Missouri's Hemp Ban: Regulatory Overreach Threatens Economic Freedom and Small Businesses
Published
- 3 min read
The Legislative Landscape
This week, Missouri legislators engaged in heated debates over two separate bills that would fundamentally reshape the state’s approach to intoxicating hemp products. House and Senate committees heard proposals that would align Missouri policy with impending federal regulations set to take effect in November 2024. These bills represent the fourth consecutive year that Missouri lawmakers have attempted to regulate this emerging industry, with previous efforts ending in legislative stalemates that left businesses in regulatory limbo.
The core conflict centers on how Missouri should respond to federal provisions included in去年’s congressional spending bill that imposes strict limits on hemp products. Both Missouri bills would prohibit hemp products from containing more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container, effectively banning most currently available products. They would also regulate intoxicating hemp identically to marijuana, requiring sales through licensed cannabis dispensaries rather than the current widespread availability in gas stations, liquor stores, restaurants, and smoke shops.
The Economic Impact
State officials estimated in 2024 that approximately 40,000 food establishments and smoke shops, along with 1,800 food manufacturers, currently sell products that would be banned under the proposed regulations. This includes popular low-dose THC seltzers like Mighty Kind and Triple, which have gained significant consumer acceptance in liquor stores and bars across the state. The scale of this potential economic disruption cannot be overstated—thousands of small businesses face catastrophic consequences if these regulations take effect without adequate consideration for transitional periods or alternative pathways.
The business community’s response reflects deep divisions within the industry. The Missouri Petroleum and Convenience Association, representing gas stations and convenience stores, supports Representative Dave Hinman’s legislation because it includes a provision allowing Missouri to sell these products if Congress reverses course in the future. Ron Leon, the association’s executive director, emphasized during hearings that “if it’s authorized and it’s lawful under federal law, we should be able to sell it here in Missouri, just like all the other 49 states will be able to sell it.”
The Regulatory Divide
Two distinct approaches have emerged from Missouri’s legislative chambers. Representative Hinman’s bill offers a more flexible approach that acknowledges the evolving federal landscape, while Senator David Gregory’s proposal includes an emergency clause for immediate implementation upon gubernatorial approval. Gregory defended his stricter approach by stating, “Now it’s time for us to ensure the safety of our kids, regardless of what Congress did or will be doing in the future. We need to prohibit intoxicating cannabis from being sold anywhere except for the way our voters designed it and requested it be sold.”
Law enforcement representatives, including the Law Enforcement Legislative Coalition representing police chiefs across Missouri, support both bills. Lake Saint Louis Police Department Chief Chris DiGiuseppi emphasized that local police lack authority to enforce federal bans, making state legislation necessary for effective enforcement. This perspective highlights the practical challenges of regulating products that exist in a confusing patchwork of federal and state jurisdictions.
The Principle of Economic Freedom Under Threat
As a firm believer in free markets and limited government intervention, I view these regulatory proposals with profound concern. The sudden criminalization of previously legal products represents exactly the kind of government overreach that undermines economic freedom and destroys small businesses. Thousands of entrepreneurs who operated in good faith under existing regulations now face financial ruin because of arbitrary regulatory changes.
The fundamental injustice here lies in retroactively punishing business owners who complied with previous regulations. These entrepreneurs invested capital, created jobs, and served consumer demand—all within the bounds of existing law. To suddenly render their businesses illegal represents a betrayal of the basic principles of fair governance and economic liberty that should form the foundation of any free society.
The Consumer Choice Argument
Beyond the economic implications, these regulations represent a direct assault on consumer freedom. Adults across Missouri have chosen to purchase these products legally, and the government has no legitimate role in prohibiting choices that harm no one else. The popularity of low-dose THC products demonstrates clear consumer demand for alternatives to alcohol and traditional marijuana products. Rather than respecting this consumer choice, lawmakers are choosing prohibition—the least effective and most freedom-limiting approach to regulation.
Kathi Harness, a lobbyist for the Missouri Beer Wholesalers Association, articulated a more sensible approach during hearings, suggesting that state lawmakers should consider ongoing national conversations about delaying the federal ban until 2028. Her argument that “the federal government doesn’t regulate alcohol at the federal level” and that hemp regulation should similarly return to state control represents the kind of pragmatic, federalist thinking that respects both local autonomy and economic reality.
The Federalism Question
This situation perfectly illustrates the tensions within our federal system. While federal regulations provide important consistency across state lines, they can also create devastating disruptions when implemented without adequate consideration for existing state markets. The proposed Missouri legislation goes beyond mere alignment with federal standards—it actively embraces a prohibitionist approach that exceeds federal requirements in its restrictiveness.
Senator Nick Schroer’s questioning of Chief DiGiuseppi about enforcement difficulties highlights the practical realities of this regulatory approach. When law enforcement officials acknowledge that state legislation makes enforcement “much easier” than relying on federal authorities, we must question whether we’re creating laws for the convenience of enforcement rather than the public good.
A Better Way Forward
Rather than rushing to implement the most restrictive possible regulations, Missouri lawmakers should consider alternative approaches that balance public safety concerns with respect for economic freedom and consumer choice. Reasonable age restrictions, proper labeling requirements, and quality control standards could address legitimate safety concerns without resorting to outright prohibition.
The experience of other states demonstrates that sensible regulation—not prohibition—represents the most effective approach to emerging cannabis markets. States that have embraced regulatory frameworks rather than blanket bans have seen stronger consumer protections, better product quality control, and more robust tax revenues without the economic devastation that accompanies prohibition.
Conclusion: Defending Liberty Against Regulatory Overreach
As this legislative battle continues, all defenders of economic freedom and limited government must recognize the profound principles at stake. This isn’t merely about hemp products—it’s about whether government exists to serve citizens or to control them. It’s about whether entrepreneurs can trust that operating within the law provides protection against arbitrary government action. It’s about whether adults can make their own choices about what substances they consume.
The proper role of government includes protecting public safety, but it must also protect individual liberty and economic freedom. These proposed regulations fail that fundamental test by choosing the path of greatest restriction rather than the path of greatest freedom. Missouri lawmakers should reject this regulatory overreach and instead craft policies that respect both public safety and the economic rights of their constituents.
In the words of Representative Hinman, leadership recognizes this as a priority issue. Let us hope they prioritize freedom over control, pragmatism over ideology, and economic vitality over regulatory destruction. The future of Missouri’s small businesses—and the principles of economic freedom itself—hang in the balance.