Green Mountain Gamble: Is a Congressional Power Play About to End Vermont's Hemp Industry?

A federal ban would override Vermont’s carefully crafted state system. The “total THC” rule could make much of the hemp grown by Vermont farmers illegal overnight.

What began in 2018 as a lifeline for American farmers has spiraled into a high-stakes political battle in Washington, D.C., and Vermont’s agricultural community is caught in the crossfire. A proposal moving through Congress threatens to effectively re-criminalize the nation’s $28 billion hemp industry, a sector that many Vermont farmers embraced.

This isn’t just about a plant. It’s about a legal loophole, public health fears, a bitter feud within the cannabis world, and the future of thousands of jobs and small businesses. For Vermonters, the question is simple: What will this fight mean for our state?

Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/search_results?x=0&y=0&q=HABITS

---

The “Loophole” That Launched an Industry

The 2018 Farm Bill made history by legalizing hemp. The catch? It defined legal hemp based on a single chemical: it could not contain more than 0.3% delta-9 THC, the main compound in marijuana that causes a “high.”

However, the cannabis plant is complex and contains dozens of other compounds called cannabinoids. The law was silent on these, creating what’s now called the “hemp loophole.” Entrepreneurs quickly realized two things:

1. THCA Flower: Farmers could grow hemp flower rich in a compound called THCA. On its own, THCA isn’t intoxicating. But when you heat it—by smoking or vaping—it instantly converts into the very delta-9 THC the law restricts. This allowed for the sale of “legal” flower that has the same effect as marijuana.

2. Delta-8 and Beyond: Chemists found they could take legal, non-intoxicating CBD from hemp and chemically convert it into other forms of THC, like delta-8 THC. These compounds are intoxicating and were not explicitly banned by the 2018 law.

This legal gray area led to an “explosive growth” of intoxicating hemp products, according to a letter from a group of Democratic U.S. senators. These products, from potent flower to THC gummies, appeared in gas stations and convenience stores nationwide, often without age checks, potency testing, or safety standards.

This unregulated market created a genuine public health concern. According to reports, products were sold in packaging mimicking candy, raising alarms about youth access. The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which was tasked with regulating consumable hemp products, largely failed to act, creating a regulatory vacuum that has fueled the current backlash.

---

The Proposed Solution: A Federal Ban

A powerful group of lawmakers says the only way to fix this problem is to close the loophole—permanently. Led by Representative Andy Harris (R-MD), a physician, and, surprisingly, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the original champion of the 2018 hemp law, they’ve proposed new language for a must-pass government funding bill.

Their plan would kill the intoxicating hemp market with two key changes:

• “Total THC” Standard: Instead of just measuring delta-9 THC, crops would be tested for their “total THC,” which includes THCA. This would make nearly all high-THCA flower federally illegal before it’s even harvested.

• “Quantifiable Amount” Ban: This is the big one. It would ban any finished product containing a “quantifiable amount” of THC. The proposal doesn’t define what “quantifiable” means, leaving that up to federal health agencies. This vague language is so broad it could outlaw not just intoxicating products but also the popular, non-intoxicating full-spectrum CBD oils that contain trace, benign amounts of THC and are a cornerstone of Vermont’s wellness market.

Opponents, including a bipartisan coalition of 27 House members led by Representative James Comer (R-KY), called the proposal a “fatal blow to American farmers.” They argue it’s a radical policy change disguised as a minor tweak, pushed through a spending bill to avoid proper debate.

Leading the charge against the ban in the Senate is Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). He argues the government should “destroy” an industry built in good faith. He has successfully, for now, stripped the ban from the Senate’s version of the bill, setting up a showdown with the House.

---

A House Divided: The Surprising Civil War in Cannabis

The battle lines aren’t as clear as you might think. One of the most powerful groups lobbying for the ban is the U.S. Cannabis Council, which represents large, state-licensed marijuana companies.

Why? It’s a matter of competition.

State-legal marijuana businesses in places like Vermont operate under strict, expensive regulations. They pay high taxes, are subject to rigorous testing, and can only sell in licensed dispensaries. The intoxicating hemp industry, by contrast, has been the Wild West, selling similar products with virtually no rules and much lower costs. The state-legal marijuana industry sees the hemp market as an unregulated competitor undercutting its business and is using the public safety argument to lobby Congress to eliminate it.

This has left the hemp industry, represented by groups like the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, fighting a two-front war against both traditional anti-drug crusaders and the powerful corporate cannabis lobby.

---

The View from Vermont: From Gold Rush to Crossroads

Vermont was a pioneer in the hemp revival. Following the 2018 Farm Bill, the state saw a “hemp boom.” According to reports from the time, prices for Vermont CBD biomass soared as high as $150 per pound, promising massive profits for farmers. The number of registered growers more than doubled in 2019 as people rushed to cash in on “Green Mountain Gold.”

But the market was quickly saturated, and prices crashed. Today, Vermont’s hemp industry faces a new challenge: a shifting regulatory landscape at home and an existential threat from Washington.

Vermont has already taken steps to address the safety concerns of the unregulated market. The state’s Cannabis Control Board (CCB) now regulates all intoxicating products, regardless of whether they come from hemp or marijuana. The CCB has banned synthetically-derived cannabinoids like delta-8 THC and requires any product with a significant amount of THC to be sold through the licensed, taxed, and age-gated adult-use cannabis market.

In short, Vermont has already created its own solution.

A federal ban would override Vermont’s carefully crafted state system. The “total THC” rule could make much of the hemp grown by Vermont farmers illegal overnight. The “quantifiable amount” ban could wipe out the state’s legitimate CBD producers. It would nullify the work of our state regulators and legislators, imposing a one-size-fits-all prohibition that would cripple what remains of a once-promising agricultural sector.

The Path Forward: Three Choices for Vermonters

The fate of the hemp industry will likely be decided behind closed doors in a congressional conference committee. As Vermonters, understanding the options is crucial to deciding what future we should advocate for.

Choice 1: Support the Federal Ban

• The Argument: Public safety is paramount. Unregulated, intoxicating products are a genuine risk, especially to kids. A full ban is the simplest and most effective way to eliminate “gas station weed” and restore order.

• The Cost for Vermont: This would be devastating for the state’s remaining hemp farmers and CBD businesses. It would end a legal industry, override state control, and offer no middle ground. It’s the path of eradication.

Choice 2: Hope for a Stalemate (The Status Quo)

• The Argument: The political fight is too intense, so Congress might just drop the issue for now, leaving the current law in place. This would at least prevent an immediate shutdown of the industry.

• The Cost for Vermont: The legal gray area would persist. Businesses would continue to operate under a cloud of uncertainty, chilling investment and growth. Meanwhile, the public health problems in unregulated states would continue, guaranteeing this fight will happen again. It’s the path of uncertainty.

Choice 3: Advocate for Federal Regulation

• The Argument: This is the compromise path, championed by the bipartisan coalition in Congress. Instead of banning the products, the federal government would finally regulate them, much like it does alcohol or dietary supplements.

• The Solution for Vermont: A federal framework would create clear, national rules of the road. It would mandate a federal minimum age of 21, require standardized testing for potency and contaminants, and enforce clear labeling and child-resistant packaging. This approach addresses the public health concerns without destroying a multi-billion dollar agricultural industry. It would create a stable, predictable market where responsible Vermont businesses can thrive. It is the path of regulation.

Ultimately, the conflict in Washington forces a decision between wiping an industry off the map or finally creating the clear, sensible rules needed to ensure it operates safely. For the farmers, small business owners, and consumers in Vermont, the choice will have consequences that last for years to come.