A federal judge in Missouri is being asked to decide whether a new state law banning intoxicating hemp products can be enforced from 12 November, or whether it is so contradictory that a constitutional challenge should go ahead. The dispute was reported by Marijuana Moment, which republished a report by the Missouri Independent.

The plaintiffs, led by the Missouri Hemp Trade Association, say House Bill 2641 creates overlapping definitions that leave businesses unsure what they can lawfully sell. In a filing this week they argued that the result is “a single product is simultaneously legal ‘hemp’ and illegal ‘marijuana.’”

What the state says

The state has asked Judge M. Douglas Harpool of the US District Court for the Western District of Missouri to dismiss the case. It says there is no contradiction, because the law specifies which category applies: a product that meets the definition of a hemp-derived cannabinoid product is treated as marijuana.

In its motion, the state said it had “enacted provisions to guard against confusion”. It also argued that the case is part of a wider effort by the hemp industry to overturn similar state laws, writing that “the industry’s playbook is well established” and citing federal cases in which such challenges have failed.

The plaintiffs responded that Missouri’s law differs from those in the other states cited. Because the products would be classed as marijuana in Missouri, they argue, the legislation becomes “unconstitutionally vague”. Their attorney, Chuck Hatfield, said his clients want “a day in court”.

The law and the federal ban

Congress legalised hemp in 2018, which allowed intoxicating products such as hemp-derived THC drinks to appear in shops and bars across the state. Congress passed a federal ban on such products in November, due to take effect on 12 November. Missouri lawmakers said they meant to mirror that approach.

The bill, sponsored by Republican state Representative Dave Hinman, would limit hemp products to 0.4 milligrams of THC per container, in line with a limit in the federal spending bill approved last year. If Congress later allowed sales, Missouri would permit them only in licensed marijuana dispensaries.

If Congress delays the ban, Missouri would still prohibit all such products except intoxicating drinks. The plaintiffs say drinks are not expressly exempted. The law lists the products that would be covered in that scenario, including solid edibles, capsules, oils and smokable or vapeable raw plant material containing any amount of THCA. Drinks are thought to be allowed because they are not listed. Critics say other unlisted products could also be unintentionally exempt, creating a new loophole.

The federal position is also shifting. Earlier this month the US Senate approved a measure to fund federal agencies until 11 December, which would delay the federal ban on intoxicating hemp THC products until that date. It now returns to the House for final approval before going to the president.

Why it matters in the UK

The case is of interest to UK readers because it shows the difficulty of regulating hemp-derived intoxicating products. In the UK, CBD products are legal to sell subject to Food Standards Agency novel food rules and strict limits on controlled cannabinoids such as THC, while cannabis remains a Class B drug.

The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss.