California sees 99.7% compliance in crackdown on intoxicating hemp products, Newsom says
Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Thursday that nearly all licensed businesses across California are complying with emergency state regulations aimed at removing intoxicating hemp products from the market.
Newsom proposed the restrictions last September, citing an urgent need to protect children.
According to the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 99.7% of business licenses inspected in 2025 have complied with rules prohibiting the sale of industrial hemp food, beverages and dietary supplements containing THC or other intoxicating cannabinoids.
REAL ID in California: What to know if you will miss the deadline
Since last September, ABC agents have visited 11,445 licensed establishments, seizing 7,151 illegal products from 148 locations.
'We are doing our part to ensure intoxicating hemp products are out of the reach of vulnerable groups like children. We must always put the safety of Californians first,' Newsom said in a statement.
With the restrictions in place, retailers are now prohibited from selling products made with hemp THC, an intoxicating cannabis compound, and various types of medicinal products made with CBD, a nonintoxicating compound, according to SFGate.
The new regulations now require consumers to be 21 years old or older to purchase hemp products and additional cannabinoids intended for human consumption and limit the serving size to five.
The governor said the lax rules have made it easier for kids to access intoxicating hemp-based products, which are typically sold at liquor outlets, gas stations and smoke shops, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Passport fairs to be held at UCI in May and June
However, critics told SFGate that 'the Newsom administration was abusing the emergency rulemaking process to pass the hemp THC ban and that banning hemp THC would have disastrous effects on medical patients who rely on hemp to treat a wide range of health conditions.
The restrictions, initially slated to expire on March 25, were extended that same month. According to the state Public Health Department, they are now expected to expire on Sept. 25.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
21 hours ago
What it takes to start a business in this economy
Feather & Bone skincare founder Shubhangini Prakash joins ABC News Live to share her experience launching a business and offer advice for entrepreneurs. June 21, 2025
Miami Herald
a day ago
- Miami Herald
Econometer: Should the US ban drug advertising to consumers?
The U.S. is rare among Western nations because it allows pharmaceutical advertising. But a new effort aims to stop it. A bill was introduced in Congress recently that would ban pharmaceutical manufacturers from using direct-to-consumer advertising, from TV to social media, to promote their products. Prescription drug advertising employs a lot of people, directly and indirectly. Billions are spent on advertising each year, employing advertising workers, and 24.4% of ad minutes were for prescription drugs across evening news programs on ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and NBC this year through May, according to data from iSpot analyzed by The Wall Street Journal. Proponents of the bill say advertising drives up the cost of prescription goods. Pharmaceutical trade groups have said advertisements serve public health by increasing disease awareness and educating consumers about treatment options. Question:Should the U.S. ban drug advertising to consumers? Economists Alan Gin, University of San Diego YES: Advertising is supposed to give consumers more information about products, but are consumers really in a position to make an informed decision about pharmaceuticals? Those decisions are best left to physicians, who probably have more knowledge about the effectiveness of medications. Consumers can be swayed by slick and repetitive ads into wanting products that might not be the best for them. The money spent on the ads will add to the already high price of the drugs. James Hamilton, UC San Diego NO: Proponents of a ban argue that ads cause people to request unnecessary drugs. But advertisements helped several of my friends learn about options that they didn't know were available. I'm also concerned any time the government dictates what companies are allowed to talk about. It's appropriate to ensure ads do not make inaccurate claims. And doctors should always say no if patients request a prescription that the doctor does not believe is going to help them. Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy YES: Advertising specific drugs leads to overprescribing, higher drug and insurance prices, and creates bad incentives, like promoting the most profitable drugs. Because insurance limits consumer costs, more prescription drugs are purchased than needed or used. If the goal is to share important information, industry groups can promote a range of treatments for a condition, leaving discussions of individual products to medical professionals. Drugs also carry risks that are not easily captured in 30 seconds. Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research NO: Firms do not advertise to raise costs but engage in marketing to inform the public (especially doctors writing prescriptions) of the drug's usefulness. Without marketing, firms would be unable to get information out necessary to make a drug salable in the first place. The drug's value is decided by the marketplace with consumers driving the entire process. Value of advertising is derived from the value consumers place on the drug, not the other way around. Norm Miller, University of San Diego NO: While most physicians try to keep up on the latest drug research, some do not, thus the need for public information about new drugs. What should be mandatory in ads are their efficacy, side effects and potential for addiction, using FDA verified stats. Lies and exaggerations should be illegal. It should also be illegal for drug manufacturers to incentivize or pay doctors for prescribing any drug, and physicians that take such gifts should lose their license. Ray Major, economist YES: Every ad starts with or ends with "ask your doctor if this drug is right for you." Prescription drug advertisement targets consumers hoping they ask their doctor for a specific brand of drug. Consumers are not qualified to self diagnose symptoms and prescribe drugs to themselves based on information from a commercial. Doctors should be prescribing drugs based on a patients' needs and not influenced by patients who have seen an ad for a prescription drug. David Ely, San Diego State University NO: Commercial speech by pharmaceutical companies that is truthful and informative should be protected. A ban on drug advertising goes too far. A better option is enhanced regulation by the FDA and FTC to ensure that the risks and effectiveness of prescription drugs are accurately communicated in advertising to the public. Under a ban, resources would be shifted to increased promotional efforts targeting health care providers so the cost of prescription goods may not decline. Executives Gary London, London Moeder Advisors NO: I am not a big fan of drug advertisements, but unlike cigarette ads, which clearly promoted sickness for generations, at least drugs are lifesaving. The government should not get involved. However, I have never fully understood why pharmaceutical companies promote directly to patients rather than physicians. They complicate medical care. Be that as it may, these advertisements certainly prop up the cable channels, who need the revenue. Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates YES: The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers. Drug ads often downplay the risks, leading to uninformed decisions. Ads can push consumers toward brand-name drugs, even when cheaper alternatives exist. Also, patients may request unnecessary medications, pressuring doctors to prescribe them. Sure, ads can educate, lead to earlier diagnosis, and boost the economy! But let's limit ads during the first few years of release. Phil Blair, Manpower NO: They are a product like any other. With artificial intelligence, clients and patients can educate themselves on various options just like they do with other products. Of course, they should heed their doctors' advice. Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth YES: Drugmakers spent $10 billion on direct-to-consumer ads last year. These costs are ultimately reflected in the world's highest per-capita health care bill, with relatively poor health outcomes. Slick spots encourage viewers to "ask your doctor" for brands even when cheaper generics accomplish the same goal. Treatment decisions should be based on clinical evidence, not marketing budgets. Pharma could shift a fraction of this outreach to physician education so that patients will still learn about therapies from an informed source. Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health YES: Absolutely. The cost of pharmaceuticals has become prohibitive to patients and providers like hospitals, and the huge cost of advertising is wrapped into those costs. While we want informed patients, pharmaceutical education should be handled by patients' physicians, not a jingle on TV. Advertising also can be misleading and increase the cost of drugs to taxpayers - which is why many countries prohibit advertising. Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere NO: While I don't enjoy watching the litany of drug advertisements consistently shown on family programming, I don't support a blanket ban. Instead, drug advertising should follow the model currently allowed to cigarette advertising: prohibit ads on TV and radio but allow other forms of advertising with appropriate limitations and regulations. While raising awareness of available treatments can be beneficial, the current barrage of drug advertising is excessive and likely leads to over prescription and increased health care costs. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
CBS News
2 days ago
- CBS News
Texas hemp businesses brace for ban as governor weighs THC bill
Businesses selling hemp-derived THC products in Texas are in limbo as Gov. Greg Abbott faces a Sunday deadline to sign Senate Bill 3, which would ban most THC-infused consumables statewide. The bill, passed by the Legislature in May, would outlaw products containing Delta-8, Delta-9, and other hemp-derived cannabinoids, with exceptions only for CBD and CBG isolates 1. $8 billion industry at risk Over the past few years, the hemp industry has grown into an $8 billion market in Texas, supporting more than 53,000 jobs and generating over $267 million in tax revenue, according to the Texas Hemp Business Council 1. Candice Stinnett, owner of Emerald Organics in Fort Worth and a board member of the Texas Hemp Coalition, said the bill threatens the survival of thousands of small businesses like hers. Business owners push for regulation "We worked tirelessly since February, going down to the Capitol, having meetings with dozens of lawmakers and the speaker's office to come up with a regulation to just tighten up this industry," Stinnett said. She emphasized that the coalition supports regulation-not prohibition. "We do agree it needs to be an adult-use market. We do agree there should be milligram caps on products and no synthetic or converted cannabinoids-just pure, plant-derived cannabinoids," she said. SB 3 passes despite opposition Despite those efforts, SB 3 passed both chambers of the Legislature. Stinnett said the outcome was a major disappointment. Roughly 90% of the products sold at Emerald Organics would be banned under the bill. In response, Stinnett set up an information booth in her store where customers can sign a petition and write letters to the governor. Thousands of businesses affected According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, more than 8,600 businesses in Texas sell hemp products. The Texas Hemp Business Council estimates SB 3 could eliminate $4.3 billion in annual revenue and more than 50,000 jobs 1. Stinnett said she's unsure whether her business can survive if the bill becomes law. "Myself and the coalition, we're really hoping that Governor Abbott looks at those regulations and comes to, I guess, an agreement," she said.
