Skip to content

Why Does ATACH Believe Hemp-Synthesized Intoxicants Need to Be Regulated?

As a cannabis and hemp trade association, ATACH’s primary commitment is to the responsible and ethical promotion of cannabis and hemp use, whether for medicinal or recreational purposes. Developments around hemp synthesized intoxicants over the past several years have raised concerns about the emergence of intoxicants derived from non-intoxicating hemp, and often consumers cannot tell the difference between intoxicating and non-intoxicating products. 

ATACH believes there are important considerations for the regulation of hemp-synthesized intoxicants: 

  1. Safety Profile of Marijuana vs. Hemp Intoxicants

    Marijuana, when used as medicine or a recreational drug, has been shown to have a relatively high safety profile compared with other intoxicants. Thousands of years of use and decades of research support this understanding. In contrast, intoxicants converted from non-intoxicating hemp have not demonstrated a similar safety record. In fact, evidence suggests these substances pose significant health risks that are quite a bit different than cannabis products. 
  1. Misleading Sales Practices

    Some hemp intoxicants are marketed as non-intoxicating, yet they contain THC levels that can cause intoxication. Such practices are deceptive and dangerous, potentially exposing unsuspecting consumers – too often children – to psychoactive substances without their knowledge or consent. 
  1. Need for Scientific Understanding

    Scientific analysis and testing of these synthetic hemp-derived products are still in their infancy. There’s a substantial gap in understanding the composition, identification, and long-term effects of these substances which includes many compounds that have never been seen before in cannabis products. Before distributing to consumers, comprehensive research is necessary to ensure consumer safety and informed use.
  1. Legal and Ethical Concerns

    Many of these hemp-derived intoxicants are sold as “federally-legal” products, despite being illegal under federal law, and this has been echoed by both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and in numerous states. Selling products whose chemical origins are ambiguous misleads consumers