Missouri Should Not Rush to Prohibition While Congress Is Slowing Down
By John Grady
In Washington this week, the Hemp Industry and Farmers of America (HIFA) met with members of Congress and their staff, and the message was consistent: the best path forward is an extension and workable regulation, not a rushed crackdown that wipes out lawful access and small businesses. H.R. 7010 reflects that federal trajectory by delaying implementation of new hemp restrictions for three years so farmers and manufacturers are not forced to absorb whiplash policy changes on a politically convenient deadline. Speaking candidly with fellow veterans, Congressman Dan Crenshaw dropped the political polish. His assessment of efforts to eliminate access to legal hemp products was blunt: bad policy, unnecessary, and out of touch with how the real world actually works, the cleaned up civilian translation of a far sharper veteran verdict. Crenshaw has echoed that view publicly as well, questioning why hemp should be regulated from Washington at all and noting that states like Texas have already been debating the issue and will continue to do so.
Two leading Hemp Bills in Missouri
Missouri lawmakers are considering two Republican bills that tell you everything you need to know about what is actually happening. Representative Dave Hinman of O’Fallon has put forward HB 2641 that restricts intoxicating hemp products but preserves a critical safeguard, if Congress changes its mind or changes the timeline again, Missouri retains a pathway to realign and allow lawful products to return under clear rules. Missouri’s SB 904 from Senator David Gregory of Chesterfield takes the opposite approach: speed, finality, and permanent market removal. Gregory’s bill offers none of the flexibility of HB 2641. It includes an emergency clause, meaning it would take effect immediately once passed and signed, instantly shutting down Missouri’s hemp market. That difference is not a technical drafting choice but the policy itself, and the emergency clause makes the objective unmistakable.
Emergency or weaponization of the Legislature
Emergency clauses are intended for imminent public threats, floods, riots, or disease outbreaks, situations that require immediate action. They are not traditionally used to settle market disputes in one stroke. That is especially true here, where the General Assembly has had hemp regulatory language in hand since 2023, including proposals addressing age gating to 21 and over, testing requirements, packaging standards, and labeling rules. Ignoring those options for years in favor of an all-or-nothing ban hardly constitutes an emergency. It is designed to create a sudden stop, before the federal process finishes moving, before courts can resolve conflicts, and before small businesses can adapt. Speed matters when someone wants the outcome locked in before the facts change.
Who wins when hemp gets erased
Missouri’s marijuana industry operates behind limited licenses and steep barriers to entry. Hemp does not. Hemp products compete on price, access, and distribution, especially for working Missourians priced out of dispensaries or living far from them. Remove hemp, and you remove competition. That is not theory, it is how markets work. Gregory’s bill does exactly that, using law to eliminate hemp as a competing channel and entrench the marijuana industry. And it does so just as Congress is moving in the opposite direction, slowing down, extending timelines, and working toward regulation rather than eradication.
Missouri hemp hoax, and weaponized enforcement
Missouri has seen attacks portraying federally compliant hemp businesses as illegal, despite USDA licensing, published Certificates of Analysis, and adherence to federal law. The marijuana industry has amplified these attacks under the banner of the so-called “Missouri hemp hoax,” relying on insinuation rather than proof, distorted public business maps, and testing conducted by marijuana-industry-owned labs that are not registered with the DEA. The result is enforcement pressure without due process, turning compliance into a liability and weaponizing Missouri's justice system and legislature against lawful businesses. If Missouri wants real public safety regulation, it should reject narrative intimidation and regulate openly with clear, enforceable rules, not legislation that eliminates lawful competitors through confusion and fear. The General Assembly has already had hemp regulatory language in hand, it is not the industry dragging its feet…it is the legislature.
Missouri has a choice
Hinman’s approach is not a free for all, and it is not perfect. It recognizes that federal hemp policy is still moving and that Missouri should not make an irreversible decision that destroys lawful businesses and hands a market advantage to one politically connected sector. Gregory’s approach is different: no flexibility, immediate shutdown, permanent removal. As Congress calls for extensions and workable regulation, Missouri should not rush to prohibition.
Missouri should choose the bill that preserves options and aligns with federal caution, not the one that uses emergency powers to pick winners and losers overnight in favor of a federally illegal industry.
John Grady is a Missouri Navy veteran, hemp farmer and manufacturer, and Farmer Veteran Coalition member who works for his wife at Missouri’s first hemp general store and has over a decade of experience in federal and state cannabis and hemp policy and advocacy.
Contact: John Grady, 636.388.8771, jgrady@slaphappybeverage.com
