Hossgrows said:

My understanding is its only illegal if the flower is above 34-35% THC.

Click to expand...

I hope your right where did you get 34-35% THC I don't think that's right

PlumberSoCal2 said:

Dude, if you voted for the retarded party that thinks men can get pregnant then you might wanna STFU

Click to expand...

So you admit ignorance of who and how I am as a human being and it would seem you feel insecure intellectually so you attack because you lack the skills to formulate an intelligent reply?

Just askin'

I am genuinely curious. WHO, specifically, told any of you that cannabis seeds would now be treated differently than they currently are?

Putthataway said:

The same party that says they are going to legalize every election cycle and never makes any attempt? Those guys? Unfortunately because of citizens united, corporations are people, both sides are bought and paid for by the same corporations.

Click to expand...

What party are you talking about: Be clear.

Ninjadogma said:

I am genuinely curious. WHO, specifically, told any of you that cannabis seeds would now be treated differently than they currently are?

Click to expand...

Congress passed the Continuing resolution to fund the Government and Mitch McConnell added the poison pill we are discussing.

Try Google.

Ninjadogma said:

I am genuinely curious. WHO, specifically, told any of you that cannabis seeds would now be treated differently than they currently are?

Click to expand...

Exactly, no one has even shown a sentence stating how they came to the conclusion.

Zzzax said:

What party are you talking about: Be clear.

Click to expand...

you know well enough but the democrats use it every election cycle and never do a thing. However it’s the uniparty which doesn’t include you or me, just them.

Zzzax said:

Congress passed the Continuing resolution to fund the Government and Mitch McConnell added the poison pill we are discussing.

Try Google.

Click to expand...

goggles doesn’t show anything but I read mitch added it in the comments section and it wouldn’t surprise me.

Putthataway said:

Exactly, no one has even shown a sentence stating how they came to the conclusion.

you know well enough but the democrats use it every election cycle and never do a thing. However it’s the uniparty which doesn’t include you or me, just them.

goggles doesn’t show anything but I read mitch added it in the comments section and it wouldn’t surprise me.

Click to expand...

The U.S. government was opened by a legislative package that included the
H.R. 5371, the "Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026". The President signed this into law on November 13, 2025, ending the 2025 government shutdown.

You can find the full text and information on the bill on the official Congress.gov page for H.R.5371
However y'all are pointing out the truth is hard to find now isn't it:
---------------------
Well I am so so happy to be wrong!
I was following the news and the last I knew the bill had passed with the rider.
After digging I am understanding :
=====================================================

What Actually Happened (Nov 2025)​

1. McConnell did insert a hemp-restricting provision into a government funding bill.​

It was added as a rider to an appropriations package during late-2025 shutdown negotiations.

2. The provision would have effectively banned intoxicating hemp products.​

It did this by proposing an extremely low cap on total THC—

0.4 milligrams total THC per package

Click to expand...

This is not 0.3% concentration — it is an absolute total.
Even a bottle of hemp lotion would exceed that limit.


This would have wiped out:

• Delta-8 products
• Delta-9 hemp gummies
• THCP / THCA products
• Most “hemp beverages”
• Even stronger CBD extracts (because they contain trace THC)

3. McConnell framed it as “protecting children.”​

He explicitly said the 2018 Farm Bill was “never intended to legalize intoxicants stronger than marijuana.”

4. The alcohol industry quietly supported the ban.​

Large beverage companies—especially those threatened by the fast-growing THC-drink market—supported the crackdown (as reported by Marijuana Moment & industry lobby trackers).

5. Rand Paul fiercely opposed it.​

He warned publicly that the provision would:

• Destroy Kentucky’s hemp industry
• Violate the original intent of the 2018 Farm Bill
• Be politically catastrophic for farmers

6. The government was days into a shutdown when this battle peaked.​

The Senate needed to pass a clean bill to reopen agencies.


To avoid delaying the funding bill and extending the shutdown:

→ McConnell’s hemp-banning language was removed.​

This is completely true.

7. McConnell has signaled he will try again through future legislation.​

He has not dropped the issue and has repeatedly said intoxicating hemp is a “loophole that must be closed.”

---

So is your quoted text true?​

Yes — almost entirely.
Here’s a fidelity check:

Claim	Status	Notes
McConnell added hemp-restricting language	True	Added during funding bill negotiations
The cap was 0.4 mg total THC per package	True	Extremely restrictive
Opposed by Rand Paul	True	Very publicly
Supported by alcohol lobby	True	Quiet but well-documented
Stripped to pass the funding bill	True	Necessary to end the shutdown
McConnell plans future efforts	True	He has said so repeatedly

Nothing in the quoted text is false.
It is a correct summary of the political fight surrounding intoxicating-hemp regulation during the 2025 shutdown resolution.

---

Click to expand...

So I was not misled I was not updated by the shows I watch.

So back to the Farm Bill?

Again happy to be wrong and yet willing to stand up and lead the fight for Mom and Pop to grow free.

You need to fuck biology, and then they won't have anything to say. And you're defending the weeds, and you've offended Masha.
I think that's what everyone wants - to ban Masha, which is outrageous, so ban CBD and weeds.

Sec. 781. Effective 365 days after the enactment of this Act, Section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1639o) is amended—
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (6) as paragraphs (4) through (8), respectively; and
(2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
“(1) HEMP.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘hemp’ means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a total tetrahydrocannabinols concentration (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.
“(B) INCLUSION.—Such term includes industrial hemp.
“(C) EXCLUSIONS.—Such term does not include—
“(i) any viable seeds from a Cannabis sativa L. plant that exceeds a total tetrahydrocannabinols concentration (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) of 0.3 percent in the plant on a dry weight basis; or
“(ii) any intermediate hemp-derived cannabinoid products containing—
“(I) cannabinoids that are not capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant;
“(II) cannabinoids that—
“(aa) are capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant; and
“(bb) were synthesized or manufactured outside the plant; or
“(III) more than 0.3 percent combined total of—
“(aa) total tetrahydrocannabinols (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid); and
“(bb) any other cannabinoids that have similar effects (or are marketed to have similar effects) on humans or animals as a tetrahydrocannabinol (as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services); or
“(iii) any intermediate hemp-derived cannabinoid products which are marketed or sold as a final product or directly to an end consumer for personal or household use; or
“(iv) any final hemp-derived cannabinoid products containing—
“(I) cannabinoids that are not capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant;
“(II) cannabinoids that—
“(aa) are capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant; and
“(bb) were synthesized or manufactured outside the plant; or
“(III) greater than 0.4 milligrams combined total per container of—
“(aa) total tetrahydrocannabinols (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid); and
“(bb) any other cannabinoids that have similar effects (or are marketed to have similar effects) on humans or animals as a tetrahydrocannabinol (as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services).
“(2) INDUSTRIAL HEMP.—The term ‘industrial hemp’ means hemp—
“(A) grown for the use of the stalk of the plant, fiber produced from such a stalk, or any other non-cannabinoid derivative, mixture, preparation, or manufacture of such a stalk;
“(B) grown for the use of the whole grain, oil, cake, nut, hull, or any other non-cannabinoid compound, derivative, mixture, preparation, or manufacture of the seeds of such plant;
“(C) grown for purposes of producing microgreens or other edible hemp leaf products intended for human consumption that are derived from an immature hemp plant that is grown from seeds that do not exceed the threshold for total tetrahydrocannabinols concentration specified in paragraph (1)(C)(i);
“(D) that is a plant that does not enter the stream of commerce and is intended to support hemp research at an institution of higher education (as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)) or an independent research institute; or
“(E) grown for the use of a viable seed of the plant produced solely for the production or manufacture of any material described in subparagraphs (A) through (D).
“(3) HEMP-DERIVED CANNABINOID PRODUCT.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘hemp-derived cannabinoid product’ means any intermediate or final product derived from hemp (other than industrial hemp), that—
“(i) contains cannabinoids in any form; and
“(ii) is intended for human or animal use through any means of application or administration, such as inhalation, ingestion, or topical application.
“(B) The term ‘intermediate hemp-derived cannabinoid product’ means a hemp-derived cannabinoid product which—
“(i) is not yet in the final form or preparation marketed or intended to be used or consumed by a human or animal; or
“(ii) is a powder, liquid, tablet, oil, or other product form which is intended or marketed to be mixed, dissolved, formulated, or otherwise added to or prepared with or into any other substance prior to administration or consumption.
“(C) The term ‘container’ means the innermost wrapping, packaging, or vessel in direct contact with a final hemp-derived cannabinoid product in which the final hemp-derived cannabinoid product is enclosed for retail sale to consumers, such as a jar, bottle, bag, box, packet, can, carton, or cartridge.
“(D) The term container excludes bulk shipping containers or outer wrappings that are not essential for the final retail delivery or sale to an end consumer for personal or household use.
“(E) EXCLUSION.—Such term does not include a drug that is the subject of an application approved under subsection (c) or (j) of section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355).”.
(3) Within 90 days of the enactment of this act, the Food and Drug Administration, in consultation with other relevant Federal agencies, shall publish—
(A) a list of all cannabinoids known to FDA to be capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant, as reflected in peer reviewed literature;
(B) a list of all tetrahydrocannabinol class cannabinoids known to the agency to be naturally occurring in the plant;
(C) a list of all other know cannabinoids with similar effects to, or marketed to have similar effects to, tetrahyrocannabinol class cannabinoids; and
(D) additional information and specificity about the term “container”, as defined in paragraph (3)(C).
Sec. 782. In addition to amounts otherwise made available, there is hereby appropriated $2,000,000, to remain available until expended, for the Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program established pursuant to section 1001(b)(4) of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117–2) to award grants to processors of invasive, wild

Putthataway said:

:
“(1) HEMP.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘hemp’ means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a total tetrahydrocannabinols concentration (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.

Click to expand...

This is a misdescription of hemp. Dominant hemp is harmless and amazing. At least in the first generations. And the hemp plant itself is simply delightful

Zzzax said:

Congress passed the Continuing resolution to fund the Government and Mitch McConnell added the poison pill we are discussing.

Try Google.

Click to expand...

So... Google told you that seeds were going to suddenly become illegal? Seriously, where did you specifically hear about seeds being outlawed? Source please.

Masha is not a drug, Masha is love.

Fishwater23 said:

I hope your right where did you get 34-35% THC I don't think that's right

Click to expand...

It was a piece I read. Marijuana news.. something like that. It just explained the bill a bit more than what we've been hearing.

Their after infused drinks and edibles being taken out of gas stations, grocery stores, and being regulated thru dispensaries, only. Same for the delta8, blaa,blaa,blaa bud, being sold same way. Basically ...dispo only.

So that now directs them , to the home growers. Regulate the seed companies, till there's only a couple corporations producing them. Totally controlling all profits to themselves. This last paragraph is only hypothetical....but.

If I finish this second joint, I know I'll have it completely figured out.

You probably need a biologist who won't fuck your brains. A biologist who hasn't been paid

Zzzax said:

So you admit ignorance of who and how I am as a human being and it would seem you feel insecure intellectually so you attack because you lack the skills to formulate an intelligent reply?

Just askin'

Click to expand...

Hey Shitforbrains, I'm all fucking done with the mentally ill. You wanna talk politics here? You went off on shit you obviously haven't a fucking clue about and are nothing short of brainwashed. Wanna go off on politics? You come find me on X, NOT FUCKING HERE

How about we let hemp be hemp, stop trying to legitimize cannabis under hemp regulations and just advocate for the federal decriminalization of cannabis on the federal level so that states can have the sovereignty to decide their own marijuana policy? Increased legalization happening state by state is just putting the federal government into increasing odds against states when it comes to cannabis policy.

This is all wrong. We need to fight this at the level of the United Nations. But probably no one wants to do that. Enough with the hypocrisy. It's clear that the 1,000 varieties are a myth.

ForestSpirit said:

This is all wrong. We need to fight this at the level of the United Nations. But probably no one wants to do that. Enough with the hypocrisy. It's clear that the 1,000 varieties are a myth.

Click to expand...

Contact the ICC at The Hague and demand that nations who prohibit cannabis be held accountable for crimes against humanity.

Ninjadogma said:

Contact the ICC at The Hague and demand that nations who prohibit cannabis be held accountable for crimes against humanity.

Click to expand...

There's no need for that. Biology proves it. The color of the seeds, their stability, and their ability to split. You can simply ignore all this nonsense if you have these seeds. However, selling them is prohibited. We cannot ignore this.

I'm just saying that I have it. So they have to say that they have it too, and it can't be illegal like poppy. Because this weed doesn't have any symptoms. It's very simple. A good mood should be legal.