1. United States
2. Minn.
3. Letter

I’m writing as a constituent to urge you to oppose the federal ban on hemp-derived THC beverages and edibles, and to support replacing it with sensible regulation instead. This ban wasn’t debated on its merits. It was buried in the bill that ended the 43-day government shutdown and passed without a single hearing. A provision that upends a $24 billion industry, threatens more than 300,000 jobs, and wipes out an estimated $1.5 billion in state tax revenue deserves an actual legislative process — not a rider slipped into unrelated must-pass legislation. It also runs over the states. Minnesota did exactly what a responsible state is supposed to do: in 2022 we legalized infused beverages and foods for adults 21 and over, required products to be derived from certified hemp, and built one of the strictest regulatory frameworks in the country. That framework works. It’s popular enough that even Target now stocks these drinks, and they’ve become a lifeline for local breweries like Indeed and Bauhaus as beer sales decline. A federal ban erases Minnesota’s carefully built system and the jobs that depend on it. I’ll be blunt about the politics: for years the argument has been that these questions belong to the states. It’s hard to reconcile that principle with a top-down federal ban that overrides state law the moment it becomes inconvenient. If states’ rights mean anything, they mean letting Minnesota keep the regulated market its voters and legislators chose. There is a better path, and members of both parties have pointed to it — age restrictions, bans on synthetic THC, prohibitions on marketing to children, and testing requirements. Minnesota’s model could serve as a national template. The goal of keeping these products away from kids is one I share; an outright ban is simply the wrong tool. Please work to repeal or delay this provision and to advance real regulation in its place. I’d appreciate knowing where you stand.