local hemp ban
Yesterday on F'nAround in the Morning, we were expressing our opinions about how local governments (Highland Park) are stepping up and targeting the hemp industry when states fail to stop them. Chicago just made its move. With Illinois unable to pass statewide restrictions on Delta-8 and “unregulated” hemp products, the 13th and 23rd Wards are now advancing their own local ban. What’s being labeled as a push for “safe” regulation is quickly turning into an all-out assault on the hemp industry. https://lnkd.in/gYCmwrcx
But let’s be clear this isn’t just Illinois’ fight, Connecticut and Georgia already have restrictions. As the Lansing City Pulse pointed out, Michigan’s booming cannabis market is showing signs that it’s next, citing rising health concerns. This isn’t an isolated issue. It’s a nationwide trend, and the hemp industry is squarely in the crosshairs. Local governments are filling the gaps that advocates successfully block at the state level. https://lnkd.in/g-NqigbJ
For those in hemp: This is bigger than Illinois or Michigan. Every state is either dealing with this or watching closely. If you’re in the industry, pay attention. These restrictions aren’t just coming, they’re already here. Speak up in every state, whether it’s your backyard or not.
For Transparency: here’s a random fun twist, it only took me a little while, but I finally think I get why so many of these groups are interested in my LinkedIn profile. Sure, Danville’s interesting, but maybe it has more to do with the LLCs I found and a certain acquisition chain involving Casey's. After all, “little old me” wouldn’t normally draw the attention of these guys, right? Vanguard, BlackRock, T. Rowe Price, Morgan Stanley, or State Street. But hey, maybe it’s just a coincidence. Right?
The ARDC responded to my first report in just three days. My current filing, which outlines alleged unethical practices detailed in their own sworn statements and filings, has now been under review without response for 22 days. While this longer timeline may reflect the complexity of the evidence, I’m noting it here for transparency. To my legal friends: does this suggest deeper scrutiny, or could it mean something else? I’d value your insights.