Maryland Court Upholds Ban on Hemp-Derived Intoxicants: Why This Matters for Cannabis Policy Reform

A Maryland appellate court has delivered a major decision in Moore v. Maryland Hemp Coalition, upholding the state’s ban on retail sales of hemp-derived intoxicants such as delta-8-THC, delta-10-THC, and other synthetically modified cannabinoids. This case could have national implications for hemp businesses, cannabis policy, and consumer access.

The Court’s Decision

The appellate panel reversed a lower court’s injunction that had temporarily protected retailers from enforcement actions. The judges were clear: there is no legal right to sell intoxicating hemp products in Maryland, and these products “are now and have always been illegal” under state law.

The court also rejected the argument that past lax enforcement somehow created a legal pathway for these products, emphasizing that the state’s interest in public health and safety outweighs retailers’ claims.

What This Means for Consumers and Businesses

This ruling sends a strong signal to hemp retailers nationwide. States have the power to restrict intoxicating hemp products even when they are federally legal under the 2018 Farm Bill.

For Maryland residents, this means:

• Delta-8, Delta-10, THC-O and similar products are now illegal to sell or possess.

• Retailers must immediately comply or face enforcement.

• Consumers lose a legal alternative that many have turned to for therapeutic or recreational purposes.

This creates a patchwork system where legality depends entirely on state borders, forcing consumers into unregulated or illicit markets if they still want access.

Public Health vs. Prohibition

While the ruling cites public health concerns — mislabeled products, contamination, lack of safety data — the ban takes an all-or-nothing approach. Instead of regulating for safety, Maryland chose prohibition.

NORML has long argued that bans only push products underground, where oversight and quality control disappear. Consumers deserve regulation, testing, and labeling, not a return to prohibitionist policies that criminalize ordinary people.

National Implications

This case could become a model for other states considering similar bans. We are already seeing a wave of restrictive hemp laws nationwide, as policymakers react to the popularity of hemp-derived intoxicants.

But it also highlights the urgent need for federal reform. As long as hemp and cannabis remain regulated under separate, contradictory frameworks, consumers will face confusion, businesses will face legal whiplash, and courts will be left to interpret inconsistent laws.

Our Take

At Suncoast NORML, we believe:

• Consumers have the right to safe, tested cannabinoid products.

• Prohibition is not the answer. Regulation, not bans, is the best way to protect public health.

• Federal cannabis reform is overdue. Congress must create a clear, science-based framework that governs all cannabinoids, hemp or marijuana.

Take Action

If you care about consumer rights, safe access, and ending cannabis prohibition in all its forms — join us. Support Suncoast NORML’s work to push for fair policy in Florida and beyond.

Join Suncoast NORML Today →

Together, we can make sure the future of hemp and cannabis is based on science, safety, and freedom — not fear.