All participants of Mississippi’s cannabis industry should take notice of an opinion the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office published on June 11, 2025. The opinion answered three questions Mississippi Rep. Lee Yancey presented: (1) Is the sale of non-FDA approved hemp-derived products designed for human ingestion and/or consumption prohibited in Mississippi; (2) is the possession of non-FDA approved hemp-derived products designed for human ingestion and/or consumption prohibited in Mississippi; and (3) if the answer to the first two questions is yes, are municipalities authorized to enact rules and regulations that prohibit or penalize the sale and/or possession of the same?

The attorney general, relying on Mississippi’s Uniform Controlled Substances Law (MSCSL), answered the first two questions in the affirmative, concluding that the terms of the MSCSL prohibited the sale and possession of such products unless they were being sold or possessed pursuant to the provisions of Mississippi’s medical cannabis laws and regulations. The opinion, however, notes its limitations by acknowledging that components of the analysis are controlled by federal law: “[A] complete response to [Yancey’s] request is outside the scope of an official opinion.”

The opinion focuses on two exemptions to the MSCSL’s prohibition of THC but recognizes a third. THC, the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, is illegal under the terms of the MSCSL, however, several exemptions to this prohibition exist. Two of these exemptions, forming the basis of the AG’s opinion, make an allowance for hemp products that have been approved for human ingestion and/or consumption by the FDA or products possessed or sold under Mississippi’s medical cannabis laws. The third exemption (mentioned briefly in the opinion) exempts “hemp,” as defined and regulated under the Mississippi Hemp Cultivation Act (MHCA), from the MSCSL. The MHCA defines hemp in a manner similar to the 2018 Farm Bill, stating that hemp includes all derivatives, extracts and isomers. While many have interpreted the third exemption as allowing the sale and possession of hemp as long as it meets the MHCA’s definition (an interpretation adopted across the country under the Farm Bill’s same definition of hemp), the Attorney General’s Office appears to take a different stance.

In a footnote, the attorney general seems to suggest that since the MHCA has not been fully implemented, the exemption referencing the act may not apply. This positioning points towards the attorney general’s stance being that unless a hemp product is approved for human consumption by the FDA or handled pursuant to Mississippi’s medical cannabis laws, its sale and possession are prohibited by the MSCSL – regardless of what the hemp cultivation act says. That said, the opinion reiterates that because the cultivation of hemp in Mississippi “is legalized, licensed, and controlled by federal law [and] this office cannot opine on questions of federal law [,]… to the extent federal law controls the issues presented in your request, a complete response is outside the scope of an official opinion.”

The opinion, while briefly referencing the MHCA, does not explain additional exemptions to the definitions of both THC and marijuana under the MSCSL for hemp. Again, the opinion generally acknowledges that hemp, as defined in the MHCA and 2018 Farm Bill, is not controlled under MSCSL. But because such analysis is, at least in part, controlled by federal law, the opinion ends its discussion with just these acknowledgments.

While the AG’s opinions are not considered binding precedent, this opinion undoubtedly garnered the attention of Mississippi’s consumable hemp industry and medical cannabis industry alike and rightly so. There’s also little doubt that the opinion will be used as support next legislative session when yet another hemp bill is introduced.

Listen to this post 

In our Women in Grow: Leadership in Cannabis Genetics and Cultivation supplement, Cannabis Science and Technology interviewed researcher and educator Anna Schwabe, PhD, Associate Lecture Professor at the University of Colorado and Chief Operating Officer of CannaGen, an online cannabis genetic marketplace for licensed breeders, nurseries, and cultivators.

In this video clip, Dr. Schwabe shares details from various studies comparing cannabis DNA from various sample of strains and the impact in the industry. One study aimed to see if the different genetics each smelled different.

Check out our interactive supplement to read the full expert interviews, including an interview with hemp specialist Daniela Vergara, PhD.

Transcription

Sebastian Krawiec, Managing Editor of Cannabis Science and Technology: What did you find once you started exploring the DNA of the cannabis plant?

Anna Schwabe: So that’s a really good question. I started with the “is Blue Dream, Blue Dream everywhere you go?” question. And that led into another project, which led into another project, and it all just like snowballed. But is Blue Dream Blue Dream, no matter where you purchase it? I got in my car, drove around multiple states – there were three states that I covered – buying at dispensaries. I didn’t tell them who I was, I didn’t tell them I’m a researcher, I didn’t tell them I’m going to be doing genetic testing on your consumable cannabis flower that I’m purchasing, and I ended up with 122 samples that spanned 30 different strains. Some strains had nine or 10 samples, other strains just had two. But really, the question that I was asking is, “are they identical? Are they genetically identical or highly similar genetically within strains?” So, if I have eight samples of Blue Dream from different places, do they all look the same genetically? And the answer generally is no. Blue Dream was one of the better ones. There were, I think, seven that were genetically pretty much identical, but there was one that was completely different. And that was true for 27 of the 30 strains that I had. The three that were genetically cohesive, there was only two or three samples in those three strains. So if you expanded that out, I would assume that we’d find things that didn’t belong. It was really just “one of these things is not like the other,” and sometimes they were all different from each other. It just depended on the strength, like Girl Scout Cookies was all over the place.

After I did that, I had an undergraduate student approached me, and he was a double major chemistry and biology. He was working in the chemistry lab on THC and CBD, but he also wanted to do some biology stuff, some genetic stuff. So I devised a project for him where we had a bunch of samples that didn’t go into that genetic identity study. And I was like, well, let’s just see what we’ve got, because we’ve got some wild cultivated, what we assume to be hemp. We’ve got some cultivated hemp. We’ve got some CBD dominant stuff. We’ve got indica, hybrid, sativa. And then we had these two samples from the University of Mississippi, which had been provided under their research program, called “research grade marijuana,” and we just wanted to see where that that fit in the genetic spectrum of cannabis. And so the undergraduate, he did all the work for that. He did all the DNA extractions, he helped with analyzing the data, he even helped with making figures and things like that, and then we did publish that. So kudos to Connor, because that was a super fun project and really exciting for an undergrad to do, right? It’s out there to read, but basically, we found that the University of Mississippi was providing material that really isn’t close to anything you can find on the retail marijuana side, which was an interesting thing to find.

Then we wanted to know, so when we know that there is something that’s genetically not the same as other things, like, if we had five Blue Dreams and one of them was genetically different, would it also smell different? Would people be able to pick up on that, or do they all smell the same? So maybe that’s why it got labeled as Blue Dream, because it seems to be the same. We did some organoleptic study where we had people sniffing cannabis, which was a really interesting study, because yes, people could smell the genetic difference. They did smell different, but also there was a huge amount of variation for even the ones that were genetically identical, which is really important to know, because, it’s not just the genotype that makes up a phenotype, which is the physical characteristics of any organism. It’s also the environment that feeds into how – and we know this through twin studies, right? You’re a unique individual, and even when you share a genotype, you’re not going to express all the same things, because the environment plays a lot into that. So anyway, so that was a fun one, too.

Then I wanted to look at, okay, well, so people can smell it. What do the actual chemicals look like? So we measured the terpenes and the cannabinoids and found that there’s a ton of variation in that. So here’s the cannabinoids, and the samples that we tested, they were coming back around 13% or 15% and I don’t remember buying anything that was this low in THC. This is kind of weird. So I gathered all of my packaging and figured out the average of the THC of the 15 samples that we use for the smell study was 13.3%. But on the packaging, it was saying things like, 22%, 25%, 28%, even 31% and I was like, these are different. So then that prompted me to go and buy more, test more, and did another study and found that, on average, the THC that’s printed on a label is approximately 30% higher than what’s in the package. Not 30% total, it wouldn’t be 15% plus 30%. It’s 30% of what is reported. So 15% plus another 30% of that on top of it. That’s really interesting in that, as we all know, it has blown up with lab shopping and THC inflation. I noticed that in 2018, so it’s been a while. It’s problematic because for most people, it might just equal not having expected effects. But there are people who make their own medicine that use those numbers to get the right dose. Also, it means that we’ve got a problem in the industry, that we’re lying to consumers about stuff. Is it just THC, or is it more? Are we lying about yeast and mold counts? Are we lying about heavy metals? Are we lying about pesticides? And it creates distrust from consumers when we’re not generating accurate results for them to make their purchasing decisions off of. So it is a little bit of a big deal. So that’s kind of how the whole pathway went down my PhD route.

A shopper walks into a convenience store at the end of a long day.

Between the sodas and the alcohol, the shopper picks up a seltzer that is labeled as containing hemp-derived Delta-9 THC. With a drivers’ license proving they’re over 21 years old, they purchase the drink. But is that legal, just because it was on the shelf?

Not necessarily, Starkville Police Chief Mark Ballard told The Dispatch. He said his department is trying to be proactive with education, combating confusion coming from conflict between federal and state law on hemp-derived THC beverages.

“It is a new product that is challenging the confusion of the laws,” Ballard said. “It’s where science is by far outleading legislation. We have laws that we’re operating by and (an Attorney General’s) opinion, and that’s where we are with this.”

Hemp was legalized nationwide in 2018 with the Agricultural Improvement Act, or the “Farm Bill.” That bill included a threshold to separate hemp from cannabis, specifically 0.3% or more THC by dry weight. Hemp was also removed from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, opening the door for the creation of hemp-derived CBD products.

The same threshold for hemp and cannabis is also recognized by the Mississippi Hemp Cultivation Act and the Medical Cannabis Act. The latter established the sale of THC products above the 0.3% threshold only by licensed dispensaries.

The U.S. industrial hemp market is now an industry worth billions of dollars, according to reports from the Associated Press.

But Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch issued an opinion against hemp-derived THC beverages on Sept. 9, drawing from a state law saying the sale of any drug, compound or preparation would be unlawful if “when drunk to excess, in the form sold, will produce intoxication,” unless it is otherwise legalized by state law.

Testing whether a hemp-derived beverage would produce intoxication is outside the scope of the opinion, Fitch wrote, meaning the opinion cannot on its own terms ban hemp beverages. Also, AG opinions are not law.

The opinion goes on to read, “notably, neither the act nor any other state law specifically addresses the sale of hemp beverages.”

What’s actually in the drinks?

Ballard raised concerns around the consumption of hemp-derived beverages, including the lack of regulation in manufacturing and issues around mislabeling in the industry.

Testing on hemp-based beverages on the Gulf coast found that, despite their labels, the drinks sometimes contained 20 times the legal amount of THC. The drinks also contained pesticides and microtoxins, he said.

House Bill 1502 would have regulated the production of consumable hemp products, requiring all hemp-derived THC beverages to avoid packaging intentionally enticing to minors, a certificate of analysis for all drinks sold, and a limit on the legal amount of THC in hemp beverages. That bill died on the Senate floor in April.

With concerns around manufacturing still in play, Ballard said, SPD has started purchasing hemp-derived THC beverages and sending them to the crime lab for testing.

Since business owners are often confused on the topic, Ballard said, he has taken the approach of education, warning and then enforcing the issue.

In Lowndes County, Sheriff Eddie Hawkins said he has done the same in his investigations with different kinds of hemp-derived products.

“These products, by law, can legally be sold if those product contains 0.3% of THC or less, which is a very low dosage,” Hawkins said. “However, some of these products that we’ve seen on the shelves, and we’ve tested, the THC content in these products are much greater. Sometimes 35, 40% THC levels.”

Reacting to conflicting laws

Matt Bogue, president for Dutch Oil Company and partner with Sprint Mart, said his company has elected to not sell any hemp-derived THC-infused beverages without more clarity in regulations.

“We take great pride in our reputation as a responsible retailer of age-restricted products in compliance with State and Federal laws,” Bogue wrote in an email to The Dispatch. “Until there is better clarity on the regulatory guidelines around these products, we will remain on the sidelines.”

Bogue said he has seen the market for THC-infused beverages grow over time, which he said “underscores the real need for regulation,” including in manufacturing. He said the legislature needs to pass the “common sense” legislation in HB 1502 sooner rather than later.

Ashley Ray, who owns and operates Brewskis and other businesses under the Crissey family of stores in Starkville, said her business started selling hemp-derived beverages about a year ago. She said the popularity of the drinks has picked up over time.

“We have some people that, that’s what they come in and get … since it’s been an option,” Ray said. “But it’s definitely growing in popularity, a little bit at a time, and I think that’s just the knowledge of it being out there.”

Because laws on the subject are not very clear, Ray depends on Mississippi’s three-tier alcohol distribution regulation system to inform what she puts in her store. That system ensures accountability and transparency through regulation of brewers, distributors and then retailers.

Ray works with Mitchell Distributing as the distributor for her store.

“The distributor is typically who deals with the legality of a product,” Ray said. “That’s not necessarily us. So if a distribution company picks up a hemp product, their legal team does all the ground work for if it’s legal in the area, things along those lines.”

Mitchell Distributing did not respond to requests for comment from The Dispatch by press time.

Beyond the letter of the law

Hawkins said he believes the presence of hemp-derived products with low THC percentages in convenience stores could lead to them being easily accessed by minors. Instead, they should only be sold through a licensed dispensary, he said.

“In my opinion, if these products are going to be sold in the state of Mississippi, the legislature needs to regulate it and put it behind the counters in dispensaries only, so somebody with a medical marijuana card can purchase it,” Hawkins said.

Ray objected to both of those ideas. She said there should instead be heavier punishments for minors using a fake identification card to better regulate their access. She also said the hemp-derived products are vastly different from those sold in medical dispensaries.

“The milligrams they would be able to use in a dispensary are vastly different, and also (prescribed) by a physician,” Ray said. “This is not like that. That would be like asking a physician to prescribe you vodka.”

Hawkins and Ballard also brought up concerns about combining these new beverages and driving. Both law enforcement officials said they have seen driving under the influence cases related to cannabis rise with the number of products available on the market.

While the legal limit to drive with alcohol in your system is 0.08%, any amount of cannabis in a driver’s system can lead to a DUI arrest. But even more than that, Ballard said, driving under the influence can lead to traffic accidents and potential fatalities.

“You can have multiple drinks within an hour and feel no effect,” Ballard said. “That delayed effect, when you get into a vehicle and you start to drive, can then hit you. That’s why it’s a … huge public safety concern.”