Doctors’ Group Calls for Cannabis-Style Regulation of Intoxicating Hemp Cannabinoids

A physicians’ advocacy organization is urging states and the federal government to regulate delta-8 THC and other intoxicating cannabinoids derived from hemp under the same public-health principles used for legal cannabis.

In its April 2024 position paper, Doctors for Drug Policy Reform (D4DPR) recommends regulating semi-synthetic intoxicating cannabinoids rather than prohibiting them outright. The organization, formerly known as Doctors for Cannabis Regulation, updated and retitled the paper in January 2025.

The group’s concern stems from the way the 2018 Farm Bill defined hemp. The law established hemp as cannabis containing no more than 0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight, but it did not clearly address the chemical conversion of hemp-derived cannabidiol, or CBD, into intoxicating compounds such as delta-8 THC. That ambiguity helped create a market for products sold outside many states’ medical or adult-use cannabis systems.

Delta-8 products have appeared in gas stations, convenience stores, smoke shops, CBD retailers and online marketplaces. D4DPR says many products have been sold without consistent age restrictions, dose limits, potency testing or warnings that they can cause intoxication. The paper also identifies other compounds—including delta-10 THC, THC-O, HHC, THCP and THCV—as examples of cannabinoids whose effects and safety profiles may be poorly understood.

The organization stops short of claiming that every reported health problem was caused by delta-8 THC. Available safety information largely comes from adverse-event reports, poison-control calls and limited research, which cannot by themselves establish causation. Still, the Food and Drug Administration has reported adverse events and thousands of poison-center exposure cases involving delta-8 products, including incidents involving children and cases requiring emergency medical care or hospitalization. The FDA also says these products have not been evaluated or approved for safe use.

D4DPR’s recommendations include:

• requiring retailers that sell intoxicating cannabinoids to obtain licenses;
• limiting sales to adults 21 and older;
• using child-resistant packaging and designs that do not appeal to children;
• requiring clear labeling of intoxicating effects, ingredients and potency;
• mandating independent laboratory testing and certificates of analysis for purity and potency; and
• restricting marketing and distribution in ways that reduce access by minors.

D4DPR also recommends aligning rules for hemp-derived intoxicating cannabinoids with existing medical and adult-use cannabis regulations. In states without a regulated cannabis market, it says policymakers should create a framework for all intoxicating cannabinoids—including delta-9 THC—rather than regulating delta-8 products in isolation.

The paper further calls for research into the clinical safety, toxicology and laboratory detection of minor cannabinoids. That research is particularly important for compounds produced through chemical conversion, because manufacturing impurities, residual solvents, inconsistent potency and mislabeled ingredients may create risks separate from the effects of the cannabinoids themselves. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention likewise notes that the health effects of delta-8 THC are not yet well understood.

Federal law remains unsettled. The Farm Bill transferred hemp regulation primarily to the U.S. Department of Agriculture while preserving the FDA’s authority over consumer products, but federal agencies and courts have taken different positions on whether chemically converted cannabinoids qualify as legal hemp. A Congressional Research Service overview of the Farm Bill’s hemp definition describes how the delta-9-specific threshold contributed to the dispute.

D4DPR favors federal descheduling of cannabis to reduce the legal confusion between hemp and marijuana and to allow states to build their own regulatory systems. It argues that a blanket ban on minor cannabinoids could push production and sales into illicit markets, while a regulated system could provide tools such as age verification, testing, labeling, traceability and public-health oversight.

The organization’s position reflects a broader debate over how to respond to intoxicating hemp products: whether to prohibit them, leave them largely unregulated or place them within a consistent cannabis-style framework. Whatever approach lawmakers choose, the evidence to date supports clearer labeling, stronger quality controls and better research—while cautioning against treating preliminary adverse-event data as proof of specific health effects.