Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong have filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Public Health over an emergency regulation on hemp products that include any detectable levels of THC. The pair argues that outlawing the psychoactive cannabinoid/compound found in cannabis and cannabis products would be like suddenly banning the inclusion of sugar in candy.
“Inaction over the last three years hardly serves as a sufficient basis for declaring a sudden emergency and circumventing the meticulous procedures of regular rulemaking,” Tuesday’s filing states. “It’s akin to requiring candy to stop containing sugar … starting tomorrow.”
The comedy duo’s dispute comes after the full ban, which was proposed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, went into effect on Monday less than three weeks after he pitched it on a temporary status on Sept. 6.
For the record — for anyone wondering why hemp is the issue at hand versus marijuana, the two names are just different terms for the same flowering plant that exist in the Cannabaceae family, per Healthline. However, in the court of law, the pair is dealt with differently, as their differences lie within their levels of THC. Hemp is used to describe cannabis that contains 0.3% or less THC by dry weight, while marijuana or weed is defined as any cannabis that has more than 0.3% of THC by dry weight.
In the suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court and obtained by TheWrap, several leaders in the hemp and cannabis industry, including Juicetiva, Blaze Life and Boldt Runners, join Cheech and Chong in questioning the state’s decision. The businesses state that the ban’s rules are based on a flawed claim of an “emergency” and the state’s move is actually just the result of legislators failing to execute hemp regulations that were proposed in California’s legislature AB 45, which was signed into law on Oct. 6, 2021.
“In 2021, California’s legislature passed AB 45 to deal with a wide range of matters relating to the regulation of hemp products in California,” the lawsuit reads. “While adopting a details definition of ‘industrial hemp products,’ ‘hemp products’ and ‘THC or comparable cannabinoids,’ AB 45 did not distinguish between intoxicating and non-intoxicating cannabinoids.” It added that AB 45, which is “now codified in various sections of the California Health & Safety Code,” also addressed the manufacture, warehousing, distribution, offering, advertisement and sale of hemp products.
With that, the lawsuit goes on to say that AB 45’s broad overview can’t realistically cover “a number of practical details” and as a result, AB 45 ultimately allowed California’s Department of Public Health to “promulgate regulations necessary to administer the California Health & Safety Code provisions, its restrictions, limitations and other specifics related to the sale of hemp.” But as part of those regulations, the suit states, there should be a procedure put in place that ensures those rules are “both authorized and appropriate.” The group says that despite California having “nearly three years” to address the issue, it never did.
“At the core of the Department’s emergency regulations is a provision that goes far beyond the limits contemplated in AB 45 to ban all hemp products unless they contain no ‘detectable levels of THC.’ This draconian regulation will essentially devastate an emerging industry that consists largely of small business owners,” the suit states.
In conclusion, the docs state that the department “has acted entirely outside the boundaries of California’s applicable law” to adopt and issue them, adding that the ban will end with cannabis companies suffering “losses in the millions of dollars over existing products, pending manufacturing and future sales of hemp and hemp products that legally contained THC, as per existing California and federal law, but have now been banned overnight by the emergency regulations.”
Marin and Chong plan to move forward by filing a separate petition for a temporary restraining order, which seeks to block the THC ban while the state sorts and outlines its procedures within AB 45.
Pamela Chelin contributed to this reporting.
