Gov. Kay Ivey signs controversial Alabama hemp regulation into law
Gov. Kay Ivey Wednesday signed a controversial bill aimed at regulating consumable hemp products into law.
HB 445, sponsored by Rep. Andy Whitt, R-Harvest, faced strong opposition from the hemp industry, which claims the bill overregulates federally legal products, and the Alabama Policy Institute, a conservative think tank, which argued it did not regulate the products enough.
Gina Maiola, a spokeswoman for Ivey, confirmed that the governor had signed the bill in a text message on Wednesday, but did not provide further comment.
Whitt said after the governor's signature that it was 'an easy bill' for him to sponsor but 'a hard bill to pass.'
'It was hard because I took shots from both sides,' he said, saying that it was difficult to listen to the 'stretches of truth,' such as claims from API that it would legalize recreational marijuana or from the industry that it's a 'complete ban.'
'It is putting guardrails on an unregulated and unlicensed product in the state of Alabama that's preying on our youth,' Whitt said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Messages seeking comment were left with API and Molly Cole, a lobbyist for the Alabama Hemp and Vape Association, who indicated that litigation was being considered.
The legislation will require testing and labeling for all consumable hemp products and caps at 10 milligrams per individually wrapped product and 40 milligrams per package. It will require the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board to license retailers of these products, restrict retail establishments selling hemp products and impose an excise tax on consumable hemp products.
The bill also prohibits sales to minors. It bans smokable hemp products and imposes restrictions on online sales and direct delivery.
Whitt maintained that his efforts is aimed at reducing youth access to these products, saying that the industry has operated largely unchecked.
Representatives of the hemp industry said the bill's language was vague and have suggested that litigation will follow.
Lawmakers, business owners, patients and lobbyists have also expressed uncertainty about the legislation. Whitt said that the bill also bans hemp-derived vapor products, but that is not clearly defined in the bill.
It's not clear if the bill would ban CBD, a non-psychoactive cannabinoid found in hemp. The bill explicitly bans smokable hemp products and certain psychoactive cannabinoids but defines 'consumable hemp product' broadly as any finished product intended for human or animal consumption that contains any part of the hemp plant or its derivatives.
According to the bill, 'any smokeable hemp product' not limited to 'plant product or raw hemp material that is marketed to consumers as hemp cigarettes, hemp cigars, hemp joints, hemp buds, hemp flowers, hemp leaves, ground hemp flowers, or any variation of these terms to include any product that contains a cannabinoid, whether psychoactive or not.'
Whitt said that the legislation provides an opportunity for hemp business leaders to 'pivot into the products that that are approved here in Alabama that can truly help Alabama citizens again.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Susan Collins' tightrope walk continues in the fight over medical research
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 09: Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) makes remarks during a hearing held to examine a future without Type 1 Diabetes with a focus on accelerating breakthroughs and creating hope at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on July 09, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo byfor Breakthrough T1D) U.S. Sen. Susan Collins drew President Donald Trump's ire last week in a departure from the unusual deference he has shown toward the Maine Republican. Trump told Republicans in a Truth Social post, 'when in doubt, vote the exact opposite' of Collins, not referencing any vote in particular. 'Generally speaking, you can't go wrong,' Trump wrote. 'Thank you for your attention to this matter and, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!' Political scientists see the jab as notable but refrained from speculating about whether it signals a shift in their relationship or Collins' political future, as she is up for reelection in 2026. Maine Republicans and Trump have rejected the idea of forcing a primary on Collins, though someone familiar with the conversation told Politico recently that the president would love to see a 'better option.' Despite the president's comment, Collins' approach to Trump hasn't changed much during his second term, said Mark Brewer, chair of the political science department at the University of Maine. Rather, Brewer said, how Maine's senior senator continues to handle disagreements with his administration illustrates that she is continuing to try to find a middle ground. 'She's been operating the way that she's, I think, consistently operated,' Brewer said. 'She'll say this publicly, when she doesn't agree with what the president's doing, she'll vote against him. Other times, if she's supportive of the policy, maybe not necessarily some of the things he does but the underlying policy, she'll vote in favor of it.' Collins has packed millions of dollars into spending bills for Maine. Will it materialize? That was exactly her response when asked about the president's criticism of her voting record. 'I cast each vote based on what is right for Maine and America,' Collins said in a statement. 'Sometimes that means I agree with the President and sometimes I disagree.' When Maine Morning Star spoke to voters this past spring about Collins' role during Trump's second term, some constituents critiqued her piecemeal approach to fighting his cuts to federal programs and funding, arguing that a focus on Trump's individual actions wouldn't be effective in deterring the president as he convoluted the federal government's system of checks and balances. That balancing act is currently being tested on an issue Collins has been a vocal proponent of: medical research. The first full hearing this Congress of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which Collins chairs, was titled 'Biomedical research: Keeping America's edge in innovation.' During her opening remarks, Collins emphasized that the research was a high priority for the committee and stated that no investment pays greater dividends to Americans. 'Very troubling are the administration's abrupt cancellation of grants, proposals to slash federal funding, and laying off scientists and technical experts with apparently little or no justification,' Collins said. 'These actions put our leadership in biomedical innovation at real risk and must be reversed.' The Trump administration has also been slow to disburse National Institutes of Health funding as the end of the fiscal year approaches on September 30. Collins and 13 of her Republican colleagues sent a letter to Russell Vought, director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, late last month to share their concerns. In their attempt to encourage follow through, the Republicans made appeals to the president's agenda to slash anything he views as government waste, stating that they believed NIH leadership would ensure the funds are 'not diverted to ideological or unaccountable programs.' This approach was markedly different from comments by Congress' top Democratic appropriators, including Washington Sen. Patty Murray, who said in a statement, 'this administration is lying about waste, fraud, and abuse at NIH to justify attacking medical research.' The administration has since backtracked on funds frozen during what they chalked up to a 'programmatic review' but hasn't fully addressed the widespread delay of disbursements. This week, the Government Accountability Office, an independent congressional watchdog, concluded that the Trump administration violated federal law when canceling NIH grants and slowing new awards. While lawmakers on both sides of the aisle issued statements advocating for the research funds, a legislative proposal was brought forward. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois proposed an amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education appropriations bill that would have reinstated NIH and other grants that the Trump administration terminated. Stating the issue was not partisan, Durbin listed off examples from several states impacted by such cuts, including Maine, when introducing the amendment. 'Sen. Collins, Maine Health: two awards canceled or frozen totaling $323,000, including research to focus on rural health needs, and Mount Desert Island Biological Lab has one $5 million award frozen,' Durbin said during the committee meeting. Collins, the last to vote, rejected that amendment, which narrowly failed 14-15. Collins' Communications Director Phoebe Ferraiolo said the amendment was 'too broadly drafted and would make it impossible for this administration and future administrations to cancel any grants, including grants that were failing or duplicative.' 'Senator Collins believes that, regardless of who is in the White House, the administration should be provided the ability to review these programs,' Ferraiolo added. That sort of blanket treatment is something Collins has often pointed to when defending her record, specifically on procedural votes. It's also something some constituents have critiqued as inadequate as Trump has upended established procedure. They've also critiqued what they see as Collins' piecemeal approach to funding restorations. When explaining that Collins has had success with pushing back on Trump administration decisions she disagrees with, Ferraiolo pointed to the reinstatement of some NIH grants in June for Jackson Laboratory, MDI Biological Laboratory and MaineHealth. Collins previously highlighted her ability to restore some cuts through her conversations out of public view in an interview with Maine Morning Star this past spring. However, the overall structure of how NIH grants will be awarded going forward, and therefore these organizations' funding long term, is at risk. The president's change in tone on Collins comes as Congress approaches the deadline to pass spending bills for the next fiscal year. The early version of the the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education appropriations bill and others, which Collins had a hand in crafting, signal lawmakers may not give the president as large of cuts as he wants. Susan Collins has reached a pinnacle of authority. How will she use it? In the marked up version of the labor, health and education bill, which will advance to the full Senate after lawmakers return from August recess, the committee largely rejected the Trump administration's proposals to slash funding for medical research grants and other programs. Included is a $150 million increase for cancer research and a $100 million increase for Alzheimer's disease research, as well as a ban on an administration cap on indirect costs at the NIH, according to a summary from Democrats. Collins questioned NIH Director Jayanta Bhattacharya in February on the proposed cap on how much NIH pays research universities and medical schools for indirect costs. She's also said it's against federal law. The cap is currently the subject of a permanent injunction in an ongoing lawsuit. Brewer said, in some ways, the current appropriations cycle appears to be returning to its typical procedures. 'They've put some money back in from some things that Trump wanted to take out,' Brewer said. 'As long as we stay on that, quote unquote, more normal process, then I think [Collins'] role as chair of appropriations once again becomes very important.' However, Brewer is hesitant that that will be the case. 'Democrats are saying, 'Well, look, we're not going to negotiate spending packages when you're out there ripping money back after we've already approved it,'' Brewer said. When it comes to NIH research, even if Collins and other members of Congress can secure increased funding for the agency, the Trump administration's budget maneuvers have set up the NIH to be able to receive fewer grants. The NIH started changing the way it funds grants earlier this year, front-loading funds so researchers receive all money on day one rather than the NIH having to build years-long research grants in its budget. The shift is already lowering the chances that a scientist's proposal will receive funding and many, including Collins, have raised concern that this method could result in future reductions. Congress cannot stop the administration from forward-funding grants, Collins told Roll Call. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Panama deserves sanctions, not the Security Council presidency
This month, Panama holds the rotating presidency of the U.N. Security Council — a position that confers moral authority, policy influence and global prestige as the representative 'face' of the Council. But given Panama's longstanding and conscious role in undermining sanctions on Iran, this honor is deeply wrong and misguided. In fact, Panama should not be elevated — it should be sanctioned. A country that enables Iran's sanctions evasion should not be rewarded with the symbolic leadership of the very body charged with upholding those sanctions. Despite its protestations, Panama is neither a champion of the rules-based international order nor a true ally to the U.S. Panama's acquiescence to Chinese 'Belt and Road Initiative' ambitions in controlling the Panama Canal is only the latest sign of Panamanian duplicity that place it squarely at odds with the values and objectives of the council. For years, Panama has allowed its flag — akin to a passport for ships — to be used by vessels transporting illicit Iranian oil, the key revenue stream for a regime that continues to defy international nuclear restrictions. Panama is not ignorant or unaware of this problem. In January 2024, a bipartisan group of 31 U.S. Senators led by Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) urged the Panama Maritime Authority to 'cooperate with the United States and conduct investigations into a significant number of ships registered in Panama which are alleged to transport Iranian oil in violation of U.S. sanctions…' They sought Panama's explicit commitment to investigate some '189 Panamanian-flagged vessels of concern,' constituting ' nearly half ' of all the vessels aiding Iran. Two months later, then-Special Envoy to Iran Abram Paley visited Panama 'to ensure that the vessel registry is not abused by entities seeking to evade our sanctions on Iran. … Iran and its affiliated groups are trying to evade sanctions here in Panama, they are trying to abuse the flag registration of ships.' According to analysis by our organization, United Against Nuclear Iran, of the 542 foreign-flagged vessels that have carried in excess of $200 billion worth of Iranian oil since 2020 (mainly to China), some 289 have at one stage or another flown the 100-year old Bandera de Panama. As of this week, we identify 116 vessels currently flying the Panamanian flag that are implicated in carrying Iranian oil. This has all occurred despite repeated warnings to Panama over the last five years about this behavior by our organization, which has been praised for producing ' the best public data we have.' This is more than an oversight — it is tantamount to complicity. At the same time, the Islamic Republic of Iran is a nemesis to the UN Security Council, repeatedly violating council resolutions stretching back to 2006, when Iran was instructed to suspend all enrichment-related activities. Since then, Tehran has violated resolutions relating to nuclear activities, arms embargos, ballistic missile testing, and a resolution endorsing the failed Iran nuclear deal. Most recently, a top Iranian advisor issued what sounded a lot like a personal threaten against the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, Rafael Grossi, following years of stonewalling UN nuclear inspectors. Now, two decades and one moribund nuclear deal later, Iran is still insistent on enriching nuclear fuel to the threat of world security. Iran has never been interested in nuclear compliance. Today, with key nuclear sites severely degraded by Israel and the U.N. in last month's strikes, Iran has insisted it will never give up its 'inherent right' to enrichment. Efforts to reconstitute and to develop the missiles needed to carry nuclear warheads require money, which in Iran's case will come in large part from illicit oil sales moved by tankers — tankers that Panama helps shield from scrutiny. These 'Ghost Fleet' vessels engage in deceptive maritime practices designed to obscure the origin and destination of oil — actions that violate international norms and often amount to criminal conduct. They switch off transponders, manipulate automatic identification systems, and conduct dangerous ship-to-ship transfers in international waters. These actions form the backbone of Iran's sanctions-evasion playbook. And Panama plays along. The UN Security Council is the body tasked with upholding international peace and security, including through the enforcement of sanctions. It was the council that imposed multiple rounds of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. But the council's credibility suffers when one of its rotating presidents enables, with impunity, the very violations those sanctions were designed to deter. The world is entering a still-more-volatile phase in its dealings with Iran as it braces for renewed nuclear provocations. Now is the moment for the international community — embodied by the United Nations — to close ranks, not reward enablers of sanctions evasion. Thus, Panama's presidency at this critical juncture sends an unfortunate message to every regime looking to flout global norms. Panama has had ample time to reform its maritime registry. Yet Panama-flagged ghost tankers continue to offer the most critical economic lifeline for the Tehran regime. Until that changes, Panama should be sanctioned, not promoted to a leadership post at the United Nations.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Oil Rises on Major Crude Inventory Draw
Crude oil inventories in the United States decreased by 6 million barrels during the week ending August 15, after growing by 3 million barrels in the week prior, according to new data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) released on Wednesday. The build brings commercial stockpiles to 420.7 million barrels according to government data, which is 6% below the five-year average for this time of year. The EIA's data release follows API's figures that were released a day earlier, which suggested that crude oil inventories contracted by 2.4 million barrels. Crude prices were trading up ahead of the EIA data release. At 9:29 a.m. in New York, Brent was trading at $66.51 per barrel—up $0.72 (1.09%) on the day and a roughly $0.50 per barrel gain from last week's level. WTI was also trading up, by $0.81 per barrel (+1.30%) in mid-morning trade. For total motor gasoline, the EIA reported a decrease of 2.7 million barrels, after the week prior's 800,000-barrel dip. The most recent figures showed average daily gasoline production decreasing slightly to 9.6 million barrels. For middle distillates, inventories increased by 2.3 million barrels, with production increasing to 5.3 million barrels daily. Distillate inventories had increased 700,000 barrels in the week prior. Distillate inventories are still 13% below the five-year average for this time of year. Total products supplied over the last four weeks fell to 21.1 million barrels per day, up 3.3% compared to the same period last year. Gasoline demand averaged 9 million barrels per day over the last four weeks, while the distillate four-week average supplied was 3.7 million barrels—up 4.7 percent year over year. By Julianne Geiger for More Top Reads From this article on
