• UsernameHere@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    Friday’s proposal to permanently ban hemp THC comes after years of complaints from California’s licensed marijuana industry, which has claimed that it faces unfair competition from unregulated hemp companies. Marijuana companies face sky-high regulatory costs, especially in California, and can only sell their products through state-licensed retailers. Hemp companies, on the other hand, face almost no regulations and have historically been able to sell their intoxicating drugs almost anywhere, including liquor stores, grocery stores and online.

    This disparity between the two industries has created pressure on governors like Newsom to protect their state-regulated cannabis companies.

    This decision makes sense to me.

    It’s weird that every time someone goes against Trump there is an effort to manufacture consent to hate those people.

    • superniceperson@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      It only makes sense if you yourself are being paid by lobbyists. Just pass a regulation for all intoxicating substances. All of the thc/hhc derivatives tested so far are as harmless as cannabis so this isn’t a safety issue. Newsom et al is simply getting more in kickbacks to ban this than if they regulated it.

      • Opinionhaver@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        You seriously think anti-weed (or whatever) lobbyists are being paid to comment on Lemmy? Because that’s what it sounds like you’re implying - discrediting the person for who they supposedly are, not for what they’re actually saying.

        • vortic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I’m 90% sure that when they said “you yourself”, they actually were referring to Newsom, not to the commenter. I can see how the comment could be taken either way though.

          • Opinionhaver@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            2 days ago

            This decision makes sense to me.

            It only makes sense if you yourself are being paid by lobbyists.

            I can’t read it in any other way than as him calling the previous poster a paid lobbyist.

    • shiroininja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Nah its just to protect the new weed capitalists. I like low dose thc stuff for my panic attacks. I don’t need their expensive corporate weed made to put out a horse. Regulation can get bent. I don’t believe in protectionism for businesses.

    • Today@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      The marijuana companies have been making money like crazy for years and now they’re pissed that someone else is getting a piece of the pie.

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    Ban hemp! Ban homeless! Let MY cops harass and kill protestors, not the military!

    Is this what democrats are reduced to these days?

  • Chozo@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Then just regulate it instead, dummy. Shit, California can regulate companies so hard that nearly every product I own has a carcinogen warning label because of them, even though I don’t live there, so they sure as hell can regulate hemp products in their own state. Instead, you’re turning down free tax dollars and criminalizing people for something they’ve been doing safely for years.

    • ultranaut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      California does have a regulated market already. If these companies want to participate in the market they can follow the rules like other market participants.

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    which would make a controversial earlier emergency ban permanent

    Is that why I can’t find Marley’s Mellow Mood anywhere anymore? It used hemp seed oil, and was like the opposite of an energy drink that worked as advertised and also tasted hella good.

    • steal_your_face@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      This is specifically targettjng hemp derived thc and thca products. If it doesnt have thc in it and get you high then it’s likely not part of the ban

    • ultranaut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      How does that make sense? They have a regulated state market that he is trying to protect. Letting drugs from unregulated companies compete against regulated drugs from the companies following the rules has created a variety of serious problems in the market. I don’t understand how you are getting far right out of this.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        So… regulate the other market. The purpose of the regulated marijuana industry is to have it regulated, not to protect those companies from competition.

        • ultranaut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          What you are saying doesnt make sense. They established a legal regulated market for cannabis products. It exists now. If these companies want to compete in that regulated market they can follow the rules and do so.