Can convenience stores, smoke shops, and other unlicensed retailers in Arizona legally sell delta-8 THC gummies, vapes, and similar hemp-derived intoxicating products?
Plain-English summary
Delta-8 THC and similar hemp-derived intoxicants have been showing up in Arizona gas stations, vape shops, and convenience stores for several years, sold as gummies, vape cartridges, and tinctures. Sellers argued that because the 2018 federal Farm Bill legalized hemp, and delta-8 can be chemically made from hemp-derived CBD, the products were legal at the federal level and free to sell anywhere.
Senators Steve Montenegro and T.J. Shope asked the Arizona Attorney General to weigh in on Arizona law. The opinion is direct: in Arizona, delta-8 is a Schedule 1 controlled substance. The state's industrial hemp law uses a narrower definition of hemp than the federal Farm Bill does, and that definition does not cover intoxicating derivatives. Only retailers licensed by the Arizona Department of Health Services (the agency that licenses medical and recreational cannabis dispensaries) may legally sell delta-8 and similar hemp-synthesized intoxicants in Arizona.
The opinion does not endorse selling these products through licensed dispensaries either. It flags evolving public health concerns about contamination, dosage, and child exposure.
What this means for you
If you own a convenience store, smoke shop, or vape shop in Arizona
Stop selling delta-8, delta-10, or any other hemp-synthesized intoxicating product unless you hold a Department of Health Services license to sell cannabis. The AG has now taken the position that these products are Schedule 1 controlled substances under Arizona law. That exposes the business and potentially individual owners and managers to criminal prosecution and to enforcement actions by ADHS, the Department of Liquor, and local code enforcement. Pull the inventory off your shelves, document the disposal, and talk to your wholesaler about returns.
CBD products that are not intoxicating (the opinion specifically excludes generally non-intoxicating CBD from its analysis) are not the focus of this opinion, but read the labels carefully. Anything sold for its psychoactive effect, including products labeled HHC, THC-O, THC-P, delta-9 derived from hemp at intoxicating concentrations, or "full spectrum" products with significant THC content is a risk.
If you operate a licensed Arizona cannabis dispensary
The opinion does not give you a green light. It says that if anyone in Arizona can legally sell hemp-synthesized intoxicants, it is licensed cannabis sellers, but it expressly notes that ADHS retains regulatory oversight and that future regulatory decisions will be informed by public health information. Treat delta-8 inventory the same way you would any THC concentrate: track it, label it accurately, comply with packaging and child-resistance rules, and do not market it as a hemp-loophole alternative to your regulated marijuana products.
If you are a parent or caregiver
Delta-8 gummies are commonly packaged in colorful wrappers that can look like candy. Poison control and ER physicians have reported a sharp rise in pediatric exposures. Under this opinion, those products are not supposed to be on convenience store shelves in Arizona at all. If you find them being sold to minors or in deceptive packaging, you can report it to the Attorney General's consumer fraud unit and to local law enforcement.
If you are a law enforcement officer or prosecutor
The opinion gives you the AG's published statutory analysis treating hemp-synthesized intoxicants as cannabis under A.R.S. § 13-3401(4). That supports charging decisions for sale and possession of intoxicating delta-8 products through the existing controlled-substances statutes, just as you would for any other cannabis product sold by an unlicensed seller.
If you are a state legislator
The opinion identifies a definitional gap. Arizona's industrial hemp definition in A.R.S. § 3-311(7) is narrower than the federal Farm Bill's definition in 7 U.S.C. § 1639o(1). The narrower state definition is what allows the AG to conclude that hemp-derived intoxicants stay controlled under Arizona law. If you wanted to either close the gap further or open it up, that statute is where the legislative work would happen. The opinion also flags that Arizona has placed cannabis products under ADHS and industrial hemp under the Department of Agriculture, a structural choice the legislature could revisit.
Common questions
Q: Is delta-8 legal in Arizona?
A: Not for most retailers. The AG concluded that delta-8 falls within Arizona's definition of cannabis as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, and that only ADHS-licensed cannabis sellers may legally sell it. Convenience stores, smoke shops, and other unlicensed locations cannot sell it.
Q: But isn't delta-8 federally legal under the Farm Bill?
A: That federal question is contested. The Ninth Circuit has said hemp-derived delta-8 is not prohibited by federal law. The DEA has sent mixed signals. The opinion specifically declines to opine on the federal question and says it does not matter for Arizona purposes, because Arizona law is more restrictive and the Farm Bill expressly preserves state authority to regulate hemp more strictly.
Q: What about non-intoxicating CBD?
A: The opinion excludes ordinary CBD products from its analysis. It is focused on hemp-synthesized intoxicants like delta-8, delta-10, and similar cannabinoids that have been chemically converted to produce a psychoactive effect.
Q: I sold delta-8 in good faith for years. Am I in legal trouble retroactively?
A: An AG opinion is not a court ruling and is not retroactive law. It is the AG's interpretation of statutes that already existed. Whether and how local prosecutors pursue past sales is up to them. Consult an Arizona criminal defense attorney about your specific situation.
Q: Why did the Arizona definition come out narrower than the federal one?
A: Arizona enacted its industrial hemp law in 2018 before the federal Farm Bill passed, using the older 2014 federal definition that did not include extracts and derivatives. When Congress later expanded the federal hemp definition, Arizona did not. The AG reads that decision as deliberate, not accidental.
Q: Are gummies treated differently from vapes or tinctures?
A: The opinion handles them together. Section 3-311(5) says hemp products do not include things made to be ingested except food made from sterile hemp seed or hemp seed oil. So delta-8 gummies definitely do not fit the hemp-product definition. Vapes and tinctures fail at the cannabis-derivative analysis under § 13-3401(4) regardless.
Background and statutory framework
Arizona has two cannabis laws. The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, passed by voters in 2010, allows qualifying patients to use medical marijuana sold by ADHS-licensed dispensaries. The Smart and Safe Arizona Act, passed by voters in 2020, legalized recreational cannabis for adults, again sold only through ADHS-licensed retailers. Both laws define marijuana broadly to include all parts and derivatives of the cannabis plant and put enforcement under ADHS.
Separately, in 2018, the legislature passed A.R.S. § 3-311 et seq., establishing an industrial hemp program under the Department of Agriculture. The state law tracked the 2014 federal definition of "industrial hemp," covering only the plant and parts of the plant, not derivatives or extracts. The federal definition expanded in the 2018 Farm Bill to include derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, and salts. Arizona did not follow.
Hemp-synthesized intoxicants live in the gap between those two regimes. They are derived from CBD that comes from low-THC hemp, but the resulting compound (delta-8, delta-10, etc.) is psychoactive at the concentrations sold commercially. In Arizona, the AG concludes those compounds are cannabis "derivatives" under A.R.S. § 13-3401(4), making them controlled substances regardless of which plant material they started from.
The Ninth Circuit's 2022 decision in AK Futures held that hemp-derived delta-8 was not prohibited by federal law, at least for trademark purposes. The DEA continues to list delta-8 as a Schedule 1 tetrahydrocannabinol but has issued mixed guidance about whether the Farm Bill exempts it. The AG opinion sidesteps the federal debate and decides the case on Arizona law alone.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- A.R.S. § 3-311 (industrial hemp definitions)
- A.R.S. § 3-312 (industrial hemp program purposes)
- A.R.S. § 13-3401 (cannabis and marijuana definitions)
- A.R.S. § 36-2512 (Schedule 1 controlled substances)
- A.R.S. §§ 36-2801 to -2822 (Arizona Medical Marijuana Act)
- A.R.S. §§ 36-2850 to -2865 (Smart and Safe Arizona Act)
- 7 U.S.C. § 1639o(1) (federal hemp definition under 2018 Farm Bill)
- 7 U.S.C. § 1639p(a)(3)(A) (state authority to regulate more stringently)
- 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d) (federal Schedule 1 controlled substances)
Cases:
- Reed-Kaliher v. Hoggatt, 237 Ariz. 119 (2015) (AMMA permits qualifying patients to use medical marijuana)
- State v. Ibarra, 254 Ariz. 320 (App. 2022) (Smart and Safe Act legalized certain cannabis conduct)
- AK Futures LLC v. Boyd Street Distro, LLC, 35 F.4th 682 (9th Cir. 2022) (delta-8 not prohibited by federal law for trademark purposes)
- State v. Jones, 246 Ariz. 452 (2019) (AMMA "marijuana" definition includes resin extracts)
- Roberts v. State, 253 Ariz. 259 (2022) (statutory incorporation of federal law construed narrowly)
Source
- Landing page: https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i24-005-r24-001
- Original PDF: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/I24-005.pdf
Original opinion text
To:
The Honorable Steve Montenegro
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
The Honorable T.J. Shope
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona
Question Presented
Does Arizona law permit an entity that is not appropriately licensed by the Arizona Department of Health Services ("Health Services") to sell products containing hemp-synthesized intoxicants like delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC"), delta-10 THC, or any other product that has been synthetically converted from naturally occurring cannabidiol ("CBD") or other cannabinoids into intoxicating substances?
Summary Answer
No, Arizona law does not permit the sale of delta-8 and other hemp-synthesized intoxicants by entities that have not been licensed by Health Services. Irrespective of delta-8's arguable federal legality under the 2018 Agriculture Improvement Act ("Farm Bill"), Arizona continues to define and regulate "industrial hemp" in a manner that precludes the sale of hemp-synthesized intoxicants in convenience stores, smoke shops, and other unlicensed locales.
Background
Arizona allows medical and recreational cannabis use, subject to strict regulation.
Cannabis laws in the United States have evolved rapidly over the last thirty years. In 1996, "California became the first state to effectively remove criminal penalties for qualifying patients who possess and use medical marijuana." As of 2023, approximately 38 states now permit cannabis use for medical purposes and approximately 24 states have recreational use laws.
In 2010, Arizona enacted the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act ("AMMA"), which permits "those who meet statutory conditions to use medical marijuana." Reed-Kaliher v. Hoggatt, 237 Ariz. 119, 122 ¶ 7 (2015); A.R.S. §§ 36-2801 to -2822. In 2020, Arizona voters passed the Smart and Safe Arizona Act, which "legalized certain conduct related to the recreational use, cultivation, and sale of marijuana." State v. Ibarra, 254 Ariz. 320, 323 ¶ 6 (App. 2022); A.R.S. §§ 36-2850 to -2865. Health Services is responsible for implementing and enforcing both laws. A.R.S. §§ 36-2850(7), -2854(A), -2804.01.
The Farm Bill arguably legalized hemp-synthesized intoxicants under federal law.
Notwithstanding the trend towards state-level cannabis legalization, marijuana and other intoxicating cannabis products generally remain illegal at the federal level. See 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d) (listing marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols as Schedule 1 controlled substances); 21 U.S.C. § 841 (establishing penalties for distributing certain quantities of marijuana).
Hemp, like marijuana, is part of "the plant species [c]annabis sativa." Hemp, however, has an extremely low concentration of delta-9 THC, the primary psychoactive compound in marijuana. Hemp also has a variety of industrial and consumer uses. In 2014, Congress passed a law permitting states to legally cultivate "industrial hemp" to the extent "the growing or cultivating of industrial hemp is" permitted under state law in connection with an "agricultural pilot program or other agricultural or academic research." 7 U.S.C. § 5940(a), (b)(2). The 2014 law defined "industrial hemp" as "the plant [c]annabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis." Id. § 5940(b)(2).
Four years later, Congress passed the 2018 Farm Bill, which "facilitate[d] the commercial cultivation, processing, marketing, and sale of industrial hemp in the United States." The Farm Bill expanded the definition of "hemp" to mean "any part of [the cannabis sativa L] plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis." 7 U.S.C. § 1639o(1) (emphasis added).
The 0.3% delta-9 THC threshold effectively differentiates between psychoactive marijuana and non-intoxicating hemp. The Farm Bill, however, is silent on delta-8 THC—another psychoactive compound that is found naturally in hemp in low concentration, but that may be chemically synthesized from the naturally occurring cannabidiol ("CBD") in hemp into a higher, intoxicating concentration. Delta-8 proponents have therefore argued that the Farm Bill legalized delta-8 and other intoxicating hemp derivatives.
At least one Ninth Circuit case supports this argument. In AK Futures LLC v. Boyd Street Distro, LLC, a case analyzing delta-8's legality for purposes of resolving a trademark dispute, the Ninth Circuit held that "[t]o the extent . . . the [DEA] schedule suggests that hemp-derived delta-8 THC remains controlled regardless of its delta-9 THC concentration level, this is inconsistent with both statutory text and the DEA's own duly enacted regulations." 35 F.4th 682, 693 (9th Cir. 2022). Thus, according to the Ninth Circuit, "delta-8 THC products are not prohibited by federal law." Id. at 689.
On the other hand, the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") continues to "list[] delta-8 THC among tetrahydrocannabinols controlled under schedule 1." Id. at 693. But the DEA also appears to have given mixed messages regarding delta-8's federal status.
Arizona legalizes "industrial hemp" for some purposes.
In 2018, before the federal Farm Bill's passage, Arizona enacted a hemp pilot program "[t]o promote the economy and agriculture in this state by allowing institutions of higher learning and the department to develop and regulate industrial hemp as part of an agricultural pilot program for the purpose of research into the growth, cultivation and marketing of industrial hemp as authorized by the agricultural act of 2014." A.R.S. § 3-312(B)(1); see H.B. 1098, 53rd Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (May 14, 2018). The Arizona Department of Agriculture administers the industrial hemp program. A.R.S. §§ 3-101, -314. And while the law seeks "[t]o allow the commercial growth, cultivation and marketing of industrial hemp," it does so "while maintaining strict control of marijuana." A.R.S. § 3-312(B)(2).
Delta-8 products proliferate in Arizona and across the country.
Seizing on the so-called "loophole" in the federal Farm Bill, cannabis producers "started experimenting with ways to convert CBD into delta-8-THC." Today, delta-8 is "[f]ound in gummies, vape cartridges, tinctures, and other products," and it "is popping up in gas stations, convenience stores, tobacco shops, and cannabis dispensaries throughout the US and beyond—often with no age restrictions."
While "[d]elta-8 is popular in states without legal marijuana . . . it also has proliferated in places like Arizona." And often, "[m]anufacturers are packaging and labeling these products in ways that may appeal to children."
Public health officials raise concerns about Delta-8 products.
According to a May 2022 Food and Drug Administration advisory, "delta-8 THC products have not been evaluated or approved by the FDA for safe use in any context," and "[t]hey may be marketed in ways that put the public health at risk and should especially be kept out of reach of children and pets."
The public-health concerns about delta-8 "include variability in product formulations and product labeling, other cannabinoid and terpene content, and variable delta-8 THC concentrations." And "with no regulatory oversight and limited laboratory testing, most products sold as delta-8-THC are not actually pure delta-8-THC." According to the FDA, "[s]ome manufacturers may use potentially unsafe household chemicals to make delta-8 THC through this chemical synthesis process," and "[t]he final delta-8 THC product may have potentially harmful by-products (contaminants) due to the chemicals used in the process."
Further, the "[m]anufacturing of delta-8 THC products may occur in uncontrolled or unsanitary settings, which may lead to the presence of unsafe contaminants or other potentially harmful substances." One laboratory president who has overseen the testing of "thousands of products labeled delta-8-THC" said that he has "not seen one that [he] would consider a legitimate delta-8-THC product."
As of May 2022, the FDA had "received 104 reports of adverse events in patients who consumed delta-8 THC products between December 1, 2020, and February 28, 2022," and national poison control centers had "received 2,362 exposure cases of delta-8" products between early 2021 and early 2022.
Analysis
You have asked this Office to examine whether entities that do not possess a license to sell cannabis products by Health Services can lawfully sell products containing delta-8 THC or similar hemp-synthesized intoxicants. The answer to that question depends on whether products containing hemp-synthesized intoxicants constitute "controlled substances" and/or "industrial hemp" under Arizona law. As explained below, we conclude that state law prevents entities not appropriately licensed by Health Services from selling products containing hemp-synthesized intoxicants like delta-8 THC.
Delta-8 THC is a Schedule 1 controlled substance in Arizona.
Arizona continues to list both cannabis and marijuana as Schedule 1 controlled substances. See A.R.S. § 36-2512(A) (directing pharmacy board to adopt as Schedule 1 controlled substances those substances identified in federal law and in A.R.S. § 13-3401). Arizona broadly defines cannabis to include "[t]he resin extracted from any part of a plant of the genus cannabis, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such plant, its seeds or its resin," and "[e]very compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such resin or tetrahydrocannabinol." A.R.S. § 13-3401(4)(a)-(b). Hemp is part of the cannabis plant, see A.R.S. § 3-311(7), and hemp-synthesized intoxicants are a cannabis "derivative" and a "manufacture . . . derivative . . . or preparation" of tetrahydrocannabinol, A.R.S. § 13-3401(4)(a)-(b). Delta-8 therefore unquestionably falls within the definition of cannabis and is a Schedule 1 controlled substance in Arizona.
Arizona's industrial hemp program does not exempt hemp-synthesized intoxicants from Health Services' regulation.
Arizona defines "[i]ndustrial hemp" to "mean[] the plant cannabis sativa L. and any part of such a plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than three-tenths percent on a dry-weight basis." A.R.S. § 3-311(7). Importantly, in contrast to the federal definition of "hemp," see 7 U.S.C. § 1639o(1), this definition does not include hemp "derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers."
Related provisions are in accord that industrial hemp does not include intoxicating derivatives and extracts of hemp in Arizona. The term "'[h]emp products' means all products made from industrial hemp, including cloth, cordage, fiber, fuel, grain, paint, paper, construction materials, plastics and by-products derived from sterile hemp seed or hemp seed oil." A.R.S. § 3-311(5). Thus, "hemp products" must be made from industrial hemp—which excludes derivatives and extracts—and the exemplary products are uniformly industrial and nonintoxicating in nature. This definition, moreover, also explicitly "excludes any product made to be ingested except food made from sterile hemp seed or hemp seed oil." Id.
The industrial hemp law also twice emphasizes Arizona's continuing "strict" regulation and control of marijuana. A.R.S. § 3-312(A); id. § 3-312(B)(2).
In AK Futures, the Ninth Circuit noted that the party arguing federal illegality was "effectively asking us to recognize . . . that substances legalized by the Farm [Bill] must be somehow suited for an industrial purpose, not for human consumption." 35 F.4th at 693. But an industrial-purpose "limitation appear[ed] neither in hemp's [federal] definition, nor in its exemption from the Controlled Substances Act." Id. Exactly the opposite is true under Arizona law. Arizona's use of the term "industrial hemp," itself, indicates an industrial purpose, and the related definitions and guidance uniformly confirm that Arizona did not intend to legalize an intoxicating derivative of hemp. Additionally, Arizona's decision to place intoxicating cannabis products within Health Services' purview and industrial hemp within the Department of Agriculture's purview establishes yet another clear demarcation between these products.
Arguments that delta-8 is broadly legal in Arizona are unavailing.
Notwithstanding the industrial hemp law's limited scope, advocates for broader delta-8 legalization have argued that Arizona has nonetheless legalized hemp-synthesized intoxicants in a manner coextensive with federal law. These arguments are unpersuasive.
The industrial hemp law cannot be understood to have legalized edible or non-edible forms of delta-8.
Section 3-311(5) expressly provides that the term "[h]emp products excludes any product made to be ingested except food made from sterile hemp seed or hemp seed oil." Gummies and other food products containing delta-8 therefore plainly cannot fall within the meaning of a hemp product. Nor can this provision be understood by omission to permit the manufacture and sale of non-food products (such as vapes) containing delta-8. The dispositive point, again, is that nothing in the text, history, or context of the industrial hemp law can be read or construed to legalize any intoxicating substance. It would make no sense to believe that Arizona intended to "maintain[] strict control of marijuana," A.R.S. § 3-312(B)(2), while impliedly legalizing an intoxicating cannabis derivative.
State v. Jones does not support an expansive reading of the industrial hemp law.
Arizona's medical marijuana law defines marijuana to mean "all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant." A.R.S. § 36-2801(10). In State v. Jones, the Arizona Supreme Court addressed whether this definition encompasses hashish, an "extracted resin" from marijuana. 246 Ariz. 452, 454 ¶ 1 (2019). Citing a dictionary definition of "part," the Court found that "'all parts' refers to all constituent elements of the marijuana plant, and the fact the resin must first be extracted from the plant reflects that it is part of the plant." Id. at 455 ¶ 9. The Court therefore held that AMMA "protects 'the registered qualifying patient's medical use of marijuana,' not just the use of the dried flowers of the marijuana plant." Id. at 456 ¶ 12.
Contrary to the view espoused by delta-8 advocates, this holding cannot be extended to support a broad definition of industrial hemp. As the Court observed in Jones, the medical marijuana law expressly anticipated that patients would "'consume [marijuana] by a method other than smoking,'" including in edible form. Id. at 455 ¶ 10. Jones's plain import is that because AMMA legalized marijuana—an intoxicating substance—for certain purposes, it must be understood to have legalized a materially similar intoxicating extract of marijuana. Nothing in the case's holding or reasoning supports its extension to the synthesis of an intoxicating product from a non-intoxicating product.
The industrial hemp law's incorporation of federal law does not legalize delta-8.
The Farm Bill, by its express terms, does not "preempt[] or limit[] any" any state law that regulates hemp production "more stringent[ly]" than federal law. 7 U.S.C. § 1639p(a)(3)(A). Conversely, Arizona's industrial hemp law provides that "[i]f authorized under federal law, the commercial production, processing, manufacturing, distribution and commerce of industrial hemp in this state is allowed outside of the agricultural pilot program." A.R.S. § 3-312(E).
But Arizona's incorporation of federal law in this provision is necessarily constrained by the term "industrial hemp," as defined and limited under Arizona law. This definition, in turn, was based on the federal definition of industrial hemp in the 2014 law authorizing industrial hemp pilot programs to the extent authorized by state law. See 7 U.S.C. § 5940(a), (b)(2). Only later, in the 2018 Farm Bill, did Congress define "hemp" more broadly than it had defined "industrial hemp."
Arizona courts "will not lightly divine legislative intent to displace state law with sweeping and prescriptive federal statutory law and administrative regulations." Roberts v. State, 253 Ariz. 259, 266–67 ¶¶ 21-23 (2022). Applying this principle here, § 3-312(E) is most reasonably understood to have anticipated that industrial hemp—as defined in Arizona, and as defined under federal law at the time—might later be permitted for uses outside a pilot program. This provision does not, however, manifest the legislative intent to broadly legalize "hemp"—as later defined by Congress, and as understood to arguably include intoxicating derivatives—under Arizona law.
Conclusion
For the reasons detailed above, this Opinion concludes that delta-8 and other hemp-synthesized intoxicants cannot legally be sold by entities that are not licensed cannabis sellers. Delta-8 is an intoxicating hemp-synthesized cannabinoid with a chemical profile and psychoactive effect materially similar to that of marijuana. Intoxicating cannabis products are Schedule 1 controlled substances that may be sold only by licensed cannabis sellers in Arizona. Arizona's 2018 industrial hemp law did not create an exception to these laws. Rather, in contrast to the federal Farm Bill, the industrial hemp law omitted hemp "extracts" and "derivatives" from the definition of industrial hemp and expressly provided that the State wished to "maintain[] strict control of marijuana." Delta-8's sale by unlicensed entities like convenience stores and smoke shops is therefore unlawful.
The Opinion, however, should not be construed as a general endorsement of the sale of hemp-synthesized intoxicants by licensed cannabis sellers. As is noted above, these products may pose public health concerns and information about these products is still emerging. Delta-8 is subject to Health Services' regulatory oversight, and future regulatory decisions will necessarily be guided by evolving public health and safety information concerning this product class, as well as by particularized information regarding specific intoxicating hemp products and manufacturers.
Kris Mayes
Attorney General