So? Minors can "find" beer next to the La Croix, too. Doesn't mean the cashier has to sell it to them. Just had to throw in some useless "think of the children" fearmongering, huh?

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

wait, cali sells beer in the same aisle as soft drinks?? in most states I've seen, it's either not in grocery stores at all or in a completely dedicated aisle separate from the food stuffs

now bodegas, that's another story

[–] Sarmyth@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Nothing makes me automatically assume someone is lying to me faster than a "think of the children" campaign.

[–] PenisDuckCuck9001@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Banning hemp products in a state where recreational marijuana is already being sold in dispensaries is like.. Idk. On one hand, real weed is so much better and less bad for you and people should be smoking that instead. On the other hand, this sets the precedent for more states, especially where there is no marijuana to ban hemp since now there's a working known playbook for getting it done. Then no one that lives there can get it.

[–] b3an@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Standing next to a table piled with largely unregulated products containing hemp-derived cannabinoids, including beverages and gummies, Newsom expressed disgust that they’re now widely sold at grocery stores, gas stations and convenience stores. Hemp-derived THC-infused sparkling water, he lamented, can be found—including by minors—alongside more benign products like La Croix.

“It’s a disgrace and it’s a shame,” the governor said, “and the industry bears full responsibility for not policing itself, for the proliferation of these intoxicating products that are hurting our children.”

When has ‘the industry policing itself’ ever worked? It should be policy or have been considered before implementing the marijuana law in the first place. Earmark money set aside for regulatory needs. Enforce labels. Beer isn’t sold next to the soda in the same fridge usually. Same should be for like THC candies etc.

[–] MaxPow3r11@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Fuck these fascists.

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Seeing Lemmy act like he's banning weed... Y'all suck. Hemp products in California are solely to get around the state required testing and other regulations. Plus they aren't taxed the same way, which is a big part of the fucking sell on legal weed.

No state with legal weed should need untested hemp-derived products. Just go to a dispo and get something that you know what's in it.

[–] model_tar_gz@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Dude, it’s nigh-impossible to find cannabis that’s 1:1 CBD:THC; let alone cannabis that’s not astronomic levels of THC. Type2 hemp flower fits the niche almost perfectly, but now that fuckface is going to make that illegal.

I don’t really want to get blitzed and I’m not really a fan of stoner culture even though I live in socal and literally surf and code next to many of them. But the CBD +lowTHC helps me tame anxiety and manage some other mental health shit that interferes with my best life.

[–] PenisDuckCuck9001@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I live where the only weed I can get are "hemp" products. It sucks. Everything is chock full of so much delta 8 and rarely any cbd. Then half the time there's some shitty new nitric acid flavored synthetic cannabinoid in there with it too. 1:1 thc cbd are the strongest and best gummies around here but they're rare and hard to find. I would love to just get 1 good hit of that old fashion good stuff every so often but nope.

Dispensaries in "legal" states have 4:1 thc cbd gummies. Not quite 1:1 but close. When marijuana dispensaries first became a thing they would sell high cbd 1% thc bud, see if they're still selling any of that.

[–] we_avoid_temptation@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Newsom announced new emergency regulations on Friday that would outlaw hemp products with any “detectable amount of total THC.” Hemp products that don’t have THC would be further limited to five servings per package, and sales would be restricted to adults 21 and older.

So:

A. He banned all hemp flower and most hemp-derived products in CA in one fell swoop because he doesn't understand how the relation of THC:CBD works in the plant or the entourage effect or the fact that federally it's a total of 0.3% maximum, which ain't getting anybody high.

B. He limited packaging for what reason, exactly? It doesn't get you high. Even if it did, why?

C. An age limit, that I can agree with. It should probably be 18 for this like it is most everywhere else in the US, but if you want people to be able to die for their country and can't have a CBD gummy, go ahead Newsom.

Age, testing, and labeling requirements are great. Unscientific regulations by executive order that will make people's lives worse are not.

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Hemp derived products compete directly with legal weed in the state but are outside the established regulatory regime for legal weed.

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

This is the actual reason that he's doing this. They can't properly regulate hemp stuff like they can legal weed. There's no good testing requirements for hemp products like there are for legal weed you get in a dispo

But nooooo everyone on Lemmy would rather scream that they're taking away their drugs. I thought for a while Lemmy would be better about not senselessly reacting to headlines

[–] aStonedSanta@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal law. It’s .3% delta 9 thc. THCa the acidic form of delta 9 thc before conversion through heat is not controlled at any limit.

[–] we_avoid_temptation@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I am aware of the difference. The terminology is confusing and I was kinda stoned while typing that.

He specifically said "any detectable amount of total THC" though, which means the difference is moot. Total THC is THCA in this context.

EDIT:

So there is no miscommunication, yeah federal law allows a max of 0.3% D9 THC at the pre-harvest test (I forget the exact specifics, it's been a while). Newsom said CBD that contains any detectable percentage of total THC is banned in the state of California by executive order with no oversight. The scientific facts of the latter are not the same as the former and Newsom is an idiot for thinking they are.

[–] aStonedSanta@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You sir are correct. My apologies!

[–] we_avoid_temptation@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

No worries. I wasn't super clear originally and it's confusing as hell tbh. I just want people to be able to access things they find helpful

[–] sumguyonline@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

THC has made my PTSD bearable. Why are kids told to stay away? I didn't touch weed til 23, and it changed my life. I should have been high my entire teens,life would have been more manageable. Newsom can eat a bag of cow crap. People like him REQUIRE replacement.

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Kids are told to stay away because THC, like most drugs, impacts brain development 😅

Once you're 25 your brain is generally considered fully developed. The closer you get to that point the less of an issue it is, but kids shouldn't be smoking weed all the time, it can impair your brain's development.

Edit: there are corrections below regarding the age 25 as a brain development breakpoint

[–] JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Fun fact: the "brain is fully developed at 25" thing that everyone refers to is just completely wrong. The study that is being is referenced when it got brought up wasn't even looking for that. They were studying maturity in people from kindergarten to age 25 and found that people mature at vastly different rates: with some children being more developed than some adults. The 25 number was an arbitrary stopping point because they didn't want to study people for their whole lives.

Now that being said, kids shouldn't smoke or drink. But not because of a misunderstood 20 year old study

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Huh, interesting. I thought it was with respect to the development of the frontol lobe and your ability to evaluate risk vs reward, I must have sort of mixed "facts" I learned at some point

Thanks for correcting me! ☺️

Edit: this seems like a good source if someone is interested to know more, scishow is very well researched and really good at communicating that research

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KxRAfXEzIQ

[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why?

[–] kerrigan778@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because products sold as non-psychoactive should generally actually be non-psychoactive. Though personally I appreciate it from the perspective of I'd like to be able to eat hemp protein without failing a drug test.

[–] CM400@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I feel you on that, but drug tests are bullshit anyway. Unless a test can reliably tell that you’re under the influence at work, they shouldn’t be able to use them.

[–] kerrigan778@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I mean, agreed, but I'm working for the DOT so... Not a lot I can do about that at least until it gets rescheduled. Hopefully if it gets rescheduled people can get a federally acknowledged prescription and the ADA should take care of the rest.