Washington State’s ingestible hemp products face an uncertain future following federal legislation banning intoxicating hemp products nationwide, though the state’s marketplace for these items had already been effectively eliminated by state law passed two years ago.
In passing legislation to reopen the federal government, Congress included provisions banning intoxicating hemp products, a move that will have limited direct impact on Washington given existing state restrictions but could still affect the small number of hemp growers who continue operating under out-of-state contracts.
Hemp is a type of cannabis plant that can produce intoxicating effects despite containing lower levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) than marijuana. In many states, hemp-derived intoxicating products have operated in legal grey areas with minimal or no regulation, creating a parallel market competing with regulated cannabis industries.
However, Washington lawmakers passed legislation two years ago that essentially eliminated the state marketplace for ingestible hemp products. Trecia Ehrlich, Cannabis Programs Manager at the Washington State Department of Agriculture, indicated the state’s licensed hemp operations dropped dramatically from 200 licensees in 2020 to just 40 this year due to that restrictive state law.
Ehrlich stated those 40 remaining growers in Washington operate under out-of-state contracts to sell their hemp products in jurisdictions where such sales remain legal, a business model that allows them to continue cultivation whilst serving markets beyond Washington’s borders.
“I think a lot of them probably won’t produce hemp in the future because they won’t have anywhere to sell it. It was already very challenging for them to find buyers,” Ehrlich stated. “So it will challenge the marketplace growth,” she added, suggesting the federal ban will further constrict an already limited market for Washington hemp growers who have struggled to identify viable customers.
Ehrlich emphasised that for Washington’s remaining hemp farmers, the crop’s value extends beyond ingestible products containing cannabinoids. Many growers have explored novel and sometimes uncommon applications for hemp as they sought to maintain viable operations despite restrictions on the intoxicating products that initially attracted many to the crop.
“We’ve definitely had farmers who came into growth because they were interested in cannabinoids and then through that found that they wanted to produce insulation, produce flooring, produce products for sustainable building,” Ehrlich stated, describing how some hemp growers pivoted toward industrial applications including construction materials that leverage hemp’s fibrous properties rather than its cannabinoid content.
The situation presents complex trade-offs, Ehrlich acknowledged, because whilst the hemp industry faces contraction under the new federal restrictions, the legal cannabis industry in Washington could experience corresponding growth as competition from unregulated hemp products disappears.
“These kinds of grey area hemp products that could be purchased online, delivered to people’s doors, they were big competitors for the legal cannabis marketplace,” Ehrlich explained. “Producing a product that is tested, that is packaged in a certain way, [hemp] products didn’t have to deal with those regulations and were competitors. So eliminating them will be a boost, I think, to the legal cannabis market.”
This competitive dynamic created frustration within Washington’s regulated cannabis industry, where licensed businesses must comply with extensive testing requirements, packaging standards, taxation, and other regulations that increase costs whilst hemp-derived intoxicating products sold online or in convenience stores faced minimal oversight despite producing similar effects for consumers.
Ehrlich noted that enforcement of hemp product restrictions “has always been challenging,” suggesting that even with both state and federal bans in place, completely eliminating these products from the marketplace may prove difficult given the ease of online sales and interstate commerce.
The regulatory conversation surrounding hemp products might not be entirely settled, Ehrlich suggested. Considerable time remains before the federal ban takes effect, creating opportunities for potential policy adjustments if industry advocates successfully lobby for alternative approaches.
“Do these [hemp] products just go away, or does someone advocate or lobby to create a new marketplace for them that is regulated?” Ehrlich wondered, raising the possibility that rather than complete prohibition, lawmakers might eventually establish regulated frameworks allowing hemp-derived intoxicating products to be sold under conditions similar to those governing legal cannabis.
The federal law banning intoxicating hemp products is scheduled to take effect on 12 November 2026, though lawmakers could modify or repeal the provisions before that implementation date if sufficient political will exists to change the approach Congress has already approved.
