Latest news with #BhaamatiBorkhetaria
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Mass. legislators push for more forceful action on intoxicating hemp-derived products
A whole range of hemp products including flower and pre-rolls at Healing Hemp, a hemp store in Somerville. (Photo by Bhaamati Borkhetaria/CommonWealth Beacon) BOSTON — State lawmakers session are looking to take hemp-derived intoxicating products – which contain the same active ingredient as cannabis but are not regulated the same way – off shelves in gas stations, convenience stores, and vape shops across Massachusetts. The hemp products, which are generally edible and intoxicating like gummies or candies, have already been declared illegal in the state by several state agencies but continue to pop up in certain stores outside of dispensaries. Most of these products come from out of state. Some business owners who sell the intoxicating products argue that the state agencies haven't settled the matter because hemp is legal federally – through a loophole in the 2018 federal farm bill which legalized hemp. Hemp and cannabis are the same plant, but this law removed hemp from the classification of cannabis as long as it contains less than 0.3% THC – the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis – by volume. Four bills have been filed on Beacon Hill to bring any consumable hemp-derived products like edibles, concentrates, tinctures, oils, and capsules, under the purview of the Cannabis Control Commission or give local boards of health oversight to remove these products from stores other than dispensaries. Hemp products that are sold in dispensaries like CBD gummies are already regulated by the commission. These bills would specifically target intoxicating products being sold outside of dispensaries. '[Hemp products] face no additional tax impositions, no host community agreements, no recall process, no FDA testing requirements, no age limits,' said Rep. Dawne Shand, a Newburyport Democrat, at a Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy hearing on Wednesday. 'The intoxicating hemp industry makes a mockery of cannabis laws.' Shand, a member of the committee, is pushing a bill that would prohibit intoxicating hemp products from being sold without an endorsement from the Cannabis Control Commission. Rep. Michael Soter, a Republican from Bellingham, has two bills that would address hemp-derived products. The fourth bill, presented by James C. Arena-DeRosa, imposes an excise tax on the sale of hemp products in addition to the existing state tax and directs that money to be used to empower local health board to remove certain hemp products from stores. 'I think [hemp] should be up to the control of the Cannabis Control Commission,' said Soter, in an interview before the hearing. 'You've got people who are following the rules … and then you've got some things that are kind of being sold in convenience stores and gas stations. Some of this stuff is really geared towards kids, and that's not a good thing.' Soter emphasized that he wants to be very careful in creating legislation to deal with hemp products because he doesn't want to inadvertently harm businesses that sell non-intoxicating hemp products, like oils or creams that contain CBD and are meant to be applied topically. 'What scares me about regulating this is that sometimes we over-regulate and we put more problems on an industry,' said Soter. 'We've got to walk that fine line. I want to keep us on a straight path of going after what we need to go after and what we don't need to go after and make sure when we do this regulation, we do it correctly.' At the hearing, Jesse Alderman, a lawyer who specializes in cannabis, and Peter Gallagher, the CEO of the cannabis company INSA, brought a bag of intoxicating hemp products that they said they collected from over 20 different gas stations, convenience stores, and vape shops. Many of these products had high concentrations of THC. One of the packages contained 10,000 milligrams of THC. For cannabis, the state allows only 100 milligrams per package and 5 milligrams per serving. They passed the bag around to the legislators, who commented that the products smelled like cannabis. 'If it smells like it, looks like it, I think it is it,' said Adam Gomez, the Senate chair of the cannabis committee. Gallagher said that they tested these products and that over 90% of them would qualify as cannabis products because they contained well over 0.3% of THC. About a third of the products wouldn't have passed the regulatory testing required on cannabis products because of the presence of microbes, pesticides, heavy metals, and residual solvents. None of the establishments where he purchased the hemp products checked for identification to enforce age limits, he added. 'This really looks a lot like what we saw in 2019 with the vape crisis where illegal, unregulated, untested vape cartridges [were] being sold with cutting agents in them and [that] ultimately led to people harming themselves,' said Gallagher. 'A lot of consumers today don't understand that what's being purchased in these gas stations, convenience stores, vape shops or even online is different and potentially more damaging than what you're able to purchase in the regulated dispensaries.' In Massachusetts, several state agencies issued guidance in May 2024 that said that these types of products are illegal. The Alcohol Beverage Control Commission warned its licensees that their licenses could be suspended or revoked if they were caught selling hemp-derived products. Soon after, many of these products were taken out of liquor stores, smoke shops, restaurants, and many other places that were selling them. But the crackdown on these products has remained uneven because the enforcement on these products has largely remained in the hands of local boards of health, which are already overburdened and don't have the resources to go from store to store. Last session, legislators decided not to intervene on the issue of hemp-derived products, but representatives of local boards of health said that they are unable to get these products out of stores and out of the hands of children without more resources allocated to them for this issue. John Nathan, the CEO of a company called Bay State Extracts, which produces hemp-derived compounds like CBD, said that the legislation proposed at the hearing would be redundant because these products – as per the guidance from the state agencies – are already illegal. He also expressed concern about the Cannabis Control Commission's ability to actually regulate hemp products effectively. The commission has had internal conflict, allegations of misconduct, and a slow-moving regulatory process that has frustrated many within the cannabis industry. 'The CCC has barely enforced their existing hemp regulations and guidance is as it stands,' said Nathan. 'The cannabis industry is in turmoil. There's over saturation, struggles for bill payments, layoffs, competitive and low-paying job market, what seems like monthly closures. I feel effort should be directed towards supporting the existing market and coordinating to fix these issues, rather than disrupting the supply chain in an effort to make something already illegal illegal again.' This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Massachusetts postpones rule requiring truck makers to sell electric vehicles
Truck driving on a road in New Mexico, one of 17 states that have adopted the California vehicle emissions standards. (Photo by Bhaamati Borkhetaria/CW Beacon) To the frustration of environmentalists who argue that states must take stronger action on climate in the absence of federal leadership, Massachusetts last week postponed enforcement of a rule requiring truck manufacturers to sell a minimum percentage of electric vehicles by two years. Representatives for the trucking industry applauded the move, arguing there isn't enough demand or infrastructure to support electric trucks. But, environmental advocates said that the state's decision will set Massachusetts back in its climate goals and prolong exposure to harmful emissions for the state's residents. 'We're very disappointed to see the state of Massachusetts, which is really considered a leader on climate, kowtowing to truck manufacturers in this instance,' said Emily Green, a senior attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation who works on climate change, clean energy, and transportation. 'The transportation sector is a huge contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in Massachusetts, and delaying enforcement of this regulation will make it all the more difficult for Massachusetts to comply with its binding climate limits.' The Advanced Clean Trucks rule requires that manufacturers of medium and heavy-duty trucks sell an increasing percentage of zero-emission vehicles year over year starting in 2025, the year the state was to begin enforcing fines. Starting this year, Massachusetts would have required 7% of trucks and tractors sold in the state to be electric vehicles. (Pickup trucks are not included in the requirements.) The percentages must increase each year until more than half of the trucks sold in the state are electric. Massachusetts adopted California's vehicle emission standards, which are more strict than federal regulations, in 1990. Massachusetts announced on April 14 that it will not enforce percentage requirements for the model years 2025 and 2026 as long as manufacturers, who have been withholding diesel trucks unless dealers agree to buy a certain amount of electric trucks, supply trucks to dealerships in the state without restrictions. 'Some manufacturers are limiting…truck sales as a means to ensure their compliance with ACT sales requirements, reducing availability to a wide range of users,' said a memo from the state's Department of Environmental Protection. 'Further, the current federal administration has created significant uncertainty around [zero-emission vehicle] incentives, charging investments, manufacturing, and tariffs, each of which threatens a smooth transition to medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs.' The nation's leading truck manufacturers provided input when California developed the rule and agreed to meet the requirements. But now, they are arguing that the industry will not be able to meet the requirements because of high costs and a lack of electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Kevin Weeks, executive director of the Trucking Association of Massachusetts, applauded the Healey administration's decision to delay the rule. 'Even if the manufacturers could provide the trucks, nobody would buy the trucks because you can't charge the trucks,' said Weeks. '[They have] range issues, battery issues, cost issues, and on and on. It's just not feasible for people to purchase medium and heavy-duty trucks that are electric at this point.' But, Green and other environmental advocates say that holding the line on climate policy at the state level has become more important as the Trump administration attempts to roll back key environmental protections designed to transition the country off of fossil fuels. 'At a time when the federal administration is shirking its responsibilities with respect to environment and climate and environmental justice and health and air pollution, it's more important than ever that states hold their ground and not over-comply and not bend to the will of the Trump administration until they are forced to do so,' said Green. Currently, the Trump administration is working on 'reconsidering' the clean trucks rule along with two other emissions waivers that Massachusetts has also adopted: the Heavy-duty Omnibus Regulation, which requires manufacturers to sell lower emissions engines for heavy-duty vehicles like trucks, and the Advanced Clean Cars II Regulation, which has a goal of reaching 100% zero-emissions vehicle sales by 2035. 'This is a moment where the states should stand up to the federal government rather than doing their work for them,' said Anna Vanderspek, the electric vehicle program director at Green Energy Consumers Alliance. 'Let's force the federal government to go through the [rollback] process, which will likely end up in the courts, so that we don't weaken the Clean Air Act and its provisions for them.' Late last year, Massachusetts delayed enforcement of the Heavy-duty Omnibus rule for the model year 2025 and pushed enforcement back to 2026. Vehicle emissions from trucks have an outsize impact on public health, according to public health experts. An October analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists showed that the delay in enforcing the Advanced Clean Trucks rule to 2027 will lead to a cost of somewhere between $97.2 and $127.8 million in health impacts from things like emergency room visits and school days lost to asthma in Massachusetts. The transportation sector accounts for the largest amount of greenhouse gas emissions – about 40%– in Massachusetts. Medium and heavy-duty trucks and buses make up about 7% of the state's registered vehicles, but contribute a disproportionate 46% of nitrogen oxide, 40% of fine particulate matter, and 20% of global warming emissions, according to a 2021 analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Doug Brugge, the head of the public health sciences department at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, said vehicle emissions from trucks that run on fossil fuels lead to many different adverse health outcomes, including respiratory ailments, cardiovascular conditions, and neurological harm. 'Airborne particulate matter is probably the most common and the most serious environmental health concern that we know of, especially for people who live near busy roadways or major highways,' said Brugge. 'They will have elevated exposure to these particles. Lower-income, racial or ethnic minorit[ies], and immigrant communities tend to be in areas where these exposures are higher.' Massachusetts's move to delay enforcement on Advanced Clean Trucks has environmentalists worried that other states will follow its example, and the benefits of the rule will be kicked back by two years. Initially, the Healey administration refused to back down and said the rule would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2025, but there was heavy pushback from the trucking industry. State and local agencies faced difficulties in purchasing new vehicles for snowplowing, snow removal, street sweeping, storm response, and other essential uses. Some flexibility was built into the Advanced Clean Trucks rule through a system of credits to help with compliance. There are ways that manufacturers can get credits for 'early-action' before 2025, swap credits with other businesses, or carry forward deficits for up to three years. 'The government is investing to support this market, and there are clearly scores of models of these vehicles that are working in the field today and are working really well,' said Jason Mathers, the associate vice president at the Environmental Defense Fund. 'It is illogical to think that the trucking manufacturers and dealers are so incompetent as to not be able to structure deals with customers who want to purchase these vehicles.' Mathers said that the minimum percentage of 7% or 11% is very achievable with the infrastructure and the technology that currently exists. Rules like Advanced Clean Trucks set the trajectory of the transportation sector market in the state, and delays inject uncertainty into the electric vehicle market, according to Green. 'Even if they continue to plow ahead with other supportive things, there will be something missing in terms of not [enforcing] this rule' for another two years, said Green. 'They're also…bending to the demands of the truck manufacturers and giving power over to the industry, which is not a great look. This will result in there being less zero-emission vehicles on the road at least in the short term.' This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
