Ohio’s new law is already in effect. South Carolina’s Senate went with a narrow regulate-it-don’t-ban-it model. Texas is about to wipe smokable hemp off shelves while squeezing the rest with tougher rules and steeper fees. Same plant, same loophole, three very different state responses.

The hemp fight did not move in one direction this month. It split three ways.

In Ohio, lawmakers let a ban on intoxicating hemp take hold after opponents failed to qualify a referendum for the ballot. In South Carolina, senators decided not to ban hemp THC outright, but to shove it into a much tighter retail box. And in Texas, regulators are about to take aim at one of the market’s hottest categories (smokable hemp and THCA flower) while leaving edibles standing under heavier restrictions and much higher costs.

That distinction matters. Too often, these stories get flattened into one generic “hemp crackdown” narrative, as if every state is doing the same thing with slightly different branding. They’re not. What’s happening instead is more revealing: states are choosing their own model for how much hemp they can tolerate, where they want it sold and which version of the market they’re willing to let survive.

Ohio chose the blunt instrument. South Carolina chose containment. Texas chose to go after smokables first.

Ohio

Ohio is the clearest example of a state deciding the intoxicating hemp experiment has gone far enough.

As reported by the Statehouse News Bureau, the campaign to block Senate Bill 56 fell short of the signatures needed to put the law before voters. That cleared the way for the measure to take effect on March 20, and outlets including the Ohio Capital Journal reported that the new law bans intoxicating hemp products, including THC and CBD beverages.

That is not some minor regulatory adjustment. It is a market reset.

The same Ohio law also changes the state’s voter-passed marijuana framework, but the hemp piece is what makes the message so unmistakable. This is what it looks like when lawmakers decide the loophole got too visible, too profitable and too hard to defend. Hemp operators and advocates quoted in local coverage warned that businesses would close, workers would lose jobs and consumers would be pushed either out of state or back into the unregulated market. The Ohio Capital Journal quoted hemp farmer Joey Ellwood saying roughly 6,000 Ohio businesses could be affected.

There is also litigation already in motion. A group of plaintiffs, including Saucy Seltzer and Uncle Arnie’s, filed suit in Franklin County seeking emergency relief, arguing they would face irreparable harm if the law took effect. Meanwhile, the beverage fight is still alive in another lane: companies, including Fifty West Brewing, challenged Gov. Mike DeWine’s line-item veto that stripped out language preserving some THC beverage sales. That fight matters because it shows how politically awkward the drink category has become. Lawmakers, regulators and governors increasingly seem willing to carve out drinks, kill drinks or box drinks in depending on what coalition is yelling loudest that week.

The larger point is simpler. Ohio did not just tighten the screws. It made a choice. It chose to treat intoxicating hemp less like a category that needed guardrails and more like a category it wanted gone.

South Carolina

South Carolina went in a different direction, and that difference is important.

Rather than try to wipe hemp THC off the map, the state Senate moved a compromise bill that keeps some products legal while sharply narrowing where they can be sold and under what conditions. According to The State and local TV outlet WLTX, senators ultimately agreed to allow certain low-dose THC beverages to remain on the market, but only under a much more restrictive retail structure.

The broad outline is this: drinks with 5 milligrams of THC or less could still be sold in places like grocery stores or gas stations, but they would need to be kept behind the counter and sold by businesses with the appropriate licenses. Stronger drinks and gummies would be pushed into liquor stores, and bars and restaurants would be shut out of on-premises sales. Marijuana Moment captured the basic posture well: this is not legalization in the broad retail sense, and it is not prohibition either. It is restriction, channeling and control.

That may sound more moderate than Ohio’s approach, and in some ways it is. But nobody should mistake it for laissez-faire. South Carolina lawmakers are still drawing a hard line around access, dosage, format and point of sale. They are telling the market, in effect, that hemp THC can stay, but only if it behaves itself and only if it starts looking a lot less like a convenience-store free-for-all.

It is a meaningful choice, too. South Carolina is not saying “no” to hemp. It is saying “not like that.”

And that may end up being the model a lot of other states try next, especially those that are uncomfortable with outright bans but equally uncomfortable with gummies and drinks being sold too widely, too casually or too visibly.

Texas

Then there is Texas, where the state is about to take a major swing at the smokable side of the hemp business.

As reported by KUT, new rules adopted by the Texas Department of State Health Services take effect on March 31 and effectively ban the sale of smokable hemp and extracts by changing the way THC is measured. The key move is that Texas will now count THCA in the total THC calculation, which cuts directly at the flower products that became wildly popular across the state.

That matters because THCA flower is not a side hustle. For many retailers, it is the business. KSAT reported that one San Antonio operator said 70% of their sales come from smokable products. Another business owner said shops centered on flower would likely shut down. And the pain does not stop with smokables. KUT also reported that the new rules impose steep annual fees — $5,000 per retail location and $10,000 per manufacturing facility — while the state has more than 9,100 registered retail locations selling consumable hemp products.

So Texas is not banning everything. Most edible hemp products remain legal under the new rules. But that does not make this a soft move. It is still a major restructuring of the market, one that takes out a huge category and makes the rest more expensive to operate. Businesses and advocates quoted in the coverage warned that the result could be exactly what we have now heard in state after state: more pressure on legitimate operators, less access for consumers and more room for the illicit market to step in.

Which is the irony baked into so much of this. States keep presenting these measures as efforts to create order. Sometimes they do create order. They also create shortages, closures, confusion and fresh opportunities for the people operating outside the rules entirely.

That is especially true when regulators go after the most popular products first.

The Bigger Picture

Put these three states side by side and the real story comes into focus.

This is no longer just a debate over whether the 2018 Farm Bill opened a loophole. That part is over. Everyone knows it did. The fight now is over what happens next: who gets to sell hemp THC, what kinds of products are politically survivable and whether states want a broad-access market, a tightly managed one or no meaningful intoxicating hemp market at all.

Ohio answered with prohibition. South Carolina answered with containment. Texas answered with a targeted strike on smokables and a heavier cost structure for what remains.

Same plant. Same legal mess. Three different futures.

And that may be the most important thing to understand right now: the hemp market is not heading toward one national outcome. It is being carved up state by state, ideology by ideology, category by category. Some lawmakers want it dead. Some want it domesticated. Some want it around, but only in the safest-looking packaging possible.

What none of them seem willing to do anymore is pretend they do not see it.

<p>The post Ohio, Texas And South Carolina Are All Tightening Hemp Rules, Just Not The Same Way first appeared on High Times.</p>

The post Ohio, Texas And South Carolina Are All Tightening Hemp Rules, Just Not The Same Way appeared first on Paradise Found.

Cannabis reform could arrive in nine states this year. Yet some remain far more likely than others to make it a reality.

The post These states could legalize cannabis in 2025 appeared first on Leafly.

The post These states could legalize cannabis in 2025 appeared first on Paradise Found.

Yet another state is cracking down on hemp-derived products, some of which have intoxicating effects, and South Carolina’s approach to food products that contain hemp is among the most extreme.

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) issued a warning in a letter dated Jan. 22, banning the manufacture, distribution, and sale of food and beverage products containing hemp-derived products as ingredients in the state’s marketplace.

While CBD products can easily be found in most states thanks to a lack of clarity in federal regulations, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has repeatedly warned that products containing CBD are illegal under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

The FDA routinely issues warnings that adding CBD to a food means those products are adulterated, or against products with any sort of medical claims, but the agency has delayed finalizing rules.

“Therefore, the following hemp products are NOT APPROVED to be added to food or beverage products,” the letter reads. 

• Viable, non-sterilized hemp seeds, raw hemp leaves, and raw microgreens, and any other raw, unprocessed form of hemp biomass as they are considered “plant material” and may not be possessed without a Grower or Processor License 
• Pure CBD Isolate 
• Delta-8 THC, Delta-9 THC, or Delta-10 THC 
• THC-0 or any other derivative 
• “Full spectrum” whole-plant extract (i.e. “full spectrum hemp oil/extract” from biomass) if it includes health claims, or bears any sort of declaration of THC or CBD 
• Any hemp product that is NOT manufactured in a food-grade establishment inspected under GMP or cGMP regulations. 
• Any hemp or hemp-derived product that promotes its medical or health benefits

The only exceptions are basically hemp seed derivatives. “The FDA evaluated three Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) notices for hemp products and found that the use of such products as described in the notices is safe. Therefore, the following hemp products may be legally marketed in human foods and are APPROVED to be used as ingredients in food and beverage products,” the letter continues.

• Hulled hemp seed (GRAS Notice GRN No. 765; FDA Response Letter), 
• Hemp seed protein (GRAS Notice GRN No. 771; FDA Response Letter)
• Hemp seed oil (GRAS Notice GRN No. 778; FDA Response Letter) 

“While DHEC’s goal is to educate while we regulate this growing niche of manufacturers and distributors of foods and beverages containing hemp-derived products as ingredients, our obligation under the requirements of both federal and state law is to remove from commerce all food and beverage products containing non-conforming hemp-derived products as ingredients,” Sandra Craig, Director of the DEHC’s Division of Food and Lead Risk Assessments, said in a letter announcing the bans.

Sellers can use full-spectrum whole-plant extract as an ingredient in food and beverage products if and only if the hemp-derived ingredient meets the following requirements: 

• A “full spectrum” hemp oil or extract from biomass contains the naturally occurring ratios and array of phytonutrients found in hemp. 
• Using a full spectrum hemp oil as an ingredient must be referred to in the ingredients list on the food or beverage label as “Full Spectrum Hemp Oil” or “Full Spectrum Hemp Extract.” The label may not contain health claims and may not bear any sort of declaration of “THC”, “CBD”, or “Delta-9” products or isolates. 
• When companies in South Carolina receive their “full spectrum hemp oil/extract” from their approved supplier, it must contain no more than 0.3% Delta-9 THC, as evidenced by Certificates of Analysis (COAs). The use of concentrates or “work in progress hemp oil from biomass” containing more than 0.3% Delta-9 THC, is illegal. Companies may NOT use “crude” hemp-derived oil, “work in progress” hemp oils over 0.3% Delta-9 THC, non-food grade oils, or dilute hemp oils containing an illegal amount of THC (> 0.3%) to a “legal” level. Hemp products containing more than the legal limit of THC are no longer considered to be hemp but are a Schedule I Drug. Hemp products that contain more than 0.3% THC are NOT ALLOWED to be possessed by anyone in South Carolina, and they are NOT ALLOWED to be introduced into foods or beverages.

The letter also bans any mention of THC, dosages, and several other restrictions. The letter also reminds hemp sellers that only intrastate hemp product sales are allowed.

But they’re not only going after hemp-derived cannabinoid products that are synthetically derived from hemp biomass, and known for psychoactive effects—i.e. delta-8 THC, THC-O, etc.—they’re going after products with CBD, hemp leaves, plant material and more as well. Delta-8 THC only appears in nature in minute amounts, and intoxicating amounts have to be re-added to hemp via a refluxing process in a lab. This is why states are opting to either crack down on it or regulate it like marijuana. The 2018 Farm Bill opened a legal loophole, accidentally legalizing these ingredients. Delta-8 THC products seeped into the medical markets in some states.

At least a dozen other states are actively pursuing solutions to ban hemp-derived products in one form or another.

The post South Carolina Bans Certain Hemp Ingredients from Food and Beverages appeared first on High Times.

The post South Carolina Bans Certain Hemp Ingredients from Food and Beverages appeared first on Paradise Found.

The delta-8 THC market is bigger than ever before, regulated like hemp, but South Carolina could change that if one proposal takes root.

Rep. Rosalyn Henderson-Myers (D-Spartanburg) filed a bill under South Carolina’s upcoming legislative session that seeks to create regulations around delta-8 THC and similar products, which can be sold anywhere that hemp products are sold.

H. 4628 was prefiled in the South Carolina House Nov. 16, and referred to the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

The bill would create a set of new rules for the production and sale of delta-8 THC and other Under the proposal, only adults 21 years and older could purchase those types of products.

The bill would also establish a tax at the retail level, imposing a 5% sales tax. The tax revenue would be allocated towards regulating the industry, according to the bill.

Producers and retailers would be licensed by the state, and any hemp-derived cannabinoid product produced or sold in the state must be tested for pesticides and toxins and to ensure it contains only the legal amount of delta-9 THC.

The license would be in addition to other required business licensing. The annual licensing fee would be $500 for producers and $250 for retailers, according to the prefiled bill draft.

Products would also have to have a variety of safety labeling and be contained in child-resistant packaging.

“These products are not controlled substances in South Carolina. So the quote-unquote enforcement that we’re seeing is a misguided view of the existing law,” North Carolina-based hemp attorney Rod Kight told The State. “That’s why I think it’s important that a bill like this gets passed so it’s absolutely and unambiguously clear.”

 Despite warnings from law enforcement that the products are considered illegal in the state.

Kight provides services to hemp businesses and due to the rapidly changing legal landscape around hemp. Mike Sims, one of his clients, was subject to the murky laws surrounding hemp. Sims’ store in Columbia, South Carolina, Crowntown Cannabis was raided last January when police said he was selling marijuana.

Kight clarified, however, that Sims’ store was selling hemp-derived products, not marijuana.

Confusion about what constitutes hot hemp is also an issue in South Carolina.

Law firm Collins and Lacy reports that recently, the Columbia Police Department (CPD) sent letters to over 30  retailers in the city informing them that delta-8 THC is an illegal substance. CPD is likely following the South Carolina Attorney General’s Oct.4, 2021 opinion that delta-8 is an illegal substance.

Per state law, the manufacture, distribution, and possession of a Schedule I drug is illegal and carries penalties ranging from imprisonment of up to six months and/or a fine up to $1,000 for a first offense for simple possession to imprisonment of five to twenty years and/or a fine up to $20,000 for a third or subsequent offense of manufacturing or distribution.  S.C. Code §§ 44-53-370(b)(2) & (d)(2).  “[U]nless specifically excepted”, “Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)” of any kind is listed as a Schedule I drug, separate and apart from marijuana.  S.C. Code § 44-53-190(D)(18).  Therefore, the manufacture, distribution, and/or possession of any form of THC, including delta-8, would be illegal, “unless specifically excepted” by some other statute.

Defining Delta-8 THC in South Carolina

The legal gray area is due to whether South Carolina’s Hemp Farming Act specifically outlaws delta-8 THC.

Delta-8 THC has seen a surge in popularity due to a legal loophole in federal regulations, the 2018 Farm Bill, that limits THC to 0.3% in hemp products but has no limit for delta-8 THC.

High Times reported on the significant differences between delta-8 and delta-9 THC. Researchers have known about it for decades. Roger Adams and a team of researchers at the University of Illinois were the first to report partial synthesis of delta-8 in 1941. It wasn’t until 1966, when Dr. Raphael Mechoulam and his colleague Dr. Yechiel Gaoni, achieved a total synthesis of delta-8 as part of their groundbreaking work at Hebrew University. In 2002, Dr. Mechoulam applied for a patent on the conversion of CBD into delta-8 and THC through various methods, which he received in 2008, and expired in 2022. 

Last year, a South Carolina farmer filed a lawsuit against the state over the destruction of his hemp crop in 2019.

The lawsuit was filed on Sept. 16, 2022 by John Trenton Pendarvis, and it alleges that a trio of state agencies––the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Department of Agriculture, and attorney general’s office––“all denied him due process after Department of Agriculture officials discovered unreported hemp crops during a check of his Dorchester County property on July 30, 2019,” according to the Associated Press.

The post South Carolina Bill Would Tax, Regulate Delta-8 THC appeared first on High Times.

The post South Carolina Bill Would Tax, Regulate Delta-8 THC appeared first on Paradise Found.

A bipartisan pair of U.S. lawmakers last week introduced legislation to ease federal employment restrictions on cannabis use that deny employment opportunities for past and current marijuana users. The bill, titled the Cannabis Users Restoration of Eligibility (CURE) Act, was introduced on July 27 by Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Representative Nancy Mace, a Republican from South Carolina who has been an outspoken supporter of federal cannabis policy reform.

“Every year, qualified and dedicated individuals seeking to serve our country are unable to secure federal jobs and security clearances because the federal government has not caught up with the widely established legal use of medical and recreational cannabis,” Raskin said in a statement on Friday. “I am proud to partner with my friend Representative Mace to introduce the bipartisan CURE Act that will eliminate the draconian, failed and obsolete marijuana policies that prevent talented individuals from becoming honorable public servants in their own government.”

If passed, the CURE Act would prevent past or current marijuana use from being the basis for an applicant being found unsuitable for federal employment or the denial of a security clearance for federal workers. The legislation would also be applied retroactively, allowing workers or applicants who have been denied employment or a security clearance to appeal such denials.

“For too long, the federal government has been denying Americans civil service opportunities solely because of its outdated attitudes toward cannabis and those who consume it,” said Morgan Fox, political director at the cannabis policy reform group the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). “Denying these millions of Americans consideration for employment and security clearances is discriminatory and it unnecessarily shrinks the talent pool available for these important jobs. NORML commends the sponsors for working to undo this policy and replace it with fair and sensible hiring and clearance practices that will put America on much stronger footing on the global stage.”

Bill Endorsed By Justice Groups

The CURE Act has been endorsed by justice reform advocates and cannabis industry groups including the Drug Policy Alliance, the Due Process Institute, Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP), NORML and the U.S. Cannabis Council.

“Millions of patriotic, conscientious Americans use cannabis legally each year, but they are consistently penalized by outdated federal regulations,” said Ed Conklin, executive director of the U.S. Cannabis Council. “We strongly support the CURE Act because it will bring federal employment policies into line with the views of most Americans. Cannabis use should never prevent a qualified candidate from serving his or her country as a federal employee.”

The bipartisan bill is not the first effort to ease employment discrimination against cannabis users seeking a job with the federal government. In 2021, the federal Office of Personnel Management, an agency that sets “suitability” standards to determine whether an individual is fit to serve in a federal position, issued new guidance to clarify that past marijuana use should not automatically disqualify applicants or appointees from most U.S. government jobs. However, the agency emphasized that marijuana is still considered a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Additionally, the Drug-Free Workplace executive order of 1986 requires federal employees to refrain from using illegal drugs at all times.

“An individual’s disregard of federal law pertaining to marijuana while employed by the federal government remains relevant and may lead to disciplinary action,” the OPM wrote in the 2021 memo. “It is important to note that it is also the policy of the federal government to offer appropriate prevention, treatment and rehabilitation programs and services for federal civilian employees with drug problems.”

Also in 2021, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which sets security standards for access to classified information, issued new guidance to clarify that past marijuana use should not be the sole reason someone is denied a security clearance. The guidance stresses that the illegal use of any controlled substances “can raise security concerns about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness to access classified information or to hold a sensitive position, as well as their ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.”

However, the guidelines also instruct agencies that prior recreational marijuana use by an individual “may be relevant to adjudications but not determinative” in issuing a security clearance. The guidance references a 2017 security directive that tells agencies to apply the “whole person concept” to the decision for granting a security clearance.

“There are many talented and dedicated people who have used cannabis and want to serve their country,” said Terry Blevins, a former civilian investigator for the Department of Defense, Arizona police sergeant, and LEAP board member. “Compromising recruitment by our federal agencies with antiquated cannabis laws makes our nation less safe in the face of security threats we face globally.”

The post U.S. Lawmakers File Bill To Ease Federal Employment Restrictions On Cannabis Use appeared first on High Times.

The post U.S. Lawmakers File Bill To Ease Federal Employment Restrictions On Cannabis Use appeared first on Paradise Found.

It appears that adults in South Carolina are backing legal medical cannabis, and the majority also support recreational use, according to a new poll.

The poll, conducted by Winthrop University, involved interviews with 1,657 South Carolina adults from March 25-April 1. In addition to cannabis, the poll established favorability ratings of politicians and asked residents their opinions about a number of other topics, including legal sports gambling, Christianity in America and LGBTQ issues.

South Carolina Residents Support Legal Cannabis

The survey found that 76% of South Carolina adults are in favor of legal medical cannabis. The two primary political parties generally agreed on the topic, with 80% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans in support.

“Support for medical marijuana in South Carolina has steadily grown over the years, especially as other states have moved towards legalization without an apparent collapse of society,” Winthrop Poll Director Huffmon said in a university news release.

The two parties are a bit more divided when it comes to recreational cannabis, but the majority (56%) of the general population supports its legalization. Republicans are split, 45-45%, while 62% Democrats are in favor of adult-use legalization. The overall support increased by two percentage points compared to the 2022 Winthrop University poll.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), sponsor of the States Reform Act which pushed for federal cannabis legalization last congress, spoke up about the results on Twitter.

“Interesting findings re cannabis and gay marriage supported by the majority of people in South Carolina. Not as controversial as some would have you to believe. This tells me our state loves freedom,” she wrote. “Wish they’d asked about women’s issues and gun violence – maybe next time.”

A Missed Opportunity for Medical Cannabis

South Carolina has yet to legalize medical or recreational weed, and the results come following a pivotal time for the state when it comes to cannabis. The South Carolina Compassionate Care Act aimed to legalize medical cannabis, but it died last year in the House. Sen. Tom Davis, R-Beaufort, reintroduced the bill this year, but it’s still awaiting debate on the Senate floor, where it passed last year in a 28-15 vote.

The bill would legalize medical cannabis for patients with specific qualifying conditions, but smoking would be prohibited, along with possession of plant forms of cannabis. Medical products like topicals, oils and vapes would be produced by regulated suppliers and patients would be limited to purchasing a two-week supply of cannabis at one time.

A vote to give the legislation priority for a Senate floor debate also failed earlier in March. South Carolina veterans and advocates pleaded to senators to debate the bill so it had a better chance of becoming law this year, WSPA reported on March 28.

“South Carolina wants this. This should have been done years ago,” said Cody Callarman, Marine veteran and founder of the CBD company Carolina Dream, during a press conference at the State House that week. “If they want to continue to war on cannabis, that’s fine. But can we at least get the sick, dying, and ill off the battlefield?”

However, the bill needed to pass the Senate by March 30 to be enacted this year. The legislation could still advance this session, though it would require supermajority support in the legislature.

Most recently, the bill advanced through the Senate Medical Affairs Committee in February.

In order to gain approval of conservative lawmakers, Davis has admitted that the bill would create one of the most strict medical cannabis programs. While House members debated the legislation last year, David said that the bill is designed to prevent recreational cannabis.

“I want people to look at South Carolina’s law and say, ‘If you want a law that helps patients and empowers doctors but doesn’t go down the slope to recreational, this is your bill,’” he told his colleagues in the House.

The post Poll: Majority of South Carolina Adults Support Medical, Recreational Cannabis appeared first on High Times.

The post Poll: Majority of South Carolina Adults Support Medical, Recreational Cannabis appeared first on Paradise Found.

As many as 9 states could pass legalization laws this year. First up: Oklahoma, where voters will have their say on March 7.

The post These states could legalize marijuana next in 2023 appeared first on Leafly.

The post These states could legalize marijuana next in 2023 appeared first on Paradise Found.

Medical cannabis advocates in South Carolina are ready to go again as they hope that 2023 will finally be the year that they legalize the treatment in the state. 

Local news station WPDE reports that two bills have been “pre-filed in the South Carolina House for the 2023 legislative session [that] would legalize medical marijuana despite ongoing federal cannabis prohibition.”

One measure, per the station, is known as the Put Patients First Act and it “would authorize patients to use medical marijuana with exceptions,” while also allowing “for the opening of dispensaries across the state.”

The other, known as the South Carolina Compassionate Care Act, would authorize the use of medical cannabis while also “letting [the state department of health] control most of the process by giving out licenses to sell products, setting rules for their use of the products plus making changes to allow cannabis research,” according to WPDE.

The latter bill has the same title as a separate measure introduced last year by Republican state Sen. Tom Davis, who has advocated for medical cannabis in the Palmetto State for years. 

Under Sen. Davis’s bill, patients suffering from a host of qualifying conditions could have received medical cannabis treatment: cancer, multiple sclerosis, a neurological disease or disorder (including epilepsy), sickle cell disease, glaucoma, PTSD, autism, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, cachexia, a condition causing a person to be home-bound that includes severe or persistent nausea, terminal illness with a life expectancy of less than one year, a chronic medical condition causing severe and persistent muscle spasms or a chronic medical condition for which an opioid is or could be prescribed based on accepted standards of care.

“If you pound at the door long enough. If you make your case. If the public is asking for something, the state Senate owes a debate,” Davis told local media last January. “The people of South Carolina deserve to know where their elected officials stand on this issue.”

After the bill passed the state Senate in February, Davis applauded his colleagues.

“Even those that were opposed to the bill, I mean, they could’ve just been opposed. They could’ve ranted against it, they could’ve tried to delay things. They didn’t. They expressed their concerns, but what they then did is dug in and tried to make the bill better. And so, what you saw over the last three weeks is what’s supposed to happen in a representative democracy,” Davis said at the time.

But after the legislation won approval in the state Senate, members of the state House of Representatives voted against continuing debate on the bill in May, dashing the hopes for Davis and other medical cannabis advocates.

“We suffered a setback procedurally in the House today,” Davis said following the House’s vote last year. “I can’t cry about it. I can’t pout about it. I can’t come back and lash out and try to hurt other people’s bills. That’s not productive. I just need to find out a way to get this thing on the merits up or down in the House and that’s what I’m going to be working on.”

Davis isn’t the only one who will be clamoring for another shot at getting the proposal over the line in this upcoming legislative session. 

A group of military veterans living in South Carolina have been vocal in pushing for the legalization of the treatment in the state.

“No one has died from an overdose with cannabis ever,” Cody Callarman, a former member of the Marine corps, told the news station WACH in November. “For me, I can say, it definitely helps me to go to sleep and stay [a]sleep and alleviate a lot of nightmares.”

The post Medical Pot on the 2023 Agenda for South Carolina appeared first on High Times.

The post Medical Pot on the 2023 Agenda for South Carolina appeared first on Paradise Found.

In 28 grams of game, Leafly breaks down the story of the legendary cannabis smugglers who are now navigating the legal market.

The post 28 grams of game: The Gentlemen Smugglers appeared first on Leafly.

The post 28 grams of game: The Gentlemen Smugglers appeared first on Paradise Found.

A number of military veterans in South Carolina are pushing lawmakers in the state to legalize medical marijuana. 

Local news station WACH reports this week on the group of vets, who “say it needs to be a top priority for lawmakers when they return to the state house in January after several proposals were stopped in their tracks earlier this year.”

“No one has died from an overdose with cannabis ever,” Cody Callarman, a former member of the Marine corps, told the news station. “For me, I can say, it definitely helps me to go to sleep and stay sleep and alleviate a lot of nightmares.”

“I say this is the land of the free, and the home of the brave, and we were the brave ones. We should have our choice of medical treatment,” Callarman added.

Another veteran named Robert Leheup told the station that the “idea of us not allowing veterans to have access to these tools is something that we need to remedy immediately.”

“It’s definitely one of those things that if you use it, along with counseling for example, it has the potential to have profound impacts,” Leheup told the station. 

Lawmakers in South Carolina considered a medical cannabis bill earlier this year. The legislation won approval in the state Senate, but in May, it was voted down in the state House of Representatives. 

The sponsor of the bill, Republican state Sen. Tom Davis, has been in the vanguard of the effort to legalize medical cannabis treatment in the state for years. 

“If you pound at the door long enough. If you make your case. If the public is asking for something, the state Senate owes a debate,” Davis said in January. “The people of South Carolina deserve to know where their elected officials stand on this issue.”

After the legislation was approved in the state Senate in February, Davis commended his colleagues. 

“Even those that were opposed to the bill, I mean, they could’ve just been opposed. They could’ve ranted against it, they could’ve tried to delay things. They didn’t. They expressed their concerns, but what they then did is dug in and tried to make the bill better. And so, what you saw over the last three weeks is what’s supposed to happen in a representative democracy,” Davis said at the time.

But in May, Davis’s bill was rejected by his counterparts in the state House of Representatives by a vote of 59-55.

“We suffered a setback procedurally in the House today,” Davis said at the time. “I can’t cry about it. I can’t pout about it. I can’t come back and lash out and try to hurt other people’s bills. That’s not productive. I just need to find out a way to get this thing on the merits up or down in the House and that’s what I’m going to be working on.”

Should lawmakers take up the proposal in the upcoming session, there will be opposition.

Local news station WACH quoted state House Rep. Vic Dabney, a veteran himself, who said he intends to oppose the next legislation.

“I know a lot of veterans that are not sitting down eating gummy bears laced with cannabis,” Dabney told the station. “We’ve got enough drugged up people in America as it is.”

“It was going to be another government program and a huge boondoggle where you’d have more than 400 dispensaries across the state,” Dabney added. “That was further reasons for me to vote against it.”

The post Vets in South Carolina Push for Medical Pot appeared first on High Times.

The post Vets in South Carolina Push for Medical Pot appeared first on Paradise Found.