Editorial: Why have Illinois and Chicago not yet clamped down on unregulated intoxicating hemp?
The veto — unusually issued last Sunday evening, a time seemingly designed to draw as little attention as possible — nonetheless caused a stir in the Lone Star State, as the bill was a pet initiative of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a fellow conservative Republican who at times has differed with Abbott on policy. Abbott justified his move by saying an outright ban could violate federal law.
But Abbott didn't want to be portrayed as a proponent of the absurd reality that exists today — virtually unfettered availability via ordinary retail outlets like gas stations and convenience stores of potent gummies and other ingestants infused with synthetic THC, the intoxicant present in marijuana. He called for a special legislative session less than a month from now to enact a regulatory regime tightly restricting access to the products.
We note the hemp news more than 1,000 miles away from here because Illinois (and Chicago) began this year with Gov. JB Pritzker pushing hard for an effective ban on intoxicating hemp products, only to be stymied by Illinois House Speaker Emanuel 'Chris' Welch, who refused to call the bill in his chamber due to objections from some in his Democratic caucus as well as Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson. The loss was one of the most embarrassing in Springfield for Pritzker since first becoming governor in 2019.
Welch and Johnson pledged after killing Pritzker's initiative to work on a regulatory framework that would strive to keep these potentially dangerous consumables away from teenagers and would impose packaging and production standards on the industry.
Since then? If any significant progress has been made, it's not evident to us.
Springfield's spring session came and went with no action and little news even on the state of negotiations. In Chicago, a City Council subcommittee held a hearing soon after the January blowup in the capital, with Johnson ally Ald. William Hall, 6th, promising to take action at the city level. Since then, Johnson and Hall have said little about hemp and done even less than that.
With the state and city both apparently paralyzed on the issue, a hodgepodge of municipalities throughout the state — and individual wards within Chicago — have taken it upon themselves to ban intoxicating hemp products like delta-8 within their borders. The approach is less than ideal. The public health threat remains; those elected officials who have instituted local bans mainly have shielded themselves and their municipalities from liability.
Meanwhile, an unacceptable state of affairs persists. We argued late last year in favor of the effective ban on delta-8 and its ilk for the purpose of ensuring teens and other vulnerable populations are safe while lobbyists representing the unregulated hemp and highly regulated cannabis industries work with policymakers to negotiate a reasonable regulatory scheme. Hemp lobbyists prevailed, forestalling action, and we see little evidence the industry wouldn't be quite content to see this Wild West approach to its business continue for the foreseeable future.
Indeed, one takeaway from more recent events in Texas is that these hemp lobbyists are remarkably effective, since they seem to hold sway over both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans.
Pritzker was highly annoyed, rightly so in our view, when Welch tanked the governor's bill at the eleventh hour in January. But that shouldn't mean Pritzker washes his hands of the issue. The governor ought to keep pressing the matter. And where is Welch after he played the central role in preserving the outlandish status quo?
Likewise, Mayor Johnson should be pressured to hold true to his own promises within Chicago city limits.
If Texas does indeed act next month on the issue, hopefully our politicians will be embarrassed into finally doing the right thing.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
10 minutes ago
- USA Today
Mike Johnson says Ghislaine Maxwell should serve 'life sentence,' opposes potential pardon
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, said he believes Ghislaine Maxwell, a key associate of Jeffrey Epstein currently serving 20 years in prison for conspiring to sexually abuse minors, should face "a life sentence." "If you're asking my opinion, I think 20 years was a pittance," Johnson told NBC's Kristen Welker on "Meet the Press" July 27. "I think she should have a life sentence, at least." His remarks to NBC come as many, including supporters of President Donald Trump, clamor for testimony from Maxwell. Some followers of the case have proposed a pardon in exchange, but Trump told reporters on July 25 he hadn't considered the move. "I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about," the president said. Epstein was charged with sexually trafficking minors and died by suicide while in detention in 2019. Maxwell, his longtime girlfriend, has been accused of recruiting minors for the disgraced financier's predation. Maxwell maintains her innocence and is appealing her 2021 sex-trafficking conviction. Johnson in his interview with NBC reiterated that pardons aren't up to him, telling the outlet, "obviously that's a decision of the president." "I won't get it in front of him," Johnson said. "That's not my lane." But, later in the interview he noted, "It's hard to put into words how evil this was, and that she orchestrated it and was a big part of it." "So, again, not my decision," he added, "but I have great pause about that, as any reasonable person would." The Trump administration for weeks has faced backlash over its handling of Epstein's case. Critics from Democratic lawmakers to prominent Republicans and slices of Trump's voter base accuse the president and other officials of not being transparent with the American people. The speaker has faced his own ongoing Epstein-related criticism, as some House Republicans have zeroed in on the Justice Department's recent review of Epstein's case and are calling for related documents to be released publicly. Democrats in Congress have piled on too. Reps. Ro Khanna, D-California, and Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, introduced a bipartisan measure to force the Trump administration's hand in releasing the federal government's files. Also on "Meet The Press," the pair split on pardoning Maxwell. "That would be up to the president," Massie said. "But if she has information that could help us, then I think she should testify. Let's get that out there. And whatever they need to do to compel that testimony, as long as it's truthful, I would be in favor of." Khanna disagreed, saying Maxwell shouldn't receive a pardon. "Look, I agree with Congressman Massie that she should testify," the California Democrat said. "But she's been indicted twice on perjury. This is why we need the files. This is why we need independent evidence." Contributing: Bart Jansen and Aysha Bagchi, USA TODAY
Los Angeles Times
10 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
It's a year of rapid change, except when it comes to Trump's approval numbers, poll finds
WASHINGTON — Eric Hildenbrand has noticed prices continue to rise this year with President Trump in the White House. The San Diego resident doesn't blame Trump, however, his choice for president in 2024, but says Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats who control the state are at fault. 'You can't compare California with the rest of the country,' said Hildenbrand, 76. 'I don't know what's going on in the rest of the country. It seems like prices are dropping. Things are getting better, but I don't necessarily see it here.' Voters like Hildenbrand, whose support of the Republican president is unwavering, help explain Trump's polling numbers and how they have differed from other presidents' polling trajectory in significant ways. An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in March found that 42% of U.S. adults approved of Trump's job performance. That is a lower rating than those of other recent presidents at the beginning of their second terms, including Democrat Barack Obama and Republican George W. Bush. The most recent AP-NORC poll, from July, puts Trump at 40% approval. While that is not a meaningful change from March, there is some evidence that Trump's support may be softening, at least on the margins. The July poll showed a slight decrease in approval of his handling of immigration since earlier in the year. Some other pollsters, such as Gallup, show a downward slide in overall approval since slightly earlier in his term, in January. But even those shifts are within a relatively narrow range, which is typical for Trump. The new AP-NORC polling tracker shows that Trump's favorability rating has remained largely steady since the end of his first term, with between 33% and 43% of U.S. adults saying they viewed him favorably across more than five years. Those long-term trends underscore that Trump has many steadfast opponents. But loyal supporters also help explain why views of the president are hard to change even as he pursues policies that most Americans do not support, using an approach that many find abrasive. Trump has not had a traditional honeymoon period in his second term. He did not in his first, either. An AP-NORC poll conducted in March 2017, two months into his first term, showed that 42% of Americans 'somewhat' or 'strongly' approved of his performance. That is largely where his approval rating stayed over the course of the next four years. The recent slippage on immigration is particularly significant because that issue was a major strength for Trump in the 2024 election. Earlier in his second term, it was also one of the few areas where he was outperforming his overall approval. In March, about half of U.S. adults approved of his handling of immigration. But the July AP-NORC poll found his approval on immigration at 43%, in line with his overall approval rating. Other recent polls show growing discontent with Trump's approach on immigration. A CNN/SSRS poll found that 55% of U.S. adults say the president has gone too far when it comes to deporting immigrants who are living in the United States illegally, an increase of 10 percentage points since February. 'I understand wanting to get rid of illegal immigrants, but the way that's being done is very aggressive,' said Donovan Baldwin, 18, of Asheboro, N.C., who did not vote in the 2024 election. 'And that's why people are protesting, because it comes off as aggression. It's not right.' Ratings of Trump's handling of the economy, which were more positive during his first term, have been persistently negative in his second term. The July poll found that few Americans think Trump's policies have benefited them so far. Even if he is not a fan of everything Trump has done so far, Brian Nichols, 58, of Albuquerque is giving him the benefit of the doubt. Nichols, who voted for Trump in 2024, likes what he is seeing from the president overall, though he has his concerns both on style and substance, particularly Trump's social media presence and his on-again, off-again tariffs. Nichols also does not like the push to eliminate federal agencies such as the Education Department. Despite his occasional disagreements with Trump, though, Nichols said he wants to give the president space to do his job, and he trusts the House and Senate, now run by Republicans, to act as a safeguard. 'We put him into office for a reason, and we should be trusting that he's doing the job for the best of America,' Nichols said. Trump has spent the last six months pushing far-reaching and often unpopular policies. Earlier this year, Americans were bracing themselves for higher prices as a result of his approach to tariffs. The July poll found that most people think Trump's tax and spending bill will benefit the wealthy, while few think it will pay dividends for the middle class or people like them. Discomfort with individual policies may not translate into wholesale changes in views of Trump, though. Those have largely been constant through years of turmoil, with his favorability rating staying within a 10-percentage point range through his widely panned handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, a felony conviction and an attempted assassination. To some of his supporters, the benefits of his presidency far outweigh the costs. Kim Schultz, 62, of Springhill, Fla., said she is thrilled with just about everything Trump is doing as president, particularly his aggressive moves to deport anyone living in the country illegally. Even if Trump's tariffs eventually take effect and push prices up, she said she will not be alarmed. 'I've always had the opinion that if the tariffs are going to cost me a little bit more here and there, I don't have a problem with that,' she said. Across the country, Hildenbrand dislikes Trump's personality and his penchant for insults, including those directed at foreign leaders. But he thinks Trump is making things happen. 'More or less, to me, he's showing that he's on the right track,' he said. 'I'm not in favor of Trump's personality, but I am in favor of what he's getting done.' Thomson-Deveaux and Cooper write for the Associated Press and reported from Washington and Phoenix, respectively.
Politico
11 minutes ago
- Politico
Mike Johnson pans discharge petition from Massie and Khanna
Another red flag: Johnson told Welker the bill doesn't include 'adequate protections' for Epstein's victims. 'These are minors in many cases who were subjected to unspeakable crimes, abject evil,' Johnson said. 'They've already suffered great harm. We do not need their names being unmasked. The Massie and the Khanna discharge petition does not have adequate protections.' Congressional Republicans have spent the last few weeks grappling with the fallout of the Trump administration's handling of its Epstein investigation. Many of their core supporters are in uproar. And recent pronouncements from the president that the controversy is a hoax perpetrated by 'Radical Left Democrats' have only increased the din. But Johnson insisted the legislative effort from the two lawmakers was not why he adjourned the House a day earlier than planned. Instead, he said the maneuver was necessary because of Democrats seeking to force Epstein votes in the House Rules Committee. 'So what we did do this week is end the chaos in the rules committee because the Democrats are trying to use this in a shameless manner for political purposes, quite obviously,' Johnson said. 'They hijacked the rules committee. And they tried to turn it into an Epstein hearing. That's not what the rules committee is about. So that's why the floor vote ended on Wednesday instead of Thursday.'
