This week, on December 14th, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) passed a new rule to make cannabis extract a separate Schedule I drug from marijuana. This move gets rid of any question that cannabis extract is indeed illegal on a federal level. Schedule I drugs are considered the most dangerous, high risk drug (like heroin) and are considered to contain no medicinal value. The move has many people angry and baffled, considering 28 states across the country use oils derived from cannabis extract to treat a wide range of conditions, from epilepsy to muscle inflammation. These oils often contain less than 0.3 percent THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. Instead they contain CBD or cannabidiol. 
 
 The New ID Number for Cannabis Extract 
 
 Under the new regulation, cannabis extract is classified under a different identification number. The new identification number is 7350. Those who exclusively manufacture marijuana extracts must register under the new code and update the registration annually. Those who need to update their registration will have 30 days from the 14th to do the paperwork. Entities that handle marijuana will stay on the old code number; 7360. Failure to be up to date with the new code will be considered a violation. 
 
 “Misguided and, Frankly, Ignorant” 
 
 Jeffrey Zucker, president and co-founder of Denver-based Green Lion Partners said, “This is a misguided and, frankly, ignorant move by the DEA. CBD does nothing but help people, and to put it on a level with heroin is absurd. Hopefully the backlash will be extreme enough for them to reconsider, as the only group this ruling helps is the pharmaceutical industry.” 
 
 The DEA’s Attempt at Justification 
 
 According to the DEA, the regulation was created in order to keep U.S. regulations consistent with international standards and in compliance with international drug-law treaties. Acting DEA Administrator Chuck Rosenberg said it was necessary for them to be able to track quantities of the marijuana extracts separately from the marijuana. The new code allows the government to track shipments of the extracts independently from marijuana. 
 
 A Perspective Opposing Science and Public Demand 
 
 Marijuana reform advocates have been outraged by the decision. Nate Bradley, executive director of the California Cannabis Industry Association expressed his frustration, stating that “Once again, the federal government has shown that it has not caught up with modern science.” Americans across the country use the extract for medicinal purposes every day. Over half of the country has voted in favor of its legalization and its medicinal value. In fact 20 percent of the country has voted to legalize recreational marijuana now and according to a recent Gallup poll, 60 percent of Americans are in favor of ending prohibition entirely and legalizing the adult use of marijuana. The latest decision by the DEA supports the pharmaceutical industry and, beyond this, has no basis in medical fact. 
 
 Earlier this year the DEA refused to reclassify marijuana, after being asked by many senators to review its classification. They cited that there was not enough government authorized scientific evidence to support its medicinal value. This was due to the fact that the medical research of marijuana was banned by the DEA. They have decided to lift this ban, allowing for research to be done. Perhaps when the evidence has been presented they will finally overturn their archaic and factually problematic laws. ||||| Note: This article contains an update on the legal status of CBD products, below the original text. 
 
 
 
 The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) made CBD oil a little more federally illegal in a little-noticed bureaucratic maneuver this morning. 
 
 Today’s Federal Register (Dec. 14, 2016) contains an item (21 CFR Part 1308) that establishes a new drug code for “marihuana extract.” 
 
 “This code,” wrote DEA Acting Administrator Chuck Rosenberg, “will allow DEA and DEA-registered entities to track quantities of this material separately from quantities of marihuana.” The move, the Register entry explained, is meant to bring the US into compliance with international drug-control treaties. 
 
 There is no major change in law brought about by the Register item. Rather, it serves to clarify and reinforce the DEA’s position on all cannabis extracts, including CBD oil. That position is: They are all federally illegal Schedule I substances. “Extracts of marihuana will continue to be treated as Schedule I controlled substances,” the notice says. 
 
 CBD oil derived from hemp is now commonly available nationwide via web sites and mail order services. Those operations survive on the assumption that cannabidiol products below the legal threshold for THC percentage in hemp (0.3 percent or less) are technically legal. 
 
 Not so, says the DEA. 
 
 In the DEA comment on the entry, Rosenberg directly addressed the question: What if it’s only cannabidiol (CBD) and no other cannabinoids? The agency’s response: “For practical purposes, all extracts that contain CBD will also contain at least small amounts of other cannabinoids. However, if it were possible to produce from the cannabis plant an extract that contained only CBD and no other cannabinoids, such an extract would fall within the new drug code” and therefore remain federally illegal. In other words: The DEA is confident that it can find enough traces of other cannabinoids in your CBD oil to arrest and prosecute. And if they can’t, they still have the option of arresting and prosecuting based on the CBD oil itself. 
 
 Is your CBD derived from hemp? Doesn’t matter to the DEA. The new extracts classification applies to all “extracts that have been derived from any plant of the genus Cannabis and which contain cannabinols and cannabidiols.” Hemp is not a separate genus. (Although it may be a separate species; lot of debate on that point.) Legally speaking, hemp is simply cannabis with no more than 0.3 percent THC content. 
 
 The new rule seems to clarify the DEA’s position on hemp-derived CBD, which entered a legal gray area following Congress’ passage of the 2014 farm bill. That legislation allowed certain states to grow hemp in pilot projects, and blocked federal law enforcement authorities (ie, the DEA) from interfering with state agencies, hemp growers, and agricultural research. 
 
 What DEA Administrator Rosenberg seems to be saying with this clarification is: You may be able to grow hemp. But if you try to extract CBD oil from it, the DEA considers that a federal crime. 
 
 The rule did not contain any hint as to when the DEA will step into the 21st century and stop using the archaic version of the word “marihuana.” 
 
 UPDATE 12/14/2016, 2:20pm PST: 
 
 Although the DEA considers CBD oil to be a federally illegal Schedule I drug, there are temporary safeguards in place that protect patients in many states from federal prosecution over possession of the oil. 
 
 The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment is the most important of those protections. Originally passed in 2014, the amendment to a Congressional appropriations bill prohibits the Justice Department from spending funds to interfere with the implementation of state medical cannabis laws. (It is silent on adult-use laws.) In August, the federal 9th US Circuit Court upheld Rohrabacher-Farr in the face of a challenge brought by federal prosecutors. Leafly has an explanation of that case here. 
 
 The amendment is the chief piece of legislation preventing federal law enforcement officials from prosecuting patients for possessing CBD products in the 28 legal medical cannabis states, and the District of Columbia. In addition, 16 states have passed so-called CBD-only laws that allow patients and caregivers to possess non-intoxicating CBD products. Those CBD-only laws usually allow no legal avenue to produce or obtain the products, however. 
 
 Rohrabacher-Farr must be renewed every year. If it’s not, its safeguards disappear. The amendment was most recently renewed last Friday, Dec. 9, as part of the continuing House resolution known as HR 2028, which funds the federal government through April 28, 2017. When that resolution expires next April, so does the protections afforded by Rohrabacher-Farr. Unless it’s renewed once again. 
 
 Experts and industry react 
 
 It’s unclear whether today’s action is a signal from the DEA to the incoming Trump administration, or just a bit of shelf-clearing before DEA Administrator Rosenberg rides into the sunset with the rest of the Obama administration. This rule, after all, finalizes a proposed rulemaking notice that first appeared more than five years ago, on July 5, 2011. 
 
 Robert Hoban, a Colorado cannabis attorney and adjunct professor of law at the University of Denver, raised the notion that the rule itself may not be lawful. “This action is beyond the DEA’s authority,” Hoban told Leafly in an interview late this afternoon. “The DEA can only carry out the law, they cannot create it. Here they’re purporting to create an entirely new category called ‘marijuana extracts,’ and by doing so wrest control over all cannabinoids. They want to call all cannabinoids illegal. But they don’t have the authority to do that.” 
 
 The new DEA rule, Hoban said, may threaten hundreds, possibly thousands, of jobs and growing businesses. Those business owners based their investments and careers on previous definitions of hemp and cannabidiol in the Controlled Substances Act and modified by federal courts. And that’s where this latest turn of events could end up. “We will see the federal government in court,” Hoban said. ||||| The DEA’s attempt to criminalize the status of cannabidiol (CBD) earlier this week has thrown the cannabis industry into an uproar. Hundreds of thousands of patients around the country rely on non-psychoactive CBD products to manage pain, inflammation, seizures, and other medical conditions. Hemp-derived CBD oil was, and continues to be, sold openly in American markets. 
 
 
 
 The DEA’s notice in the Federal Register on Wednesday, however, sent that entire industry sector into turmoil. The rule creates “unfair barriers for companies with cannabidiol in their products,” said Mark Malone, executive director of the Cannabis Business Alliance. “Patients will be forced to find cannabidiol from the unregulated black market.” Leah Heise, CEO of Women Grow, said the rule “has the potential to inflict substantial harm to a legitimate industry that has been operating legally worldwide for over a decade.” 
 
 The DEA tried this before. In 2001 it tried to ban hempseed oil. And Doc Bronner kicked the agency's butt in court. 
 
 Cloaked in the guise of a bureaucratic technicality, DEA Administrator Chuck Rosenberg made an aggressive bid to wrap CBD into the Controlled Substances Act as a federally illegal Schedule I drug. You can read more about the rule’s specifics here. 
 
 To recap: The DEA introduced a new drug code for “marihuana extracts.” In the course of doing so, Rosenberg paused to consider the question of non-psychoactive cannabidiol (CBD). Rosenberg made it clear that the DEA considers all CBD to be illegal simply because it’s derived from a plant of the genus Cannabis. 
 
 Over the past 48 hours, attorneys and legal scholars (and entrepreneur/activists like Harborside Health founder Steve DeAngelo, above) have pushed back with force. Many are arguing that the DEA’s move is a clear instance of illegal agency overreach. It’s a move that the same agency tried 15 years ago, in fact. And that attempt was ultimately slapped down by federal courts. 
 
 Is my CBD oil illegal? 
 
 Probably not. It depends on how you define “illegal.” Not to get cute, but when you start parsing the finer points of cannabis law things quickly turn vague and shifty. By publishing a final rule in the Federal Register this week, the DEA has essentially staked out new legal ground around CBD. The agency has formally stated that the DEA believes CBD products to be illegal Schedule I substances. 
 
 Is that now the law? Not necessarily. A federal judge might well see things differently than the DEA administrator. In fact, there’s a lot of evidence to think that federal courts could and would invalidate the final rule as it pertains to CBD. We’ll get to that in a minute. 
 
 Two safeguards protect patients who currently buy and use CBD products. They remain in effect. 
 
 First, you should know that there are two prominent safeguards in place protecting patients who currently purchase and use CBD products. 
 
 The first is the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, which prohibits the Justice Department (of which the DEA is a part) from interfering in any way with state medical marijuana laws and regulatory systems. CBD products fall under the protections of that amendment. This includes so-called CBD-only states, which allow patients to possess cannabidiol oil but not psychoactive THC. So the DEA may consider CBD oil illegal, but the agency can’t enforce that opinion in any of the 28 medical marijuana states (plus the District of Columbia), or any of the 16 CBD-only states. 
 
 There are a couple caveats to Rohrabacher-Farr, however. It doesn’t pertain to federal jurisdictions such as National Forests or National Parks. And the amendment must be reauthorized through Congressional spending bills. The latest re-up happened on Dec. 9, but it only runs through April 2017, at which point it would have to be reauthorized again. 
 
 The second protection is the 2014 Farm Act, which carved out an excemption to the Controlled Substances Act for states engaging in hemp cultivation pilot projects. 
 
 The DEA tried this in 2001. And lost. 
 
 Cannabis industry veterans who have been in the game a while must have felt a sense of deja vu when they read the DEA’s final rule this week. Because the agency tried the same maneuver more than a decade ago. Back then, cannabis and hemp advocates took the DEA to court—and the DEA lost. 
 
 Robert Hoban, Adjunct Law Professor, University of Denver 'The DEA cannot create a statute. That can only be done by Congress.' 
 
 “The DEA cannot create a statute,” Robert Hoban told me in an interview earlier this week. Hoban is a Denver-based attorney who specializes in cannabis law. He’s also an adjunct law professor at the University of Denver. “That can only be done by Congress.” 
 
 Hoban mentioned legal precedent established by a case involving hemp products more than a decade ago. “Look at the HIA versus DEA case.” 
 
 So I did. Here’s how that worked out. 
 
 On October 9, 2001, the DEA published what it called an “Interpretive Rule” stating that “any product that contains any amount of THC is a Schedule I controlled substance.” The rule would have banned all hemp and hempseed products, including hempseed oil. 
 
 With sneaky bureaucratic maneuvers like this, timing is everything. On October 9, 2001, Americans were still reeling from the shock of the 9/11 attacks. Nobody was paying attention to obscure hemp regulations in the Federal Register. 
 
 Nobody, that is, except a handful of hempseed oil companies whose products were effectively outlawed by the rule. 
 
 A coalition of those companies, led by Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, challenged the DEA rule in federal court. 
 
 If the DEA wanted to schedule hemp, it would have to follow the rules. The agency couldn't do it on its own. 
 
 The case took more than two years to find resolution, but ultimately Dr. Bronner’s, et al, defeated the DEA. In two separate rulings in 2003 and 2004, the US 9th Circuit Court concluded that non-psychoactive hemp had not been regulated by Congress under the scheduling system established by the Controlled Substances Act. Therefore, if the DEA wanted to schedule hemp, it would have to follow the established rules for doing so, which meant going through Congress. The DEA’s “Interpretive Rule” was not an interpretation at all, the judges said. It was an act of legislation. And only Congress can pass legislation. “The DEA has no authority” to regulate drugs that are not scheduled by Congress, the court concluded. 
 
 The new rule is on even shakier ground 
 
 Those cases, known collectively as Hemp Industries Association v. DEA, are the reason you can purchase hempseed oil at Whole Foods today. And it may be the hammer with which cannabis industry attorneys can smash the new CBD rule. 
 
 In fact, this week’s CBD rule may actually be more difficult for the DEA to defend than its hemp rule 15 years ago. 
 
 At least the 2001 hemp rule directly addressed hemp. DEA Administrator Rosenberg’s attempt to pull CBD into the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule I drug wasn’t even the point of this week’s rule. Rosenberg outlawed CBD under the guise of answering a question about CBD products that contained no other cannabinoids. But make no mistake: When it comes to Federal Register entries, there isn’t a word or a comma that isn’t vetted five times from Tuesday by a platoon of government lawyers. Rosenberg and the DEA knew exactly what they were doing. 
 
 On Thursday, Hoban said that his law firm was in communication with other cannabis attorneys and experts around the country. A singular or joint lawsuit challenging the DEA rule may be coming soon. Their chances against the DEA look promising. Hoban mentioned the earlier Hemp Industries v. DEA cases, as well as the recent challenges to the DEA’s attempt to ban Kratom. “Our team is diligently and expediently working to prepare a recommended strategy in response to the DEA’s Rule,” Hoban said. 
 
 So don’t throw out your CBD oil. And stay tuned. ||||| PLEASE NOTE: NCSL cannot provide advice or assistance to private citizens or businesses regarding industrial hemp laws or other related matters. Please consult your state department of agriculture or a private attorney. 
 
 Introduction 
 
 State legislatures have taken action to promote industrial hemp as an agricultural commodity in recent years. A wide range of products, including fibers, textiles, paper, construction and insulation materials, cosmetic products, animal feed, food, and beverages all may use hemp. The plant is estimated to be used in more than 25,000 products spanning nine markets: agriculture, textiles, recycling, automotive, furniture, food/nutrition/beverages, paper, construction materials and personal care. 
 
 While hemp and marijuana products both come from the cannabis plant, hemp is typically distinguished by its use, physical appearance and lower concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Hemp producers often grow the plant for the one or more parts — seeds, flowers and stalk. The plant is cultivated to grow taller, denser and with a single stalk. 
 
 Federal Action 
 
 President Obama signed the Agricultural Act of 2014, or the 2014 Farm Bill, which included Section 7606 allowing for universities and state departments of agriculture to begin cultivating industrial hemp for limited purposes. Specifically, the law allows universities and state departments of agriculture to grow or cultivate industrial hemp if: 
 
 “(1) the industrial hemp is grown or cultivated for purposes of research conducted under an agricultural pilot program or other agricultural or academic research; and 
 
 (2) the growing or cultivating of industrial hemp is allowed under the laws of the state in which such institution of higher education or state department of agriculture is located and such research occurs.” 
 
 The law also requires that the grow sites be certified by—and registered with—their state. 
 
 A bipartisan group of U.S. senators introduced the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2015 that would allow American farmers to produce and cultivate industrial hemp. The bill would remove hemp from the controlled substances list as long as it contained no more than 0.3 percent THC. 
 
 The U.S. Department of Agriculture, in consultation with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, released a Statement of Principles on Industrial Hemp in the Federal Register on Aug 12, 2016, on the applicable activities related to hemp in the 2014 Farm Bill. 
 
 State Action 
 
 State policymakers have taken action to address various policy issues — the definition of hemp, licensure of growers, regulation and certification of seeds, state-wide commissions and legal protection of growers. At least 41 states have passed legislation related to industrial hemp, such as defining hemp and removing barriers, and at least 39 states have allowed for hemp cultivation and production programs. Some states establishing these programs require a change in federal laws or a waiver from the DEA prior to implementation. 
 
 2018 Legislation Update 
 
 At least 38 states considered legislation related to industrial hemp in 2018. These bills ranged from clarifying existing laws to establishing new licensing requirements and programs. At least 5 states – Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma – enacted legislation in 2018 establishing hemp research and industrial hemp pilot programs. Georgia adopted a resolution to create the House Study Committee on Industrial Hemp Production. States, already allowing for industrial hemp programs, continued to consider policies related to licensure, funding, seed certification, and other issues. For example, Tennessee amended its Commercial Feed Law to include hemp. 
 
 2017 Legislation Update 
 
 38 states and Puerto Rico considered legislation related to industrial hemp in 2017. These bills ranged from clarifying existing laws to establishing new licensing requirements and programs. At least 15 states enacted legislation in 2017 — Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, North Dakota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Florida, Wisconsin and Nevada authorized new research or pilot programs. The governors of Arizona and New Mexico vetoed legislation, which would have established new research programs. 
 
 State Laws Related to Industrial Hemp 
 
 Allows cultivation of hemp for commercial, research or pilot programs Does not allow cultivation of hemp. 
 
 Defining Hemp 
 
 State statutes, with the exception of West Virginia, define industrial hemp as a variety of cannabis with a THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent. West Virginia defines hemp as cannabis with a THC concentration of less than 1 percent. 
 
 Many state definitions for industrial hemp specify that THC concentration is on a dry weight basis and can be measured from any part of the plant. Some states also require the plant to be possessed by a licensed grower for it to be considered under the definition of industrial hemp. 
 
 Research and Pilot Programs 
 
 States have passed laws creating or allowing for the establishment of industrial hemp research or pilot programs. State agencies and institutions of higher education administer these programs in order to study the cultivation, processing, and economics of industrial hemp. Pilot programs may be limited to a certain period of time and may require periodic reporting from participants and state agencies. Some states establish specific regulatory agencies or committees, rules, and goals to oversee the research programs. States may also require coordination between specific colleges or universities and the programs, in other states coordination is optional. From 2015 to 2016, seven states enacted legislation to create hemp research or pilot programs, including Pennsylvania (H.B. 976) and Hawaii (S.B. 2659). 
 
 While industrial hemp research and pilot programs typically focus on studying the cultivation, processing for certain products and economic impacts of hemp, some states have specific guidelines and intended goals. Here are some examples of unique state research goals: 
 
 Colorado S.B. 184 (2014) created an Industrial Hemp Grant Research Program for state universities to research and develop hemp strains that are best suited for industrial applications and develop new seed strains. 
 
 S.B. 184 (2014) created an Industrial Hemp Grant Research Program for state universities to research and develop hemp strains that are best suited for industrial applications and develop new seed strains. Colorado S.B. 109 (2017) directed the commissioner of agriculture to create a group to study the feasibility of hemp products' use in animal feed. 
 
 S.B. 109 (2017) directed the commissioner of agriculture to create a group to study the feasibility of hemp products' use in animal feed. Kentucky’s industrial hemp research program studies the environmental benefit or impact of hemp, the potential use of hemp as an energy source or biofuel, and the agronomy research being conducted worldwide relating to hemp. 
 
 industrial hemp research program studies the environmental benefit or impact of hemp, the potential use of hemp as an energy source or biofuel, and the agronomy research being conducted worldwide relating to hemp. The North Carolina Hemp Commission studies the best practices for soil conservation and restoration in collaboration with two state universities. 
 
 Licensing, Registration and Permitting 
 
 To comply with state regulations for commercial and research programs, growers must be licensed, registered or permitted with the state agency overseeing the program. Requirements for registration, licenses and permits might include: 
 
 Criminal background checks. 
 
 Periodic renewals, usually every one to three years. 
 
 Registering the location or Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates of grow sites. 
 
 Record keeping and reporting any sales or distributions including to whom it was sold or distributed, including processors. 
 
 Documentation from the state agency or institution of higher education to prove the grower is participating in an approved program. 
 
 The state agencies overseeing these programs are typically authorized to conduct inspections, test the plants and review records. State agencies may revoke licenses and impose civil and criminal penalties against growers who violate regulations. 
 
 Seed Certification and Access 
 
 Access to viable seed may present a challenge for research programs and commercial growers. To implement commercial and research hemp programs, farmers need access to seeds that are guaranteed to produce plants that fall under the legal definition of hemp. These seeds can be difficult to obtain, however, because hemp is still regulated under the federal Controlled Substances Act. In response to this problem, Colorado’s governor sent a letter to the U.S. secretary of agriculture in 2014 requesting the federal government address hemp seed regulations. 
 
 States are taking independent action to regulate industrial hemp seeds. Certified seeds are usually defined as seeds that contain less than 0.3 percent THC or produce hemp plants that contain less than 0.3 percent THC. 
 
 At least four states have also established specific licenses or certification programs for hemp seed distributors and producers: 
 
 California requires seed breeders to register with their local county agricultural commissioner. 
 
 requires seed breeders to register with their local county agricultural commissioner. Indiana allows growers who obtain an agricultural hemp seed production license to produce seeds. Licensees may then sell seeds or retain them to propagate future crops. 
 
 allows growers who obtain an agricultural hemp seed production license to produce seeds. Licensees may then sell seeds or retain them to propagate future crops. Maine allows the commissioner of agriculture, conservation and forestry to issue licenses to seed distributors if their seeds are from a certified seed source. 
 
 allows the commissioner of agriculture, conservation and forestry to issue licenses to seed distributors if their seeds are from a certified seed source. Oregon requires growers who produce hemp seeds capable of germination to register with the Oregon Department of Agriculture if they intend to sell seeds. Growers who wish to retain seeds do not need to register as a seed producer. 
 
 Criminal Justice and Legalization 
 
 State legislation also has removed hemp from the state’s controlled substances list and exempted industrial hemp from the statutory definition of marijuana if it is grown within specific regulations. 
 
 To protect growers from criminal prosecution some states provide an affirmative defense for cannabis possession and cultivation charges under controlled substances law for licensed individuals. States may require licensees to obtain a controlled substances registration from the DEA for the affirmative defense to apply. 
 
 For a summary of state laws related to industrial hemp, click on the states in the map below or see the chart for a complete list of state statutes. 
 
 Note that some states laws establishing commercial industrial hemp programs require a change in federal law or waivers from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency before those programs can be implemented by the state. 
 
 State Statutes and Public Acts on Industrial Hemp Research and Cultivation State Citation Summary Alabama Ala. Code § 2-8-380 to 2-8-383 and § 20-2-2 (2016) Creates an industrial hemp research program overseen by the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries to study hemp. 
 
 The department may coordinate the study with institutions of higher education. Alaska Alaska Stat. § 03.05.010; Alaska Stat. § 03.05.100; Alaska Stat. § 03.05.076 to 03.05.079; Alaska Stat. § 11.71.900; Alaska Stat. § 17.20.020; Alaska Stat. §17.38.900 (2018) Directs the commissioner of natural resources to adopt regulations related to industrial hemp including approved sources or varieties of seed, testing requirements, and establishing isolation distances. 
 
 Specifies registration requirements and allowable activities for registered producers of industrial hemp. 
 
 Directs the department to establish fee levels to cover regulatory costs and annually review these fee levels. 
 
 Allows for the creation of a pilot program by an institution of higher education or the Department of Natural Resources. 
 
 Defines both industrial hemp and cannabidiol oil. Amends definitions for hashish oil and marijuana. 
 
 Clarifies that the addition of industrial hemp to food does not create an adulterated food product. 
 
 Requires a report on or before Dec. 1, 2024. Arizona SB 1098 (2018) Authorizes a pilot program for the research, growth, cultivation and marketing of industrial hemp and establishes the Industrial Hemp Trust Fund. 
 
 Directs the Arizona Department of Agriculture (AZDA) to adopt rules for the licensing, production and management of hemp and hemp seed, to set fees to fund AZDA’s activities, and to establish an industrial hemp advisory council. 
 
 Allows for commercial hemp production, processing, manufacturing Arkansas Ark. Stat. Ann. § 2-15-401 et seq. (2017) Creates the Arkansas Industrial Hemp Program including a 10-year research program. 
 
 Authorizes the State Plant Board to adopt rules to administer the research program and license growers. 
 
 Requires the State Plant Board to provide an annual report starting Dec. 31, 2018. 
 
 Allows the University of Arkansas’s Division of Agriculture and the Arkansas Economic Development Commission to work with the State Plant Board. 
 
 Establishes a separate program fund, which will include feeds collected and other sources of funding California Cal. Food and Agric. Code §81000 to 81010 (2016) Allows for a commercial hemp program overseen by the Industrial Hemp Advisory Board within the California Department of Food and Agriculture. 
 
 Establishes registration for seed breeders. 
 
 This division will not become operative unless authorized under federal law. Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. § 35-61-101 to 35-61-109 (2016) Allows hemp cultivation for commercial and research purposes to be overseen by the Industrial Hemp Committee under the Department of Agriculture. 
 
 Establishes a seed certification program. 
 
 Establishes a grant program for state institutions of higher education to research new hemp seed varieties. Connecticut 2014 Conn. Acts, P.A. #14-191 (Reg. Sess.) Created an industrial hemp feasibility study which reported to the state legislature on Jan. 1, 2015. Delaware Del. Code Ann. tit. 3 § 2800 to 2802 (2016) Establishes an industrial hemp research program overseen by the Delaware Department of Agriculture. 
 
 Allows the department to certify institutions of higher education to cultivate hemp for research purposes. Florida S 1726 (Enacted; Effective June 16, 2017) Directs the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to authorize and oversee the development of industrial hemp pilot projects at certain universities. Commercialization projects may be allowed after two years with certain conditions. 
 
 Authorizes the universities to develop pilot projects in partnership with public, nonprofit, and private entities; 
 
 Requires a university to submit a report within two years of establishing a pilot program. Hawaii Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 141A to 141J and § 712 (2016) Establishes an industrial hemp pilot program overseen by the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. 
 
 Allows the Board of Agriculture to certify hemp seeds. Illinois Ill. Ann. Stat. ch. 720 § 550/15.2 (2016) Creates an industrial hemp pilot program which allows the Illinois Department of Agriculture or state institutions of higher education to grow hemp for research purposes. 
 
 Requires institutions of higher education provide annual reports to the department. Indiana Ind. Code Ann. § 15-15-13-1 to 15-15-13-17 (2016) Allows the production and possession of hemp by licensed growers for commercial and research purposes. 
 
 Growers and handlers of hemp seeds must obtain a hemp seed production license. 
 
 Nothing in this section allows anyone to violate federal law. Kansas K.S.A Ch. 62 § 1 - 62 § 2 SB 263 (2018) Creates the Alternative Crop Research Act (and licensing fee fund) to promote the research and development of industrial hemp. 
 
 Allows the Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA), either alone or in coordination with a state institute of higher education, to cultivate and promote research and development of industrial hemp. 
 
 Directs KDA to oversee annual licensing, establish fees, and promulgate rules and regulations. 
 
 Allows for a pilot program in Russell County, and other counties as determined by KDA. Kentucky Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 260.850 to 260.869 (2016) Creates an industrial hemp research program and a commercial licensing program to allow hemp cultivation for any legal purpose. 
 
 The commercial growers’ license shall only be allowed subject to the legalization of hemp under federal law. 
 
 Growers are required to use certified seeds and may import or resell certified seeds. 
 
 Mandates the University of Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station oversee a five-year hemp research program. 
 
 Creates the Industrial Hemp Commission, attached to the Agricultural Experiment Station, to oversee, among other things, the licensing, testing and implementation of regulations and rules related to hemp. Maine Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 7 § 2231 (2016) Allows hemp growing for commercial purposes. 
 
 Establishes a license for seed distributors. Maryland Md. Agriculture Code Ann. § 14-101 (2016) Establishes a license allowing individuals to plant, grow, harvest, possess, process, sell, or buy industrial hemp in Maryland. 
 
 Authorizes the Maryland Department of Agriculture or an institution of higher education to grow hemp for research purposes. Massachusetts Mass. Gen. Laws. Ann. 128 § 116 to 123 (2017) Allows for hemp to be planted, grown, harvested, possessed, bought or sold for research or commercial purposes under the regulation of the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR). 
 
 Requires producers and distributors to obtain a license issued by MDAR and for persons utilizing hemp for commercial or research purposes to register with MDAR. 
 
 Directs MDAR and Commissioner of Agriculture to promulgate rules and regulations. Michigan Mich. Comp. Laws § 286.841 to 286.844 (2016) Creates an industrial hemp research program allowing the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and institutions of higher education to grow hemp for research purposes. Minnesota Minn. Stat. § 18K.01 to 18K.09 (2016) Establishes a commercial hemp licensing program overseen by the Minnesota commissioner of agriculture. 
 
 Applicants must prove they comply with all federal hemp regulations, meaning that commercial licenses may not be available until federal law changes. 
 
 Allows the commissioner to implement an industrial hemp pilot program. Institutions of higher education may apply to participate in this program. Missouri HB 2034 (2018) Creates an industrial hemp agricultural pilot program, in accordance with federal law, to be implemented by the Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA) to study the growth, cultivation, processing, feeding and marketing. 
 
 Creates the Industrial Hemp Fund. 
 
 Directs MDA to promulgate rules, such as establishing permit and registration fees, to implement the program. 
 
 Allows the Missouri Crop Improvement Association to establish and administer a seed certification program; specifies the food containing industrial hemp may not be considered adulterated. Montana Mont. Code Ann. § 80-18-101 to 80-18-111 (2016) Allows the Montana Department of Agriculture to implement a commercial hemp licensing program. 
 
 Requires commercial growers to use certified seeds. 
 
 Requires a federal controlled substances registration from the DEA for the affirmative defense against marijuana charges to apply. Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-5701 (2016) Allows a postsecondary institution or the Nebraska Department of Agriculture to grow hemp for research purposes. Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. § 557.010 to 557.080 (2016) Mandates the Nevada Board of Agriculture implement an industrial hemp pilot program. 
 
 Allows institutions of higher education and the Nevada Department of Agriculture to grow hemp for research purposes. New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 433-C:1 to 433-C:3 (2016) Allows institutions of higher education to cultivate hemp for research purposes. 
 
 All research must be coordinated with the New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets and Food. 
 
 All research projects must conclude within three years of commencement. New Hampshire 2014 N.H. Laws, Chap. 18 Established a committee to study the growth and sale of industrial hemp in New Hampshire. 
 
 The study was required to report their findings by Nov. 1, 2014. New Mexico SB 6 (2017) Directs the New Mexico Department of Agriculture to adopt rules for the research and development of industrial hemp, including for licensure, law enforcement training, inspection, recordkeeping, fees and compliance processes. 
 
 Establishes the New Mexico Industrial Hemp Research and Development Fund. New York N.Y. Agriculture and Markets Law § 505 to 508 (McKinney 2016) Allows the growth of hemp as part of an agricultural pilot program by the Department of Agriculture and Markets and/or an institution of higher education. 
 
 The commissioner of agriculture and markets may authorize no more than 10 sites for growing hemp as part of a pilot program. 
 
 The commissioner may develop regulations to authorize the acquisition and possession of industrial hemp seeds. 1 NYCRR 159.2 allows authorized growers to possess, grow and cultivate seeds and hemp plants. 
 
 North Carolina N.C. Gen. Stat. § 106-568.50 to 106-568.54 and § 90-87(16) (2016) Creates an agricultural hemp pilot program overseen by the North Carolina Industrial Hemp Commission within the North Carolina Department of Agriculture. 
 
 The commission must collaborate with North Carolina State University and North Carolina A&T State University. North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code § 4-41-01 to 4-41-03 and § 4-05.1-05 (2016) Allows hemp cultivation for commercial or research purposes overseen by the North Dakota agricultural commissioner. 
 
 Growers must use certified seeds. Licensees may import, resell and plant hemp seeds. 
 
 Permits the North Dakota State University-Main Research Center to conduct research on industrial hemp and hemp seeds. Oklahoma OK ST T. 2 § 3-401 HB 2913 (2018) Creates the Oklahoma Industrial Hemp Agriculture Pilot Program and revolving fund for the program. 
 
 Allows universities, or subcontractors, to cultivate industrial hemp for research and development purposes. 
 
 Directs the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry to manage the pilot program, establish a certified seed program, and promulgate rules related to licensing, inspections. Oregon Or. Rev. Stat § 571.300 to § 571.315 (2016) Allows individuals registered by the Oregon Department of Agriculture to grow hemp for commercial purposes. 
 
 Growers and handlers who intend to sell or distribute seeds must be licensed as seed producers. Pennsylvania Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 3 § 701 to 710 (Purdon 2016) Allows institutions of higher education or the Department of Agriculture of the commonwealth to research hemp under an industrial hemp pilot program. 
 
 This chapter shall expire if the secretary of agriculture of the Commonwealth determines a federal agency is authorized to regulate hemp. Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws § 2-26-1 to 2-26-9 (2016) Establishes a commercial hemp program overseen by the Department of Business Regulation. Allows the Division of Agriculture in the Department of Environmental Management to assist the Department of Business Regulation in regulating hemp. 
 
 Growers must verify they are using certified seeds. 
 
 The department shall authorize institutions of higher education to grow hemp for research purposes. South Carolina S.C. Code Ann. § 46-55-10 to 46-55-40 (Law. Co-op 2016) Allows hemp growth for commercial and research purposes. Tennessee Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-26-101 to 43-26-103 (2016) Allows commercial hemp production overseen by the Tennessee Department of Agriculture. 
 
 Directs the commissioner of agriculture to develop licensing rules for processors and distributors. 
 
 Allows institutions of higher education to acquire and study seeds for research and possible certification. Utah Utah Code Ann. § 4-41-101 to 4-41-103 (2016) Allows the Utah Department of Agriculture to grow hemp for research purposes. 
 
 Requires that the department certify institutions of higher education to grow hemp for research purposes. Vermont Vt. Stat Ann. tit. 6 § 561 to 566 (2016) Allows for commercial hemp production overseen by the Vermont secretary of agriculture, food and markets. 
 
 Requires the registration form advise applicants that hemp is still listed and regulated as cannabis under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Virginia Va. Code § 3.2-4112 to 3.2-4120 (2016) Authorizes research and commercial hemp programs overseen by the Virginia Board of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the Virginia commissioner of agriculture and human services. 
 
 The commissioner must establish separate licenses for the research program and for commercial growers. 
 
 Nothing in this chapter allows individuals to violate federal laws. Washington Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 15.120.005 to 15.120.050 (2016) Allows hemp production as part of a research program overseen by the Washington State Department of Agriculture. 
 
 Requires the department establish a seed certification program. West Virginia W. Va. Code. § 19-12E-1 to 19-12E-9 (2016) Allows hemp production for commercial purposes by growers licensed by the West Virginia Commissioner of Agriculture. 
 
 Growers must use seeds which produce plants containing less than 1 percent THC. Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §94.55; Wis. Stat. §94.67; Wis. Stat. §97.02; §348.27; Wis. Stat. §961.14; Wis. Stat. §961.32; Wis. Stat. §961.442; Wis. Stat. §961.55; Wis. Stat. §973.01 (effective Dec. 2, 2017) (Also, see 2017 Act 100 or S.B. 119.) Directs the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) to establish a state industrial hemp program . 
 
 . Includes GPS coordinates, fee payment and a criminal history search as requirements for licenses. 
 
 Directs the DATCP to establish and administer a seed certification program or designate another agency or organization to administer the program . 
 
 . Requires the DATCP to create a pilot program to study the growth, cultivation and marketing of industrial hemp. 
 
 Specifies exemptions from prosecution under the state Uniform Controlled Substances Act. 
 
 Amends the definition of agricultural commodity to include industrial hemp. Wyoming Wyo. Stat. § 35-7-2101 to 35-7-2107 (effective July 1, 2017) Authorizes the planting, growing, harvesting, possession, processing, or sale of industrial hemp for licensed individuals. 
 
 Provides for licensing requirements and rule-making authority by the state department of agriculture. 
 
 Allows the University of Wyoming and the state department of agriculture to grow industrial hemp for research purposes. 
 
 Provides an affirmative defense for marijuana possession or cultivation of marijuana for licensed industrial hemp growers. 
 
 Additional Resources ||||| DRUG SCHEDULING 
 
 Drug Schedules 
 
 Drugs, substances, and certain chemicals used to make drugs are classified into five (5) distinct categories or schedules depending upon the drug’s acceptable medical use and the drug’s abuse or dependency potential. The abuse rate is a determinate factor in the scheduling of the drug; for example, Schedule I drugs have a high potential for abuse and the potential to create severe psychological and/or physical dependence. As the drug schedule changes-- Schedule II, Schedule III, etc., so does the abuse potential-- Schedule V drugs represents the least potential for abuse. A Listing of drugs and their schedule are located at Controlled Substance Act (CSA) Scheduling or CSA Scheduling by Alphabetical Order. These lists describes the basic or parent chemical and do not necessarily describe the salts, isomers and salts of isomers, esters, ethers and derivatives which may also be classified as controlled substances. These lists are intended as general references and are not comprehensive listings of all controlled substances. 
 
 Please note that a substance need not be listed as a controlled substance to be treated as a Schedule I substance for criminal prosecution. A controlled substance analogue is a substance which is intended for human consumption and is structurally or pharmacologically substantially similar to or is represented as being similar to a Schedule I or Schedule II substance and is not an approved medication in the United States. (See 21 U.S.C. §802(32)(A) for the definition of a controlled substance analogue and 21 U.S.C. §813 for the schedule.) 
 
 
 
 Schedule I 
 
 Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are: 
 
 heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote 
 
 Schedule II 
 
 Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are: 
 
 Combination products with less than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit (Vicodin), cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin 
 
 Schedule III 
 
 Schedule III drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence. Schedule III drugs abuse potential is less than Schedule I and Schedule II drugs but more than Schedule IV. Some examples of Schedule III drugs are: 
 
 Products containing less than 90 milligrams of codeine per dosage unit (Tylenol with codeine), ketamine, anabolic steroids, testosterone 
 
 Schedule IV 
 
 Schedule IV drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a low potential for abuse and low risk of dependence. Some examples of Schedule IV drugs are: 
 
 Xanax, Soma, Darvon, Darvocet, Valium, Ativan, Talwin, Ambien, Tramadol 
 
 Schedule V 
 
 Schedule V drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with lower potential for abuse than Schedule IV and consist of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics. Schedule V drugs are generally used for antidiarrheal, antitussive, and analgesic purposes. Some examples of Schedule V drugs are: 
 
 cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine or per 100 milliliters (Robitussin AC), Lomotil, Motofen, Lyrica, Parepectolin 
 
 >> Alphabetical listing of Controlled Substances ||||| Ballot Initiative I-692 
 
 Effective: 
 
 Approved Conditions: 
 
 Possession/Cultivation: 
 
 -- Approved by 59% of voters on Nov. 3, 1998Nov. 3, 1998"Qualifying patients with terminal or debilitating illnesses who, in the judgment of their physicians, may benefit from the medical use of marijuana, shall not be found guilty of a crime under state law for their possession and limited use of marijuana."Cancer, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), multiple sclerosis, epilepsy or other seizure disorder, or spasticity disorders; Intractable pain, limited to pain unrelieved by standard medical treatments and medications; Glaucoma, either acute or chronic, limited to mean increased intraocular pressure unrelieved by standard treatments and medications; Crohn's disease with debilitating symptoms unrelieved by standard treatments or medications; Hepatitis C with debilitating nausea or intractable pain unrelieved by standard treatments or medications; Diseases, including anorexia, which result in nausea, vomiting, wasting, appetite loss, cramping, seizures, muscle spasms, or spasticity, when these symptoms are unrelieved by standard treatments or medications; Chronic renal failure requiring hemodialysis; PTSD; Traumatic brain injuryQualified patients and designated providers who are entered into the database may legally purchase sales-tax free the following amounts from a licensed marijuana store with a medical endorsement: Three ounces usable marijuana, 48 ounces of marijuana-infused product in solid form, 216 ounces of marijuana-infused product in liquid form or 21 grams of marijuana concentrate. They may grow six plants for personal medical use and possess up to eight ounces produced from those plants. If a healthcare practitioner determines more is needed, up to 15 plants and 16 ounces of usable marijuana may be authorized.Qualified patients and designated providers with a valid authorization form who choose not to be entered into the database may purchase the amounts allowed for non-patients under the law that made marijuana legal in Washington, or grow in their homes four plants for personal medical use (and possess up to six ounces of usable marijuana produced from their plants). 
 
 
 
 Amended:Senate Bill 6032 
 
 Effective: 2007 
 
 
 
 Amended:Final Rule based on Significant Analysis 
 
 Effective: Nov. 2, 2008 
 
 
 
 Amended:SB 5073 
 
 Effective: July 22, 2011 
 
 Gov. Christine Gregoire signed sections of the bill and partially vetoed others, as explained in the Apr. 29, 2011 veto notice. Gov. Gregoire struck down sections related to creating state-licensed medical marijuana dispensaries and a voluntary patient registry. 
 
 
 
 Updates: On Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington ruled that Ballot Initiative "I-692 did not legalize medical marijuana, but rather provided an authorized user with an affirmative defense if the user shows compliance with the requirements for medical marijuana possession." State v. Fry 
 
 
 
 ProCon.org contacted the Washington Department of Health to ask whether it had received any instructions in light of this ruling. Kristi Weeks, Director of Policy and Legislation, stated the following in a Jan. 25, 2010 email response to ProCon.org: 
 
 
 
 "The Department of Health has a limited role related to medical marijuana in the state of Washington. Specifically, we were directed by the Legislature to determine the amount of a 60 day supply and conduct a study of issues related to access to medical marijuana. Both of these tasks have been completed. We have maintained the medical marijuana webpage for the convenience of the public. 
 
 
 
 The department has not received 'any instructions' in light of State v. Fry . That case does not change the law or affect the 60 day supply. Chapter 69.51A RCW, as confirmed in Fry, provides an affirmative defense to prosecution for possession of marijuana for qualifying patients and caregivers." 
 
 
 
 On Nov. 6, 2012, Washington voters passed Initiative 502, which allows the state to "license and regulate marijuana production, distribution, and possession for persons over 21 and tax marijuana sales." The website for Washington's medical marijuana program states that the initiative "does not amend or repeal the medical marijuana laws (chapter 69.51A RCW) in any way. The laws relating to authorization of medical marijuana by healthcare providers are still valid and enforceable."passed the House by a vote of 60-36 on Apr. 10, 2015 and the Senate by a vote of 41-8 on Apr. 14, 2015. Gov. Jay Inslee signed the bill into law with partial vetoes on Apr. 24, 2015.Qualifying patients in Washington need a valid Medical Marijuana authorization form from their healthcare practitioners."Beginning July 1, 2016, patients and designated providers who are entered into the Medical Marijuana Authorization Database will receive a recognition card which will entitle the patient to additional rights and protections under SB 5052:-Arrest protection-Purchase products sales tax free-Purchase three times the legal limit for recreationalPatients and designated providers who hold valid authorizations but aren't entered into the database will have an affirmative defense to criminal prosecution if they possess no more than four plants and six ounces of usable marijuana. They may purchase only in accordance with the laws and rules for non-patients."
– A cannabidiol hemp oil that Leafly says is used by "hundreds of thousands of patients" in the US for a variety of medical purposes, including to help relieve seizures, has been designated a Schedule 1 drug by the DEA, 7NEWS reports. Schedule 1 drugs (which are illegal and include LSD and heroin) are said to have "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse." The announcement published in the Federal Register last week details the new ruling for CBD, which sets aside a new code number for "marihuana extract" and pertains to any "extract containing one or more cannabinoids ... derived from any plant of the genus Cannabis." This decision came despite the fact that CBD from hemp—cannabis with no more than between 0.3% and 1% of the active ingredient THC—has been widely available up till now via mail order and the internet. Companies selling it have been operating under assumed legality because of CBD's low THC levels, Leafly notes—an apparently murky area. The DEA made a similar move in 2001 when it failed in an attempt to ban all hemp products. Leafly lays out the legalese surrounding CBD products and how it thinks patients could avoid prosecution in the 28 medical marijuana states and DC. "The DEA cannot create a statute," a lawyer specializing in cannabis law tells Leafly. "That can only be done by Congress." The DEA notes it created the regulation to comply with international drug treaties, per the Marijuana Resources blog. "This is a misguided and, frankly, ignorant move by the DEA," says Jeffrey Zucker, co-founder of a strategy firm for the cannabis industry. "CBD does nothing but help people, and to put it on a level with heroin is absurd." (Why hemp is "poorly understood.")