A Rhode Island hemp farmer is pressing candidates for state attorney general to clarify where they stand on defending the state's hemp regulations, setting up a potential flashpoint in the upcoming election.
Mike Simpson, who operates Lovewell Farms, published an op-ed in Rhode Island Current asking whether the next attorney general will defend Rhode Island's decision to regulate hemp rather than prohibit it. The question comes after current Attorney General Peter Neronha joined 38 other state AGs last October in signing a letter urging Congress to crack down on intoxicating hemp products.
"Rhode Island has already chosen to regulate hemp rather than prohibit it," Simpson wrote. "Our next attorney general should explain whether they intend to defend that decision."
The timing matters. Rhode Island established its hemp program following the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp cultivation nationwide. But the proliferation of intoxicating hemp products, particularly delta-8 THC and THCA flower, has created tension between state-level regulation and calls for federal intervention.
The Enforcement Question
Simpson's challenge puts attorney general candidates in a difficult position. They must balance supporting state regulatory frameworks with addressing concerns about intoxicating hemp products that exist in a legal gray area.
Neronha's letter to Congress last year argued that the 2018 Farm Bill "did not intend" to allow intoxicating hemp products to proliferate. The letter called for federal action to close loopholes that permit products like delta-8 THC, which can be synthesized from legal hemp.
But for farmers like Simpson who invested in legal hemp operations, that stance threatens their business model. Rhode Island hemp farmers operate under state regulations that allow cultivation and processing, yet face uncertainty about how aggressively the state will enforce against certain product categories.
Industry Stakes
The hemp industry has become a significant economic force in Rhode Island and other states that embraced cultivation after federal legalization. Farmers invested in infrastructure, processing equipment, and retail distribution based on the promise of a regulated market.
Now they face questions about whether state officials will defend that market or join calls for stricter federal oversight. The attorney general's office plays a crucial role in enforcement decisions and regulatory interpretation, making the position's stance on hemp critical for industry participants.
Simpson's op-ed reflects broader industry frustration with what farmers see as shifting goalposts. Many argue that if intoxicating hemp products are a problem, states should regulate them more effectively rather than seek federal prohibition.
What Candidates Face
Attorney general candidates in Rhode Island now must articulate specific positions on hemp enforcement. Will they defend the state's regulatory framework? Support federal intervention? Propose new state-level restrictions?
The issue cuts across typical political lines. Some law enforcement officials want stricter controls on intoxicating hemp products, while free-market advocates argue for maintaining state-level regulation. Public health officials worry about unregulated THC products, while farmers argue they're following the law as written.
For Rhode Island's hemp industry, the next attorney general's approach could determine whether the sector continues to grow or faces an uncertain regulatory future. Simpson's questions demand answers before voters head to the polls.
This article is based on original reporting by www.marijuanamoment.net.
