Florida House panel OKs tax on all hemp-derived THC products
All hemp-derived THC products would be taxed at 15% under a proposal passed in a Florida House committee on Wednesday.
The measure is one of two regarding regulation of hemp-derived THC products sponsored by Panhandle Republican Michelle Salzman that were approved unanimously in the House Budget Committee.
The main bill (HB 7027) is a companion to a Senate bill (SB 438) that has already passed unanimously in that chamber, although they do contain significant differences. Among them is that Salzman's bill would not ban Delta-8, the hemp-derived THC product that has grown in popularity since hemp was legalized in the United States through the 2018 U.S. farm bill.
Like its Senate companion, the House bill limits the amount of Delta-9 hemp-derived products such as beverages and gummies. It says edibles must contain no more than 2 milligrams; be individually wrapped; and be sold in containers with no more than 20 edibles.
That raised objections from Patrick Shatzer of Sunmed/Your CBD Store, who says his company is the largest CBD brick-and-mortar business in the country with 260 locations nationwide and 42 in Florida.
'The size of the gummies — limited to 2 grams — that's just a tiny little pinkie size wide,' he said to the committee. 'That's not the industry standard. The industry standard is anywhere from 5 to 8 grams.'
Shatzer also objected to the provision limiting 20 servings per container, saying the average dietary supplements permit 30 gummies in a container. And he raised objections to a prohibition on selling, delivering, bartering, giving, or furnishing hemp consumables that total more than 100 milligrams of THC to a person in a 24-hour period, saying it would be unenforceable.
Rep. Salzman replied that, while she is open to changing some of those limits, she is holding firm on limiting personal consumption of such products to 100 milligrams of THC a day.
'If somebody know that they can't buy more than 100 milligrams in that day, it's going to give them a warning subconsciously, 'Maybe I shouldn't have more than 100 milligrams of this stuff in a day,'' she said. 'And if you want more than 100 milligrams of this stuff a day, you probably need to get a medical cannabis card.'
Regarding the proposed 15% excise tax on hemp products, Jodi James of the Florida Cannabis Action Network said that not all hemp products are intoxicating, and that those that aren't should not be taxed at all.
'In the state of Florida, we don't tax vitamins, we don't tax supplements,' she said.
Salzman said following the meeting that she will exempt those products before the bill's final hearing before House Commerce Committee next week.
'That's a no-brainer,' she said. 'The purpose of this is to give it a sin-tax, and if you're not using it for sin, then yes.'
The measure says that the first $6 million of revenue collected from the tax would go into a General Inspection Trust fund for enforcement and testing of hemp-derived products. The rest would go into the state's main account, the General Revenue Fund.
Atlhough the House and Senate bills differ in some respects, one similarity that members of the committee voiced concerns about was a requirement that hemp-containing beverages be sold only through shops licensed to sell alcoholic beverages.
'I don't think that we should be picking winners and losers here,' said Naples Republican Rep. Lauren Melo. 'I, too, would like to see convenience stores added back in.'
'I, too, think it should be treated like alcohol,' added Broward County Democratic Rep. Christine Hunschofsky. 'And therefore should be available in the same way that alcohol is.'
Southeast Florida Republican Rep. Toby Overdorf said he would like to see more work regarding synthetics, which are not listed in the House measure.
Much is the same in the House and Senate bills; both would prohibit packaging that might be attractive to children and require the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs to certify any hemp-testing laboratory in Florida or any other state.
The House bill prohibits THC products from being sold, given, bartered, furnished, or delivered to consumers at festivals, fairs, trade shows, farmers' markets, expositions, or pop-up retail establishments. And it would ban anyone from ingesting them within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary, middle, or secondary school between the hours of 6 a.m. and midnight.
The bill will move to the Commerce Committee next week, its likely final stop before reaching the floor.
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
USA Today
23 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump approval holds at 40%, lowest of his term, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
WASHINGTON, Aug 18 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's approval rating held at 40% in recent weeks, matching the lowest level of his current term, amid weak ratings from Hispanic voters, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Monday. The six-day poll was conducted as economic data showed signs the U.S. labor market is weakening and as Trump oversees a sweeping immigration crackdown, while at the same time the Republican has been engaged in intense diplomacy to end a war between Russia and Ukraine. Trump's approval rating was unchanged from a late July Reuters/Ipsos poll, but has dropped seven percentage points since his first days back in the White House in January, when 47% of Americans gave him a thumbs-up. The latest poll showed Hispanics, a group that swung toward Trump in last year's election, have also soured on the president. Some 32% approved of his performance in the White House, matching their lowest level of approval for Trump this year. More: Trump approval rating round-up: Where does president stand in recent polls? More than half of respondents -- 54%, including one in five Republicans -- said they thought Trump was too closely aligned with Russia, even as he ramped up a push to broker peace between Moscow and Kyiv. Trump has appeared to embrace Russia's claim that Ukraine must cede territory to Russia in order for the war to stop. Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, and the poll closed just ahead of the president's meeting on Monday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Just 42% of respondents approved of Trump's performance on crime and 43% thought he was doing a good job on immigration policy. On all policies, Trump's support came overwhelmingly from Republicans. After returning to the White House in January, Trump ordered a sweeping crackdown on people living in the country illegally, deploying masked agents to arrest and deport migrants across the country. The policy has triggered mass protests in cities including Los Angeles, where about half the population identifies as Latino and many people have family members who are recent immigrants. More: What is Trump's approval rating? See states where he is most, least popular More recently, Trump ordered federal agents and National Guard troops to aid in law enforcement in Washington, D.C., arguing that crime was rampant there. Statistics show that violent crime shot up in 2023 but has been rapidly declining since. The Reuters/Ipsos poll surveyed 4,446 U.S. adults nationwide and online and had a margin of error of about 2 percentage points. (Reporting by Jason Lange; editing by Scott Malone and Deepa Babington)
Los Angeles Times
23 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump wants NASA to burn a crucial satellite to cinders, killing research into climate change
By any reasonable metric, NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory has been a spectacular success. Originally designed to support a two-year pilot project, it has been operating continuously in space for more than 10 years and could continue doing so for three decades more. The data it produces 'are of exceptionally high quality,' NASA stated in a 2023 review, when it labeled the project 'the flagship mission for space-borne measurements' of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. So perhaps it isn't surprising that the Trump administration plans to shut the program down. It gets worse: The White House has given NASA instructions to destroy the spacecraft by plunging it to a fiery demise in the atmosphere. Knowledgeable scientists and engineers say that Trump could choose to temporarily mothball the orbiting observatory, leaving a skeleton staff in place at NASA to monitor its hibernation until cooler heads prevail at the White House. Destroying the spacecraft, however, will hamstring climate research for decades. The zeroing out of climate research budgets by the Trump White House, of which the cancellation of the OCO program is a part, is taking place just as the value of space-borne climate research has been rising sharply. 'The bottom line is that the societal and scientific benefit of this research increases almost exponentially with sustained and long-lasting measurements,' says Ben Poulter, an expert in greenhouse gas measurements formerly at NASA and now a senior scientist at the nonprofit Spark Climate Solutions. 'We're starting to see the positive impact of OCO-2 at helping to detect trends in greenhouse gas emissions and removals in natural ecosystems as the Earth undergoes the impacts of climate change.' Under the most recent Republican administrations, NASA's involvement in Earth science — that is, research into global warming and other climate change — has consistently come under fire. As I reported recently, these programs were specifically targeted by Russell Vought, currently Trump's budget director and an architect of Project 2025, in a 2023 unofficial budget proposal. There, Vought groused about NASA's 'misguided Carbon Reduction System spending and Global Climate Change programs.' He called for a 50% reduction in the budget for NASA Earth science research — a cut that made it into Trump's current proposed budget. The vastly reduced Earth science budget for NASA was passed by the House earlier this year, but it isn't part of the Senate version, which hasn't been passed. What isn't understood by Vought, Trump or the current acting director of NASA, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, is that Earth science was specifically made part of NASA's portfolio in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which created the agency. Among the agency's directives, the act stated, would be 'the expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere.' That's where climate change occurs. The effort to zero out Earth science alarmed more than 60 Democratic House members, who wrote Duffy on July 18 to warn that 'the scale of reductions to NASA Earth science would ... severely impair the use of Earth science data and research to improve our ability to forecast, manage, and respond to natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and wildfires, leaving the nation less prepared for the challenges of the future and impacting local communities' abilities to adapt and respond to severe weather and natural disaster events.' Trump's budgetary cheeseparing at NASA means the waste of billions of dollars already spent by taxpayers. As I reported before, the bulk of the cost of space missions is in the development of spacecraft and their launch; once that's done, the cost of maintaining a satellite in orbit is nominal. According to David Crisp, who led the OCO development team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena from the outset and is now a private consultant, the OCO program development and launch cost was about $750 million, but since the launch it costs only about $15 million a year to operate. That doesn't count the value of the lost data. Crisp reckons that Duffy and the administration 'decided that NASA should not do Earth science, and the fact that we have billions and billions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars invested in that enterprise right now and really valuable hardware in place, providing critical information to organizations across the world is irrelevant. I think what's going on here is that they've made a strategic move without taking into account tactical realities.' The average layperson — and that includes some White House officials making policy decisions about scientific endeavors — has no idea about the effort required to put a satellite into space and keep it there. The OCO project was typical. As described by Crisp, the process began in the mid-1990s as an inquiry into how carbon dioxide produced on Earth got absorbed by natural 'sinks' such as forests. The project won approval in 2001 from the George W. Bush administration. Environmental science wasn't the partisan football it later became. 'You could be a good Republican and still think this was a good thing to do,' Crisp told me. The first Orbiting Carbon Observatory was readied for launch in February 2009. 'It was a tremendous challenge, an instrument designed to make a measurement three or four times more difficult than anything ever attempted at JPL,' Crisp says. The launch was successful — for just over three minutes, at which point it failed, plunging rocket and satellite to a watery grave in the Indian Ocean. 'We'd spent eight years and $270 million and engaged more than 1,000 work-years of heroic effort,' Crisp recalls. NASA wanted to keep the project alive. For 10 months, Crisp and others beat down the doors of government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and commercial enterprise to find the money to preserve it, but this was in the teeth of the Great Recession, and no one signed on. But ultimately the Obama administration appropriated $50 million in December 2009 to restart the mission. Crisp's team built a carbon copy of the original satellite, and it was launched successfully on July 2, 2014. The original vision was to operate OCO-2 for two years as a proof-of-concept, showing that carbon dioxide could be accurately measured from space. Because of the peculiarities of the launch, however, it carried enough fuel to last 40 years. The reconstruction left enough spare parts in hand to build a twin instrument dubbed OCO-3, which was launched in May 2019 and installed on the International Space Station, where it is still operating. When I asked NASA for a response to widespread criticism of its actions by the scientific community, I got the same standardized reponse that others have received. It labeled OCO-2 and -3 'two climate missions beyond their prime mission,' and added that as the proposed budget has 'not yet been enacted, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time.' What NASA believes the OCO 'prime mission' is, if not studying atmospheric conditions on Earth, is a mystery. Within weeks of its own launch, OCO-2 began producing data that would revolutionize climate science. Its applications went well beyond measuring carbon dioxide. OCO-2 was able to detect 'solar-induced fluorescence' in plants, an artifact of photosynthesis, which could be used as a 'reliable early warning indicator of flash drought with enough lead time to take action,' JPL reported last year. Those measurements, Crisp says, 'have been a bigger hit with the science community than the CO2 measurements.' And they're the product not of planning, but serendipity, a crucial feature of scientific progress. At this moment, OCO-2 seems destined for oblivion. Crisp says NASA staffers have been instructed to make a plan to move the spacecraft into a 'disposal orbit' that would incinerate it in the Earth's atmosphere within a few months. But that's expensive, requiring a detailed plan to ensure that its deteriorating orbit doesn't threaten other orbiting craft. The quick and dirty alternative would be to 'point the thing down and fire the thruster, which would basically produce an instantaneous reentry.' Which option will be chosen isn't clear. A third alternative is to place the craft in a sort of suspended sleep, so it could be started up again after Trump and his minions leave office. But that would require 24-hour monitoring to adjust the OCO orbit to avoid space junk — not an infrequent occurrence. (With OCO-3 attached to the International Space Station, it will remain in place, though nonfunctional, as long as the ISS stays aloft.) The plan to destroy OCO-2 is beyond shameful. Crisp says of the OCO hardware, 'these are national assets.... They are what made this country great. Tearing things down doesn't make it great again. It just tears things down.'
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump adds firepower to National Guard presence in DC
The number of National Guard troops patrolling Washington, D.C., will more than double in the coming days after Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina and West Virginia in the past several days committed troops to President Trump's federal takeover of the city. Coupled with indications that the guard members may soon be carrying weapons — a reversal of their initial orders — the new deployments mark a major escalation of Trump's efforts to take over law enforcement in Washington, D.C. The roughly 800 D.C. National Guard troops already deployed in the capital will be joined by about 200 personnel from Mississippi, between 300 and 400 from West Virginia, 150 from Ohio and 200 from South Carolina, beefing up a presence that has largely stood idle around typically low-crime, tourist-heavy areas in the city. 'Crime is out of control there, and it's clear something must be done to combat it,' Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves said in a statement Monday, becoming the latest Republican governor to answer to a Trump administration request to send guard members to Washington. West Virginia, Ohio and South Carolina, meanwhile, pledged their state troops over the weekend, bolstering Trump's federal crackdown on crime and homelessness in the Democratic-led city. Still, some GOP governors are keeping their troops home, including Vermont Gov. Phil Scott (R), who 'politely declined' Trump's request to deploy Vermont National Guard soldiers to Washington, D.C. 'While public safety is a legitimate concern in cities across the country and certainly in the nation's capital, in the absence of an immediate emergency or disaster that local and regional first responders are unable to handle, the governor just does not support utilizing the guard for this purpose, and does not view the enforcement of domestic law as a proper use of the National Guard,' Scott's chief of staff, Jason Gibbs, said in a statement Friday, as reported by Vermont Public. Gibbs said Scott might have sent a few dozen guard members if it was D.C. officials who were seeking federal assistance with an emergency situation instead. 'But in this case, because it is being hyperpoliticized, the governor doesn't feel like — and I believe the vast majority of Vermonters don't feel like — it would be an acceptable and appropriate use of the National Guard,' Gibbs said. Trump launched the federal takeover of D.C. via an executive order that declared a 'crime emergency' in the city, grabbing control of the city's police department and sending federal agents — including some from the Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, FBI and Secret Service — to the streets despite a sharp drop in crime since 2023. Critics say the effort is merely a photo op and a gross militarization of Washington, with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser on Monday pushing back on Trump's characterization of the city. 'We don't have any authority over the D.C. guard or any other guards, but I think it makes the point that this is not about D.C. crime,' Bowser said of the administration and states deploying National Guard troops to the capital. 'The focus should be on violent crime,' she added. 'Nobody is against focusing on driving down any level of violence. And so if this is really about immigration enforcement the administration should make that plain.' So far, the guard members in Washington have assisted law enforcement with crowd control and patrolling typically low-crime areas such as landmarks, including the National Mall, Lincoln Memorial and Union Station. It is unclear why additional troops have been requested by Trump as the National Guard's role has been limited and many have been seen around the city standing idly next to their vehicles. But even with their seemingly uneventful patrols, guard members may soon be armed while out and about. Initial deployment orders stipulated that the troops would wear body armor but they would not be armed or even have their weapons in their vehicles, according to an Army statement released Thursday. Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson also told reporters Thursday that the guard members will not be conducting law enforcement activities while in D.C., but they could temporarily detain someone until law enforcement could make an arrest. The White House said in a statement Saturday, however, that the National Guard troops 'may be armed, consistent with their mission and training, to protect federal assets, provide a safe environment for law enforcement officers to make arrests, and deter violent crime with a visible law enforcement presence.'
