Years after Congress passed a milestone Farm Bill, an alliance of marijuana and health advocates are raising the alarm about how a loophole has permitted sales of intoxicating hemp products that appear on shelves with few regulations.

The federal legislation in 2018 legalized hemp, which is cannabis with less than 0.3 percent of THC, the main psychoactive compound in marijuana. But the sweeping bill that Congress may replace or extend by the end of 2025 did nothing to keep hemp-derived products from having higher potencies, such as hundreds or thousands of milligrams of THC.

Hemp-derived drinks, edibles and “THCA flower” have popped up in Maine via smoke shops, convenience stores and online orders outside of the state-regulated medical and adult-use market. Over the past year, members have increasingly noticed intoxicating hemp options with unclear combinations of ingredients and originate from out of state.

The fight between the hemp industry, which prefers the existing federal rules, and an alliance of cannabis and public health groups concerned about intoxicating, unregulated products is reaching Maine and other states. Lawmakers in neighboring Massachusetts and other states are looking at new regulations around the intoxicating hemp-derived products.

Maine lawmakers are not moving as swiftly yet, though they are looking at ensuring buyers of intoxicating hemp products are at least 21 years old while otherwise debating testing rules and how to handle the proliferation of illicit marijuana grow houses linked to China.

“It’s really a whack-a-mole problem,” said former state Rep. Patty Hymanson, D-York, a neurologist who served on a work group last year that formed out of failed legislation to regulate intoxicating hemp and that recommended a 21-year-old age limit for buyers while not reaching consensus on other policy ideas.

Joel Pepin, owner of JAR Cannabis Co., which has several retail stores in the state, said fellow shop owners have removed the intoxicating products manufactured out of state and that they failed tests for Maine’s acceptable levels of mold, heavy metals and other chemicals.

Industry members provided photos of a “THC Nerdz Cluster” for sale at a Farmington smoke shop containing 275 milligrams per cluster. Illustrating the potency of those intoxicating products, Pepin said he advises new customers to start only with a 2.5 mg to 5 mg dose.

The Office of Cannabis Policy under Gov. Janet Mills said the continued absence of clear federal policy on intoxicating hemp-derived products, or IHDPs, has left states “increasingly inundated with IHDPs that are unregulated, untested, untracked and easily accessible by minors,” spokesperson Alexis Soucy said, adding the office wants new regulations.

“While the proliferation of these unregulated, intoxicating products is first and foremost a matter of public health and safety, it also poses a threat to Maine’s regulated cannabis market,” Soucy said.

Intoxicating hemp products are “a major concern for public health and safety,” Matt Wellington, associate director of the Maine Public Health Association, said Friday.

“Young people are easily getting their hands on them, and sometimes people don’t even know the drink they’re buying at the convenience store isn’t a harmless seltzer but actually an intoxicating beverage, because they’re being sold alongside non-intoxicating products,” Wellington said.

State agencies in Massachusetts issued guidance in 2024 saying the intoxicating hemp-derived products are illegal, but enforcement that is left to local health boards has reportedly remained uneven. Lawmakers in Maine’s neighboring state are considering new regulations this year while also not wanting to hinder non-intoxicating hemp products, such as CBD oils or creams.

Sean, who works for the Mystique of Maine cannabis business and preferred not to use his last name for fear of retaliation from government officials, said the state must decide how to best regulate THC and the products containing it. He described suppliers of intoxicating hemp beverages and THCA flowers coming into his stores to try to get Mystique to sell them.

But Rep. David Boyer, R-Poland, an ally of medical growers who helped lead Maine’s marijuana legalization efforts and sits on the committee overseeing the industry, nodded to the state-level regulatory challenges by noting the proliferation of internet sales.

“How do you enforce that at the state level?” Boyer wondered.

A recent letter to the editor suggested that Gov. Mills’ public spat with President Trump simply reflected her support for LGBTQ rights generally. In fact, the governor’s personal views with respect to LGBTQ rights are irrelevant with respect to the transgender portion of this acronym.

In 2019, Maine amended its Human Rights Act. The Legislature clarified the act’s “gender identity” provision. “Gender identity means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s assigned sex at birth.” (see Public Laws 2019, Chapter 464). The amendment is clear. Maine law allows one to alter their gender post-birth.

Gov. Mills has no latitude to limit gender identification to the sex assigned at birth. She has a constitutional duty to enforce Maine law. That’s what she’s committed herself to do.

No federal law accepts Trump’s definition of gender, or bars adults from altering their gender when they choose. To enforce his singular view that gender is assigned at birth, Trump has cut off Maine’s share of unrelated federal aid dollars. This seems to be unconstitutional.

Further, without legislative authority, Trump has unilaterally barred trans people from military service. His executive order was immediately challenged and is now before the Supreme Court awaiting final disposition.

In sum, 1.6 million U.S. trans people are directly affected by Trump’s executive orders. But millions more will be harmed by his palpable distaste for trans people. Stay tuned.

Orlando Delogu
Portland

Copy the Story Link

As a psychiatrist, I sit across from Mainers every day: retired electricians, young mothers, business leaders. Some come to me sick or scared. Others come to think out loud. But lately, one thread ties their stories together: fear that Maine is slipping away, either from rising taxes or from a fraying safety net. Let me tell you about three patients. Their names have been changed, but their stories are real.

Walter is 82. He’s a retired electrician with diabetes, arthritis and early signs of dementia. He lives alone in subsidized housing and relies on MaineCare for his medications. “Doc,” he once told me, “If I lose my nurse, I lose everything.” That nurse checks his blood sugar and keeps his fridge stocked. Her salary comes from taxpayer dollars.

Claire is 29. She fled an abusive relationship and lived in a shelter with her two children. She’s been clean for six months, sees a therapist weekly, and is working part time. Her child care is covered by a state voucher program that’s barely holding on.

Then there’s David, a wealthy entrepreneur from southern Maine. He built his company from nothing and gives generously to his community. But recently, he looked at me and said, “Doctor Jeff, if they raise taxes much more, I’ll move to New Hampshire. I love Maine, but I can’t be the only one writing the check.” And a financial planner in the Portland area shared with me that high-earning taxpayers are, in fact, leaving Maine for New Hampshire: “We lost five wealthy families just last year.”

Here’s the hard truth: all of these people are existentially connected. The safety net that keeps Walter alive and helps Claire rebuild her life? It exists, in part, because of taxes paid by people like David.

That’s why this isn’t a simple case of “tax the rich” versus “protect the poor.” Not some catchy three-word phrase attempting to solve one of the most important and complicated issues. It’s about balance. About keeping Maine whole. We are already one of the highest-taxed states in the country. Top earners here pay over 7% in state income tax compared to zero just over the border in neighboring New Hampshire.

According to Maine Revenue Services, the top 1% of earners contribute nearly a quarter of all income taxes collected statewide. And when they leave, they don’t just take their dollars. They take jobs, charitable giving and civic leadership with them. Again, wealthy high-taxed people do leave Maine. And when they do, it weakens our ability to help those who remain.

But that doesn’t mean we abandon the safety net. Quite the opposite. Right now, rural hospitals and birth centers are closing. Foster families are overwhelmed. Nursing homes are shuttering their doors. If we don’t invest in these services, we’ll all pay, not just in dollars, but in lives.

So, how do we move forward?

First, we need to stop framing this as a war between the wealthy and the vulnerable. Most Mainers, whether they own a business or rely on public services, want the same things: a state where people can live safely, raise families and grow old with dignity.

Second, we need better data. How many people are truly leaving due to taxes? What do we lose when they do? Let’s answer those questions honestly before writing new laws and budgets.

Third, let’s think creatively. What if we offered tax incentives for high earners to donate directly to Maine-based services such as rural health clinics, food pantries, legal aid, job training, and infrastructure? What if we made giving as rewarding as leaving?

And finally, let’s not forget who we are. Maine is a small state with a big heart. We dig each other out after snowstorms. We show up with casseroles. We wave at strangers on back roads. But we can’t do any of that if we drive away the people who help power our economy or if we look away from those sinking beneath its weight.

As a psychiatrist, I’ve seen what happens when the safety net fails. Patients end up in jail instead of treatment. Children go hungry and don’t graduate. Elders die alone. These aren’t abstract budget items. These are people. With names, fears and dreams. And as a Mainer, I see the value in keeping our most successful neighbors here, not out of guilt or fear, but out of both necessity and pride. Pride in a state that works for everyone.

So, let’s hold both truths close: that we need our wealthiest neighbors, and that we must never abandon our most vulnerable ones. Because in the end, Walter, Claire and David aren’t just stories. They are us. And if we lose even one of them, something in Maine is lost for good.

Copy the Story Link