Cannabis industry report advocates for ‘level playing field’ between hemp and marijuana | Where to order Skittles Moonrock online

Learn where to order marijuana online. TOP QUALITY GRADE A++

Cannabyss Inc. is the best place online to buy top quality weed, cannabis, vape, marijuana and CBD products. Get your borderless orders delivered at the pickup spot with ease. Top Grade products for client satisfaction.

👉 Click here to Visit our shop! 🛒

The Reason Foundation, a libertarian nonprofit, has released a report that blames the “arbitrary” business models for hemp and marijuana – and the competition they create – on illogical federal law that confuses the two plants. They are essentially identical but have different cannabinoid profiles.

The report states that “the proliferation of intoxicating products like delta-8-THC stems primarily because hemp-derivatives, which are cheaper and easier to access than marijuana, are a result of the fact they are not federally banned and are not burdened with state regulations as much as marijuana.” “There is a clear demand for intoxicating products of cannabis, and consumers will continue seeking out such products regardless of whether they are defined by marijuana or hemp or whether they are illegal or legal.”

The report makes sweeping policy recommendations that, if implemented, could create a level playing field between the two sectors. Currently, hemp is favored more than marijuana. These businesses can sell their products online, across state lines, and in common retail outlets like convenience stores.

The report states that “the market for intoxicating cannabis derivatives has grown rapidly, with industry experts estimating it at between $28 and $36 billion annually in sales across the nation, supporting almost 330,000 workers in the United States.” It also notes that the hemp genie has escaped the proverbial jar, thanks to the 2018 Farm Bill.

The report found that 95% of the income generated by the plant comes from farmers who sell hemp flowers, from which hemp products can be made.

The report noted that the rise of the hemp industry, which is intoxicating, has led to a similar rise in the number new actions taken by state legislators. Ten states have passed some sort of hemp products regulations in just the first half 2024.

The report found 15 states that have banned intoxicating products of hemp, 21 states that have not regulated them at all, and 7 states that have regulated intoxicating products as consumer packaged goods. Seven other states have regulated these products in the same way as marijuana. This is an astounding addition to the patchwork of state marijuana law.

The federal legalization of Hemp and its unintended opening up of THC floodgates have also pitted marijuana and the hemp business against each other. This is due to the definition that hemp is cannabis plants with 0.3% Delta-9 THC dry weight. This “arbitrary” definition dates back to 1976.

The report states that in an ideal scenario, Congress would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act entirely – instead of its current status. rescheduling move The government is already regulating alcohol and tobacco products.

This could allow states to abandon their restrictive regulatory regimes on marijuana, which were developed in part to avoid interference by federal officials.

The report states that “States authorizing commercial marijuana markets should work to increase the market dynamism by decreasing barriers to entry along with regulatory and taxes costs, in order to more closely align cost structures within these markets to that of emerging hemp-derived competition.”

The report suggests that many of the restrictive marijuana industry guidelines – such as license caps for retailers — could be eliminated in favor of age-gating, which is a traditional practice at retailers like liquor stores. These stores are used to checking identification before allowing sales.

The report states that “we recommend a package reform to state marijuana laws which would establish identical packaging and labeling requirements for intoxicating marijuana and hemp products and subject both products to the same marketing requirements.” Both sets of goods should be subject to a single simplified tax structure, and both should operate on an open, dynamic, and unhindered market.

The report suggests that “Any retailer who can prove competency in age-gating appropriate products should be free to apply to a retail cannabis licence which allows them to buy and resell state-licensed marijuana and intoxicating hemp-based products,”

The report suggests that by leveling the playing field at the national level, marijuana brands could gain access to the entire market and gain interstate commerce, while hemp companies could gain more certainty about the legal and regulatory landscape, rather than having to operate within a constantly-changing environment.