SACRAMENTO — A ban on all hemp products with “any detectable quantity of THC” is in effect under an emergency order by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). In response, the state is facing a lawsuit.

Retailers can no longer sell any products made with hemp THC to California customers, which includes non-intoxicating CBD medicinal products used by millions of people statewide.

Those who rely on CBD as medicine say the new emergency regulations do more harm than good, hurting some of the most vulnerable populations in the state.

Before the ban took effect, CBS13 first interviewed the mother of a child with disabilities who relies on daily CBD to calm her violent seizures.

Advocates add that California, home to the largest population of United States veterans, are among the most impacted.

“This is hitting veterans disproportionately hard,” Army and National Guard veteran Will Wisner said. “We’re losing guys at the rate of 22 or more a day to suicide to where we have lost over 150,000 veterans since 9/11 to suicide. Think about that number, that is huge.”

Wisner is the executive director of the California-based nonprofit Grunt Style Foundation that helps support veterans.

“I would hate to think we are going to lose lives over this kind of decision, but people do drastic things when they are in pain, when they are feeling hopeless,” Wisner said.

Like many veterans, he found CBD to be a huge help on his long journey to physical and emotional healing after war.

“I had to figure out how to take my own health care into my own hands,” Wisner said. “I have to self treat with CBD. Luckily, CBD is wildly effective on my auto-immune disorder and helping me fight inflammation and pain.”

CBD advocates argue that Newsom’s emergency regulations slapped onto the hemp industry are too broad. Though they agree that industry regulations are needed, they say they should not punish people who rely on non-intoxicating CBD products.

“I mean, it’s completely cut off the access currently. Everything is on a 180 days pause since the emergency order went into place,” Wisner said.

A lawsuit has now been filed by six hemp companies and one nonprofit against California’s Department of Public Health, its director and 50 unnamed “John Does” in the suit.

“This draconian regulation alone will essentially devastate an emerging industry that consists largely of small business owners. It’s akin to requiring candy to stop containing sugar… starting tomorrow,” the lawsuit reads.

Among the plaintiffs are some star-studded stoners: Cheech and Chong. The comedy duo brought cannabis culture to Hollywood and now, Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong’s cannabis company is among those pushing back against Newsom’s new regulations. 

“Overnight, major swaths of the hemp and hemp products industries in California became immediately illegal,” the lawsuit reads.

Gov. Newsom, in the emergency regulations he first announced on Sept. 6 at a press conference in Sacramento, wants to crack down on industry bad actors. Newsom said too many are taking advantage of an unregulated market and enticing kids with THC products marketed to a young audience through THC gummies, candies and drinks.

“Intentionally trying to manipulate our children. Available everywhere. Gummies directly targeted to our kids. It’s a disgrace and it’s a shame,” Newsom said at the press conference.

“We’re going to take it to the next level and make sure enforcement is out there, so young people in particular are protected,” added Dr. Mark Ghaly, secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency.

But now advocates ask in response: what about medicinal access for children with disabilities who rely on CBD to calm their seizures, products that contain only a trace amount of THC, used daily by veterans like Wisner?

“Taking options away from us seems like madness. No matter how well-intentioned it may be,” Wisner said. “Frankly, it’s insidious. We are now playing with the lives of a very vulnerable population that has grown dependent on this natural and holistic healing modality.”

CBS13 reached out to both Gov. Newsom’s office and the CDPH for comment on this story. Both agencies responded by saying that they do not comment on pending litigation.

The emergency regulations took effect on September 23 and will remain in place until March 25, 2025.

Today, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed SB 906, which aimed to amend California NIL law. The bill, introduced by State Senator Nancy Skinner (D – Berkley), sought to implement novel transparency measures that would mandate public disclosures from all California schools regarding the total funding NIL collectives and other entities spend on NIL services from student-athletes at each respective university. The proposed legislation would have made California the first state to dip its toes into the water of public NIL disclosure. My previous article on the details of the proposed legislation can be found here. 

The now kyboshed bill would have allowed fans, recruits, and members of the media to see just how large of an NIL war chest each California school has at its disposal. As the economic dynamics of college sports continue to evolve, the amount of money schools’ NIL collectives have to pay their athletes is paramount to the successful recruiting and retention of revenue-sport athletes.  

The bill introduced by Skinner was rooted in principles of gender equity. According to a news release, the state senator hoped that the bill would pressure “NIL entities to do the right thing and boost funding for women athletes.”

The proposed legislation would have required public disclosure of the aggregate amount of money athletes from each team received and noted discrepancies in compensation between genders. According to industry estimates, roughly 95% of NIL collective payment goes towards male athletes. NIL collectives are legally separate entities from the institutions they support and, therefore, escape the scrutiny of Title IX mandates of equal funding across gender. 

Governor Newsom cited two reasons for his veto in a statement released today: “College sports are in a period of transition as many schools are changing athletic conferences and relevant issues are currently pending in the courts. As Governor, I want to ensure California’s colleges continue to be competitive with other states. Further changes to this dynamic should be done nationally.”

Newsom believes that transparency in NIL funding may put California schools at a disadvantage to schools outside of the state that do not face the same disclosures. Athletes looking to compete at the college level could easily see the robustness of a school’s NIL program through such disclosures and could choose to pursue other programs that can be alleged to have superior resources outside of the state. 

Newsom also indicated that due to the massive uncertainty around college athletics’ future structuring, like institutional revenue sharing, any further NIL reform should be addressed at the federal level. 

With a patchwork of state NIL laws being the only regulation on athlete compensation in the college athletics space, further splintering and disparate regulation presents challenges to athletes and those looking to tap into NIL for brand partnerships. 

Newsom’s anti-federalist mindset is a change of pace from his approval of the 2019 Fair Pay to Play Act, also presented by Skinner, that made California a trailblazer by codifying the nation’s first law enshrining the right for athletes to profit from their NIL.

California’s $20 minimum wage for fast-food workers took effect on Apr. 1.

While the legislation has faced criticism, Gov. Gavin Newsom is celebrating its impact.

Don’t miss

• Car insurance premiums in America are through the roof — and only getting worse. But 5 minutes could have you paying as little as $29/month

• Commercial real estate has beaten the stock market for 25 years — but only the super rich could buy in. Here’s how even ordinary investors can become the landlord of Walmart, Whole Foods or Kroger

• These 5 magic money moves will boost you up America’s net worth ladder in 2024 — and you can complete each step within minutes. Here’s how

“Since the law was enacted, California has added 11,000 new jobs in the industry. As of July, our state boasts a historic 750,500 fast food jobs,” he wrote in a recent op-ed for Fox News, citing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

According to Newsom, California now has more fast food jobs than ever before.

He also highlighted how the legislation has improved conditions for those working in the fast food sector, stating, “Because of California’s compassion for working people, these men and women living paycheck to paycheck now enjoy better working conditions, reduced financial stress and greater opportunities for upward mobility.”

However, not everyone shares Newsom’s enthusiasm. Celebrity chef and restaurant owner Andrew Gruel dismissed the op-ed as “typical Gavin Newsom self congratulatory propaganda based on questionable data.”

“I think it’s a little early to put the book on the shelf and take the victory lap here,” Gruel told Fox Business, cautioning that it may be too soon to fully assess the long-term effects of the wage hike on the industry.

Analyzing the numbers

Gruel raised concerns about the accuracy of Newsom’s claims.

“These aren’t even seasonally adjusted numbers,” he noted, referring to the data cited by the governor.

Experts have echoed Gruel’s concerns about the lack of seasonally adjusted data.

“So the governor is saying that the data shows California has the highest fast food employment it’s ever had. Unfortunately, he’s using a preliminary data set released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,” Rebecca Paxton, research director at the Employment Policies Institute, told KTLA. “The latest set that the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases is called seasonally adjusted, which is what economists use to measure policy impacts,”

The distinction is significant because seasonally adjusted data accounts for typical seasonal employment fluctuations, such as temporary hiring spikes during holidays or reduced staffing in slower months. Seasonal adjustment provides a clearer picture of underlying trends by smoothing out these predictable variations. Without this adjustment, unadjusted numbers can present a skewed perspective, potentially misleading when assessing long-term policy impacts.

Story continues

Gruel also questioned the timeframe of Newsom’s analysis.

“He’s using like, nine or 10 months, and really it’s only been three months in this data in which the bill actually took effect,” he explained. “In the grand scheme of 750,000 jobs isn’t a huge number.”

However, Newsom’s breakdown did reveal some promising short-term figures. It showed that in April 2024, California’s fast food industry employed 739,500 workers. This number grew to 743,300 in May, 744,700 in June, and reached 750,500 by July. This means that between April and July — a period of just three months — the state added 11,000 fast food jobs

‘Unintended consequences’

Gruel argued that even if Newsom’s numbers are accurate, they fail to capture the full picture due to the “unintended consequences” of the legislation.

One major consequence, according to Gruel, is the reduction in worker hours, which inflates job creation statistics without genuinely benefiting employees.

“The first thing that these multi-unit restaurants did when they found out about this bill was they took people who were working overtime — so anything over 40 hours — and they cut their hours down to 25 or 30. Those people went and got other jobs,” he explained.

Gruel pointed out that instead of having one person work 55 or 60 hours a week, restaurants now split that position between two employees working 30 to 32 hours each. This appears as job growth on paper.

He shared insights from his own experience as a restaurant owner, observing a noticeable increase in fast food workers seeking additional employment since the law took effect.

“I know that because starting in at roughly April, we got flooded on the full-service side with people who were looking for a second job because they weren’t allowed to work overtime anymore, and this was in our restaurants, and we still are getting flooded from fast food workers looking for another job,” he recounted.

Read more: Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they’re banking on instead

Some restaurants have closed

Gruel’s concerns align with classical economic theory, which suggests that setting a wage floor above the market equilibrium can lead to unintended consequences. Employers, faced with higher labor costs, may reduce hiring, cut workers’ hours, or even eliminate positions altogether to maintain profitability. This is especially problematic for low-wage workers with less experience or skills, who are more vulnerable to these changes.

California has seen a consistent and significant increase in its minimum wage over the past decade. In 2014, the state’s minimum wage was $9.00 an hour. Today, it’s set at $16 an hour, rising to $20 an hour for fast food workers. For some business owners, this increase has forced difficult decisions.

A Fosters Freeze outlet in Lemoore shut down on April 1, leaving its workers without jobs. Its owner, Loren Wright, said in a text to KMPH that the substantial rise in minimum wage has made it challenging for small businesses to stay afloat.

Lawrence Cheng, whose family owns seven Wendy’s locations south of Los Angeles, admitted to cutting his staff’s hours due to the minimum wage increase.

“We kind of just cut where we can,” Cheng told the Associated Press. “I schedule one less person, and then I come in for that time that I didn’t schedule and I work that hour.”

However, there are alternative economic theories, such as the efficiency wage theory, which argue that higher minimum wages can boost worker productivity and reduce turnover, as better-compensated employees may be more motivated and loyal. Additionally, increased wages can boost consumer spending, as low-income workers have more disposable income, potentially stimulating economic growth.

What to read next

This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.