Weighing the Risks of Marketing Delta-8 and Similar Substances

Seth Goldberg
Seth A. Goldberg

I originally published the blog below with the title “Delta-8 Bans Are Having a Moment,” which on reflection seems a bit flip.  The reality is that the ambiguities in the 2018 Farm Bill and the lack of federal regulation of such substances have created a conundrum for those who market Delta-8 and similar substances, as well as for the cannabis industry, and for states that are weighing public safety against financial interests.

Just as those who were participating in the cannabis industry in its early days – before federal cannabis policy was so transparent – had to weigh the risk of federal enforcement and criminal penalties,  purveyors of intoxicating substances manufactured from hemp cannabinoids must weigh the risk that the 2018 Farm Bill could be read by some, including Congress and state governments, as not legalizing those substances simply because they have some relation to legal hemp.

As a lawyer who represents clients who manufacture and market cannabis and hemp products, I have seen them weigh the risks attendant to the unclear regulatory landscapes for both cannabis and hemp, and I have not been surprised – and have been disappointed – when some have opted not to make the leap into cannabis or hemp.

Even today, where cannabis is legal and where federal cannabis policy has de-prioritized enforcement against state cannabis activities that comply with state law, the cannabis market is too risky for the vast majority of businesses to expand into.  Think about all of the consumer packaged goods companies that have been watching cannabis and hemp, but have not made the move, not even to CBD, not to mention almost the entire financial institution market.

Thus, when those who have decided to market Delta-8 and similar intoxicating substances on the basis that the 2018 Farm Bill legalized them, I can’t help but think about whether they were advised about and accepted the risk that the 2018 Farm Bill could be read differently, or they simply jumped into the market blindly or on poor advice.  Yes, the market for those substances has grown and is in the billions, but that does not somehow make the 2018 Farm Bill less ambiguous or somehow make the substances any safer.

The fact that cannabis companies are increasingly moving to hemp and even Delta-8 and similar substances also does not change the ambiguity in the 2018 Farm Bill.  It does, however, underscore the risk cannabis market participants took when they entered a space burdened by the capital restraints resulting from federal prohibition and 280E.  Many of these companies are now desperately in need of another source of revenue, and hemp is a logical choice, but there is still a risk when it comes to Delta-8 and similar substances.

The tack of saying there is a cannabis and hemp “civil war,” or that state bans against Delta-8 and similar substances and clarifying changes to the 2018 Farm Bill will “kill the hemp industry” seems to miss the mark.  This does not seem to be about the “hemp industry” or “hemp farmers,” but rather about a market that has developed for intoxicating ingestible products that may be manufactured using hemp cannabinoids and other chemicals.  Every intoxicating substance poses a public safety risk, and the public safety risk resulting from Delta-8 and similar substances should outweigh financial interest.  As such, the emphasis should be on whether and how to regulate Delta-8 and similar substances in a way that ensures public safety.

That state legislators and regulators are imposing restrictions in that direction does not seem surprising.  States should have the right to govern these types of intoxicating substances.  While bans may be undesirable, in the absence of clarity in federal law or federal regulation, it appears to be the solution for some states.  As a result, those manufacturing and marketing Delta-8 and similar substances must continue to weigh the risks and manufacture and market their products knowing there is uncertainty as to the legal/regulatory landscape.

******

My original blog posted under the title “Delta-8 Bans Are Having a Moment.”

Ingestible products containing substances that are manufactured using naturally occurring hemp cannabinoids, such as CBD, and other chemicals to creating intoxicating hemp substances, such as Delta-8 THC, have become increasingly available throughout the U.S., being sold at gas stations, vape shops, and convenience stores.  Such substances are often as or more intoxicating than marijuana, but by and large they have not been regulated with the same product safety requirements as marijuana that has been legalized in states for adult or medical use.  The FDA views such intoxicating substances as prohibited in food and beverages, and while the FDA may take enforcement action, which it has done, it has not created a regulatory framework for the manufacture and ingestion of intoxicating hemp substances.  Instead, it is waiting for Congress to clarify what some perceive to be a loophole in the 2018 Farm Bill that has allowed the proliferation of such substances, because of language legalizing hemp and its “derivatives.”

Safety concerns have been raised about the intoxicating potency of these substances, as well as about the chemicals used to manufacture them, resulting in state regulations restricting or banning their use.  Regardless of where you stand on whether the 2018 Farm Bill legalized intoxicating substances that can be manufactured using cannabinoids from legal hemp, in the absence of federal regulation, states have been banning or heavily restricting them in the name of public safety.   While advocates of such substances decry those bans and limits, states who view them as a safety risk are taking action to protect their citizens.

In middle America, where cannabis legalization is spotty, foods and beverages containing intoxicating substances synthesized from hemp seem to have flourished, and those states have treated cannabis and intoxicating hemp substances differently.  For example, in Minnesota, marijuana has been decriminalized for personal use, but has been legalized and regulated for medical use and can be sold in a handful of state-licensed dispensaries to medical marijuana card holders, whereas Delta-8 THC and Delta-9 THC artificially derived from hemp may be consumed in foods and beverages with certain serving size limitations that can be sold in stores that register with the state prior to sale.

In contrast, whereas Missouri has legalized and regulates the sale and use of marijuana for medical purposes, on August 1, Missouri Governor Michael Parson issued Executive Order 24-10, which bans “unregulated psychoactive cannabis products,” including “delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), delta-10 THC, hexahydrocannabinol (HHC), tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-O), tetrahydrocannabiphoral (THCP), tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), and other similar compounds.”  As the Executive Order states, “there are currently no safety standards, packaging requirements, or other regulations related to the safety of consuming unregulated psychoactive cannabis products in Missouri,” and “actions must be taken to protect consumers, including children, from the sale of foods that include unregulated psychoactive cannabis products.”

In Iowa, like Missouri, marijuana has been legalized for medical use, and the sale and consumption of marijuana is governed by Iowa’s medical regulatory program, and, like Missouri, Iowa recently issued regulations, effective July 1, 2024, banning “synthetic consumable hemp products,” including “Delta-8 THC, Delta-10 THC, Hexahydrocannabinol (HHC), Tetrahydrocannabiphorol (THC-P), and Tetrahydrocannabinol-O-acetate (THC-O).” Iowa’s ban of synthetic consumable hemp products was challenged in Climbing Kites LLC, et al., v The State of Iowa, et al., et al., 4:24-cv-202 (SD IA),  by a low-dose THC beverage manufacturer, along with other low dose-THC beverage manufacturers, but after the Court refused to enjoin the ban, the lawsuit was withdrawn.

As we have previously written, Wyoming, which has not legalized marijuana in any respect also bans substances that have been converted from naturally occurring hemp into a synthetic substance, such as Delta-8, and in South Dakota, where medical marijuana is legal, but recreational marijuana is not, a federal court recently upheld a ban, like Iowa’s, on Delta-8 and other intoxicating substances converted from hemp.  Hemp Quarters 605 LLC v. Governor Kristi Noem, et al., 3:24-CV-3016 (SD SD).

South Dakota HB-1125 went into effect on July 1, 2024, and provides that no person may “(1) chemically modify or convert industrial hemp as defined in § 38-35-1, or engage in any process that converts cannabidiol, into delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol, delta9 tetrahydrocannabinol, delta-10 tetrahydrocannabinol, or any other tetrahydrocannabinol isomer, analog, or derivative; or (2) Sell or distribute industrial hemp or an industrial hemp product that contains chemically derived cannabinoids or cannabinoids created by chemically modifying or converting a hemp extract.”  HB 1125 includes the following definition for the term Chemically Derived Cannabinoid: “a chemical substance created by a chemical reaction that changes the molecular structure of any chemical substance derived from the cannabis plant. The term does not include: (a) Cannabinoids produced by decarboxylation from a naturally occurring cannabinoid acid without the use of a chemical catalyst; (b) Non-psychoactive cannabinoids; or (c) Cannabinoids in a topical cream product.”

Clearly, the manufacture and sale of intoxicating substances using hemp cannabinoids, such as Delta-8, is being scrutinized.  As such, manufacturers and sellers of such products need to be mindful of the regulatory landscape.

 

© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress