Bill that will regulate the hemp industry passes unanimously in Florida Senate
For the second year in a row, the Florida Senate has approved new regulations on hemp-derived THC products in Florida, although this time the proposal includes limitations on the industry's hottest new product, THC-infused beverages.
Polk County Republican Sen. Colleen Burton has led the charge in attempting to place some restrictions on these intoxicating products, which have emerged since the state legalized hemp in 2019. Since then, some states have banned all such products, while others have heavily regulated them.
Burton said that people have asked her why is she trying to regulate an industry that has been established in Florida for years. She said hemp-derived THC products are 'causing harm to Floridians.'
'We have retailers in the state of Florida that are selling products that are intoxicating,' she said. 'They are selling products that are putting adults and children in the hospital. And, sadly, they are selling products that are causing the deaths of Floridians.'
She alluded to a Jacksonville television station's website, which reported this week on a Georgia woman who believes her 25-year-old son's death from heart disease was caused by ingesting Delta-8 gummies. 'That young man did not know that what he was ingesting was going to hurt him,' Burton said.
The bill (SB 438) bans all Delta-8 products and limits the amount of Delta-9 hemp-derived products to no more than five milligrams per serving or 50 milligrams per container. It limits the amount of THC in hemp-infused drinks to five milligrams per container. Such drinks could only be sold through a retailer holding a liquor license.
It requires that each final batch of hemp extract must be tested in a certified marijuana testing laboratory before it may be sold in the state, with results verified and signed by two laboratory employees. The lab would determine whether the product meets the definition of hemp and hemp extract.
During a combined Florida House workgroup formed to study the hemp industry earlier in the session, the owner of a Lakeland testing lab that contracted with the Florida Department of Agriculture to test cannabis and hemp products appeared. He testified that his lab tested 50 out of 53 flower hemp samples from different smoke/hemp shops across the state that were over the legal 0.3% Delta 9 THC limit, and found contaminants in these products.
'These are very intoxicating products,' said Southeast Florida Republican Sen. Gayle Harrell. 'They're addicting products at the end of the day. And people need to know that. … We need to make sure that people know what they're buying. And we have seen so many fly-by-night places selling hemp — 'safe hemp' — and the THC levels are higher than the medical marijuana that you can get in a dispensary.'
The bill prohibits businesses and food establishments permitted to sell hemp products from advertising 'in a manner' visible to the public from any street, sidewalk, park, or other public place.
Florida law already bans marketing THC-hemp in a way that might attract children. The bill expands that definition to include containers displaying toys or other features that target children and products manufactured in a form or packaged in a container that bears any 'reasonable remembrance to a branded food product in a way that the product could mistaken for the branded food product, especially by children.'
And it says that all such products must be placed out of the reach of customers, either in a controlled area accessible only to employees or in a locked display case, excluding hemp-infused beverages.
A similar bill passed unanimously in the Florida Senate a year ago, but Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed it following heavy lobbying from the hemp industry. Grateful for the reprieve, several hemp entrepreneurs helped fund DeSantis' campaign to bring down Amendment 3, the proposed constitutional amendment that would have legalized the recreational use of cannabis for adults 21 and over.
Jacksonville Democrat Tracie Davis, who co-sponsored the bill, acknowledged in her closing statement that the bill wasn't significantly different than last year's version. 'This was a bill that was vetoed,' she said. 'There's not that much that's different from last year's bill that was vetoed.'
The vote in favor was unanimous.
The House version (HB 7027) is now sponsored by Panhandle Republican Rep. Michelle Salzman. It has two more committees to go through before reaching the floor of that chamber.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
9 minutes ago
Maryland tax on digital ads violated Big Tech's free speech, judges say
ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- Maryland's first-in-the-nation tax on digital advertising violated the Constitution, a federal appeals court says, because blocking Big Tech from telling customers about the tax violates the companies' right to free speech. Supporters say Maryland needed to overhaul its tax methods in response to significant changes in how businesses advertise. The tax focuses on large companies that make money advertising on the internet such as Meta, Google and Amazon, who say they're being unfairly targeted. The ongoing legal fight is being watched by other states that are considering taxes for online ads. Maryland estimated the tax could raise about $250 million a year to help pay for a sweeping K-12 education measure. Maryland's law says the companies must not only pay the tax, but avoid telling customers how it affects pricing, with no line items, surcharges or fees, said the appeals court Friday in siding with trade associations fighting the tax. Judge Julius Richardson cited the Colonial-era Stamp Act, which helped spark the Revolutionary War, and wrote that 'criticizing the government — for taxes or anything else — is important discourse in a democratic society.' The plaintiffs contended Maryland lawmakers were trying to insulate themselves from criticism and political accountability by forbidding companies from explaining the tax to their customers. 'A state cannot duck criticism by silencing those affected by its tax,' the judge wrote. The unanimous ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a decision by U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby and sends the case back to her with instructions to consider an appropriate remedy in light of the panel's decision. Trade groups praised the decision. 'Maryland tried to prevent criticism of its tax scheme, and the Fourth Circuit recognized that tactic for what it was: censorship,' said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said in a statement. Maryland Comptroller Brooke Lierman, who is the defendant in the case, and the Maryland attorney general's office, who is representing the state, declined to comment Monday. The law has been challenged in multiple legal venues, including Maryland Tax Court, where the case is ongoing. The law imposes a tax based on global annual gross revenues for companies that make more than $100 million globally. Under the law, the tax rate is 2.5% for businesses making more than $100 million in global gross annual revenue; 5% for companies making $1 billion or more; 7.5% for companies making $5 billion or more and 10% for companies making $15 billion or more. The Maryland General Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats, overrode a veto of the legislation in 2021 by then-Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican.
24 minutes ago
Appeals court overturns order that stripped some protections from pregnant Texas state workers
NEW YORK -- A federal appeals court has upheld a law strengthening the rights of pregnant workers, vacating a judge's earlier order that had stripped those protections from Texas state employees. The ruling was a victory for advocates of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that passed with bipartisan support in 2022 but quickly became embroiled in controversy over whether it covers workers seeking abortions and fertility treatments. A federal judge last year blocked enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for Texas state employees, ruling that its passage was unconstitutional because a majority of House members were not physically present to approve the law as part of spending package in December 2022. In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit appeals court disagreed, finding that the law was properly passed under a COVID-19 pandemic-era Congressional rule allowing members to vote by proxy to meet the quorum requirement. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act strengthens the rights of women to receive workplace accommodation for needs related to pregnancy and childbirth, such as time off for medical appointments and exemptions from heavy lifting. Its passage came after a decades long campaign by women's advocacy groups highlighting the struggles of pregnant workers, especially those in low-wage roles, who were routinely forced off the job after requesting accommodations. The Texas case differed from other lawsuits that have narrowly focused on federal regulations stating that abortion, fertility treatments and birth control are medical issues requiring protection under the new law. The lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, instead took aim at the entirety of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, drawing opposition from Republican lawmakers including former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who defended the pandemic-era proxy voting rule. Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice has continued to fight Paxton's lawsuit, which if successful, could help open the door to legal challenges of other pandemic-era laws passed by proxy. Paxton's office did not reply to emails seeking comment, and it was not clear whether he would appeal Friday's ruling. The Justice Department declined to comment. 'This is a big win for women's rights. We are really happy to see that the Fifth Circuit agreed with us that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was passed constitutionally and will continue to fight for the PWFA to stay legal,' said Inimai Chettiar, president of a Better Balance, an advocacy group that spearheaded the campaign for passage of the law. Texas state employees are not immediately protected, however, because the appeals court ruling doesn't become final for several weeks to give time for a possible appeal, Chettiar said. Conservative officials and religious groups, meanwhile, have been largely successfully in challenging the regulations passed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which established that workers seeking abortions are entitled accommodations. In May, a federal court struck down the abortion provisions of the EEOC regulations in response to lawsuits brought by states of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University and two Catholic dioceses. The Trump administration is almost certain to comply with that ruling. President Donald Trump in January fired two of the EEOC's democratic commissioners, paving the way for him to quickly establish a Republican majority at the agency. EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, has signaled her support for revising the regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority by including not only abortion but fertility treatments and birth control as medical needs covered by the law.
24 minutes ago
Beshear bans drug in Kentucky that's being targeted by attorneys general across the nation
FRANKFORT, Ky. -- Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear took emergency action Monday to ban the sale of 'designer Xanax,' responding to a request from his state's attorney general who is leading a broader effort to combat the highly potent synthetic drug linked to dozens of overdose deaths last year in the Bluegrass State. Beshear's action in his state comes as a coalition of 21 attorneys general, led by Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman, is urging the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to take emergency action banning the unregulated drug. It poses a growing public health threat and is increasingly contributing to overdose deaths, the attorneys general said in a letter dated Monday to DEA Administrator Terry Cole. 'Law enforcement desperately needs the tools to drive this dangerous drug from our neighborhoods,' Coleman, a Republican, said in a news release. In Kentucky, the classification of bromazolam — widely known as 'designer Xanax' — as a Schedule 1 controlled substance took immediate effect following Beshear's emergency regulation. Bromazolam, Coleman has warned, is being passed off as prescription pills including benzodiazepines, which are commonly used to treat conditions such as anxiety disorders, insomnia, and seizures. He had urged Beshear's administration to ban the drug in Kentucky, and the governor's action on Monday empowers law enforcement to make arrests for selling or possessing the drug, Beshear's office said. 'This deadly drug has no place in our communities, and now we have the tools needed to get it off the streets and protect more lives,' the Democratic governor said in a release. Beshear, a former Kentucky attorney general now in his second term as governor, is widely seen as a potential candidate for president in 2028. The drug he and Coleman targeted has been tied to a growing number of fatal overdoses in Kentucky and across the nation, Beshear's office said. It was detected in nearly 50 overdose deaths in Kentucky last year, the office said. 'We live in a moment when as little as one pill can kill – and is killing – our kids,' Coleman said in response to Beshear's action. "I'm glad we could work together to tackle this grave threat.' In their letter to the head of DEA, the attorneys general said bromazolam is being sold illicitly on the streets and online. It is highly potent and unpredictable, they said, especially when combined with opioids or other central nervous system depressants. Unlike regulated medications, illicitly manufactured bromazolam lacks quality controls, making it particularly lethal for unsuspecting users, they said. 'Despite its clear dangers, bromazolam remains unscheduled at the federal level, creating significant challenges for law enforcement and public health officials trying to respond to this emerging crisis,' the letter said. 'Without scheduling, this drug continues to evade traditional regulatory and prosecutorial tools, hindering interdiction efforts and enabling continued distribution through illicit channels.' Emergency action by the DEA would help law enforcement remove the drug from circulation, give prosecutors the ability to hold traffickers accountable and would 'send a clear signal that this dangerous substance has no place on our streets,' the letter said. Besides Coleman, the request to the DEA included attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia, Coleman's office said.
