[harles]

> It is mostly about shifting profits from mom and pop, low regulation hemp industry to wealthy corporations that own dispensaries that have gargantuan regulatory costs that gatekeep out most the competition.

That’s a big assertion that needs evidence. I’m strongly in favor of legalization but not deregulation. It was a pretty big loophole that allowed what’s essentially weed to sidestep the regulation their competitors faced - and there wasn’t great consumer awareness about the differences even though there were safety implications: https://drexel.edu/cannabis-research/research/research-highl...

This law seems pretty well targeted in its scope, bringing the 2018 law back to what was intended (easy legal CBD/hemp, as long as there aren’t other things in there).

[mothballed]

We are speaking of federal law here.

There was absolutely no federal regulatory framework for marijuana. none. It's just plain illegal. Unless you can get one of a handful of research licenses, which is almost totally irrelevant.

Hemp had some, fairly weak regulation. And theoretically, testing requirements, although they were deferred and deferred to the point they were basically done only privately with the idea the DEA would eventually get involved.

Instead they're just dumped now into the marijuana bucket which has no federal regulation at all, or alternatively, at the state level the states could always define their regulatory framework to be agnostic to THC content of cannabis.

So this does the exact opposite of what you had hoped.

[hemp_is_canvas]

Yet Kratom is legal, yt is recommending to me some product called "meth" (not joking) and there are a million new research drugs coming out every decade?

It's just old-school think of the kids and not in my territory. We don't know how to regulate and handle this because our politicians and more and more our citizens don't understand what is being voted on or has been happening in their own states for 7 years.

Have you used these products? It's a shame, the quality that I was getting just within the past 3 months was incredible and it is market not afraid to try new stuff.

I'm sad, flower from OR, NC, OK, IN, and others will never legally hit my lungs. Back to the cartels? Or perhaps I should overpay by $200 with the comfort of having 0 clue where it comes from, again?

[myvoiceismypass]

> I'm sad, flower from OR, NC, OK, IN, and others will never legally hit my lungs

You have the power to elect people that will actually represent you.

[mebizzle]

>(easy legal CBD/hemp, as long as there aren’t other things in there)

Your ignorance shows in spades. The arbitrary ban on THC and its analogues prevent chronic pain patients like me (a criminally underserved market) from becoming addicted to the big pharma system. The "other things in there" argument is the same as razorblades in candy, sanctimony to portray dissent as degeneracy.

[tablets]

In my experience it is also the other things in there which helps with the pain relief. Doctors in my country talk about the entourage effect and mixing strains as they reckon it's not just the THC which is helping.

I can imagine people in the future looking at us like idiots as they use cannabinoids in the same way we use paracetamol.

From personal experience suffering from chronic pain cannabis is absolutely transformative. The difference between a life spiralling to nothing just about surviving on opioids compared to effective pain relief from cannabis and being able to work and be productive again.

One of the tragedies of the 20th and hopefully not the 21st century. So many people in so much unnecessary pain.

Looking at history I could quite easily come to the conclusion... ...due to racism.

[sharts]

THC is for getting high.

[harles]

> The arbitrary ban on THC

You clearly haven’t read either the original law or this one.

[tharne]

> That’s a big assertion that needs evidence.

It really doesn't. It's well a well-established fact that heavy regulations favor larger enterprises over smaller ones.