wanting to protect consumers with sensible regulations around safety, marketing, and availability--while still allowing responsible stewards to serve these products--is a great call. that's what Hemp supporters have been calling for for years, and what regulators in Minnesota (and other places) have been driving at and making great progress on.
that's not what your letter is calling for. did you read it?
the letter you signed explicitly calls for "prohibition on products containing intoxicating levels of THC—of any kind and no matter how it is derived" and "asking Congress to act decisively to clarify the Farm Bill’s definition of hemp to ensure intoxicating THC products are taken off the market."
your letter would effectively unwind all of the good work Minnesota legislators have done over the last five years, recriminalize THC access for people looking to move past alcohol, and crush one of the few lifelines brewers have left.
You either want to preserve MN's hemp industry or "close the loophole" on the "wide variety of THC-based, hemp-derived intoxicants" You can't have both.
IMPOSTER! The real Carol Moss would have capitalized her name. The problem here is a number of folks from various industry sectors have Taubel, Briner and the OCM by their figurative balls due to their dicked up rollout. Ellison is lost and following what lobbyists tell him. It'll be a collaborative rollout that includes hemp homies, or it will be chaos. Wait....it's already been chaos - clusterfuck might be more of an appropriate term
Found the flailing cannabis business genius who thought being first to market was the key to world domination and/or the vErY sMarT Farm Bill loophole tycoon.
you are either being deliberately led astray or youre trying to deliberately mislead people on your intentions. your plan is to make the hemp industry thrive by banning their products. you need to retire and stop controlling people's lives over a plant. youre not protecting children youre protecting big pharma and wallets
I think one big problem with this initiative is that the PR surrounding it is pretty terrible, and I suspect it is because the state attorneys general behind it represent multiple conflicting agendas around cannabis.
I think this initiative would have come off sounding a lot better if AG Ellison had worked with a consortium of attorney's general from states with legal recreational cannabis and who were philosophically aligned with the idea of protecting consumers from bad actors in the "Farm Bill" THC market and protecting our own rec legal market. Such philosophically aligned AGs could have shaped public communications on this initiative in a much more positive way.
Because the consortium AG Ellison joined is something like 39 states, it includes a lot of attorneys general from states hostile to recreational cannabis whose likely sole goal is merely eliminating access to any legal cannabis within their states and unwilling to promote a more positive PR message if it comes off sounding supportive of legal cannabis.
The net result is that this comes off sounding totally tone deaf and hostile to cannabis consumers, even those likely to be supportive of the initiative.
Probably a better idea would be simply rely on Minnesota's own regulations and have the State AG's office pursue civil or criminal complaints against resellers violating our regulations in-state, possibly to include the USPS if the public mails are being used as a delivery vehicle.
The OCM can start by retroactively pursuing the nitwit Security Head of Vireo who drove across state lines with product back in 2016. Tone deaf. Hypocritical. Selective Prosecution. All the buzz words...
Thank you for your work protecting Minnesota consumers and for your concern about unregulated hemp-derived THC products flooding the market. I share the goal of ensuring safe access for adults and strong consumer protections.
However, I’m writing to urge reconsideration of the approach of a federal ban on intoxicating hemp-derived THC products. A blanket prohibition would likely have severe unintended consequences, not only for Minnesota business, but also for U.S. agriculture, innovation, jobs and the wider hemp-THC beverage industry.
Here are a few key considerations I respectfully ask you to weigh:
1. Existing state regulatory frameworks are gaining traction.
Minnesota’s legal hemp-derived THC edibles and beverages have been in place since the Legislature authorized lower-potency THC adult-use sales in 2022. 
A federal ban would overturn these state-level regimes. For companies that are compliant, regulated and licensed — this creates major legal, financial and operational risk.
2. A ban would kill legitimate business, not just bad actors.
The majority of the hemp-derived THC beverage market will be wiped out if federal law re-defines hemp to eliminate intoxicating THC. 
Small and medium-sized companies working within an emerging regulatory framework will lose ground — ironically creating a vacuum for absolutely unregulated, illicit operators.
3. Regulation is a stronger tool than prohibition.
Rather than “closing the loophole” via a lock-down ban, a regulatory model similar to alcohol offers:
• Age verification / 21+ only sales
• Lab testing for potency, purity, residual solvents, heavy metals
• Packaging and labeling standards
• Marketing restrictions (to protect minors)
• State oversight and licensing
This allows adult access in a controlled market, provides tax revenue, supports jobs, and gives regulators oversight of the supply chain.
4. U.S. hemp agriculture and industry stand to lose.
The U.S. hemp‐derived THC beverage segment is reportedly a $1 billion + market already, with potential to triple by 2030. 
A federal ban would discourage agriculture + processing investment, drive supply‐chain capital abroad, and undercut domestic growth opportunities.
5. Prohibition often empowers bad actors.
When products are pushed into the unregulated grey/black markets, oversight disappears (no age checks, no lab testing, no recourse). The very outcome you are concerned about — unsafe products, under-age access — becomes more likely if the legal regulated market is dismantled.
Proposed Path Forward
• Rather than a ban, push for federal legislation that recognises and preserves state-regulated adult use markets (for hemp-derived THC beverages/edibles) and sets minimum safe standards.
• Encourage other states to be like Minnesota - to continue building out regulatory infrastructure licensing, enforcement, testing labs, supply-chain traceability.
• Work with industry to phase out the worst practices (ambiguous potency, youth-targeting packaging) and simultaneously preserve the viable regulated sector.
• Ensure that federal definitions and reforms explicitly carve out the legitimate, state-compliant market: those producers who are licensed, lab-tested, sold 21+, with transparent labeling.
• Consider transition timing: allow existing companies time to adjust to new rules rather than an immediate retroactive shutdown.
In a nutshell: I believe we share common goals — safe access, consumer protection, preventing youth use or black-market proliferation — but the tool of prohibition risks destroying the very framework that allows those goals to be achieved. A thoughtful, regulated approach preserves legitimate business and public health.
Thank you for your consideration of these points. I would welcome a chance to provide further input from the beverage-industry side (especially given upstream impacts on agriculture, jobs and procurement) if your office is open to it.
Respectfully, by signing the letter you ARE restricting the cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, sales and consumption of safe and quality products. You don't have a vote in the US house or senate so you cannot control the outcome here. Very disappointed in your actions.
This "loophole" has been open for years now and the sky has NOT fallen. There is no epidemic of addiction or death associated with gas station delta 8.
If you are concerned that the product is not regulated, then advocate for regulation, not a ban.
In the meantime, you're being patently disingenuous in stating that Congress needs to fix this at the federal level. Oregon bans these products (probably at the behest of their legal recreational marijuana industry). Any state can follow that model if they like. Or a state like Minnesota could apply standards to this product here.
But thanks to things like this letter that you've signed on to, now the damage is done at the federal level.
Now if you want to show that you're on the side of safe, legal THC, you're going to need to work overtime to help Minnesota businesses and hemp consumers continue to enjoy the freedoms you have so blithely supported taking away. This means you need a viable plan to transition any MN businesses that were operating legally under the Farm Bill to become MN-legal businesses under the new recreational legalization system. You need to advocate for smoke shops and other businesses selling "adult" products to be able to carry similar products to those that will now be banned, including restaurants selling infused beverages.
If consumers can only buy THC at dispensaries, you have guaranteed that they will pay higher prices and experience considerably more inconvenience (especially given the small number of dispensaries that exist). Meanwhile alcohol is available in nearly every strip mall, bar, restaurant, gas station, etc, all over the state... with a huge list of negative side effects from that.
You seem to not understand the situation at all. How is it possible that you as AG do not understand that this will kill your entire hemp industry in MN, an industry for which your state is the model!? I predict this post gets deleted once you realize how uneducated you are on the topic.
wanting to protect consumers with sensible regulations around safety, marketing, and availability--while still allowing responsible stewards to serve these products--is a great call. that's what Hemp supporters have been calling for for years, and what regulators in Minnesota (and other places) have been driving at and making great progress on.
that's not what your letter is calling for. did you read it?
the letter you signed explicitly calls for "prohibition on products containing intoxicating levels of THC—of any kind and no matter how it is derived" and "asking Congress to act decisively to clarify the Farm Bill’s definition of hemp to ensure intoxicating THC products are taken off the market."
your letter would effectively unwind all of the good work Minnesota legislators have done over the last five years, recriminalize THC access for people looking to move past alcohol, and crush one of the few lifelines brewers have left.
You either want to preserve MN's hemp industry or "close the loophole" on the "wide variety of THC-based, hemp-derived intoxicants" You can't have both.
IMPOSTER! The real Carol Moss would have capitalized her name. The problem here is a number of folks from various industry sectors have Taubel, Briner and the OCM by their figurative balls due to their dicked up rollout. Ellison is lost and following what lobbyists tell him. It'll be a collaborative rollout that includes hemp homies, or it will be chaos. Wait....it's already been chaos - clusterfuck might be more of an appropriate term
Found the flailing cannabis business genius who thought being first to market was the key to world domination and/or the vErY sMarT Farm Bill loophole tycoon.
:) Weber - your IP is showing
you are either being deliberately led astray or youre trying to deliberately mislead people on your intentions. your plan is to make the hemp industry thrive by banning their products. you need to retire and stop controlling people's lives over a plant. youre not protecting children youre protecting big pharma and wallets
I think one big problem with this initiative is that the PR surrounding it is pretty terrible, and I suspect it is because the state attorneys general behind it represent multiple conflicting agendas around cannabis.
I think this initiative would have come off sounding a lot better if AG Ellison had worked with a consortium of attorney's general from states with legal recreational cannabis and who were philosophically aligned with the idea of protecting consumers from bad actors in the "Farm Bill" THC market and protecting our own rec legal market. Such philosophically aligned AGs could have shaped public communications on this initiative in a much more positive way.
Because the consortium AG Ellison joined is something like 39 states, it includes a lot of attorneys general from states hostile to recreational cannabis whose likely sole goal is merely eliminating access to any legal cannabis within their states and unwilling to promote a more positive PR message if it comes off sounding supportive of legal cannabis.
The net result is that this comes off sounding totally tone deaf and hostile to cannabis consumers, even those likely to be supportive of the initiative.
Probably a better idea would be simply rely on Minnesota's own regulations and have the State AG's office pursue civil or criminal complaints against resellers violating our regulations in-state, possibly to include the USPS if the public mails are being used as a delivery vehicle.
The OCM can start by retroactively pursuing the nitwit Security Head of Vireo who drove across state lines with product back in 2016. Tone deaf. Hypocritical. Selective Prosecution. All the buzz words...
Dear Attorney General Ellison,
Thank you for your work protecting Minnesota consumers and for your concern about unregulated hemp-derived THC products flooding the market. I share the goal of ensuring safe access for adults and strong consumer protections.
However, I’m writing to urge reconsideration of the approach of a federal ban on intoxicating hemp-derived THC products. A blanket prohibition would likely have severe unintended consequences, not only for Minnesota business, but also for U.S. agriculture, innovation, jobs and the wider hemp-THC beverage industry.
Here are a few key considerations I respectfully ask you to weigh:
1. Existing state regulatory frameworks are gaining traction.
Minnesota’s legal hemp-derived THC edibles and beverages have been in place since the Legislature authorized lower-potency THC adult-use sales in 2022. 
A federal ban would overturn these state-level regimes. For companies that are compliant, regulated and licensed — this creates major legal, financial and operational risk.
2. A ban would kill legitimate business, not just bad actors.
The majority of the hemp-derived THC beverage market will be wiped out if federal law re-defines hemp to eliminate intoxicating THC. 
Small and medium-sized companies working within an emerging regulatory framework will lose ground — ironically creating a vacuum for absolutely unregulated, illicit operators.
3. Regulation is a stronger tool than prohibition.
Rather than “closing the loophole” via a lock-down ban, a regulatory model similar to alcohol offers:
• Age verification / 21+ only sales
• Lab testing for potency, purity, residual solvents, heavy metals
• Packaging and labeling standards
• Marketing restrictions (to protect minors)
• State oversight and licensing
This allows adult access in a controlled market, provides tax revenue, supports jobs, and gives regulators oversight of the supply chain.
4. U.S. hemp agriculture and industry stand to lose.
The U.S. hemp‐derived THC beverage segment is reportedly a $1 billion + market already, with potential to triple by 2030. 
A federal ban would discourage agriculture + processing investment, drive supply‐chain capital abroad, and undercut domestic growth opportunities.
5. Prohibition often empowers bad actors.
When products are pushed into the unregulated grey/black markets, oversight disappears (no age checks, no lab testing, no recourse). The very outcome you are concerned about — unsafe products, under-age access — becomes more likely if the legal regulated market is dismantled.
Proposed Path Forward
• Rather than a ban, push for federal legislation that recognises and preserves state-regulated adult use markets (for hemp-derived THC beverages/edibles) and sets minimum safe standards.
• Encourage other states to be like Minnesota - to continue building out regulatory infrastructure licensing, enforcement, testing labs, supply-chain traceability.
• Work with industry to phase out the worst practices (ambiguous potency, youth-targeting packaging) and simultaneously preserve the viable regulated sector.
• Ensure that federal definitions and reforms explicitly carve out the legitimate, state-compliant market: those producers who are licensed, lab-tested, sold 21+, with transparent labeling.
• Consider transition timing: allow existing companies time to adjust to new rules rather than an immediate retroactive shutdown.
In a nutshell: I believe we share common goals — safe access, consumer protection, preventing youth use or black-market proliferation — but the tool of prohibition risks destroying the very framework that allows those goals to be achieved. A thoughtful, regulated approach preserves legitimate business and public health.
Thank you for your consideration of these points. I would welcome a chance to provide further input from the beverage-industry side (especially given upstream impacts on agriculture, jobs and procurement) if your office is open to it.
Respectfully,
Thomas Angel
co-founder
LoDo Brands
thomas@lodoshots.com
Respectfully, by signing the letter you ARE restricting the cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, sales and consumption of safe and quality products. You don't have a vote in the US house or senate so you cannot control the outcome here. Very disappointed in your actions.
This "loophole" has been open for years now and the sky has NOT fallen. There is no epidemic of addiction or death associated with gas station delta 8.
If you are concerned that the product is not regulated, then advocate for regulation, not a ban.
In the meantime, you're being patently disingenuous in stating that Congress needs to fix this at the federal level. Oregon bans these products (probably at the behest of their legal recreational marijuana industry). Any state can follow that model if they like. Or a state like Minnesota could apply standards to this product here.
But thanks to things like this letter that you've signed on to, now the damage is done at the federal level.
Now if you want to show that you're on the side of safe, legal THC, you're going to need to work overtime to help Minnesota businesses and hemp consumers continue to enjoy the freedoms you have so blithely supported taking away. This means you need a viable plan to transition any MN businesses that were operating legally under the Farm Bill to become MN-legal businesses under the new recreational legalization system. You need to advocate for smoke shops and other businesses selling "adult" products to be able to carry similar products to those that will now be banned, including restaurants selling infused beverages.
If consumers can only buy THC at dispensaries, you have guaranteed that they will pay higher prices and experience considerably more inconvenience (especially given the small number of dispensaries that exist). Meanwhile alcohol is available in nearly every strip mall, bar, restaurant, gas station, etc, all over the state... with a huge list of negative side effects from that.
You seem to not understand the situation at all. How is it possible that you as AG do not understand that this will kill your entire hemp industry in MN, an industry for which your state is the model!? I predict this post gets deleted once you realize how uneducated you are on the topic.
This is completely Tone deaf!