s also a sense of frustration with the political maneuvering involved. The comments suggest that the decision to restrict THC in hemp products was driven by a complex interplay of political agendas and financial interests. The fact that some of the lawmakers involved may have benefitted financially from these changes is creating even more bitterness and distrust.
The idea that the whole situation is a “bold strategy” – perhaps a cynical one – is also a strong point of view. It suggests that lawmakers might be trying to make people angry, which could lead to civil unrest, and in that event, they may have a plan in place.
However, the response isn’t all gloom and doom. Some of the farmers seem to be approaching the situation with a resilient spirit. They are considering growing alternative hemp varieties. There’s a clear determination to adapt and find a way forward, even amidst these challenges. It’s about finding ways to remain in the game and stay afloat, even if it means altering their initial plans.
It’s also worth noting the broader context of the discussion. Some comments touch upon the long-standing debate about alcohol consumption, substance use, and societal trends. It’s an insightful lens to analyze the current situation, offering some alternative ways to look at the cause of falling alcohol use and the rise of hemp usage.
Overall, the reaction of SD hemp farmers to the tighter restrictions on THC appears to be a mix of anger, anxiety, and a certain amount of resolve. It’s a clear message: They’re ready to fight for their livelihoods, adapt to the changing landscape, and continue to provide for a growing community.