Wisconsin’s Hemp Ban Proposal: Why It’s Bad Policy

Wisconsin prides itself on independence and common-sense values. It is the birthplace of great craft breweries and a state where taverns are as common as churches. Yet when it comes to cannabis – and especially the hemp-derived cannabinoids that have become a vital lifeline for Wisconsin farmers and small retailers – state lawmakers are poised to slam the door shut. On September 19, 2025, Rep. Jim Piwowarczyk introduced a bill to ban intoxicating hemp products such as delta-8-THC, delta-10-THC, THCA and HHC. His press release brands these products as “dangerous,” calls THC a “gateway drug” and cites a recent uptick in poison-control calls. Supporters of the proposal argue that a ban is necessary to protect children and public health.

But the evidence tells a very different story. By almost every measure – toxicity, addiction risk, public-health impact and economic consequence – hemp-derived cannabinoids are less harmful than legally accepted substances like alcohol and tobacco. This blog post reviews the facts, debunks myths and explains why banning hemp THC products would do far more harm than good for Wisconsin. Instead of prohibition, Wisconsin should adopt a rational regulatory model: treat hemp THC the way we already treat alcohol and tobacco – with testing, labeling, age restrictions and tax revenue – and finally join our neighboring states in embracing legal cannabis.

Putting Risk in Context

Opponents of hemp cannabinoids often point to poison-control statistics, implying that delta-8 and similar products pose a severe threat. It is true that calls concerning delta-8 exposures have risen as the market has grown. America’s Poison Centers reports that from 2021 through April 2025, U.S. poison centers handled about 10,434 exposure cases involving delta-8, with 370 cases reported in the first four months of 2025. Most of these incidents involved mild to moderate effects; no deaths were reported.

Now compare these numbers with our state’s accepted intoxicants. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), excessive alcohol use kills roughly 178,000 Americans every year – about 488 deaths each day. Alcohol also kills more than 4,000 people under age 21 annually. Tobacco remains America’s leading preventable killer, causing more than 480,000 deaths per year. These stark figures dwarf anything seen with hemp THC products. Cannabis (whether from marijuana or hemp) has no documented fatal toxic overdoses; even in rare hospitalizations, patients recover with supportive care.

Public-health policy should be proportional to actual risk. If we accept alcohol and tobacco – substances that kill hundreds of thousands – while forbidding hemp THC because of a few thousand non-fatal poison-control calls, we are not protecting public health; we are entrenching a double standard.

Debunking the “Gateway Drug” Myth

One of the oldest scare stories about cannabis is that it leads inevitably to harder drugs. Rep. Piwowarczyk repeats this “gateway drug” trope in his press release. However, decades of research contradict this narrative. A 2016 study from the RAND Drug Policy Research Center analyzed drug use histories of tens of thousands of U.S. youths and concluded that the apparent progression from cannabis to other drugs is largely due to social and environmental factors, not a pharmacological effect. In plain terms, people inclined toward experimentation often start with the most accessible substances (cannabis and alcohol) before trying others; that does not mean cannabis somehow changes their brain to crave heroin.

Addiction statistics further weaken the gateway claim. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) research finds that about nine percent of cannabis users develop some level of dependence. That is significantly lower than the addiction rates for alcohol (about 15 percent) and tobacco (around 32 percent). In other words, cannabis is less addictive than Wisconsin’s favorite beverages and cigarettes. Cannabis withdrawal symptoms are also far milder than alcohol or nicotine withdrawal. If addiction risk is our yardstick for prohibiting a substance, then alcohol and tobacco should have been banned long ago. Instead, we wisely regulate and tax them.

Wisconsin’s Double Standard

Wisconsinites can legally buy a bottle of whiskey at a gas station or a pack of cigarettes from a vending machine. Both products are sold with age limits and warning labels and (in the case of alcohol) modest taxes. Yet lawmakers want to criminalize hemp-derived THC products that are far less lethal and less addictive. Such inconsistency cannot be explained by science or public-health priorities. Instead it reflects cultural stigma and decades of prohibitionist inertia.

If the concern is keeping hemp products away from children, the solution is simple: restrict sales to adults 21 and older, require child-resistant packaging, ban cartoonish branding and enforce penalties for retailers who sell to minors. This is exactly how we manage alcohol and tobacco. There is no rational basis to impose a zero-tolerance ban on hemp THC while leaving beer and cigarettes on every corner.

Economic Fallout: Who Gets Hurt?

Wisconsin’s hemp industry is not a fringe endeavor. Over the past few years, hemp cannabinoids like delta-8 have become a lifeline for many local farmers, processors and retailers. Farmers who pivoted from dairy or grain to hemp have found a profitable niche; small businesses have flourished selling hemp-derived edibles, vapes and beverages. Banning these products overnight would destroy livelihoods, close stores and push consumers into neighboring states or the black market. Wisconsin already loses tens of millions in tax revenue as residents drive to Illinois and Michigan for legal cannabis. A hemp ban would make that exodus worse.

Conclusion

The push to ban hemp-derived THC products in Wisconsin is driven more by fear and stigma than facts. By any objective measure, hemp cannabinoids pose far less risk than alcohol and tobacco, and the supposed gateway drug theory has no scientific basis. Prohibition will not protect anyone; it will only harm small businesses, farmers and responsible adult consumers while sending money out of state. Wisconsin should follow the evidence and regulate hemp THC the way it regulates alcohol and tobacco: with sensible safeguards, age limits and taxes. That approach would protect public health without sacrificing freedom or economic opportunity.