Trump's Cannabis Approval Just Cratered 25 Points
Hemp farmers are staring down a November cliff, first responders are done waiting, and the industry just wrote $15 million in checks to shape whose reform wins
73% to 48% in One Quarter. That’s a Warning.
Cannabis voters are souring on Trump’s slow reform, hemp farmers are staring down a November cliff, and the industry just wrote $15 million in checks to find out whose reform actually wins.
For years everyone described cannabis reform as inevitable. This week’s stories quietly make the case that inevitable isn’t enough anymore.
Consumers who cheered the Trump administration for nudging weed toward Schedule III are cooling off fast as the whole thing drags through hearings, briefs, and lawsuits. Hemp businesses in Florida, Missouri, and Ohio are watching a different clock, a November restriction that could wipe out their products before Congress even agrees on a replacement. First responders are done waiting to be told they can’t treat their own trauma. And the industries that quietly profited from prohibition, drug-testing firms and pharma, are now stepping into the ring to protect what they built.
So the question has shifted. It’s not really “does cannabis have medical value” anymore. Everybody knows the answer. The harder question is whether government can turn that recognition into policy that actually works before businesses fail and voters check out. The public moved a long time ago. The market moved too. It’s the institutions still stuck on the paperwork. Let me walk you through it.
Cannabis voters gave Trump credit for starting. Now they want it finished.
A new NuggMD and Marijuana Moment survey found 48% of cannabis consumers approve of the administration’s actions on cannabis. Still a positive plurality, sure, but here’s the number that matters: it was 73% just one quarter ago. That’s a cliff.
I’d be careful reading this as people turning against rescheduling itself. It’s more like a flashing light about momentum. The administration banked a ton of goodwill when it recognized certain state-licensed medical products under Schedule III, and there’s a separate process weighing broader Schedule III treatment. But that process has started to feel far away. Testimony in the DEA hearing wrapped up, and final briefs aren’t even due until August 17. Then the judge has to issue a recommendation, then the DEA administrator actually decides, and lawsuits from anti-cannabis groups and the drug-testing industry could stretch it out even further.
What I find genuinely interesting is that consumers clearly understand the difference between announcing reform and finishing it. The same survey found 54% would warm up to the administration if it pushed toward fuller legalization, and almost nobody said legalization would turn them off. So the political logic here is pretty stark. The administration got paid in goodwill for moving first, but that credit is now tied to execution, and cannabis voters have shown they won’t stay loyal just because someone took step one. They want to see step two.
The bottom line: The administration got real credit for moving first, but that 25-point drop shows cannabis voters are done grading on announcements. They want completion.
States are finally treating first-responder trauma like a medical issue instead of a firing offense.
Firefighters, paramedics, EMTs, and cops deal with death and violence as a normal part of the job, and for years their options for coping have been narrow: conventional meds, stay quiet, or risk discipline for trying something else. That’s starting to change, and it’s overdue.
A few different approaches are emerging. Maryland passed a law protecting firefighters and other rescue workers from getting fired over lawful, off-duty medical cannabis, as long as they’re a registered patient and not impaired at work. It kicks in this October. Ohio set up a Post-Traumatic Stress Injury Commission to help eligible first responders cover treatment costs. And Connecticut expanded a Yale psilocybin-assisted therapy pilot beyond just veterans and retired responders, while Missouri advanced (but didn’t finalize) a proposal letting veterans and first responders access psilocybin or ibogaine under medical supervision in approved programs.
Three different strategies there, one for employment rights, one for funding treatment, one for research access, but they all point the same direction. Policymakers are finally starting to separate off-duty treatment from on-duty impairment, and that distinction is everything. A positive marijuana test can reflect something you did two weeks ago. It says nothing about whether a paramedic was impaired on a call. Treating a metabolite as if it were workplace intoxication punishes responsible medical use without making anybody safer.
There’s real business fallout here too. Agencies are going to need actual impairment policies and clinicians who understand this stuff, and the testing companies may finally have to move past their simple positive-or-negative model. The psychedelic side opens doors for specialized clinics and provider training, though those will stay tightly supervised and politically cautious for a while.
The bottom line: First-responder policy is inching from zero tolerance toward something saner, protect treatment off the clock, enforce real impairment rules on it.
For Cannabis Chamber of Commerce event, Register HERE
Florida’s hemp businesses are already bleeding, and the ban hasn’t even started.
Florida hemp companies are bracing for that federal restriction that could make most hemp-derived THC and full-spectrum CBD products illegal on November 12. The pending definition caps finished products at 0.4mg of total THC per container, and industry folks estimate that knocks out roughly 95% of what’s on shelves right now, including plenty of stuff that barely gets you anything.
Here’s the part people miss about regulatory uncertainty, and it’s important. The damage doesn’t wait for the effective date. It starts the moment everyone can see it coming. Farmers are already asking whether it’s even worth planting crops that could be worthless by harvest. Retailers are rethinking inventory. Manufacturers are staring down reformulation and repackaging. One Florida retailer said hemp-derived THC products make up about 80% of his sales. A family farm reported selling plants to six farmers this year, down from around 20 by this point in a normal season. That’s the ban already happening, just quietly, through hesitation.
The White House has actually pushed Congress to revise this, especially to save full-spectrum CBD, and there’s talk of a regulated system with taxes, age limits, and a three-tier setup for hemp beverages. But a lot of the hemp world is nervous about getting shoved into an alcohol-style distribution framework. And that’s really the heart of the fight now. Almost nobody serious is arguing intoxicating hemp should have zero rules. They expect age limits, testing, labeling. The real battle is whether regulation preserves independent businesses or quietly hands the market to established alcohol and cannabis players. For banks and landlords, November 12 is turning into a genuine underwriting date.
The bottom line: The hemp restriction is already reshaping planting, buying, and lending decisions right now. Congress doesn’t have until November. The market’s adjusting today.
Missouri’s hemp lawsuit asks a sharp question: is this consumer protection or a handout to dispensaries?
A group of hemp businesses filed a federal lawsuit to stop Missouri’s intoxicating-hemp ban before it hits in November. Their main argument is that the law’s definitions of hemp and marijuana are contradictory and unconstitutionally vague, which is a real problem when getting it wrong can mean criminal liability. If your product might be legal hemp or might be illegal marijuana depending on how someone squints at the statute, that’s not a workable way to run a business.
The law would pull intoxicating hemp products, including the THC beverages you can currently grab at a grocery store or bar, off general retail shelves starting November 12. And it’s written to anticipate whatever the feds do. Even if Congress reverses the national restriction, Missouri would generally corral intoxicating hemp into licensed marijuana dispensaries only. If Congress just delays the federal ban, Missouri still prohibits most products, maybe with a beverage exception.
That’s exactly why the plaintiffs say this is more than safety. They argue it kills one legal channel and hands the market to licensed marijuana operators. And you see this same fight everywhere now. Dispensaries pay for expensive licensing, testing, and security, then watch hemp retailers sell THC through regular stores with none of that overhead. Marijuana operators call it regulatory arbitrage. Hemp businesses call dispensary-only rules a government-created monopoly. Both have a point. Missouri does have a legitimate concern too, since some unregulated products have been sold with wild THC levels and little oversight. But the lawsuit’s argument is that lawmakers reached for prohibition instead of writing a coherent set of rules. The vagueness issue is the strongest part. A company should be able to tell whether its product is legal inventory or potential criminal evidence.
The bottom line: Missouri’s suit asks whether a state can protect consumers by wiping out hemp competition, or whether it first has to write rules businesses can actually follow.
An Ohio judge drew a line: you can regulate the risk, not the ZIP code.
A federal judge temporarily blocked Ohio from enforcing key hemp restrictions against ten companies challenging the law, plus the vendors selling their products. It’s limited to those plaintiffs for now, but the reasoning could ripple through hemp litigation nationwide.
Here’s what Ohio did: it redefined a lot of intoxicating hemp products as marijuana and banned covered companies from operating unless they kept a physical presence in the state. The challengers said that plainly favors Ohio businesses over out-of-state competitors, which runs into the Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause. Judge Jeffrey Helmick agreed they’re likely to win. Ohio claimed the rules were about public health, but the court pointed out that lawmakers had less discriminatory options on the table, like age limits and potency testing, and never really explained why those wouldn’t protect people without shutting out companies from elsewhere.
I like this ruling because it draws a clean and useful line. States absolutely can regulate potency, packaging, labeling, testing, and youth access. What they may not be able to do is make an identical product illegal just because it was made across the state border. And that creates real tension for cannabis operators, because local licensees spend millions meeting state requirements and understandably hate watching cheaper hemp products stroll in through a side door. But the constitutional fix here is regulatory parity, not economic walls. Put comparable safety standards on products with comparable effects, fine. Build a protected local market and slap a “consumer protection” label on it, and a judge is going to see through that. The injunction doesn’t end Ohio’s case or cover the whole industry, but it hands other hemp businesses a persuasive playbook.
The bottom line: Ohio can regulate what intoxicating hemp does. It can’t regulate where it was made and pretend that’s about safety.
The drug-testing and pharma lawsuits accidentally reveal who prohibition was quietly working for.
A drug-testing organization and a pharmaceutical company are asking a federal court to pause cannabis rescheduling while their challenges play out. Their arguments are a mix of “this will increase use” and “this will hurt our business,” and the second part is the honest one.
The National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association says Schedule III complicates workplace testing, because medical review officers would have to figure out whether a positive THC result ties to federally recognized medical use. They warn the added cost and liability could push employers to just drop marijuana testing, which obviously hurts their members. Meanwhile MMJ International Holdings says it spent years and millions chasing cannabis medicines through the traditional DEA and FDA route, and worries that extending recognition to state-licensed operators erodes the edge it expected for playing by the harder rules.
Honestly, both concerns are understandable on their own terms. But the lawsuits make something visible that usually stays hidden: prohibition didn’t just restrict cannabis, it built entire businesses and competitive advantages around keeping it restricted. Drug-testing firms designed their whole model around weed being federally forbidden. Pharma developers invested under a system that made cannabis research brutally hard. Schedule III shakes those assumptions loose, and suddenly the beneficiaries of the old system are stakeholders fighting to preserve it. The tricky job for courts is telling the difference between genuine legal harm and simple resistance to change. And for employers, rescheduling won’t kill the need for drug policies. It’ll just force a shift from blunt THC detection toward more individualized calls about authorization, impairment, and the actual job.
The bottom line: Rescheduling doesn’t just rewrite cannabis law, it redistributes money, and the industries that profited from Schedule I are now defending their turf.
Cannabis just wrote $15 million in checks, and it says everything about where the industry is headed.
Cannabis companies put a combined $11.5 million in a single month into an agriculture-focused political committee linked, through its treasurer, to Trump’s super PAC. Marijuana Moment’s review found the industry has now steered at least $15.05 million to Trump-connected political organizations.
Sit with how much has changed. Cannabis advocacy used to run on patient stories, criminal-justice arguments, and grassroots energy. Now the big operators are behaving exactly like mature corporations in pharma, banking, alcohol, and energy, which is to say they’re paying for access to the people who control the policies that move their earnings. And from a pure business standpoint, it’s rational. Schedule III could improve research and potentially lift the 280E tax burden. Decisions on hemp, banking, and enforcement swing company valuations by real money. Of course they’re spending.
But it raises a question I think is worth sitting with honestly: whose version of reform gets prioritized? Big companies tend to care about tax relief, consolidation, interstate expansion, and federal legitimacy. Smaller operators and justice advocates tend to care about capital access, record expungement, local ownership, and reinvesting in the communities prohibition hit hardest. Those goals can coexist, but political access isn’t handed out evenly, and the people writing $11 million checks get their calls returned first. There’s also something notable in cannabis flowing toward Republican political infrastructure. The issue is becoming less reliably partisan and more transactional, which could genuinely broaden the coalition. It could also drift policy away from the social-justice foundation that made legalization possible in the first place. I’ll let you decide how you feel about that tradeoff, but it’s real.
The bottom line: Cannabis has officially entered normal corporate politics. The question isn’t whether the industry has influence anymore, it’s whose priorities that influence serves.
A study on weed and music points at where cannabis products are actually going.
A government-funded Canadian study suggests music may amplify some of cannabis’s emotional and therapeutic effects. Researchers surveyed 122 consumers, and 93% saw combining weed and music positively, with nearly three-quarters using cannabis during more than half their listening. People reported more happiness, relaxation, and nostalgia, less fear and anger, and some said they used cannabis with music instead of certain meds for pain, sleep, or anxiety.
Let me be clear about the limits, because they matter. This was self-reported, not a randomized controlled trial, and people who already love weed and music are obviously inclined to say nice things about weed and music. So don’t treat it as clinical proof. It isn’t.
But the underlying concept is the interesting part, and it’s a real one: cannabis effects don’t happen in a vacuum. Dose, expectations, surroundings, sound, and mood all shape the experience. Psychedelic medicine already treats “set and setting” as central, and music is a standard part of supervised sessions. Cannabis may end up borrowing a lighter version of that. Picture wellness companies pairing low-dose products with guided audio, meditation, or sleep programming, or clinics testing whether a controlled environment lets patients get the same relief from a smaller dose. The opportunity isn’t just another flavor on the menu. It’s designing cannabis experiences around specific outcomes, sleep, pain relief, creativity, calm. The catch, and it’s a big one, is that responsible companies have to resist turning a preliminary survey into breathless health claims.
The bottom line: The cannabis product of the future might not be just a formulation. It could be a curated experience, dose plus environment plus tools like music, built around a specific outcome.
Final thought
Cannabis reform survived decades of resistance for one reason: public opinion kept moving while the institutions sat still. This week is a pretty clear sign that gap has finally stopped being sustainable.
Hemp businesses can’t build farms and inventory around rules that might vanish in November. First responders can’t be asked to keep choosing between their mental health and their careers. States can’t shield local companies with laws that trip over the Commerce Clause. And federal officials can’t expect lasting political credit for reforms still stuck in procedure, as that 25-point approval drop just showed.
Even the opposition looks different now. The loudest resistance isn’t only coming from moral prohibitionists anymore. It’s coming from organizations with business models and market advantages tied to keeping cannabis exactly where it is. That’s a sign of progress, honestly, but it’s also a preview of the fight ahead. Every serious reform makes winners and losers, and the winners of the current system will defend it while the winners of the next one spend big to shape it.
Good policy doesn’t exist to guarantee every incumbent survives. It exists to set rules that are clear, competitive, evidence-based, and fair. Cannabis has already proven it can generate demand, businesses, tax revenue, and political muscle. Government’s next job is easy to say and hard to do: finish what it started.
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.