On February 7, 2024, California Meeting Member Aguilar-Curry launched AB 2223. The invoice, if handed, would considerably change the state’s hashish and hemp industries – for higher or worse. Immediately, we’ll check out how AB 2223 might change each the hashish trade and hemp trade within the Golden State.
First although, a quick caveat. AB 2223 was simply proposed. The invoice is for certain to endure modifications because it winds its approach by the state legislature. These modifications might be so important that we find yourself with a distinct regulation on the finish of the day. And naturally, the invoice could not find yourself turning into regulation. So take the entire following with a little bit of a grain of salt.
#1 The hashish trade might be allowed to make use of hemp
AB 2223’s most important change could be a change to MAUCRSA (the state’s hashish regulation) that permits hashish licensees from promoting or incorporating merchandise that embody industrial hemp or its derivatives. Producers might procure industrial hemp or derivatives from California Division of Public Well being (CDPH) registered individuals (together with potential out-of-staters), and finally would be capable of procure a CDPH registration on the similar premises as soon as laws are adopted.
Merchandise containing industrial hemp would nonetheless need to adjust to all authorized necessities for hashish merchandise and must be tracked and traced as separate batches. If the regulation passes, the state has till July 1, 2025 to implement laws.
#2 The battle over “artificial cannabinoids” can be fought
If AB 2223 passes, hashish licensees couldn’t use “incorporate delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol that has been transformed from a hemp-derived cannabinoid.” Moreover, retailers could be forbidden from promoting “hashish, a hashish product, or an industrial hemp product that accommodates transformed delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol.” Equally, the time period “industrial hemp” (with respect to current hemp laws” can be outlined to exclude any “synthetically derived cannabinoid”.
Anybody within the hemp trade is nicely conscious over the myriad points regarding the exact definition of “artificial” (see right here or right here, for instance). So it in all probability received’t come as a shock to study that AB 2223’s proposed definition is difficult. Let’s have a look:
“Synthetically derived cannabinoid” means a substance that’s derived from a chemical response that modifications the molecular construction of any substance separated or extracted from the plant Hashish sativa L. A synthetically derived cannabinoid doesn’t embody any of the next:
(1) A naturally occurring chemical substance that’s separated or extracted from the plant by a chemical or mechanical extraction course of, so long as that naturally occurring chemical substance doesn’t endure a change in molecular construction.
(2) Cannabinoids which might be produced by decarboxylation from a naturally occurring cannabinoid acid.
(3) Every other chemical substance accepted by the division in regulation.
This can be a lot to unpack, however the backside line is that modifications in molecular construction would deem a cannabinoid synthetically derived. Merely processing hemp received’t rely except there’s a molecular change. With respect to exception (2), this looks as if it might present a state-law carveout for THCA (learn right here for a few of my ideas on THCA). And however all of this, the CDPH would have authority to exempt even some cannabinoids that meet this definition by regulation.
#3 California reinforces its restrictive whole THC requirements for the hemp trade
Anybody within the hemp trade can also be aware of the various issues that come up from the USDA’s definition of whole THC. California’s final main hemp regulation (AB 45) adopted a definition that’s way more restrictive: the sum of THC + THCA, with THC outlined to incorporate any THC (delta 8, 10, and so forth.) or another cannabinoid that the CDPH deems “intoxicating.” Ab 2223 reworks these provisions, which primarily seem to have the identical impact.
In sum, a product with a excessive degree of any cannabinoid that’s intoxicating can be very prone to have a complete THC in extra of the state’s 0.3% restrict. Which means just about any hemp produced product (resembling THCA flower or delta 8) can be banned. It seems that California goes out of its option to clarify that the state received’t stand for intoxicating hemp merchandise.
#4 New product necessities for the hemp trade
AB 2223 would impose some new requirements for hemp meals and drinks as follows:
(1) A single serving of an industrial hemp product shall be based mostly on the quantity of meals or beverage usually consumed in a single consuming event for that meals or beverage.
(2) A single serving of an industrial hemp dietary complement in tablet, pill, or capsule type shall be one unit.
(3) A product shall not exceed 5 servings per bundle.
The invoice would additionally put a complete THC cap on remaining type merchandise, however the drafters forgot to fill within the particular quantity! (“An industrial hemp remaining type product shall not have a degree of whole THC that exceeds _______. A certified testing laboratory shall set up a restrict of detection of ______ or decrease for whole THC and a pattern shall cross if whole THC doesn’t exceed the restrict of detection.”) In all chance, the state will put a low restrict on there to as soon as once more limit intoxicating merchandise.
Conclusion
I received’t break down the entire provisions of AB 2223 as we speak, for the explanations I expressed above. The purpose of this put up was to focus on a few of the key provisions and to indicate the way it will have an effect on each the hashish trade and hemp trade. Keep tuned to the Canna Law Blog for extra updates on this proposed invoice.