To the Editor:
I write in response to a recent letter on the federal level submitted by a coalition of Attorneys General regarding the perceived “crisis” of hemp-derived cannabinoid products. While we share a mutual goal of consumer safety, the analysis and solution proposed in that letter originate not from a place of public safety, but from a desire for anti-competitive protectionism for incumbent, state-licensed cannabis businesses.
The letter fails to acknowledge the root cause of the very market it seeks to eliminate. The robust demand for hemp-derived THC products is not a loophole in the 2018 Farm Bill; it is a direct and predictable consequence of failed state-level cannabis policies.
Across the country, numerous states have implemented cannabis licensing structures that are the antithesis of a free and open market. These systems are a textbook example of regulatory capture, designed to limit competition and protect a select few operators. By limiting the available licenses to only those applicants hand-picked by the states—often through opaque, costly, and arbitrary processes—these states have created artificial scarcity and sanctioned oligopolies.
This protectionist framework has left the vast majority of consumers without access to safe, tested, and affordable cannabis products. It is this manufactured scarcity that creates and sustains the demand for hemp-derived alternatives. The current market for hemp-derived THC products exists precisely because state-level regulatory barriers have priced out or locked out consumers and small businesses alike.
The solution is not to double down on prohibition by targeting hemp. The solution is to dismantle the regulatory capture at the state level.
If states were required to maintain free and open markets for all cannabis products, the artificial demand for hemp-derived intoxicants would evaporate overnight. Consumers would have access to a wide variety of regulated, tested, and competitively priced products. Instead of amending the Farm Bill to further entrench these state-level cartels, Congress should address the anti-competitive foundation that makes hemp-derived THC products a viable alternative in the first place. We urge you to reject this call for protectionism and instead champion policies that favor free markets, consumer access, and fair competition.
Louis J. Rinaldi, Jr.
Guilford, Connecticut