https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB45
sucks cali sucks
This didn’t pass right? As soon as it does I’m moving to Vegas lol.
im not in that area but can you summarize? I got my cbd from icbd and hes there.
ya we have a nevada hemp license too
1 Like
In summary - if you want to make products with Hemp, the hemp must come from a licensed hemp grower. If you want to make products with hemp derived products - the hemp derived products must meet all the normal dietary supplement, food/drug, pet food, and cosmetics rules in that the state has for other products. There is a $250 license fee to be allowed to do this.
And there is now a path to using these products legally in food, dietary supplements, and pet food in the state - where there was previously a rule that said NOPE (even though people didn’t follow it and there was little enforcement)
They have also clarified the definition of THC to include D9, D8, D10 and their optical isomers. (Which I’m sure some people don’t like…as that would make all of those products illegal even if they came from hemp.
You can’t mix hemp products and tobacco products or other nicotine related smokables… nothing specific about smoking hemp solo.
There are proscribed documentation requirements - making this process more GMP.
And finally - there are specific clauses about negligence and recalls (as required by the USDA’s final rules).
Seems pretty normal to me. Hemp products are like everything else in Cali now - as long as they don’t have THC in them (with a broad definition of THC…)
9 Likes
According to the Bill Website as listed - this passed the house on 6/1/2021 and is now in the Senate for their approval. So it hasn’t passed yet - I’m not actively participating in discussing this with the legislature there. If you don’t like things about it - probably time to call your State Senator to discuss.
In order for the program to continue under the USDA final rules - new rules in Cali need to be in place. Soooooo… something will have to pass, who knows if it will be amended or not.
Please show me where they list d10 and d8 as illegal isomers
They’re not even mentioned in the document
Everything talks about .3% d9
Those sneaky fuckers
1 Like
I figured that was important to the forum so I wanted to mention it specifically.
That’s how they are doing it in other states as well - making the definition of THC more specific.
6 Likes
What gets me is technically they’re definition of hemp is wrong then
They list d9 in the wording in the bill
Jesus we have some dumb politicians
I’m more of the opinion they are doing this intentionally to prevent being popped for entrapment. It’s like; if they word things slightly wrong it makes people feel comfortable enough to make decisions they know they’re going to amend later to fuck people. Sleight of hand imo.
“Nah dude it’s safe just go right ahead and pull your pants down, nobody’s gonna fuck you dude it’s cool.”
1 Like
I already hit up the pot brothers at law about it
Let’s see what they say
The definition of hemp is totally different then what they’re actually testing for
1 Like
“Stick to the script!”
4 Likes
Its loopholes like this that allow people to fight these kinds of things in court.
Ambiguity and confusion are occasionally helpful although always frustrating.
2 Likes
Yeah I already went through this with prop 64. I’m not trying to convince these idiots of anything. I’m fucking out. Too bad California is beautiful and I love it here but there is too much overregulation of everything. Communist weed nazis have ruined it .
1 Like
except the part where they make smokeable hemp illegal. i think you missed that part…
111921.5.
(a) Unless explicitly approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration, industrial hemp shall not be included in products in any of the following categories:
(1) Medical devices.
(2) Prescription drugs.
(3) Processed smokable products regulated by California law, including, but not limited to, electronic cigarettes with nicotine.
(4) Smokable flower, including, but not limited to, hookah and shisha with nicotine.
(5) A product containing nicotine or tobacco.
(6) An alcoholic beverage.
(b) The department may prohibit the inclusion of industrial hemp in other products when it poses a risk to human or animal health through regulation.
(c) Cannabis and cannabis products are not subject to this section.
if this passes as is LMAO…wish I could move outta this state and not abandon my family.
2 Likes
Bans D8 and Smokeable. thats completely fucked. bought and paid for by big cannabis, it’ll pass for sure.
Only if the smokable flower has nicotine added to it. Yeah? Otherwise it’s not regulated the same way… seems to be keeping the tobacco and tobacco related products and taxes separate
1 Like