Maine won't require medical cannabis to be tested for contaminants -- this year

Jun. 11—Maine's medical cannabis providers have once again fought off a controversial requirement to start testing their products — at least for now.
A legislative committee killed one bill and carried over another that would have instituted testing and tracking requirements that industry members have said for years would put them out of business or force price increases.
While Maine's recreational cannabis market requires testing for contaminants and potency and includes potency limits, the medical market requires neither. Maine is the only state that doesn't mandate medical cannabis to be tested.
LD 104, proposed by the state's Office of Cannabis Policy and sponsored by Rep. Marc Malon, D-Biddeford, would have required seed-to-sale plant tracking and standardized chemical, mold and heavy metal testing between recreational and medical cannabis. LD 1847, sponsored by Rep. Anne Graham, D-North Yarmouth, sought to do the same while also adding potency caps on edibles. The latter will be taken up again next year.
"I have listened and I've read testimony and I've worked with public health advocates to make sure that the medical cannabis industry survives, thrives and (can) be regulated so that when patients buy cannabis, they know that they have a safe product and they know what the potency is," Graham said. " ... Clearly our regulations and how we look at (testing), it needs work, a lot of work."
But it's also "hugely complicated," she said, and needs more time.
Jennifer Belcher, president of the Maine Cannabis Union, said there's a "sense of relief now that we know that nothing is going through this year. If either bill passed as written, she said "the medical program would be done."
Belcher was encouraged by how receptive the committee was to the industry's concerns, and while "it is nerve-racking that we are going to face this next session," there's also an exciting opportunity for collaboration.
"(LD) 1847 gives us an opportunity to focus on the facts, the research, the science," she said.
AN ONGOING FIGHT
John Hudak, director of the office, has been clear that implementing a testing program is a top priority, but this session was the first time since he was appointed to the office in late 2022 that an official proposal has been before the committee.
Following a 2022 law, any major substantive rule-making from the department must be approved by the Legislature.
"If a business model is one in which producing clean cannabis is too costly, there's something wrong with the business model," he said previously. "We're not going to focus on profits at the expense of patients' health."
Supporters of the bill have referenced a 2023 report by the Office of Cannabis Policy that found about 45% of the cannabis in Maine's medical market would fail the standards set for the recreational market. They also pointed to the influx of suspected illegal growers allegedly tied to Chinese organized crime who have been selling bulk cannabis at "rock bottom" prices to legal dispensaries.
However, in a public hearing last month, dozens of medical cannabis caregivers and consumers testified in opposition to the bills and the committee received roughly 1,000 pieces of written testimony. They criticized the state's testing program, citing several recalls in the recreational program last year that have brought the science behind the tests and the state's standards into question. The recent recalls, they argue, prove the testing doesn't work and shouldn't be forced on the medical program.
The fight is just the latest in a series of uphill battles for Maine's medical cannabis providers.
Oversaturation, competition with recreational cannabis and high costs have caused revenue to plummet and people to leave the industry in droves.
Unlike many other states, Maine's medical cannabis market has always outperformed its recreational counterpart. But the gap between the two is narrowing, and last year the medical market brought in about $280 million (down from $371 in 2021), while the recreational market brought in $217 million. The number of providers, known in the industry as caregivers, has been cleaved in half from its 2016 peak of 3,257 to 1,627 in May, according to state data.
"We are literally fighting for our lives at this point," Belcher said.
OTHER BILLS
The committee carried over several other bills, including one that would require the director of the Office of Cannabis Policy be confirmed by the Legislature rather than appointed by the commissioner of the Department of Administrative and Financial Services, which oversees the office. Sen. Craig Hickman, D-Winthrop, who drafted the bill, said the committee needed time to investigate whether there are other directors, like the heads of the state's alcohol and gambling control agencies, that should also be subject to legislative approval.
Lawmakers also carried over a proposal to allow cannabis "social clubs" or public consumption, based off recommendations in a task force report this winter.
Earlier this session, the committee killed two bills that would have implemented revenue sharing across Maine's cannabis industry, meaning towns and cities that allow recreational businesses could receive a portion of the tax revenue they generate. Legislators hoped the bills would encourage more towns and cities to allow cannabis shops and help them recoup the costs of overseeing the recreational program.
Copy the Story Link
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Upturn

an hour ago

• Business Upturn

LPRO DEADLINE ALERT: ROSEN, A GLOBALLY RESPECTED LAW FIRM, Encourages Open Lending Corporation Investors to Secure Counsel Before Important June 30 Deadline in Securities Class Action

NEW YORK, June 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — WHY: New York, N.Y., June 21, 2025. Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Open Lending Corporation (NASDAQ: LPRO) between February 24, 2022 and March 31, 2025, both dates inclusive (the 'Class Period'), of the important June 30, 2025 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Open Lending securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Open Lending class action, go to or call Phillip Kim, Esq. at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for more information. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 30, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose materially adverse facts about Open Lending's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants: (1) misrepresented the capabilities of Open Lending's risk-based pricing models; (2) issued materially misleading statements regarding Open Lending's profit share revenue; (3) failed to disclose Open Lending's 2021 and 2022 vintage loans had become worth significantly less than their corresponding outstanding loan balances; (4) misrepresented the underperformance of Open Lending's 2023 and 2024 vintage loans; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Open Lending's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Open Lending class action, go to or call Phillip Kim, Esq. at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for more information. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: on Twitter: or on Facebook: Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. ——————————- Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 [email protected]

Epoch Times

3 hours ago

• Epoch Times

How Women Can Prevent Hair Loss by Nourishing the Liver and Kidneys

Hair health reflects overall physical well-being. Women often experience hair loss due to various causes, including postpartum recovery, menopause, alopecia areata, or scalp issues such as itchiness and dandruff, exacerbated by summer heat. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) offers a holistic approach, emphasizing a blend of targeted dietary supplements, meticulous scalp care, and proper hair-washing techniques to reduce hair loss effectively. Dr. Chen Hsin-hung, a TCM practitioner at Hanyitang Chinese Medicine clinics in Taiwan, shared a case of hair loss. A woman in her 20s developed alopecia areata (patchy baldness) after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, which left her deeply distressed when her hair almost entirely fell out. Through 6 to 8 months of TCM treatment, she regrew dark, vibrant hair. Exploring Hair Loss Causes With TCM From the perspective of TCM, the liver and kidneys are closely related to hair health as they play a vital role in the internal organ-centered energy system.

Miami Herald

4 hours ago

• Miami Herald

Will skipping ‘Made in China' beat tariff price hikes?

For most shoppers, "Made in China" has been a way of life for consumers. The mark is on seemingly everything. That has consumers concerned about how tariffs and trade battles between the United States and China might hit home, literally. If tariffs ultimately act as a tax on consumers – most economists say they do – how can Americans avoid paying higher prices? Stop buying things that were made in China. That's easier said than Trump recently took to Truth Social to say that the United States and China have a deal that's done, pending final approval of leaders from both countries. He said that U.S. tariffs would be set at 55% on Chinese goods, while China's tariffs remain at 10%. Officially, tariff plans with China and other countries are on hold until July 9, but U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has said several times that the 55% tariff "definitely" will not change. Related: Major housing expert predicts huge change to mortgage rates in 2026 While many of the harshest tariff hikes face legal challenges, current U.S. tariff rates are at their highest levels in nearly a century; estimates from the Yale Budget Lab say that's costing the average U.S. consumer an extra $2,500 a year. A recent study by covering consumer sentiment about tariffs shows that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe tariffs will have a negative impact on their personal finances. Just over 40% of respondents said tariffs would "greatly worsen" their personal finances. But even if consumers decide to tackle the China tariff problem by eliminating spending on goods from the country, it doesn't mean they will save money. They also will find the task daunting, if not impossible. That's according to journalist Sara Bongiorni, who tried to live without goods from China for a year back in the early 2000s; the trials and tribulations of her effort became the basis for her book, "A Year Without Made in China." Bongiorni, now an adjunct professor at Louisiana State University, woke up on Christmas morning in 2005 to a house full of stuff, and as she rummaged through it, she realized almost everything was made in China. "I said to my husband, 'Do you think it would be possible to live for a while without things made in China? You want to try that?' He was not very enthusiastic about that idea, but we gave it a whirl." Related: Forget tariffs, Fed interest rate cuts may hinge on another problem Bongiorni didn't set out to make a political statement or to write a book. She was simply hoping "to understand at a personal level, as best we could, how much we relied on things from China in our everyday, ordinary consumer life." In a recent interview on "Money Life with Chuck Jaffe," Bongiorni recounted how her rule was to avoid the words "Made in China," which are only seen on the end consumer product sold to shoppers. That's a low bar, given that countless products are assembled in the United States or in other countries using parts from China. Those goods-like the ones with the Made in China label-will incur increased costs due to tariffs. Bongiorni noted that in certain product categories – notably toys, household gadgets, many types of electronics, coffeemakers, sneakers and footwear, and children's clothing – it was nearly impossible to find items that weren't made in China. Even when she did find rare exceptions, Bongiorni noted that the options often pushed her to higher-end goods, which meant paying more for the purchase, in some cases, more than she would expect to pay now on goods from China with tariffs attached. "I think there were so many things we didn't buy that year because you couldn't find a viable option that wasn't made in China," Bongiorni said. She also noted that, ironically, it's nearly impossible to celebrate a wholly American holiday like July 4th without goods from China, as the small flags, fireworks, parade toys, festive paper goods, and more were made there. Truly trying to avoid all goods from China – including component parts – would be nearly impossible, Bongiorni said, noting that consumers would find themselves with no easy alternatives. "The share of things, ordinary consumer items from China, account for at least 65% of things you find in a typical household," Bongiorni said. "If you push up [prices with tariffs up to 55%], that is a huge impact, especially when we've got inflation and other things going on in the economy. It's a huge thing for most families to have to shoulder that burden." More Tariffs: Aldi plans huge price cut despite tariffs driving costs higherCar buyers should shop these brands for the best tariff dealGeneral Motors makes $4 billion tariff move Bongiorni does think the United States can bring some manufacturing back onshore, but that will have a limited impact because of the breadth and volume of goods coming from China, and the convenience of having those items and getting them cheaply. "I have a hard time thinking that we can lure ourselves off of our connection to China as consumers as a long-term affair," she said, "but also I can see a huge public outcry because this is going to affect people's bottom line every month." While Bongiorni recalls her efforts fondly nearly two decades later, she says she would not want to permanently do without Made in China, even if tariffs raise costs. Avoiding goods from China and finding alternatives was "incredibly time-consuming." And when there were no viable product options, she was willing to go without certain items for a year, but would not want to sacrifice them for a lifetime. "I do think it's interesting to have an awareness of where things come from, and to get a sense to the extent you can to which you are connected to the international economy on that consumer level," said Bongiorni. "I found that enjoyable and interesting, but the idea of weaning ourselves from Chinese goods, after doing this, just seems very unrealistic.…I can't imagine living like that long-term." Related: Fed official sends shocking message on interest rate cuts The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.