Nebraska lawmakers again advance ban of most THC, consumable hemp products

Yahoo

28-05-2025

State Sen. Kathleen Kauth of the Millard area, left, talks with State Sen. Teresa Ibach of Sumner. Jan. 8, 2025. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)
LINCOLN — A legislative proposal that would ban most consumable hemp and other THC products in Nebraska advanced Tuesday without amendments as opponents blocked changes.
Throughout a four-hour debate on Legislative Bill 316, from State Sen. Kathleen Kauth of the Millard area, only a handful of senators spoke. That's because of pointed opposition from State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha, who filed nearly 30 motions or amendments throughout the bill's life, largely to push senators toward considering regulations instead of a ban.
LB 316 advanced 32-15 with 32 of the 33 Republicans voting for it and all 15 Democrats voting against. The Legislature's one nonpartisan progressive was not in attendance.
State Sen. Dan McKeon of Amherst, who was 'present, not voting' on advancing the bill, said he did so to wait for possible future changes. He said he recently toured a consumable hemp shop in his district and has concerns about whether the bill could freeze those operations.
LB 316 would prohibit raw hemp above 0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) of any concentration and for processed hemp the lesser of 0.3% THC on a total weight basis or 10 milligrams per package, effective Jan. 1. The mature stalks of Cannabis sativa and its fiber, oil, cake and any other naturally derived products would not be considered hemp, leaving a narrow legal path for some products such as fibers and textiles.
If the bill passed, it would include a 'consumer safe harbor period' through the end of 2025 to give consumers time to discard any 'illegal hemp' as newly defined under LB 316. Legal products would face an additional 10% wholesale tax at the time of purchase.
Part of Cavanaugh's tactics included a regulatory-focused amendment that he termed a 'compromise.' It would have still banned 'synthetic' cannabinoids of any THC concentration but protected 'hemp-derived' cannabinoids, such as CBD lotions.
The Cavanaugh amendment would have required ID checks before purchases, in-state testing, tamper-proof and child-resistant packaging and licensing similar to the Liquor Control Act.
Cavanaugh and State Sen. George Dungan of Lincoln said most hemp-derived products require chemical processes, such as heat, to be manufactured. Cavanaugh said the 'synthetic' marijuana that opponents detest as a 'great evil,' including K-2 and spice, was already banned in Nebraska in 2011.
'This is a compromise that allows people, good actors, to continue to act and sell their product in the State of Nebraska, to collect taxes, collect revenue, create jobs, all of these sorts of things,' Cavanaugh said.
Cavanaugh's regulatory amendment failed 16-27. State Sen. Stan Clouse of Kearney was the only eventual supporter of LB 316 who supported his proposal.
Around Cavanaugh, Kauth is seeking to amend LB 316 to explicitly state her bill would not conflict with voter-approved medical cannabis legalization and regulations in the state, a request of State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair.
The other major change would allow consumers to prove via an 'affirmative defense' in court that they purchased what would become 'illegal hemp' under LB 316 for personal use before September 2025, when the law would take effect. That's a change made to appease State Sen. Tom Brandt of Plymouth.
Brandt and Hansen, both Republicans, have so far supported LB 316 under the condition that it be amended in the future. Lawmakers have five legislative days left to do so and are set to adjourn by June 9.
Kauth disagrees that most products would be banned and envisions a three-step process for products under her bill:
Is the product cannabis?
Is it free of any synthetic or modified cannabis?
Does the product comply with THC limits of less than 0.3% any THC (the current law is 0.3% delta-9 THC)?
If so, Kauth said the products would remain legal. She said the role of government is to put up guardrails and that LB 316 is about 'trying to keep our populace healthy.'
'We are essentially allowing consumers to play Russian roulette every time they go into a store and they can buy a product off the shelves,' Kauth said. 'They're assuming that it is legal. They're assuming that we've already done our jobs.'
Kauth was the only supporter to speak in favor of the bill outside of an exchange with Hansen, during which he said promised changes would help protect medical cannabis access. Kauth and the Attorney General's Office, which is pushing LB 316, have said that the measure was never intended to conflict with the medical cannabis laws but worked with Hansen anyway.
Hansen confirmed that if the amendment is not attached at the next stage of the debate, he won't vote for the bill.
Dungan said that instead of taking a 'scalpel' to THC concerns, supporters approached with a 'hammer.'
Part of the reason there are concerns about 'clean' products is the lack of regulations that Cavanaugh sought to add, Dungan said. He said some senators see the word 'chemicals' and 'get all freaked out and they think to themselves, 'Oh my goodness, this is all scary stuff.''
But Dungan said chemical reactions are normal, as simple as putting toast in the toaster.
'I know a lot of people in here have this perception of CBD or delta-8 or THC where it's a classic sort of 'Reefer Madness' idea, that it's a bunch of hippies sitting out on the hill smoking joints,' Dungan said. 'But really, what we're talking about are little old ladies putting cream on their joints.'
Dungan, who sits on the Revenue Committee with Kauth, also raised concerns over the revenue loss from fewer sales if LB 316 passes. A fiscal estimate projects at least $2.9 million in lost revenue and about $530,000 in administrative costs over the next two fiscal years. Revenue losses would grow over time, with about $85,000 in annual administrative costs in the future.
That's more than the state currently has in its piggy bank after filling, for now, a major projected budget deficit. The state has about $2.6 million left to work with, about $1.5 million of which is expected to be used to raise judges' salaries.
LB 316 would require another bill to pass and generate revenue or cut spending.
The new excise tax revenue raised by the bill would be directed toward property tax relief.
State Sen. Jared Storm of David City, who selected LB 316 as his 2025 priority, has previously said 'effective regulation of this industry is impossible' and that the products are 'garbage' attached to a little bit of cannabidiol (CBD) to vape, smoke or eat.
Storm said during the first-round debate he would never jeopardize 'the health or safety of our citizens of this state, especially children and young adults, for revenue.'
Other opponents said the bill would enrich a 'felony factory' of the 2025 session, a phrase coined by State Sen. Wendy DeBoer of Omaha, vice chair of the Judiciary Committee.
DeBoer said more Nebraskans could be charged with a felony if they possess products under the existing limits of 0.3% delta-9 THC, because the bill would count the 0.3% based on any THC concentration, not just delta-9.
State Sen. Carolyn Bosn of Lincoln, a former prosecutor and chair of the Judiciary Committee, said defining hemp as 'marijuana' under LB 316 is about a 'clarification' and not new penalties. Instead, she said it would place hemp products above the legal THC limits on the same criminal scale as marijuana possession — an infraction for less than 1 ounce, a misdemeanor between 1 ounce and 1 pound and a felony for more than 1 pound.
Bosn previously said the penalties were a 'clarification.' She had said trying to regulate the drugs was like 'playing Whac-a-Mole.'
DeBoer said the 'affirmative defense' indicates that felony charges could be coming because the defense would need to be asserted in court. Cavanaugh said it's not a 'get out of jail free card,' such as in the case of a 'little old lady' who didn't save a receipt.
State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln, as well as Cavanaugh and Dungan, said LB 316 would put Nebraskans out of business and that supporters of the measure weren't listening to Nebraskans who have said they could be harmed, including small business owners and farmers.
'Nebraskans feel like they're being gaslit by this Legislature, and that's because they are,' Conrad said. 'This is politics at its worst.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX