As Missouri lawmakers head into the 2026 legislative session, new federal THC limits are forcing a fresh debate over how — and whether — intoxicating hemp products should be regulated
BY: REBECCA RIVAS
Missouri Independent
Businesses and Missouri lawmakers are scrambling to understand what will happen in November, when new federal limits on intoxicating hemp products go into effect.
It’s unclear just how proactive the federal government will be enforcing the new restrictions. Will it clamp down, or like it has with marijuana, look the other way as states enact their own rules?
To add to the uncertainty, President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week to loosen federal restrictions on marijuana. That action could impact whether or not the feds choose to enforce hemp products as well, according to a congressional report.
Amidst the swirling questions, several Missouri lawmakers have pre-filed bills for the upcoming legislative session that begins in January to establish state regulations on intoxicating hemp products.
Not all of the Missouri proposals include the federal THC limit in their definitions of hemp, which will take effect Nov. 12 and was included in a federal spending package approved by Congress and signed by the president in November.
One proposal that does align with the federal restrictions comes from Republican state Sen. David Gregory of Chesterfield, and it would regulate intoxicating hemp the same as marijuana. That would essentially ban current hemp products, because marijuana must be grown in Missouri and most hemp currently is grown outside of the state. It would also require hemp products to be sold in licensed cannabis dispensaries, where most are currently sold in gas stations, liquor stores and restaurants and smoke shops.
Republican state Rep. Matthew Overcast of Ava said he has “no concerns” about the federal language impacting the hemp industry. He plans on continuing to push his proposed constitutional amendment that would overturn the current regulatory framework for the cannabis industry and instead allow marijuana and intoxicating hemp products to be sold in the same stores as alcohol and tobacco.
“Historically, there’s been this softened congressional enforcement of our federally illicit marijuana programs that have regulated programs across the nation,” he said. “Even if the language were to stand, I don’t see — outside of big marijuana continuing to try to influence congressional and state legislators and state agencies — that we’re going to see federal enforcement on hemp.”
Democratic state Sen. Karla May of St. Louis pre-filed a bill that would allow intoxicating hemp products to continue to be sold outside of dispensaries with a $1,000 registration fee annually. Her bill does not include the federal definition, she said, because it was drafted before the spending package went through. May called her bill a “starting point.”
Through it all, intoxicating hemp businesses — along with companies that assist them — are trying to figure out what their future might look like.
“Think about your bank, your payroll company, your merchant processor — they may not want to wait out the 365 days,” said Jessica Velazquez, a Las Vegas-based accountant with Beach Fleishman, during a November webinar for hemp businesses. “They may take a more conservative approach and say, ‘Hey, you know, this really is like [marijuana] and maybe we don’t want to service you anymore’ in the way that they currently are now.’”
What is the law?
Hemp and marijuana are essentially terms the government uses to distinguish between the part of the cannabis plant that has high amounts of THC.
Hemp has previously been defined as any part of the plant containing 0.3% or less delta-9 THC by dry weight.
Last month, a provision in the federal spending bill amended the definition of hemp, changing the limit to a total THC concentration of less than .3% on a dry weight basis, rather than only delta-9 THC. It also prohibits products from containing more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container.
The changes address some of the concerns Congress heard from groups like the Cannabis Regulators Association, which represents state marijuana regulators across the nation.
The association submitted information to Congress in a 2023 report stating that many hemp businesses are selling “THCA hemp” flower, or buds, containing less than 0.3% delta-9 THC.
“However, cannabis plants produce THCA, not THC,” the report states.
When the plant is smoked, the THCA converts or decarboxylates into delta-9 THC – and that’s why every state marijuana program defines THC in terms of both THCA and delta-9 THC, regulators said.
THCA products – including flower, vape cartridges and concentrates – are “indistinguishable” from marijuana products sold in dispensaries, the association stated.
And that’s why, regulators argued, there was a need to add language about total THC, instead of only delta-9.
Regarding weight, the association told Congress that the threshold of 0.3% delta-9 THC by weight is a small amount of THC in a hemp plant. However, when applied to things like chocolate bars or beverages that can weigh significantly more, 0.3% by weight can amount to hundreds of milligrams of THC.
The association gave the example of a 50-gram chocolate bar at 0.3% THC would have around 150 mg of THC — 30 times the standard 5 mg THC dose established by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. A family sized pack of cookies weighing 20 oz can contain around 1,700 mg of THC using the 0.3% THC threshold.
“The whole question was: what is hemp and what is marijuana?” said Jack Cardetti, spokesman for the Missouri Cannabis Trade Association. “There was not a bright line there, and it was a line that obviously some bad actors have used to push intoxicating products that were completely unregulated.”
The lack of government oversight on these products makes them a public health risk, Cardetti said. Now there is a “clear bright line,” he said, and he believes a majority of Missouri lawmakers will want to align with the federal definition.
The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee stated the changes were made to prevent “the unregulated sale of intoxicating” hemp products.
A report from the Congressional Research Service released this month states that it “remains to be seen” whether the FDA will opt to try and remove the products from the market or not.
The FDA and DEA, in coordination with the Department of Justice, “have a range of civil and criminal remedies they may use in efforts to exercise control over these activities,” it states.
It also says these federal agencies, “may lack the resources to broadly enforce the laws prohibiting intoxicating hemp products on the market.”
Congress may also choose to exercise oversight over federal enforcement priorities regarding state-regulated cannabis activities, the report says. It took that step with medical marijuana, when it prohibited spending money on enforcement.
“Congress can say that, ‘FDA and DEA, we prohibit you from using federal dollars to enforce against state-compliant hemp programs,’” said Craig Small, a Denver-based cannabis attorney.
With the federal limits, Small said hemp companies could run into the same banking and tax issues that marijuana companies do — where there are no business tax deductions allowed and banks largely won’t take them as customers.
How much priority federal agencies need to put on enforcing hemp-derived products seemed to be a “subtext” of Trump’s executive order to reschedule marijuana, Small said.
It ordered his administration to work with Congress to develop a framework that permits full-spectrum CBD products, which have a trace amount of THC. Those products “will once again be controlled as marijuana,” under the federal spending bill’s provision, the executive order states.
However, it also states the regulatory framework should preserve Congress’ “intent to restrict the sale of products that pose serious health risks.”
And it orders federal health agencies to “develop research methods and models utilizing real-world evidence to improve access to hemp-derived cannabinoid products.”
“It does signal to the industry that if we were on a DEFCON 1 before, we’re now on DEFCON 3,” Small said. “Whatever arguments law enforcement want to make on a federal or state level about the danger of these products and how serious it is that we get them off the streets, I do think that’s lessened a little bit with these instructions.”
Lawmakers weigh in
This will be the fourth year in a row that Missouri lawmakers have attempted to regulate intoxicating hemp products, with previous debates ending in stalemates.
May said she’s planning on sitting down with Gregory to talk about how to move forward this legislative session.
“We really want to solve the issue,” May said. “That’s the key, so I want to make sure that everybody’s on the same page saying the same thing.”
Under May’s bill, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services would be tasked with establishing rules on potency limits, recall procedures of dangerous products, advertising standards and “create mechanisms for compliance and enforcement.”
May led a seven-hour bipartisan filibuster in April against a bill similar to Gregory’s, after arguing it was nothing more than an attempt by the marijuana industry to stomp out its competition.
“It reminds me so much of a street drug war,” May said during an April Senate floor debate. “All drugs have always been about distribution and territory. And this is no different.”
The department has previously put a high price tag on proposals that create separate rules for intoxicating hemp and marijuana products.
Republican state Rep. Dave Hinman of O’Fallon led a similar effort as May to license hemp business during the last legislative session, but he said he will file a bill that aligns with the new federal definition.
Overcast’s constitutional amendment would replace the marijuana legalization amendment approved by voters in 2022 with language that instructs Missouri lawmakers to create regulations that are no more burdensome than what we already have for alcohol and tobacco.
The amendment is nearly identical to four initiative petitions filed in September and bankrolled by American Shaman owner Vince Sanders and some other major hemp business owners. While the petitions have been approved to circulate for signatures, the effort has been put on pause, said Eapen Thampy, a lobbyist for American Shaman.
“Although we were successful at securing some commitments,” Thampy said, “it wasn’t to the level where we felt comfortable moving forward with a full fledged signature campaign.”
