Industry Leader Calls for Uniform THC Regulation Across Hemp and Marijuana Sectors

A prominent voice in the cannabis industry is urging lawmakers to implement unified regulations for all THC-containing products, regardless of whether they originate from hemp or marijuana. Jason Leisey, CEO of Emerald Tea Supply Co. and a seasoned dispensary operator in New Jersey, argues that the current regulatory divide is creating a two-tiered market with significant safety and economic consequences. According to Leisey, the distinction between hemp and marijuana is a legal fiction with no basis in biology, as both are varieties of Cannabis sativa L. "The difference between them isn’t visible in a field, detectable in a lab, or encoded in genetics. It exists exclusively in a law book," Leisey emphasized

Since the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, federal law has defined hemp as cannabis containing 0.3 percent or less Delta-9 THC by dry weight, while anything above that is considered marijuana. This classification has led to a regulatory loophole that allows hemp-derived intoxicating products to bypass the stringent testing, tracking, and safety standards applied to marijuana products sold in licensed dispensaries. Leisey warns that this loophole undermines consumer trust and public safety, stating, "If the loophole persists, that trust erodes. Not because the hemp farmers are bad people. But because a system that applies rigorous standards to one channel and none to another will eventually produce a failure that damages everyone."

Leisey's perspective directly challenges arguments from some hemp industry advocates who contend that hemp and marijuana should be treated differently under the law, despite their biological similarity. He criticizes this stance as incoherent, noting that products like hemp-derived delta-9 THC gummies and dispensary-sold THC gummies have comparable effects but are subject to different regulatory scrutiny. "If the plants are the same, the rules must be the same. The molecule doesn’t care about the label. Neither should the law," Leisey argued, calling for regulatory consistency as a matter of consumer protection rather than market competition

The economic disparities created by this regulatory split are stark. Licensed cannabis dispensaries are subject to IRS Section 280E, which prevents them from deducting most business expenses and results in effective federal tax rates of 70 percent or higher. In contrast, hemp retailers selling similar intoxicating products can operate as ordinary retail businesses, avoiding the onerous tax and compliance burdens faced by dispensaries. Leisey contends that this amounts to regulatory arbitrage, with hemp operators benefiting from exemptions while dispensaries shoulder the cost of building consumer trust and public safety infrastructure

To address these issues, Leisey advocates for federal legislation that would establish a unified, source-agnostic regulatory standard for all intoxicating cannabinoid products. He calls for per-serving THC limits, mandatory age verification, and third-party testing requirements to be enforced equally across both hemp and marijuana sectors. "One plant. One rule. That is not consolidation. That is integrity. And it is the only foundation this industry can build on," he concluded, underscoring the need for regulatory integrity to protect patients, veterans, and other vulnerable consumers

From the OG Lab newsroom perspective, Leisey’s call for harmonized THC regulation highlights a growing consensus within the industry that consumer safety and market fairness demand a unified approach. As the cannabis marketplace evolves and more intoxicating cannabinoids emerge, regulators and stakeholders alike will need to grapple with the consequences of fragmented oversight. This debate is poised to shape the next phase of cannabis policy across the United States, with significant implications for businesses, consumers, and public health