
Maine won't require medical cannabis to be tested for contaminants -- this year
Jun. 11—Maine's medical cannabis providers have once again fought off a controversial requirement to start testing their products — at least for now.
A legislative committee killed one bill and carried over another that would have instituted testing and tracking requirements that industry members have said for years would put them out of business or force price increases.
While Maine's recreational cannabis market requires testing for contaminants and potency and includes potency limits, the medical market requires neither. Maine is the only state that doesn't mandate medical cannabis to be tested.
LD 104, proposed by the state's Office of Cannabis Policy and sponsored by Rep. Marc Malon, D-Biddeford, would have required seed-to-sale plant tracking and standardized chemical, mold and heavy metal testing between recreational and medical cannabis. LD 1847, sponsored by Rep. Anne Graham, D-North Yarmouth, sought to do the same while also adding potency caps on edibles. The latter will be taken up again next year.
"I have listened and I've read testimony and I've worked with public health advocates to make sure that the medical cannabis industry survives, thrives and (can) be regulated so that when patients buy cannabis, they know that they have a safe product and they know what the potency is," Graham said. " ... Clearly our regulations and how we look at (testing), it needs work, a lot of work."
But it's also "hugely complicated," she said, and needs more time.
Jennifer Belcher, president of the Maine Cannabis Union, said there's a "sense of relief now that we know that nothing is going through this year. If either bill passed as written, she said "the medical program would be done."
Belcher was encouraged by how receptive the committee was to the industry's concerns, and while "it is nerve-racking that we are going to face this next session," there's also an exciting opportunity for collaboration.
"(LD) 1847 gives us an opportunity to focus on the facts, the research, the science," she said.
AN ONGOING FIGHT
John Hudak, director of the office, has been clear that implementing a testing program is a top priority, but this session was the first time since he was appointed to the office in late 2022 that an official proposal has been before the committee.
Following a 2022 law, any major substantive rule-making from the department must be approved by the Legislature.
"If a business model is one in which producing clean cannabis is too costly, there's something wrong with the business model," he said previously. "We're not going to focus on profits at the expense of patients' health."
Supporters of the bill have referenced a 2023 report by the Office of Cannabis Policy that found about 45% of the cannabis in Maine's medical market would fail the standards set for the recreational market. They also pointed to the influx of suspected illegal growers allegedly tied to Chinese organized crime who have been selling bulk cannabis at "rock bottom" prices to legal dispensaries.
However, in a public hearing last month, dozens of medical cannabis caregivers and consumers testified in opposition to the bills and the committee received roughly 1,000 pieces of written testimony. They criticized the state's testing program, citing several recalls in the recreational program last year that have brought the science behind the tests and the state's standards into question. The recent recalls, they argue, prove the testing doesn't work and shouldn't be forced on the medical program.
The fight is just the latest in a series of uphill battles for Maine's medical cannabis providers.
Oversaturation, competition with recreational cannabis and high costs have caused revenue to plummet and people to leave the industry in droves.
Unlike many other states, Maine's medical cannabis market has always outperformed its recreational counterpart. But the gap between the two is narrowing, and last year the medical market brought in about $280 million (down from $371 in 2021), while the recreational market brought in $217 million. The number of providers, known in the industry as caregivers, has been cleaved in half from its 2016 peak of 3,257 to 1,627 in May, according to state data.
"We are literally fighting for our lives at this point," Belcher said.
OTHER BILLS
The committee carried over several other bills, including one that would require the director of the Office of Cannabis Policy be confirmed by the Legislature rather than appointed by the commissioner of the Department of Administrative and Financial Services, which oversees the office. Sen. Craig Hickman, D-Winthrop, who drafted the bill, said the committee needed time to investigate whether there are other directors, like the heads of the state's alcohol and gambling control agencies, that should also be subject to legislative approval.
Lawmakers also carried over a proposal to allow cannabis "social clubs" or public consumption, based off recommendations in a task force report this winter.
Earlier this session, the committee killed two bills that would have implemented revenue sharing across Maine's cannabis industry, meaning towns and cities that allow recreational businesses could receive a portion of the tax revenue they generate. Legislators hoped the bills would encourage more towns and cities to allow cannabis shops and help them recoup the costs of overseeing the recreational program.
Copy the Story Link
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US says China's Huawei can't make more than 200,000 AI chips in 2025
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -China's Huawei Technologies is capable of producing no more than 200,000 advanced artificial intelligence chips in 2025, a top U.S. exports controls official told lawmakers on Thursday, warning that though the number is below the company's demand, China is quickly catching up to U.S. capabilities. Since 2019, a slew of U.S. export rules aimed at curbing China's technological and military advancements have limited access by Huawei and other Chinese firms to high-end U.S. chips and the equipment needed to produce them. The issue has become a flashpoint in U.S.-China relations. Facing those restrictions, Huawei aims to ship its Ascend 910C AI chips to Chinese customers as an alternative to those made by the United States' Nvidia, the global leader. "Our assessment is that Huawei Ascend chip production capacity for 2025 will be at or below 200,000 and we project that most or all of that will be delivered to companies within China," Jeffrey Kessler, Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security at the Commerce Department, told a congressional hearing. Kessler said that the U.S. should not take comfort in the figure. "China is investing huge amounts to increase its AI chip production, as well as the capabilities of the chips that it produces. So, it's critical for us not to have a false sense of security, to understand that China is catching up quickly," he told the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs South and Central Asia subcommittee. White House AI Czar David Sacks said on Tuesday that China was only 3-6 months behind the U.S. in AI. The White House later said he was referring to China's AI models, adding that Chinese AI chips are one to two years behind their U.S. counterparts. Huawei's CEO Ren Zhengfei told Chinese state media on Tuesday that the company's chips were a generation behind those of U.S. competitors, but that it invests more than $25 billion annually to improve performance. Nvidia's AI chips are more powerful than Huawei's but Washington's export controls on its most sophisticated chips have caused it to lose market share. The U.S. and China reached a tentative trade truce at talks in London this week after a previous agreement faltered over China's continued curbs on minerals exports. That prompted the Trump administration to apply additional export controls on shipments of semiconductor design software, jet engines for Chinese-made planes and other goods. Democratic Representative Greg Meeks expressed concern that the Trump administration had conflated U.S. exports controls with broader discussions on trade. "What I will say is export controls have been strong and I'm confident that they will remain strong," Kessler said. Kessler said he was not planning any immediate new restrictions on U.S. semiconductors sold to China, but that the Commerce Department will "remain active in this space." "It's a constantly evolving landscape, and we need to make sure that our controls remain effective," he said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Federal trial alleging illegal racial gerrymandering in Tampa Bay Senate seat concludes
The front of the federal courthouse in Tampa on June 12, 2025 (Photo by Mitch Perry/ Florida Phoenix) A panel of three federal judges is now weighing whether a Tampa Bay state Senate district created in 2022 was the result of illegal racial gerrymandering. A four-day trial over the district concluded on Thursday afternoon and judges must decide whether the constitutional rights of voters in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties were violated when the Legislature created the Senate district in 2022 that crossed from St. Petersburg over the water to Hillsborough County. Florida was sued by three voters who are represented by the ACLU of Florida and the Civil Rights & Racial Justice Clinic at New York University School of Law. The plaintiffs allege that the Legislature's plan to connect Black populations from parts of Hillsborough and Pinellas counties violated their equal-protection rights by unjustifiably packing Black voters into District 16 and removing them from nearby District 18, reducing their influence there. The defendants, Senate President Ben Albritton and Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd, have denied that claim, saying that the maps were lawfully drawn up and previously approved as legally sound by the Florida Supreme Court. But the defense's arguments go beyond refuting the plaintiffs' claims. Indeed the defense went on the offense both before and during the trial to allege that the ACLU of Florida's lead attorney in the case, Nicholas Warren, worked behind the scenes with Democratic House and Senate staffers to try to get a partisan map approved. To bolster that argument, attorneys representing the state called Matthew Isbell to the stand (remotely) on Thursday, their last witness. Isbell is a Tallahassee-based data analyst and consultant who has worked with Democrats and Democratic-affiliated groups over the past decade. Text and direct Twitter messages between Isbell and Warren were displayed to the court showing how both men hoped that the Senate would adopt a map that kept Pinellas County intact and separate from Hillsborough County. Warren drew his own map that kept the two counties separate and introduced it before the redistricting committee in late 2021, without identifying himself as being a staff attorney for the ACLU of Florida. Sen. Ray Rodrigues, who was chair of the Senate Committee on Reapportionment at the time, subsequently sent a memo to all 40 state senators accusing him of violating Senate rules by not disclosing that he was with the ACLU of Florida. Warren testified earlier this week that he drew the map on his own personal time and resources, and that the Senate forms that needed to be completed to appear before the committee did not require an individual to list his employer. Isbell testified on Thursday that he believed that the GOP-majority Legislature's motivation to split the city of St. Petersburg up was motivated by partisan politics, an allegation that attorneys for the Florida Senate president's office have strongly refuted. After Isbell's video appearance concluded, the closing statements began, starting with the plaintiffs. Warren declared that 'race predominated in the drawing of the district.' In terms of direct evidence to back up that statement, Warren played a video clip from a November 2021 committee hearing. The excerpt shows Orange County Democratic Sen. Randolph Bracy asked Senate Committee on Reapportionment staff director Jay Ferrin why the newly proposed Senate District 16 district had to cross from St. Petersburg over into Tampa Bay and Hillsborough County. Ferrin replied that it was to comply with the Fair Districts amendment in the Florida Constitution, specifically the 'Tier 1' standards which provide protections for racial and language minorities. Bracy then asked Ferrin if there was a way to configure the district to comply with the Fair Districts amendment and still keep the two countries separate. Another video exchange showed Pasco County Republican Danny Burgess,telling Bracy that Senate 'staff' had said keeping the counties separate wasn't possible, because it would lead to a 'significant number of voters who would be disenfranchised.' At the time Burgess was the chair of another Senate committee that also dealt with reapportionment. Ferrin agreed with Burgess, saying it would result in a'wide diminishment' that would ultimately disenfranchise Black voters in Pinellas County. Bracy followed up asking how much the Black vote would be diminished by if the counties were to remain separate. Ferrin replied 'close to 30%,'and added that such a reduction 'would constitute diminishment.' That comment, Warren said in his closing, revealed that race placed a major role in why Senate District 16 was created. The defense came back with closing statements from the two attorneys representing their side: Daniel Nordby, who was representing Ben Albritton in his official capacity as president of the Florida Senate, and Mohammad Jazil, who was representing Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd. Nordby said the plaintiffs had to prove that race was a predominant factor in the creation of Senate District 16, but that they fell short. 'Plaintiffs have not come close to doing so,' Nordby said. He emphasized how Ferrin had recognized the constitutional requirements for drawing up districts – which is that districts should be compact, and when possible, utilize existing political and geographic boundaries. Ferrin did, Nordby said, noting that Ferrin used important boundaries such as I-275, the Hillsborough River, and 22nd Avenue North in St. Petersburg, a major artery, when configuring the Senate district. Nordby acknowledged that race was a consideration, because 'it had to be,' noting that to ignore that would be ignoring part of the state constitution. Nordby also dismissed the three alternative maps drawn up for the plaintiffs by Pennsylvania State University professor of statistics Cory McCartan that keep Hillsborough and Pinellas counties separate. And he then addressed the peculiar situation regarding Warren, saying, 'This case is an odd one.' Nordby asserted Warren had essentially 'laundered' his map through the alternative presented during the trial by McCartan. He also questioned why none of the lawmakers that plaintiff attorneys had indicated could be witnesses in the case – Sen. Darryl Rouson, House Democratic Leader Fentrice Driskell and most notably former Bracy, the 'alleged lynchpin' for the plaintiff's case, never showed up. Bracy was a scheduled witness but failed to appear earlier in the week, much to the disappointment of the ACLU attorneys. When contacted by phone on Tuesday by a representative from the three-judge panel, Bracy said he hadn't seen the subpoena until that very day and said that he had already told plaintiff attorneys that he did not intend to show up. Burgess and Rodrigues cited legislative privilege in declining to appear, according to the court. Representing Byrd,Jazil said all of the proposed Senate maps that the ACLU had presented during the trial were examples of partisan and racial gerrymandering, and cited his text messages to House and Senate staffers involved with the reapportionment process. In response to their closing arguments meanwhile, Daniel Tilley, another attorney with the ACLU of Florida, noted how no lawmaker had testified. Tilley said all of the attention focused on Warren was a 'contrived kerfuffle' that found no evidence to support the idea that members of the Senate were influenced by his map. It was, he surmised, a 'spectacular failure.' During the four-day trial there were hours of detailed descriptions by experts that dealt with how to draw legislative districts that were logically configured and not oddly shaped. The Florida Senate District 16 seat is held by Rouson, who resides in St. Petersburg. Several Tampa-based constituents in the district complained earlier in the trial that he was not as accessible to meet in Hillsborough County, though defense attorneys said he has district offices in the county in Tampa and Brandon. The three-judge panel that will decide the case includes two of them who are Trump appointees. The panel was led by Andrew L. Brasher, who serves in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Accompanying him was U.S. Senior District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell and U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Barber, both of whom serve on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Brasher and Barber were appointed by Trump during his first term as president in 2019. If they rule in favor of the plaintiffs, their hope would be that the Florida Senate could create and approve a new map of the district in time for the 2026 election. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump policy bill could bring $160 million hit to state budget
Section D subcommittee chair Rep. Bill Mercer, R-Billings, outlines the Section D portion of House Bill 2 during the second reading floor discussion on the budget for the next biennium on March 22, 2023. (Photo by Blair Miller, Daily Montanan) Changes outlined in President Donald Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill impacting Medicaid expansion, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and taxes could be a $160 million hit to Montana's state budget, according to an estimate this week from the Legislative Fiscal Division. Legislative Finance Committee members met this week and, among numerous topics, heard a report from the Legislative Fiscal Division on impacts of federal legislation. A couple of Democrats described the potential reductions as 'staggering' and 'frightening.' Trump's tax cuts would reduce revenue from the taxable income of Montana by $122 million, said Josh Poulette, with the state's fiscal division. The changes could mean 'either less general fund coming in or more general fund that needs to go out,' Poulette said during the finance committee meeting. Additionally, if the federal bill was signed into law in its current form, the state would be on the hook for more than $26 million in SNAP benefits if it was to keep the program running as it is now. Legislators heard the report Tuesday, and at the meeting, the committee discussed potential dates for a special session of the Legislature to address the reductions should one be needed. Trump's bill could be signed into law soon. While speaking with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Thursday, U.S. Senator Steve Daines said lawmakers in the Senate are trying to get it on the president's desk by July 4. Daines also said the Congressional Budget Office is wrong in its forecast of revenue projections and that the bill will 'make some of the largest cuts, true spending cuts, to this runaway spending from the federal government in American history.' The biggest direct hit to the state's budget would be the reduction in taxable income. It means the state would have more than $120 million less in its general fund because the law changes deductions. SNAP would become more expensive because the state would be required to provide a match. The federal government currently pays for the cost of all SNAP benefits. 'This would be tied to the payment error rate of the state. So essentially, the feds do a backward looking error rate calculation for SNAP, and they've got historical data on that,' Poulette said during the meeting. 'Montana's error rate has hovered in that 78% range over the years. That would equate to Montana having a 15% match requirement that would come out to a cost of about $26 million additional state funds per year.' Medicaid expansion, meanwhile, could see 27,000 people dropped. Medicaid covers about 13% of all workers in the state. The Montana Legislature this session approved an extension removing the Medicaid expansion sunset date. One of the big changes the federal bill makes is increased work requirements to be eligible for benefits. Montana already has this law on the books, but it's never been enforced, and the Biden Administration did not approve the state's request to add the stipulation. Most people on Medicaid expansion already work, and in Montana, the number of people who are enrolled in the program and work is 72%. Another 7% are caretaking, 2% are retired and 10% are acutely ill or disabled and have serious barriers to employment. Poulette also said there is 'essentially a ban' on new taxes on medical providers. Those taxes are often pumped into the Medicaid program, he added. Rep. Connie Keogh, a Missoula Democrat and a member of the committee, called the impact to the budget 'frightening' during Tuesday's meeting, while Rep. Paul Tuss, D-Havre, said during the meeting the numbers were 'staggering.' Gov. Greg Gianforte's office did not respond to a request for comment. However in a recent 'Leave Us Alone' podcast episode, the Republican governor did speak on the topic. 'If you believe in limited government, the best way to produce that is to limit the amount of money government collects,' Gianforte said. 'Let's leave it in the people's pockets.'