I am one of the 8 plaintiffs suing the state of Iowa in federal court. On July 1st, a new Iowa law went into effect limiting the amount of THC in hemp products to 4 mg per dose and 10 mg per package.
Our injunction hearing is scheduled for July 11th. In the meantime, our store has gone from selling around 40 SKUs to selling 6. Those 6 SKUs account for less than 1% of our sales.
I wanted to share this info because I know hemp businesses in other states are dealing with similar situations. If you’d like to learn more about our efforts or find ways to support, please visit the nonprofit we started, which includes the official press release and legal filings for the lawsuit: https://iowahempalliance.org/.
12 Likes
Sorry you are going through this, I don’t wish ruin on anyone, especially for only trying to sell a plant at the end of the day.
1 Like
I definitely wish ruin on Iowa’s dogshit legislators and drunk moron governor.
For those of you still there, I feel for you, but I’m sure glad I got the hell out.
3 Likes
I don’t see how your business interests are supposed to be of higher importance than protecting citizens’ health. Your lawsuit is doomed to get thrown out, whoever made you sue and thus predictably waste money is an idiot.
Show me any scientific literature that states 4mg is more “healthy” than 10mg. First of all people can just buy multiple packs if they are set on being reckless. This is equivalent to only selling alcohol in shooters. Unnecessary regulation that only makes more plastic waste and raises costs for all.
I’m for consumer protection, there are many ways to do it that aren’t rooted in reefer madness still existent in the midwest/South.
At least Minnesota has 5mg. 4mg is clearly just an arbitrary number meant to exacerbate prohibition. I do think a large majority should be low mg, but people should also have the option. I would need to eat over a hundred packs of 4mg edibles to even feel anything. Just let people have choice over their medicine, period, with proper safety measures. Blows my mind how many here are prohibitionists?
how is limiting the amount per pack any form of prohibition? controlling the amount per pack of a potentially psychosis-inducing API is the only sensible way to have at least somewhat of a practical solution that regulates consumer idiocy.
If you can’t figure it out then it’s not worth my time. Pretty simple concept. Cannabis should be subject to the same regulations as alcohol mostly. Imagine if they made it so the average person wouldn’t feel a beer like 1% ABV. No one would buy it, it would hurt the economy, lead to job loss, increase waste, and reduce resources for companies to provide safe products. Stop acting like it’s radioactive. It’s a plant. It’s safe. Why are you even here? If you feel that cannabis should be regulated to 4mg THC, why are you possibly even here? What interest is this forum to you if you view 5mg of THC as so dangerous it’s the ONLY solution to make it PROHIBITED.
It’s not your job to call consumers idiots, I’m sure you’ll make it far in your business ventures with that perspective.
My opinion doesn’t matter, consumers are idiots regardless.
If you think the regulation on alcohol is adequate, then your argument should be valid. But: Alcohol has been proven time and time again to be in a totally different league vs. THC with respect to chronic toxicity, though - which imo means that regulation for alcohol should actually be much stricter than it currently is.
2 Likes
Okay, so then why are you arguing for regulation that would put THC in a significantly more stringent regulation structure than alcohol? You can buy a handle from a liquor store, chug it and die, but you should not be able to buy more than 4mg of THC so you can actually even feel it? Unless the entirety of Americans change the way they view their vices this isn’t going to happen, and if we did, would many people be doing recreational substances anyways?
This is my entire problem with folks who have been in the industry as OGs now arguing for stricter regulation than alcohol. Dozens of you on this forum. What happened to us. Used to be so counterculture, now we are confirming to a shitty culture. Sad.
You can have a fantasy world of perfect regulation or you can allow companies the freedom and profits to produce quality that is safe for all. There’s a reason bathtub moonshiners are out of business and not making people sick anymore, because we let professionals profit and build companies/a market that produce safe products efficiently, which required scaling initially, a thing that excess regulation prohibits massively when it’s in disproportion to the risk or standards of similar industries. There is a reason there is a national cannabis shortage and a black market exists. When’s the last time you purchased a bottle of beer on the black market?
1 Like
I am arguing for regulation that isn’t relative to some arbitrary (and thus irrelevant) standard, but actually takes into account the potential harm.
Sure, let’s control your neighbors because they are too stupid and your ideas will certainly protect them from themselves. In that case, let’s start with the most danger. Alcohol, tobacco, and opiates.
Good luck with your plan.
All of which you named are subject to regulation, and for very good reason. Somehow i’m under the impression that your mental faculties are impacted by THC overuse… good luck with that as well 
The level of regulation you are putting forth is more stringent than alcohol and tobacco.
Thanks for insulting me though, guess that means you won.
People continually think that when I say I don’t want excess regulation it means that I don’t want any regulation. Even though I continually lay out my stance clearly.
good luck this would set a precedent if successful. any deviation from the federal law of 0.3% seems subject to interpretation by the courts.
2 Likes
