The Week in Weed: Congress Said “Wait.” Square Said “We’re Not Waiting.”
The Senate bought hemp another month, Medicare quietly stepped into the CBD fight, payment processors are already bailing, and cannabis is getting too tangled up in the economy to ban quietly.
Here’s a contradiction that landed inside a single 24-hour stretch this week. The U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly to give the hemp industry more time instead of letting most products go federally illegal in November. And at almost the exact same moment, Square started telling businesses to pull CBD and hemp off its payment platform anyway. One arm of Washington is saying wait. One of the biggest names in payments is saying we’re done waiting.
That gap is the whole story right now, and it’s why this week felt different from the usual eight-variations-on-one-theme grind. Something actually shifted.
Look at who’s now pulling on this rope. Farmers want their crops. Patients want medicine. Veterans want treatment that works. Alcohol distributors want a piece of THC beverages. Medicare administrators are suddenly interested. Banks and payment processors want legal certainty. States want the tax money. Politicians want the voters attached to all of the above. Cannabis stopped being a fringe policy fight and turned into something with a dozen constituencies, all with real money and real stakes on the line. That makes the next phase harder to predict. It also makes cannabis a lot harder to erase, because the industry isn’t surviving on the goodwill of one political movement anymore. It’s wedged into too many corners of the economy to fold neatly back into the box. Let me walk you through the week.
The Senate bought hemp time. It did not save it.
The hemp industry just won its most consequential vote in months. The Senate rejected Sen. Ted Budd’s effort to keep the November 12 federal hemp crackdown fully intact, tabling his amendment 61 to 32, then passing the underlying government-funding measure 90 to 6. That bill pushes most of the new hemp restrictions back to December 11. Synthetic cannabinoids that can’t occur naturally in cannabis would still get banned in November, but the broader hemp market gets more breathing room while Congress works on an alternative.
An extra month doesn’t sound like much. For businesses staring down a commercial cliff, it’s enormous. Remember, the coming federal definition would allow only 0.4mg of total THC per container, low enough to wipe out not just intoxicating gummies and drinks but plenty of full-spectrum CBD. Farmers, beverage makers, retailers, landlords, and lenders had all been bracing for the drop.
The cliff didn’t disappear. It moved. And December 11 is barely more bankable than November 12 was.
The politics are what actually matter here, though. Sixty-one senators declined to speed up prohibition, which tells you a real coalition now exists for regulation instead of elimination. And it’s a genuinely strange coalition: hemp farmers, alcohol retailers, convenience stores, veterans, the White House, parts of the cannabis industry, and lawmakers from both parties. That weird diversity may be hemp’s best protection. But for operators, this is not the moment to exhale. The House still has to accept the Senate language and the president still has to sign, and Congress has a short window to turn a delay into an actual framework. Keep modeling the prohibition scenario, watch your inventory exposure, and don’t make big commitments betting Congress rides to the rescue.
The bottom line: The Senate didn’t save hemp. It bought hemp time. The only question that matters now is what Congress does with it.
Rhode Island restarts licensing, and the refund doesn’t cover the damage.
Rhode Island’s cannabis market is moving again. Regulators reopened applications for new adult-use retailers after litigation froze the earlier round. The original snag was a residency requirement, since the state had demanded retailers be majority-owned by state residents, and a federal challenge under interstate-commerce protections got the license lottery blocked. Lawmakers eventually stripped the residency rule and voided the first process. Now applications for three license categories run through November 23, with the state able to issue 24 more licenses, including six social-equity and six worker-cooperative slots.
The numbers sound good. The financial history behind them is uglier. First-round applicants paid $7,500 fees and, in a lot of cases, locked up real estate before knowing if licenses would ever be issued, and some kept paying rent on empty storefronts all through the litigation. A refunded application fee doesn’t touch those carrying costs.
A license application isn’t a business. It’s an option on a possible business. Sign an unconditional lease before approval, and you’re financing the government’s delay with your own cash.
That’s the real lesson for entrepreneurs everywhere, not just Rhode Island. Cannabis leases need contingencies around licensing, zoning, and regulatory timelines wherever possible, delayed rent commencement, termination rights, extension options, the stuff that decides whether you survive a setback or run out of money before opening. And there’s a social-equity point buried in here that states keep missing. Announcing reserved licenses is not the same as creating inclusion. An applicant without the capital to hold real estate and eat months of delay technically has a license path and practically has no shot. Rhode Island gets a do-over now. The question is whether round two moves fast enough to stop another wave of capital destruction.
The bottom line: Rhode Island reopened the door. This time regulators need to remember every month of government delay has a rent payment attached to it.
Square is already backing away, weeks ahead of the ban.
Congress is still debating whether hemp stays legal. Square already made its own call. The payments and point-of-sale company told affected merchants that CBD, hemp, and hemp-derived products are no longer allowed on its platform because of the coming federal restrictions, and instructed them to strip covered products from their catalogs by October 15. That’s nearly a month before the currently scheduled federal change, and now more than two months ahead of the new December delay.
This is exactly how regulatory uncertainty actually spreads through an economy. The law doesn’t need to take effect for the damage to start.
Payment processors react early. Banks react early. Insurers, landlords, distributors, all early. Once a major counterparty decides the future risk is too high, practical prohibition starts long before the legal one.
Square says it’s responding to the new federal rules and trying to help merchants keep processing non-hemp transactions. For a small business, that’s cold comfort. A wellness shop might pull a real chunk of revenue from CBD while running inventory, checkout, online sales, and reporting through Square. Losing the category can mean needing a whole new POS system, website integration, and accounting workflow, not just a new card processor. That costs money, and it shows why a congressional delay alone may not undo the harm. If processors already made their compliance decisions based on the ban, a few extra weeks on the deadline may not flip them back. Businesses may need final, clear legislation before mainstream payment companies get comfortable again. And notice this hits CBD too, not just intoxicating products, which is the danger of poorly targeted policy. The headline says THC. The operational response says all hemp.
The bottom line: Hemp’s biggest November problem may actually arrive in October. When payment companies move ahead of regulators, legal uncertainty becomes a commercial ban before Congress even finishes arguing.
Medicare just walked into the CBD fight, and that changes everything.
Dr. Mehmet Oz, who runs the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is asking senators to protect access to hemp products because new federal healthcare initiatives may cover CBD for certain patients. This might be one of the biggest cannabis-policy developments of the entire week. CMS is developing pathways where participating programs could cover up to $500 a year in qualifying hemp-derived products when a clinician thinks they’d help, with some eligible products containing up to 3mg of total THC per serving. And the coming federal hemp definition could make many of those products illegal.
Read that contradiction slowly.
One part of the government is building a way to pay for CBD. Another part is preparing to ban the products it would pay for. Oz is literally asking the Senate to stop his own colleagues.
Reimbursement matters because it changes a product’s entire identity. CBD on a wellness-store shelf is a consumer purchase. CBD recommended by a provider and financially backed through a Medicare-linked program becomes something closer to healthcare infrastructure, and that demands higher standards, consistent dosing, accurate labels, interaction data, manufacturers a risk-bearing program can actually trust. The companies built for that future look nothing like the brands that flooded the market after the 2018 Farm Bill. Marketing matters less. Documentation matters more. And it hands policymakers a genuine dilemma, because if cannabinoid therapy reduces pain or cuts reliance on pricier drugs, then banning it carries a measurable healthcare cost. None of this proves CBD should be broadly reimbursed, the clinical evidence still varies and the market’s still full of inconsistent products. But that’s an argument for standards, not for making the products vanish before the government finishes its own experiment.
The bottom line: Hemp’s constituency just grew from farmers and retailers to include healthcare administrators and seniors. Once Medicare economics enter the room, CBD stops looking like a niche wellness fight.
The VA is running a real psilocybin trial, and it may matter more than a decade of advocacy.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is launching a randomized controlled study of psilocybin therapy for veterans with treatment-resistant depression, including those who also have PTSD. The trial, called PIVOT, runs across five VA medical centers, comparing doses while examining safety, tolerability, and depression outcomes.
This is a meaningful shift in how federal psychedelic policy works. Officials aren’t just announcing that more research is needed anymore, they’re building the research. The VA already has multiple psychedelic studies going, and it’s formed a formal research partnership with HHS. Veterans give this a uniquely powerful urgency, since PTSD, suicide, and treatment-resistant depression remain brutal problems even with existing tools. If psychedelics help patients who’ve exhausted everything else, the political case gets very hard to wave off.
The commercial model, though, won’t look like cannabis, and that’s the part investors should sit with. Psilocybin therapy involves preparation, supervised sessions, and follow-up care, so the opportunity lives less in selling a substance and more in the whole ecosystem around treatment: clinics, trained practitioners, medical real estate, patient monitoring, reimbursement, healthcare tech.
The biggest psychedelics company of the future probably won’t have the best consumer brand. It’ll be whoever figures out how to safely deliver an eight-hour treatment session at scale and get an insurer to pay for it.
Cannabis took the slow state-by-state route into legitimacy. Psychedelics look like they’re taking the hospital route instead, and if the VA produces strong evidence, that route could prove a lot faster.
The bottom line: Psychedelics are becoming healthcare before they become commerce. The VA may do more for psilocybin’s legitimacy than years of legalization advocacy ever could.
Texas is turning cannabis into an economics argument, not a morality one.
Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico is trying to change the language of cannabis reform, and his pitch isn’t primarily about criminal justice. It’s about economics. He called the state’s marijuana prohibition and new hemp-THC restrictions “insane,” arguing that banning legal cannabinoid products protects established alcohol and tobacco businesses while pushing demand toward illegal sellers.
His claim that big industries are corruptly driving the policy is a political allegation, not an established fact, and I’ll flag it as exactly that. But the substitution argument underneath it is economically credible, and that’s what makes it potent. Consumers increasingly treat alcohol and cannabis as competing ways to unwind, and THC beverages make that overlap obvious. Someone choosing between a beer and a 5mg seltzer is making a beverage decision, not enlisting in a cannabis movement.
Prohibition has beneficiaries. Kill legal THC drinks and some people go back to beer. Kill hemp without legal marijuana and some people go back to the illicit market. Demand doesn’t evaporate. It just moves.
Texas may become the clearest example of this, with a huge population, serious cannabinoid demand, and no broad adult-use market, so hemp became the legal substitute, and now that substitute is shrinking. Expect product migration toward whatever delta-9 forms stay lawful, plus litigation and some return to unregulated sources. And politically, this framing lets cannabis ride inside a populist message: why criminalize a product people already buy while shielding entrenched competitors and underground dealers? That reaches voters who’d never call themselves reform advocates.
The bottom line: The next legalization coalition may be built less around cannabis culture and more around competition, small business, and consumer choice. Texas is showing what that argument sounds like.
New York is putting cannabis in farmers’ markets, and it’s smarter than it sounds.
New York signed a law letting cannabis microbusinesses take a fuller role in the state’s Cannabis Showcase Events, essentially regulated farmers’ markets and pop-up retail. Sounds minor. For small operators, it’s anything but.
Here’s the problem almost every microbusiness hits the day after getting licensed: how do you actually find customers? A craft cultivator can grow beautiful flower and still get boxed out of dispensary shelf space by bigger brands with sales teams, marketing budgets, and wholesale relationships. Showcase events shrink the distance between grower and consumer, letting operators tell their own story, build recognition, and test demand without signing an expensive permanent lease.
A reserved license that can’t reach customers is just an expensive piece of paper. Licensing programs obsess over entry. Distribution is the part that actually decides who survives.
Farmers’ markets are one low-cost route to visibility, and they make cannabis feel more agricultural and less corporate, since consumers meet the grower and learn where the product came from. Local brands get attached to actual people instead of anonymous packages on a shelf. The model even doubles as market research, because a company that consistently kills it at events in one region has real data for its real-estate and expansion strategy. New York’s market is now billions in retail sales, but size alone doesn’t create diversity. Without alternative routes to market, scale just keeps favoring the big players.
The bottom line: Social equity doesn’t end when the license is issued. Small businesses need access to customers, and New York’s cannabis farmers’ markets might be one of the smartest low-cost distribution experiments in the country.
CBD’s next act might be sports recovery, and it needs one.
A review of 70 peer-reviewed studies concluded that CBD may have real potential in athletic recovery, identifying anti-inflammatory, analgesic, neuroprotective, and anxiety-related benefits across the literature.
Let me be careful, because the researchers were. They are not claiming CBD is a proven performance enhancer, and more randomized human trials are needed. But this may be exactly the kind of evidence the CBD market has been missing. CBD’s first boom was built on hype, with products claiming to fix nearly everything, and consumers eventually got skeptical as shelves filled with inconsistent brands and questionable labels.
CBD doesn’t need to cure everything. It needs to prove credible value in a few repeatable use cases: pain, inflammation, sleep, recovery. That’s a much smaller promise, and a much more believable one.
Sports recovery is a great lane for that, because athletes already spend enormous money on supplements, massage, compression, cold exposure, and sleep products. The companies that win here will need clean formulations, reliable cannabinoid content, and third-party testing, especially since athletes can face serious consequences from surprise THC contamination, so professional credibility will matter more than a celebrity endorsement. And this ties right back to the Medicare story, because both point the same direction: CBD slowly moving from vague “wellness” into narrower, evidence-backed functional categories. That’s how grown-up consumer-health products actually get built.
The bottom line: CBD’s second act will probably be smaller than the first hype cycle, but far more credible. Sports recovery could be one of the categories that finally gives it a clear reason to exist.
Weekend closing
The cannabis movement spent decades trying to convince the government the plant deserved legitimacy. That argument is quietly becoming less important, and not because everyone suddenly agrees. It’s because too many institutions now have a stake in the outcome.
Medicare officials care because cannabinoids may move healthcare costs. Veterans care because existing treatments fail too many people. Farmers care because hemp is a crop. Alcohol retailers care because THC drinks are entering their market. Payment processors and banks care because ambiguity is expensive. States care because they built tax systems on this. Consumers care because these products are part of ordinary life now, and businesses care because billions are already invested. That’s a completely different political environment than the one cannabis lived in a decade ago. Movements can be ignored. Economic constituencies are much harder to ignore.
This week’s Senate vote proved the point. Lawmakers got a simple question, let the crackdown hit in November as scheduled, or make time to find another answer, and a majority chose time. That doesn’t guarantee hemp survives. It does show prohibition is no longer the politically effortless option it used to be. And the Square story is the warning on the other side of that coin. Government can debate forever. Markets can’t. Financial institutions make their calls before the law is final, which means every month Congress stalls creates real consequences, cancelled products, lost customers, frozen investment.
So the next phase needs more than another temporary extension. It needs actual architecture: age limits, testing, potency standards, packaging rules, healthcare standards where they fit, clear financial guidance, and enough transition time for legitimate companies to comply. And in return, the industry has to grow up too. No kid-friendly packaging. No pretending every cannabinoid product is medicine. No hiding behind technical loopholes forever. You don’t get mainstream banking and healthcare while dodging mainstream standards. That’s the bargain.
Cannabis spent years demanding a seat at the table. This weekend’s news suggests it finally has one. The question now is what it does with it.
That’s what this newsletter is for.
What’s the biggest regulatory challenge your operation is facing right now? Hit reply, I read every response and it shapes what I cover next week.
If this was useful, forward it to someone in the cannabis space or hit the restack button on Substack. It’s how this community grows.