The national hemp debate is getting louder because lawmakers are trying to solve a real problem: intoxicating hemp products being sold outside the regulatory structure that applies to high-THC cannabis. THCA flower, Delta-8, Delta-10, HHC, THC-O, and the next round of chemically converted “get high” cannabinoids have created confusion for consumers, regulators, farmers, retailers, and law enforcement.
But the wrong fix could do serious damage to legitimate hemp farmers and businesses. Congress should not solve the intoxicating cannabinoid problem by wiping out compliant CBD products, smokable CBD flower, hemp grain, hemp fiber, hempseed oil, hemp hearts, hurd, building materials, animal bedding, textiles, and other lawful hemp markets.
My position is simple: “We need federal legalization of cannabis, and the intoxicating side should go with the high-THC regulation where it belongs.”
How We Got Here
It is important to be honest about how this problem developed. Many of these compounds were developed during a desperate time for hemp farmers and processors. In the early growing years after federal hemp legalization, the industry produced far more CBD biomass and extract than the market could absorb. Prices crashed. Farmers who had taken a real risk on a new legal crop were left holding losses.
I do not blame the farmers for that. Farmers grew what the market, the law, and the early excitement told them to grow. They were trying to survive after investing in seed, labor, drying, harvesting, testing, and processing capacity.
The bigger responsibility belongs with the marketers and manufacturers who turned that oversupply into a national supply of “poor man’s THC” for markets that did not have legal high-THC cannabis. Delta-8 and similar products became a way to sell intoxication through the hemp channel, especially in states where adult-use cannabis was unavailable or heavily restricted.
That business model is what created the current backlash. It blurred the line between hemp and marijuana, invited youth-access concerns, and handed lawmakers a reason to come after the broader hemp industry. Farmers should not be punished for that, but the industry does have to help draw a cleaner line going forward.
What the Mary Miller Amendment Tries to Do
The Mary Miller amendment to H.R. 8467 would change the federal definition of hemp in the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. Its stated goal is to limit hemp to naturally occurring, naturally derived, and non-intoxicating cannabinoids. The amendment would also move hemp from a Delta-9 THC standard toward a total THC standard that includes THCA. That matters because THCA converts into Delta-9 THC when heated, smoked, vaped, or decarboxylated. Read the Mary Miller amendment here.
That part of the conversation is understandable. A product should not be able to avoid cannabis regulation merely because it is sold as “hemp” before it is heated. If a flower product is functionally intended to become intoxicating cannabis when smoked or vaped, it belongs in the high-THC cannabis lane.
But the amendment goes too far when it reaches toward hemp-derived cannabinoid products with “quantifiable amounts” of THC or THCA. Modern labs can detect very small trace amounts. “Quantifiable” does not automatically mean intoxicating. A detectable trace of THC in a full-spectrum CBD product is not the same thing as a THCA flower product or a chemically converted Delta-8 product.
The Problem With a Detectable-THC Standard
A detectable-THC standard risks turning a product safety issue into a broad hemp prohibition. Full-spectrum CBD products can contain trace amounts of THC while remaining non-intoxicating. Compliant hemp flower can be grown under the federal hemp threshold and sold as CBD flower, not as a high-THC substitute. Hempseed oil, hemp grain, fiber, hurd, and industrial uses should not be dragged into the same debate as intoxicating products.
That is why the line should not be “any THC equals illegal.” The line should be whether the product is intoxicating, chemically converted, above lawful total THC limits, marketed as producing a high, or designed to evade cannabis regulation.
Compliant Smokable CBD Flower Must Be Protected
Some hemp farmers grow excellent smokable CBD flower that complies with the federal hemp limit. Those farmers should not be punished because other operators are selling THCA flower or chemically converted cannabinoids as a legal high.
There is a major difference between naturally grown, compliant CBD flower and high-THCA flower designed for intoxication. Policymakers need to understand that distinction. A rule that simply attacks “smokable hemp” would harm legitimate farmers and erase one of the real markets available to small hemp growers.
Michigan businesses such as Lakeland Hemp help show why this distinction matters. Compliant smokable CBD flower is not the same policy question as THCA flower being sold as a workaround for marijuana laws.
A better rule would say that naturally grown hemp flower remains lawful when it complies with the federal hemp standard, contains no synthetic or chemically converted cannabinoids, is supported by accredited lab testing, and is not marketed for intoxication.
Full-Spectrum CBD Should Not Be Swept Away
Full-spectrum CBD products need a protected lane too. People are not buying these products because they want to get high. They are buying them because they want the potential wellness benefits of the whole hemp plant without intoxication.
If Congress treats every detectable trace of THC as a reason to ban a product, it will damage the very CBD market it opened when it legalized hemp. Small amounts of lawful THC can also be part of why full-spectrum products work for some people. Research on the “entourage effect” suggests cannabinoids like CBD and THC may work differently together than they do alone.
That is exactly why Congress should not confuse non-intoxicating full-spectrum CBD with intoxicating loophole products.
Michigan companies such as Thumb Coast CBD represent the kind of full-spectrum CBD lane that should be preserved: lawful hemp products that are not being sold as a cheap high or a substitute for regulated marijuana.
If Congress wants to regulate intoxicating cannabinoids, it should do that directly. It should not use language that accidentally destroys non-intoxicating CBD products, compliant CBD flower, and the farmers who supply those markets.
Where I Agree With the U.S. Hemp Roundtable
The U.S. Hemp Roundtable has consistently argued that hemp products should be regulated, not prohibited. Its support for the Cannabinoid Safety and Regulation Act is built around a federal regulatory framework for hemp-derived cannabinoid products, including youth access restrictions, quality control standards, labeling standards, and packaging standards.
That framework is far better than prohibition. The Roundtable’s position recognizes that the answer is not to destroy the hemp marketplace, but to bring order, testing, labeling, age limits, and consumer safety rules to it.
The U.S. Hemp Roundtable’s four-pillar approach focuses on restricting youth access, increasing quality control, standardizing labeling, and standardizing packaging. That is the right direction for federal policy. Read more about the four-pillar framework here.
Where My Position Adds a Clearer Farmer Protection
Where I would sharpen the message is around farmers and product lanes. I want federal law to clearly separate industrial hemp, compliant CBD flower, non-intoxicating CBD products, and intoxicating cannabis products.
Industrial hemp should have a protected lane. Hemp grown for fiber, grain, seed, hurd, stalk, hemp hearts, hempseed oil, textiles, building materials, paper, bioplastics, animal bedding, and other non-intoxicating agricultural uses should not be tangled up in the fight over intoxicating cannabinoids.
Compliant CBD should also have a protected lane. That includes full-spectrum CBD products and smokable CBD flower when they remain within the lawful hemp threshold, contain no chemically converted intoxicants, are properly tested, and are not marketed as producing a high.
Intoxicating products need a different lane. THCA flower, Delta-8, Delta-10, HHC, THC-O, and similar products should not be treated as ordinary hemp. If they are intoxicating, they belong in the high-THC cannabis regulatory structure, with age limits, testing, labeling, taxation, licensing, and enforcement.
Federal Cannabis Legalization Is Part of the Solution
One reason this hemp fight keeps happening is because federal cannabis law remains broken. As long as high-THC cannabis remains federally illegal, the market will keep searching for loopholes. Some of those loopholes will be creative. Some will be unsafe. Some will damage public confidence in hemp.
That is why I believe federal cannabis legalization is necessary. Legalize cannabis federally, regulate intoxicating products as intoxicating products, and stop forcing the hemp industry to carry the burden of America’s outdated cannabis policy.
Hemp should not be the back door for unregulated intoxicants. But hemp also should not be sacrificed because Congress has failed to create a rational federal cannabis framework.
A Better Federal Standard
A workable federal fix should do five things.
First, it should close the THCA loophole by making clear that flower or concentrates intended or marketed for intoxication through heating, smoking, vaping, or decarboxylation are not ordinary hemp products.
Second, it should prohibit chemically converted intoxicating cannabinoids from hiding under the hemp definition. That includes Delta-8, Delta-10, HHC, THC-O, and future compounds created to mimic THC effects while avoiding cannabis regulation.
Third, it should replace “quantifiable THC” language with a practical, science-based standard based on total THC, serving size, container limits, intoxication risk, and marketing claims.
Fourth, it should preserve non-intoxicating CBD products, including full-spectrum CBD, when they contain only lawful trace cannabinoids, are not intoxicating when used as directed, and are supported by accredited lab testing.
Fifth, it should explicitly protect industrial hemp and compliant CBD flower so farmers are not punished for growing a legal crop.
My Position
I support strong regulation of intoxicating hemp products. I do not support wiping out the lawful hemp industry to get there.
THCA flower, Delta-8, Delta-10, HHC, THC-O, and other intoxicating products should not be allowed to pretend they are the same thing as hemp grain, fiber, seed, CBD oil, or compliant CBD flower. They are different markets and should be regulated differently.
At the same time, lawmakers should not use broad language that destroys non-intoxicating CBD businesses, compliant smokable CBD flower growers, and industrial hemp farmers. That would be bad policy and bad agriculture.
The right path is regulation, not prohibition. The U.S. Hemp Roundtable is right to push for a federal framework built around age restrictions, manufacturing standards, testing, labeling, and packaging. I support that direction. My added point is that the law must clearly protect farmers who are growing lawful hemp for CBD, flower, grain, and fiber.
The Bottom Line
We can be honest about the problem without turning our backs on hemp farmers.
Many farmers entered the hemp industry in good faith and were hurt by the early CBD oversupply. The current problem was not created by farmers growing a legal crop. It was created when marketers turned that oversupply into a national intoxicating hemp market designed to serve places without legal THC.
Now Congress needs to fix the problem without punishing the wrong people.
Intoxicating cannabinoids belong in the high-THC cannabis regulatory lane. Non-intoxicating hemp belongs in the hemp lane. Congress should legalize cannabis federally, regulate intoxicating products where they belong, and preserve the lawful hemp markets that farmers and small businesses have spent years building.
That is the balanced approach. Protect consumers. Protect kids. Protect farmers. Regulate intoxicants. Preserve hemp.
Helpful Links
Mary Miller Amendment to H.R. 8467
U.S. Hemp Roundtable / Hemp Supporter
Cannabinoid Safety and Regulation Act
U.S. Hemp Roundtable Four Pillars of Regulation
About the author: Dave Crabill is the founder of iHemp Michigan and has been active in Michigan’s hemp industry since the early days of legal hemp cultivation, including growing hemp in 2019. He works to support practical hemp markets for CBD, flower, grain, fiber, and industrial uses. Dave also makes and shares CBD products with friends in the Oldtimers hockey community, where he has seen firsthand how important the non-intoxicating hemp lane is to real people.
For follow-up or discussion, contact Dave at dave@ihempmichigan.com.