The Unenforceable Ban: Washington's New Hemp Law Risks Black Market Boom

LOS ANGELES, CA – December 09, 2025 – A sweeping federal ban on intoxicating hemp products, quietly inserted into a government spending package and signed into law last month, is on a collision course with reality. According to a new report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the federal agencies tasked with enforcement—the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)—lack the resources to police the multi-billion dollar industry, raising fears that the policy will backfire, crippling legitimate businesses and fueling a dangerous, unregulated black market.

The new law, set to take effect in November 2026, fundamentally alters the legal landscape established by the 2018 Farm Bill. It drastically narrows the definition of legal hemp, imposing a strict limit of 0.4 milligrams of total THC per package. This effectively outlaws a massive swath of the current market, including popular products containing delta-8 THC, HHC, and high-THCA flower, which have flourished in a legal gray area for years.

But as industry leaders and federal analysts point out, a law is only as strong as its enforcement. The nonpartisan CRS report, issued December 3, 2025, casts serious doubt on the government's capacity to implement the prohibition, stating it “remains unclear if and how federal law enforcement will enforce the new prohibitions.” The report concludes that both the FDA and DEA “may lack the resources to broadly enforce the laws,” creating a paradox where a federal ban exists on paper but is largely ignored in practice.

A Law Without Teeth?

For critics of the new policy, the CRS report validates a long-held concern: the ban is legislative theater, not a viable public safety strategy. Dino Awadisian, founder of national hemp product producer The Mamba Brand LLC, has been a vocal advocate for structured regulation and warns that this unfunded mandate will have perilous consequences.

"A law with no funding is not enforcement—it's theater," Awadisian stated in a recent press release. "This will not protect the public. It will only reward unsafe, unregulated, and untraceable products."

His argument highlights a critical gap between legislative intent and operational reality. The hemp cannabinoid market is estimated to be worth between $28 and $30 billion. Enforcing a near-total ban would require a monumental investment in personnel, sophisticated testing equipment, and a robust tracking infrastructure to distinguish compliant products from a flood of illicit ones. The CRS report suggests this investment is not forthcoming, drawing parallels to the federal government’s “hands-off approach” to state-legal marijuana markets.

The result, industry experts predict, will be a vacuum. Legitimate businesses that comply with testing, labeling, and age-verification standards will be forced to close, while illicit operators who ignore safety protocols will rush to fill the demand. This scenario flips the bill's public safety objective on its head, potentially exposing consumers, including minors, to untested and dangerously mislabeled products.

The Data Deficit: Regulation vs. Prohibition

The debate exposes a fundamental disconnect in how to manage emerging industries. While Congress opted for prohibition, industry advocates like Awadisian argue for a modern, data-driven regulatory framework akin to those governing alcohol and tobacco. This proposed alternative hinges on creating the very infrastructure the current ban lacks: a system built on data integrity, automation, and transparent compliance.

Such a framework would include federal licensing for manufacturers, mandatory third-party lab testing with results reported to a central database, and technology-enforced age-restricted retail systems. It would also establish clear standards for child-safe packaging and prohibit marketing that mimics candy or targets minors. This approach replaces a blunt, unenforceable ban with a nuanced system of control that leverages technology to ensure safety and accountability.

"Instead of outlawing the legal market, Congress should control it—just like alcohol and tobacco," Awadisian argued. This vision calls for a significant investment in regulatory technology—from digital supply chain tracking to automated compliance audits—to create a market that is both transparent and safe for adult consumers.

The current path, however, threatens to dismantle a thriving industry and eliminate thousands of jobs without achieving its stated goals. By failing to provide the funding or the technological framework for enforcement, the ban creates chaos instead of control, leaving public safety to the whims of an unregulated shadow economy.

The Genetic Frontier: A New Precedent for Agricultural Law

Buried within the new legislation is another provision with far-reaching implications, one that shifts the very basis of agricultural regulation. For the first time, the federal government will regulate seeds based on their "genetic potential" rather than their immediate chemical composition. The law redefines hemp to exclude viable seeds from any cannabis plant that could produce more than 0.3% total THC (including THCA) on a dry-weight basis.

This marks a dramatic reversal of previous DEA guidance, which considered seeds legal hemp as long as the seeds themselves contained negligible THC. Now, a seed that is chemically inert and non-intoxicating could be deemed federally illegal based on the genetic blueprint it carries. This change introduces a new layer of complexity and risk for farmers and seed distributors, who will now be responsible for the genetic destiny of their crops.

Regulating genetics requires a sophisticated understanding and application of data that goes far beyond traditional crop testing. It necessitates certified genetic testing, secure databases of approved cultivars, and a clear chain of custody from seed to sale. This move into regulating agricultural potentiality sets a significant legal precedent, but like the broader ban, it arrives without the necessary infrastructure to support its enforcement, leaving the agricultural sector to navigate a landscape of legal uncertainty.

With the ban's effective date just under a year away, the hemp industry is at a critical crossroads. Stakeholders are already planning a major push for a legislative fix in 2026, likely through amendments to the upcoming Farm Bill, to either repeal the ban or replace it with the kind of comprehensive regulatory system they have long advocated for. The outcome will determine whether the industry evolves into a controlled, transparent market or is pushed into the shadows by a well-intentioned but ultimately unenforceable law.