Bill Description: Senate Bill 1017 clarifies that some forms of CBD are not marijuana.
Does it give government any new, additional, or expanded power to prohibit, restrict, or regulate activities in the free market? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce government intervention in the market?
Senate Bill 1017 modifies Section 37-2701, Idaho Code, regarding the classification of CBD and Marijuana. Specifically, it states that "'Marijuana' does not include drug product in finished dosage formulation that has been approved by the United States food and drug administration that contains cannabidiol (2- [1R-3-methyl-6R-(1-methylethenyl)-2-cyclohexen-1-yl]-5-pentyl-l,3-benzenediol) derived from cannabis and no more than one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) (w/w) residual tetrahydrocannabinols."
In laymen's terms, this is CBD with no more than 0.1% THC. While Senate Bill 1017 takes the positive step of clarifying that CBD is not marijuana, this definition falls short by setting the allowable THC level at 0.1% rather than 0.3%, which is the industry standard for CBD hemp oil.
The Idaho Legislature has struggled to reach a consensus on hemp- and CBD-related legislation in recent years, but the three bills introduced on these subjects in 2020 all used 0.3% THC as the allowable threshold.
SInce this legislation uses a restrictive and non-standard CBD threshold, it receives a rating of zero.
Does it violate the principles of federalism by increasing federal authority, yielding to federal blandishments, or incorporating changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules? Examples include citing federal code without noting as it is written on a certain date, using state resources to enforce federal law, and refusing to support and uphold the Tenth Amendment. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the principles of federalism?
The language added by Senate Bill 1017 defines CBD in part as "drug product in finished dosage formulation that has been approved by the United States food and drug administration. ..." Idaho code should not incorporate definitions that are based on changeable federal laws, rules, or classifications. The vague and subjective nature of the FDA approval process makes it an unacceptable standard for defining what substances are legal in Idaho.
STAY CONNECTED with the latest news, research and opinions from the Gem State.