2 Comments

1. Alexandor Mootz left this reply in regards to the to bill language and I wanted to share it here with you also:

   1. Section Affected: Section 1 (amending s. 94.55 (1) – Definition of “hemp”).
   • Original Language: Expands “hemp” to include “intoxicating hemp product” as defined in s. 94.56 (1) (c), while retaining the ≤0.3% Delta-9 THC limit tested post-decarboxylation.
   • Proposed Edit: Amend to read: “94.55 (1) Definition. In this section, ‘hemp’ means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis or the maximum concentration allowed under federal law up to 1 percent, whichever is greater, as tested using non-decarboxylated methods or other similarly reliable methods that measure actual delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol content in the natural state. ‘Hemp’ includes an intoxicating hemp product, as defined in s. 94.56 (1) (c). ‘Hemp’ does not include a prescription drug product that has been approved by the U.S. food and drug administration.”
   • Rationale: This removes mandatory post-decarboxylation testing, protecting natural THCa as a non-intoxicating precursor and aligning with a farmer focused agenda of Delta-9-only pre-harvest testing to avoid inflated THC levels. It supports Wisconsin farmers by preventing crop destruction based on hypothetical conversions, consistent with the 2018 Farm Bill’s plain language (7 U.S.C. § 1639o) and court rulings like Anderson v. Diamondback (4th Cir. 2024), which affirm natural hemp derivatives as compliant without alteration.
   2. Section Affected: Section 3 (creating s. 94.56 (1) (b) – Definition of “intoxicating cannabinoid”).
   • Original Language: Includes “tetrahydrocannabinolic acid” (THCa) as an intoxicating cannabinoid, alongside Delta-8, Delta-9, etc.
   • Proposed Edit: Amend to read: “(b) ‘Intoxicating cannabinoid’ means any of the following: 1. Delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol. 2. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. 3. Delta-10-tetrahydrocannabinol. 5. Hexahydrocannabinol. 6. Tetrahydrocannabiphorol. 7. Tetrahydrocannabinol-O-acetate. 8. Any other cannabinoid or cannabinoid derivative that produces intoxication when consumed. Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid is not considered an intoxicating cannabinoid unless decarboxylated through non-natural processes. Naturally occurring cannabinoids in hemp include, but are not limited to, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol, cannabigerol, cannabichromene, and cannabinol. Converted cannabinoids, including delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol, delta-10-tetrahydrocannabinol, hexahydrocannabinol, tetrahydrocannabiphorol, and tetrahydrocannabinol-O-acetate, which do not exist in significant quantities in the hemp plant naturally, are prohibited. The act of post-extraction chemical conversion to produce such cannabinoids is banned.”
   • Rationale: Exclude THCa from intoxicating status unless artificially converted, aligning with a farmer focused agenda to protect natural THCa as a farm product (non-intoxicating until heated). This prevents overregulation of raw hemp while banning synthetics, supported by USDA guidance (2020 Domestic Hemp Program) and the Farm Bill’s focus on actual Delta-9 THC, not precursors.
   3. Section Affected: Section 3 (creating s. 94.56 (1) (c) – Definition of “intoxicating hemp product”).
   • Original Language: Defines based on >0.3% intoxicating cannabinoids dry weight, or >1mg per serving/package for edibles/beverages, regardless of nonintoxicating cannabinoids.
   • Proposed Edit: Add a new subparagraph: “(c) 4. A hemp product resulting from post-extraction chemical conversion, isomerization, or synthesis that alters the molecular structure of naturally occurring cannabinoids (e.g., converting cannabidiol to delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol using acids or catalysts).”
   • Rationale: Explicitly ban synthetics and conversions, while allowing natural decarboxylation in extraction, aligning with a farmer focused agenda. This targets lab-made products without impacting natural hemp, per the 39 AGs’ October 2025 letter calling for prohibitions on “artificial cannabinoids” and chemical processes.
   4. Section Affected: Section 3 (creating s. 94.56 (2) – Sampling, Testing, and COAs for Intoxicating Hemp Products).
   • Original Language: Requires manufacturers to submit samples to labs for testing (contaminants, potency) and provide COAs via QR code on labels.
   • Proposed Edit: Add: “(2m) Pre-Harvest Testing Standards for Raw Hemp. For raw agricultural hemp material intended for fiber, grain, floral, or seed production, pre-harvest testing shall measure only the actual delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol content as present in the natural, unprocessed state, without decarboxylation, heating, or conversion formulas. Acceptable methods include liquid chromatography or equivalent non-destructive techniques. Farmers are exempt from intoxicating product regulations under this section; compliance testing occurs at licensed distributor or GMP entry points.”
   • Rationale: Implements bifurcation by exempting farmers from testing and shifting it downstream, aligning with a farmer focused agenda for pre-harvest Delta-9-only testing and farmer protections. This restarts Wisconsin’s program for rotational viability, supported by USDA’s 2020 guidelines and ERS reports (2020-2025) on hemp’s rural economic benefits.
   5. Section Affected: Section 3 (creating s. 94.56 (3) – Packaging and Labeling Requirements).
   • Original Language: Requires child-resistant packaging, warnings, ingredient lists, etc., for intoxicating products.
   • Proposed Edit: Add a new paragraph: “(3m) Origin Certification. No intoxicating hemp product may be sold in this state unless labeled with proof of U.S.-grown origin (e.g., USDA certification) for all hemp material. Products derived from imported hemp or non-U.S. sources are prohibited to prioritize Wisconsin and domestic growers.”
   • Rationale: Adds anti-import measures to protect Wisconsin farmers from out-of-state/foreign competition, aligning with a farmer focused agenda to address unregulated imports flooding gas stations. Supported by Hemp Gazette (2025) on China’s 551k kg exports and DEA alerts (2025) on precursor risks.
   6. Section Affected: Section 3 (creating s. 94.56 (6) – Compliance, Enforcement, and Penalties).
   • Original Language: Allows DATCP/law enforcement inspections, seizures for under-21 possession, and penalties.
   • Proposed Edit: Add: “(6m) Program Restart and Farmer Support. The department shall restart the Wisconsin Hemp Program by January 1, 2027, with updated rules promoting rotational crop use, including crop insurance access and grants for domestic breeding of high-CBD/minor cannabinoid varieties. Enforcement shall prioritize out-of-state and imported products over Wisconsin-licensed growers.”
   • Rationale: Explicitly restarts the program with farmer supports for rotational crops, aligning with a farmer focused agenda for economic revival in Wisconsin’s ag sector. Draws from USDA ERS (2020) on hemp’s soil health benefits and WI DATCP pilots (2021) needing overhaul.
   These edits would make SB644 more farmer-friendly while maintaining youth protections, ensuring Wisconsin leads in safe, domestic hemp production. I urge the Senate to consider them for a stronger bill.

   Reply

2. Dennis Kartes also makes from very valid comments and I wanted to share them here:

   1.[although stated in what i read] thca in not an intoxicating cannabinoid. In its raw form, it shows great potential for a medicinal carve out.
   2.delta 8,HHO,thcp..they are all synthetic cannabinoids and shouldn’t get grouped together in the list of naturally occurring compounds like cbg[a], thc[a], cbd[a], thcv, delta 9
   3.thcp is 33x’s stronger than d9, and is responsible for the majority of adverse effects reporting/hospital visits. Again, its a synthetic cannabinoid and should not be considered a product of hemp/cannabis.
   4.this does nothing for the farmers who just want to legally grow what 1,000s of storefronts import into Wisconsin.
   The combined thca/d9 restrictions put forth in the usda plan made it [almost] impossible to grow thca flower in Wisconsin. This combined number [pre harvest testing] has kept Wisconsin farmers from entering a market almost completely fueled by out of state imports.
   If we plan on our local farmers supplying our local storefronts and industries that demand thca/d9 to create locally produced products, this combined thca/d9 testing roadblock needs to be removed.
   5. I’ve said this numerous times and it seems very few agree..if you grow for any cannabinoids, you grow cannabis.
   If you grow for seed[oil] fiber/textile, you grow hemp.
   There is a huge difference between growing hemp and growing cannabis.
   I don’t grow hemp.
   I grow cannabis..
   I farm cannabinoids, not rope.
   This, along with every other bill put forth, lumps cannabis farmers like myself with hemp growers.
   If we as a cannabis community can’t step out from behind the safe space of hemp, we will always be looking fo loopholes in a system built for and regulated by non intoxicating hemp guidelines.
   But that’s my two cents..

   Reply