Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr is backing a nationwide effort to eliminate intoxicating hemp-derived products—such as high-potency gummies and vapes—from retail shelves across the country, arguing that a loophole in federal law has created a severe public health crisis.

Carr joined a bipartisan coalition of 38 state attorneys general (AGs) in sending a letter to Congress last week, calling for new federal legislation that would preempt state-level regulatory efforts and define intoxicating cannabinoids as illegal under federal law, regardless of their source.

These products, which can get users just as high as smoking marijuana, are currently sold widely in Georgia, appearing in locations like gas stations and convenience stores. Their legality stems from an “inadvertent ambiguity” within the 2018 federal Farm Bill, which originally legalized the industrial cultivation of hemp.

In the October 24 letter to Washington lawmakers, the coalition argues that this ambiguity has been “wrongly exploited by bad actors” to manufacture and market psychoactive substances like Delta-8 THC.

Carr announced his support for the effort on Wednesday, Oct. 29, expressing deep alarm over the public health consequences, particularly the rising exposure among children.

“The public health consequences are stark and severe,” Carr’s office stated in the announcement, noting reports from poison control centers detailing an increase in children exposed to these substances. The letter itself uses even stronger language, claiming industry actors have “nefariously misinterpreted” the 2018 law to create synthetic “Frankenstein THC products that get adults high and harm and even kill children.”

Aiming to Close the Loophole, Not Harm Industrial Hemp

The attorneys general coalition emphasized that their proposed crackdown would target only the intoxicating element and would not affect the legitimate industrial hemp industry.

“Importantly, the prohibition on products containing intoxicating levels of THC—of any kind and no matter how it is derived—will not inhibit the cultivation of hemp for industrial and agricultural uses since hemp does not contain intoxicating levels of THC,” the letter states.

The intervention by the AGs could override the ongoing legislative process in Georgia. State lawmakers met this summer to study the concerns over unregulated, dangerous products while simultaneously seeking ways to support the burgeoning new industry, which includes local breweries turning to THC beverages as traditional beer sales lag.

Industry Defends Regulated Market

The move toward a blanket federal ban has drawn immediate concern from the industry established under the ambiguous 2018 framework.

Christopher Lackner, president and CEO of the Hemp Beverage Alliance, a national group representing companies including those in Georgia, called the AGs’ letter “concerning.”

Lackner acknowledged that the industry agrees that high-potency products packaged to mimic candy and marketed to children should be prohibited.

“But we can do that without destroying the thriving regulated hemp beverage industry that is already in place across the country,” he argued.

Ambiguity Among Signers

While Carr’s posture is rigidly focused on banning these products altogether, some of his peers who signed the letter offered clarification, indicating the coalition’s intent may not be monolithic.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, whose state has legalized both hemp edibles and marijuana dispensaries, posted a clarification the same day Carr announced his signing, noting the letter had “generated some confusion.”

Ellison wrote that Minnesota has its own tight regulations on potency, but that the federal loophole was allowing “highly potent” products to enter the state from elsewhere.

“My intent in signing the letter is to urge Congress to close that loophole,” Ellison wrote. “This will help prevent out-of-state companies from ignoring Minnesota’s carefully crafted THC regulations and selling harmful products in our state.”

However, Carr’s office, when asked, offered no such clarification, standing firm on the letter’s stark language regarding the danger posed by these products.