Cannabis and liquor retailers at odds over proposed rules on hemp-derived THC beverage sales
Hemp-derived THC seltzers seen on a shelf at Bottles Fine Wine on Providence's East Side. (Photo by Christopher Shea/Rhode Island Current)
No one complained when state regulators quietly allowed hemp-derived THC beverages to be sold in Rhode Island's liquor stores late last summer.
But now that state lawmakers are considering codifying the rules, the state's cannabis cultivators and retailers are speaking out, saying the liquor industry is circumventing stringent guidelines they've had to follow to get their psychoactive products to market
A bill sponsored by Rep. Jacquelyn Baginski, a Cranston Democrat, would declare it legal for licensed distributors to sell beverages containing up to 5mg of delta-9 THC at liquor stores, bars, and restaurants. The bill would also increase the fee liquor wholesalers pay for the right to sell these products. Companion legislation is sponsored in the Senate by Robert Britto, an East Providence Democrat.
'The goal of my legislation is to get our arms around the sale of beverages that are already being sold,' Baginski said in an interview. 'For every good actor and retailer who goes out and goes through the trouble of requiring that license, there are potentially one or two who have not done that.''
Existing hemp rules allow the sale of delta-9 THC products such as gummies, lozenges, packaged baked goods, and beverages at licensed retailers. The state now has 120 hemp retailers and distributors, which include businesses headquartered in Colorado, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.
Connecticut last July mandated THC-infused drinks only be available at state-licensed liquor stores and cannabis retailers. Massachusetts regulators, meanwhile, declared last May that intoxicating hemp-based products cannot be sold outside of cannabis retail stores.
Under Baginski's and Britto's bills, the annual fee paid by liquor wholesalers would increase from $500 to $1,500 to distribute delta-9 THC drinks under rules crafted by the state's Department of Business Regulation. Bars and restaurants would have to pay $250 a year.
Rhode Island's seven cannabis dispensaries, meanwhile, pay a yearly $30,000 licensing fee to sell THC products. Those rules are based on regulations crafted by the state's Cannabis Control Commission.
'Why is one held to all this high regulation, while the other is not?' Magnus Thorsson, a professor at Johnson & Wales University's Cannabis Entrepreneurship Program, told Rhode Island Current. 'It's not fair and balanced.'
Mike Simpson, co-founder of Lovewell farms in Hopkinton, said he's fine with liquor stores being allowed to sell hemp products in Rhode Island. He just wishes that hemp growers like himself had a say in the initial legislation.
'They completely left out the existing hemp industry, as if we don't exist,' Simpson said in an interview Thursday. 'This kind of not only feels superfluous, but also feels like they didn't actually engage with the industry — I hope they're open to hearing.'
Baginski acknowledged that she has not met with hemp industry leaders but said she is always willing to connect with them.
'I don't claim to know everything, and I am happy to take all the feedback out there for me to absorb,' she said.
Baginiski's bill received its initial hearing before the House Corporations Committee on April 8, where it was held for further study as is standard practice during a first vetting by a legislative panel.
The state's liquor industry is backing the proposal.
Why is one held to all this high regulation, while the other is not? It's not fair and balanced.
– Magnus Thorsson, a professor at Johnson & Wales University's Cannabis Entrepreneurship Program
Rhode Island Liquor Operators Collaborative Executive Director Nicholas Fede Jr. said alcohol retailers are well-positioned to be part of the hemp-derived THC market. He told Rhode Island Current that store owners and staff are already trained to recognize the effects of intoxicating substances when interacting with customers.
'We have a long history of high product integrity,' Fede said. 'We are the gatekeepers for public safety.'
Alex Nendza, director of marketing for Bottles Fine Wine on Providence's East Side, understands the sense of resentment coming from cannabis dispensaries and cultivators but said he believes having more retail outlets will help the industry grow.
THC drinks already account for 10% of Bottles' revenue.
'It's difficult to keep them in stock at times,' Nendza said in an interview. 'Our shelves empty out pretty fast.'
Hemp has been legal at the federal level since 2018. Hemp-derived THC drinks were technically illegal in Rhode Island — at least until last August when the state's Office of Cannabis Regulation began allowing the sale of products containing low levels of delta-9 THC at licensed retailers, which includes vape shops and liquor stores.
Beverages derived from cannabis continue to only be sold at licensed cannabis retailers. Hemp by itself produces little to no THC content and is typically non-psychoactive when first harvested, unlike other cannabis plants.
'It's a molecule, and your body doesn't make any discretion at all to where it comes from,' Stuart Procter, co-founder and lab director for cannabis testing facility PureVita Labs in West Warwick, said
The main difference is how the psychoactive compound is derived.
Delta-9 is a naturally-occurring cannabinoid within cannabis plants. With hemp, it takes a little chemical magic to convert non-psychoactive CBD into THC. Methods include soaking the hemp material in a liquid like butane or ethanol, applying enough pressure and heat to extract THC compounds, or exposing the plant to acid.
'If all of the processes are done properly by chemists and people who know what they're doing, you probably end up with a nice safe product which is absolutely identical to the delta-9 taken from marijuana plants,' said Procter, who chairs the Cannabis Advisory Board's Public Health Subcommittee.
But because hemp testing rules vary from state to state, Procter said safety isn't always guaranteed.
'There are very limited to no testing standards guiding hemp-related products,' he said. 'If you were to bring hemp into the same regulatory protocols that would make sense — if they want to play in the same market, they should abide by the same regulations.'
During the bill's April 8 hearing, Baginski told lawmakers she was surprised to see hemp-based THC products available on the marketplace 'and largely sold unregulated.'
'The intent of this legislation is not to make any changes to the existing structure of sales of marijuana-based THC, but to create a new safe marketplace for hemp THC beverages.'
But state regulators argue Baginski's proposal could conflict with existing cannabis rules.
Cannabis Control Commission Chairperson Kimberly Ahern wrote to the committee that the existing bill would revoke several existing hemp licenses and contradicts the state's commitment to 'building a robust cannabis economy.'
Hemp-derived THC products under Baginski's bill would not be subject to the same testing, labeling restrictions, and additional safety protocols required under existing rules and upcoming regulations required for recreational cannabis.
'The absence of clear requirements for psychoactive hemp-derived products increases the risk of accidental overconsumption and potential exposure to vulnerable populations, including youth,' Ahern warned.
Ahern asked that the General Assembly hold the bill until regulators and industry leaders could discuss 'alignment with the state's broader cannabis and hemp regulatory strategy.'
Baginski said she's open to making any necessary changes to the bill to ensure it aligns with existing regulations, adding that the goal of any legislation is to spark conversation and let the democratic process unfold.
'I do think it's worth having a conversation about who we're selling these things to and what exactly they are,' she told Rhode Island Current.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump and Musk can both hurt each other in their feud. Here's how.
An explosive breakdown in the relationship between President Donald Trump and his biggest political donor turned part-time employee, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, has been foreshadowed since their alliance first took shape. When Trump brought Musk along for the ride as he moved back into the White House, the looming question was always how long the two could possibly stay in sync. After all, neither the most powerful person in the world nor the richest person on Earth is known for keeping his ego in check. The main thrust of the Trump-Musk feud boils down to who can assert dominance over the other. In the intense back-and-forth that had everyone glued to their screens Thursday, we saw bullies used to getting their way desperately trying to find leverage over each other. But unlike the flame wars of old, where internet trolls would hurl insults at each other across message board forums, Trump and Musk can do serious damage to each other in the real world — and to the rest of us in the process. Musk first gained access to Trump through his vast fortune; he donated almost $300 million during last year's election and hasn't been afraid to throw his money around in races this year. Though he said in May he would be 'spending a lot less' on funding political races, he has also been quick to threaten pumping money into the midterms should lawmakers back the massive budget bill currently working its way through the Senate. And Musk has made clear that he expects a return on his investments, having already snidely claimed on his X platform that Trump would have lost and Democrats would have taken Congress without his backing. Trump is reportedly more focused on the midterms than he was during his first term, worried that a new Democratic majority would lead to more investigations and/or a third impeachment. While he's already sitting on $600 million to help hold on to a GOP majority, Musk's money could throw a spanner in the works, especially if he follows through on his public musing about bankrolling a third party to 'represent the 80% of Americans in the middle.' Though Trump has his own social media platform, Truth Social, X remains a much louder microphone to amplify Musk's messaging to the right, including his supposed 'bombshell' about Trump's presence in the Jeffrey Epstein files. (Musk provided no evidence for the claim and Trump has previously denied any involvement with Epstein's criminal behavior.) Trump, in turn, has threatened Musk's lucrative government contracts, which would include billions of dollars funneled toward his SpaceX company, as well as the subsidies that Tesla receives for its electric car production. Musk responded by warning about cutting off access to SpaceX launches, which would potentially cripple NASA and the Defense Department's ability to deploy satellites. But that would prove a double-edged sword for Musk, given how large a revenue stream those contracts have become. By Thursday evening, Musk had already backed down from his saber-rattling about restricting access to the Dragon space capsule, but he could change his mind again. That he made the threat in the first place has raised major alarm bells among national security officials. The Washington Post reported Saturday that NASA and the Pentagon have begun "urging [Musk's competitors] to more quickly develop alternative rockets and spacecraft" to lessen his chokehold on the industry. Notably, Trump isn't alone in his fight against Musk, though as ever those wading into the brawl have their own motives. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon took the opportunity to launch a broadside against Musk. 'People including myself are recommending to the president that he pull every contract associated with Elon Musk,' Bannon told NBC News on Thursday night. Bannon requested that 'major investigations start immediately' into, among other things, Musk's 'immigration status, his security clearance and his history of drug abuse.' There are already several federal investigations of Musk's companies that have been underway for years, which critics had previously worried might be stonewalled due to his influence with Trump. While the extremely public breakup makes for high drama and more than a little schadenfreude, the pettiness masks a deeper issue. The battle Musk and Trump are waging is predicated on both wielding a horrifying amount of unchecked power. In a healthy system of government, their ability to inflict pain on each other wouldn't exist, or at least such an ability would be severely blunted. Musk being able to funnel nearly unlimited amounts of spending into dark money super PACs is an oligarchical nightmare. Trump using the power of the presidency to overturn contracts and launch investigations at a whim is blatant authoritarianism in action. In theory, there are still checks to rein each of them in before things escalate much further. Musk's shareholders have been unhappy with his rocky time in government, and the war of words with Trump sent Tesla's stock price tumbling once more. Trump needs to get his 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' passed into law and — next year — ensure Congress doesn't fall into Democrats' hands. Trump and Musk have incentives, then, to stay in each other's good graces despite their wounded pride. Trump made clear to NBC News in an interview Saturday that he has no real interest in patching things up with Musk, warning that there will be "very serious consequences" if his one-time ally funds Democratic campaigns. Even if the two eventually reach a détente, it's unlikely to be a lasting peace, not so long as one feels his authority is challenged by the other. The zero-sum view of the world that Trump and Musk share, one where social Darwinism and superior genetics shape humanity, doesn't allow for long-term cooperative relationships. Instead, at best they will return to a purely transactional situationship, but one where the knives will gleefully come back out the second a new opening is given. Most importantly, there is no protagonist when it comes to the inciting incident in this duel, as a total victory won't benefit the American people writ large. Trump wants Congress to pass his bill to grant him more funding for deportations and to preserve his chances of staying in power. Musk wants a more painful bill that will slash the social safety net for millions. No matter what the outcome is as they battle for supremacy over each other, we're the ones who risk being trampled. This article was originally published on


CNBC
2 hours ago
- CNBC
What a ‘revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill could mean for investors
As the Senate weighs President Donald Trump's multi-trillion-dollar spending package, a lesser-known provision tucked into the House-approved bill has pushback from Wall Street. The House measure, known as Section 899, would allow the U.S. to add a new tax of up to 20% on foreigners with U.S. investments, including multinational companies operating in the U.S. Some analysts call the provision a "revenge tax" due to its wording. It would apply to foreign entities if their home country imposes "unfair foreign taxes" against U.S. companies, according to the bill. "Wall Street investors are shocked by [Section] 899 and apparently did not see it coming," James Lucier, Capital Alpha Partners managing director, wrote in a June 5 analysis. More from Personal Finance:The average 401(k) savings rate hit a record high. See if you're on trackOn-time debt payments aren't a magic fix for your credit score. Here's whyWith 'above normal' hurricane forecasts, check your home insurance policy If enacted as written, the provision could have "significant implications for the asset management industry," including cross-border income earned by hedge funds, private equity funds and other entities, Ernst & Young wrote on June 2. Passive investment income could be subject to a higher U.S. withholding tax, as high as 50% in some cases, the company noted. Some analysts worry that could impact future investment. The Investment Company Institute, which represents the asset management industry serving individual investors, warned in a May 30 statement that the provision is "written in a manner that could limit foreign investment to the U.S." But with details pending as the Senate assesses the bill, many experts are still weighing the potential impact — including who could be affected. Here's what investors need to know about Section 899. As drafted, Section 899 would allow the U.S. to hike existing levies for countries with "unfair foreign taxes" by 5% per year, capped at 20%. Several kinds of tax fall under "unfair foreign taxes," according to the provision. Those include the undertaxed profits rule, which is associated with part of the global minimum tax negotiated by the Biden administration. The term would also apply to digital services taxes and diverted profits taxes, along with new levies that could arise, according to the bill. The second part of the measure would expand the so-called base erosion and anti-abuse tax, or BEAT, which aims to prevent corporations from shifting profits abroad to avoid taxes. "Basically, all businesses that are operating in the U.S. from a foreign headquarters will face that," said Daniel Bunn, president and CEO of the Tax Foundation. "It's pretty expansive." The retaliatory measures would apply to most wealthy countries from which the U.S. receives direct foreign investment, which could threaten or harm the U.S. economy, according to Bunn's analysis. Notably, the proposed taxes don't apply to U.S. Treasuries or portfolio interest, according to the bill. Section 899 still needs Senate approval, and it's unclear how the provision could change amid alarm from Wall Street. But the measure has "strong support" from others in the business community, and it's a "strong priority" for Republican House Ways and Means Committee members, Capital Alpha Partners' Lucier wrote. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., first floated the idea in a May 2023 bill, and has been outspoken, along with other Republicans, against the global minimum tax. If enacted as drafted, Section 899 could raise an estimated $116 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. That could help fund other priorities in Trump's mega-bill, and if removed, lawmakers may need to find the revenue elsewhere, Bunn said. However, House Ways and Means Republicans may ultimately want foreign countries to adjust their tax policies before the new tax is imposed. "If these countries withdraw these taxes and decide to behave, we will have achieved our goal," Smith said in a June 4 statement.


Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Clarence Page: Big, beautiful bromance breaks up — live on social media
For those who think government should be run like a business, the messy social media spat that played out last week between President Donald Trump and billionaire CEO Elon Musk suggested that business could be doing a lot better. That may help to explain why shares of Musk's company Tesla dropped 14% Thursday, falling for the second straight day as the spat between the richest man in the world and the most powerful man in the world oozed into a meltdown. Ironically, the fight played out on the social media platforms Truth Social, majority-owned by the president, and X, formerly Twitter, which Musk bought and renamed in 2023 and subsequently turned into a megaphone for far-right politics and Trumpism. To many observers, the breakup of this bromance seemed inevitable, less because of the bros' differences than the great deal they share in common. 'Like 'Alien v. Predator' for political nerds,' The Guardian ballyhooed — and, as a dedicated political nerd, I agree. What else can we expect from two megalomaniacs dedicated to fame, money and far-right politics and experienced with messy divorces? 'I suppose it was in the stars,' Rep. Jamie Raskin, of Maryland and top Democrat on the House judiciary committee, told reporters on Capitol Hill. 'Everybody was predicting it when it first began. You've got two gentlemen with gargantuan egos and both appearing to suffer from malignant narcissistic personality disorder.' Ah, how far the oligarchic dream team has tumbled since Trump and Musk joined forces to wage war against what Musk branded 'the woke mind virus' — and of course to pursue riches through tribute (Trump) and government contracts (Musk). The table for the breakup was set in late May when the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a domestic policy spending bill, which among other things would eliminate subsidies for electric vehicles such as those Tesla makes. Musk began grousing about the bill early last week, but he mostly confined his criticism to the amount by which the bill would increase the deficit. Trouble began in earnest Thursday, while Trump was meeting in the Oval Office with Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany. A reporter asked Trump about Musk's criticism of the bill. Trump pointedly referred to the relationship in the past tense and cast doubts on its happy future. Musk later slipped in a jab, suggesting that Trump and the Republicans could never have prevailed in last year's elections without the $288 million that Musk spent to put them over the top. 'Such ingratitude,' he huffed. The exchange became more heated as Musk lashed the legislation as a 'disgusting abomination' that would bankrupt the country. He then rallied his online followers to 'Kill the Bill' and things only got nastier. Among the highlights — and lowlights — Musk accused Trump of keeping the company of a pedophile. 'Time to drop the really big bomb,' Musk tweeted. '@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That's the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' The reference is to the late registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who can be seen in widely circulated video partying with Trump. Musk later replied 'Yes' to a post that suggested Trump should be impeached and replaced with Vice President JD Vance. By Thursday afternoon, White House staff were calling the fracas 'the one big, beautiful breakup,' a reference to the legislation that ignited Musk's fury. That led to more speculation and debate as to where the feud would go next. Would it disrupt serious legislation? Who was winning the public relations battle on an ever-shifting playing field? A poll taken by YouGov asked respondents whose side they were on in the feud and found 52% said, perhaps sensibly, neither one. Only 28% picked Trump and a meager 8%, perhaps tech bros, picked Musk. Frankly, in a country loaded with people who have serious concerns about government and feel weary over such shenanigans, I hear a message in the polls: Make it stop! What happened to all the people who say government should be run like a business? The answer I hear is another question: Whose business?