If we start with the premise that the timing of the FDA sending its CBD Enforcement Discretion Policy to the White House on 7/23, immediately before the Senate was slated to unveil their economic stimulus bill, wasn’t a coincidence, then we are left with a number of possibilities
I think the following are most likely:
#1 Mitch asked the FDA/White House for the CBD Enforcement Discretion Policy before passing the upcoming HEALS/HEROES Act because he wanted to put some or all of its language into written law with or without CBD Legalization
#2 Mitch wanted to see the CBD Enforcement Discretion Policy before passing CBD Isolate Legalization to see if he might be able to legalize more than just CBD Isolate — is the Enforcement Discretion Policy just for CBD Isolate or is it for other formulations (Broad/Full) as well?
#3 The FDA wanted to send Mitch the CBD Enforcement Discretion Policy before he tries to pass CBD Isolate Legalization as some sort of inducement — perhaps intended to decrease his motivation to legalize CBD Isolate or perhaps to dissuade him from extending the legalization even further to cover Broad Spectrum, Full Spectrum or both
In the big scheme of things, it looks like we are certainly getting Enforcement Discretion for CBD this summer, which would essentially serve as “legalization” for CBD Products
Enforcement Discretion would also likely lay out the first formal guidelines for CBD, acting as interim regulations
So in its most probable form...
Enforcement Discretion = “Legalization” + Interim Regs
Therefore, we are either getting Interim Regs + Legalization or Interim Regs + “Legalization” this summer
We all want the former, but I’d certainly settle for the latter if that’s the best we can do at this juncture
The national market will be opened by either outcome
It’s moreso a difference in the extent of the opening that differentiates the two possibilities
Both are on the other end of the spectrum compared to what we have now
Sleek
