Hemp and cannabis attorneys respond to NAAG: Prohibition is a “disastrous policy”

Today the Attorneys Committee of the Hemp Beverage Alliance sent a letter to Congressional leadership, in response to a recent letter sent to Congress by the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG). Here’s what they said:

The Honorable Susan Collins
The Honorable Tom Cole
The Honorable John Boozman
The Honorable Glenn “GT” Thompson

Dear Chairs:

We, the undersigned attorneys supporting and representing clients in the hemp industry, many of whom are members of the Hemp Beverage Alliance (HBA), write to you in response to the October 24, 2025 letter from the National Association of Attorneys General (the “AG Letter”), in opposition to a “hemp ban” contained in the Fiscal Year 2026 Agriculture Appropriations bill, Section 759 (the “Appropriations Bill”), and in support of reasonable and appropriate regulations for consumable hemp products.

As noted in the AG Letter, the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 legalized hemp under federal law. Hemp is a legislative construct. Both hemp and cannabis come from the same plant, Cannabis Sativa L. The difference is that hemp is grown to under 0.3% THC on a dry weight basis, and regulated cannabis (which remains federally illegal under the Controlled Substances Act) is grown to over 0.3% THC and sold in state-legal dispensaries. We agree with our State Attorneys General that, like other industries, there are bad actors in the hemp market that create products that illegally copy brands and sell to minors; however, we strongly assert that banning all hemp derivatives is an overbroad, disastrous policy that would punish responsible commerce and exacerbate the very problems the AGs seek to solve.

Over 40 states have finished hemp product regulations including more than a dozen states with robust regulatory frameworks, including Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, New York, Tennessee, Minnesota, Georgia, Kentucky, Iowa, and Virginia. Other states are moving in the same direction of regulating versus banning (see, for example, Ohio and Texas). These state laws and regulations outline new licensing requirements for retail and manufacturing and include mandated testing, age gates (online and in store), label requirements (including warnings), disclosures, marketing restrictions, direct-to-consumer rules and restrictions, potency limits, and penalties for noncompliance. Compliance is generally overseen by either agriculture, cannabis or alcohol state agencies. 

Most of these states have also defined and banned synthetic cannabinoids, including the cannabinoids listed in the AG letter, like Delta-8, Delta-10, THC-O, THCP, and HHC. These states are doing the work necessary to create a regulatory framework that protects adult consumers while dramatically decreasing the likelihood of children accessing hemp-derived products. These states are also engaging in enforcement activities, both with respect to the packaging and labeling of these products (see, for example, Florida and Missouri) and direct to consumer shipments (see, for example, Iowa, Oregon, Colorado and Maryland).

The AG Letter overreaches in a number of instances. For example, the signatories posit that “state efforts to outlaw hemp-derived psychoactive products to protect their citizens cannot solve this problem” and that “[s]uch efforts only lead to an uneven and ineffectual patchwork of bans and regulations that differ from State to State.” The AG Letter claims that state laws “will not stop the flood of mail-order THC products from streaming through interstate commerce.”  We respectfully disagree.

As attorneys who practice in the world of intoxicating products, we are accustomed to advising on and complying with disparate state laws, rules, and guidance. Alcohol is subject to a “patchwork” of state laws and regulations across all 50 states and enforcement has effectively stopped any illegal mail-order alcohol from streaming through interstate commerce. Cannabis products are banned in a number of states and highly regulated in others, and yet our clients follow the applicable rules by managing state-level compliance specific to each state. These clients are manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, brand owners, retailers, packagers, blenders, and all of the ancillary businesses that service the consumable hemp industry. 

The same holds true for the hemp industry. The businesses that we work with and support have been asking for regulations for years, including from the FDA, and are eager to work within defined regulatory frameworks, even if those frameworks might differ on a state-by-state basis. Far from being “ineffectual,” the states with hemp regulations, like Minnesota and Georgia, have found hemp businesses to be upstanding members of their communities who are just as interested in protecting children from intoxicating products as their state legislators. In addition, these states have embraced certain hemp-derived products, like hemp-derived THC beverages, as an alternative to alcohol. Some states like California, put emergency regulations in place, with 99.8% compliance – hardly ineffectual – and are now rolling consumable hemp products into their existing cannabis regulatory framework.

While we appreciate the efforts of our Attorneys General to protect the public from harm, and we agree that regulations are needed across the country, banning hemp products with any traceable THC via the appropriations process is not the way forward, especially when there has been little to no debate on this topic by Members of Congress. As House Representative James Comer from Kentucky noted in a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson opposing the ban:

“The inclusion of this language in the FY26 Agriculture-FDA Appropriations Bill clearly violates the prohibition in clause 2(b) of rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives, which provides that ‘a provision changing existing law may not be reported in a general appropriation bill.’”

Indeed, it appears that some of the Attorneys General who signed the letter do not actually support the currently proposed hemp ban in the Appropriations Bill. Last week, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who signed the AG Letter, clarified his position with a Substack post titled, “Minnesota is developing a craft THC industry to be proud of.” In the post, AG Ellison acknowledged that he had created confusion on his position by signing the AG Letter and clarified that he is “and will remain a supporter of Minnesota’s THC edible industry that follows state law, supports businesses, farmers, and entrepreneurs across Minnesota, and creates products that people enjoy.” He further clarified that “[o]ne of the primary reasons [he] signed onto the letter is to ensure this industry continues to thrive.” 

Similarly, in response to an email from one of the signatories to this letter, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser clarified that he “supports closing legal loopholes that allow the sale of recreational synthetic Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products without proper disclosure and regulation, not the outright banning of hemp products. Attorney General Weiser believes that this is an important mechanism to ensure consistent age restrictions, labeling standards, and safety requirements for these products.” (emphasis added)

Reading AG Ellison’s Substack and AG Weiser’s clarifying email response, it is clear that their desire to “close the loophole” that made hemp federally legal does not mean that they want a full ban, as is currently proposed in the Appropriations Bill. Instead, like those of us signing this letter, AG Ellison and AG Weiser want smart regulations that protect consumers.

Putting aside the confusion created by the AG Letter, and the flawed process of using a funding bill to “close the loophole,” the impact of such a ban cannot be understated. The hemp industry at large, including the industrial hemp farmers who the Attorneys General argue will be unscathed by such a ban, will in fact be decimated, particularly if no detectable THC is permitted in consumable products, as is currently included in the Appropriations Bill. Such a rule would make nonintoxicating CBD products illegal as well, something we believe the Attorneys General signing this letter do not support. 

American farmers are already struggling mightily – this will be the nail in the coffin. The hemp industry supports 320,000 American jobs and generates $28.4 billion in regulated market activity. In Texas alone, a ban would shut down approximately 6,350 businesses, force job losses for 40,000 citizens, and destroy $7.5 billion in economic activity. In Minnesota, a ban would shutter 5,345 retailers licensed to sell hemp-derived edibles and beverages. These figures underscore the importance of preserving a regulated hemp market to support small businesses, farmers, and local economies. Consumers also want these products. Of significance, companies like Total Wine & More, Binny’s, Target, Circle K, Fresh Thyme, Doordash and others are now carrying hemp-derived lower potency edibles and beverages, and consumers are thrilled to have an alternative to alcohol.

As attorneys who work in the hemp industry, we ask that Congress allow the states to continue to regulate hemp products and avoid inclusion of a hemp ban in the Appropriations Bill that will prevent adult consumers from accessing these products and have a disastrous impact on so many well intentioned, hard-working, small business owners, who welcome a regulated environment.

###