Chicago’s hemp THC showdown leaves stores open now, but the clock is ticking toward a federal rewrite in 2026.
Chicago’s latest attempt to rein in intoxicating hemp products ended with a mayoral veto and an override vote that never got off the mat. Mayor Brandon Johnson rejected a City Council ordinance that would have sharply restricted sales of many hemp-derived intoxicants outside Illinois’ regulated cannabis system, and the Council fell short of the votes needed to override him. Local reporting pegged the timeline to three key dates: the Council passed the measure 32-16 on Jan. 21, Johnson vetoed it on Feb. 13, and the override attempt failed Feb. 18 in a 26-20 vote.
That failure keeps Chicago in the status quo for now. Hemp-derived products that can get consumers high remain available under existing rules, while city officials argue over whether “regulation” means building tighter guardrails or moving most of the market into dispensaries. The fight also lands as the federal government’s definition of “hemp” is already set to tighten in a way that could upend much of today’s intoxicating-hemp business model nationwide, with changes scheduled to take effect 365 days after Congress enacted them on Nov. 12, 2025.
Chicago’s dispute is not only about safety, even when safety is the headline. The argument is about power: which businesses get protected, which get squeezed, and who gets to profit from hemp THC while lawmakers try to catch up.
What the ordinance would have done
The ordinance tried to separate “intoxicating” hemp-derived items from products that look more like conventional CBD commerce. It created a new category, “prohibited cannabinoid hemp product,” and built a framework that would have barred many hemp-derived intoxicants from broad retail while keeping a narrow lane open for certain hemp beverages and additives under specified license types. The text also leaned hard into compliance mechanics, including disclosure rules, warnings and traceability requirements, which are laid out in the ordinance document circulated during the Council debate.
The quick-hit effect was an age gate and a delayed crackdown. Reporting on the Council vote described an immediate prohibition on sales of intoxicating hemp products to anyone under 21, followed by broader restrictions slated to begin April 1, 2026. If the measure had survived, many hemp-derived snacks and similar products would have been pushed out of the city’s general retail channel.
The carveouts mattered, and they fueled some of the angriest debate. The ordinance defined a “hemp beverage” with a potency cap and required tight consumer-facing labeling. The compliance sections required conspicuous potency disclosure and, for certain prepackaged products, a QR code or similar method that links to batch analysis. The same language required warning postings, mandated that hemp beverages and hemp additives be kept behind a counter or otherwise inaccessible to minors, and barred self-service displays and vending machines.
Marketing limits were part of the package, and the ordinance did not mince words. It prohibited advertising that contains false or misleading claims, promotes overconsumption, depicts minors consuming products, makes health or therapeutic claims, or uses images designed to appeal to minors, including cartoons and toys. It also restricted giveaways in public places, including public sidewalks and parks, which is a way to keep “samples” from turning into a rolling street market.
Enforcement was built to escalate. The ordinance included fines that increase with repeat violations and gave the city authority to seize products offered for sale unlawfully, according to the enforcement provisions. Supporters framed that as overdue accountability. Opponents saw a city creating a compliance regime that smaller retailers would struggle to navigate.
Why Johnson vetoed it
Johnson’s veto message, as described in multiple reports, centered on equity and small-business harm. He called the ordinance “premature” in coverage of the veto and warned about the impact of a “prohibition-style” approach on legitimate small businesses that have been operating under current law, according to WTTW and The TRiiBE. Axios reported Johnson’s argument in similar terms, emphasizing his concern that a ban would land hardest on small shops and consumers who buy these products for pain relief, even while he acknowledged the need for tighter rules on youth access and packaging that appeals to children, as described in Axios’ coverage of the veto.
His broader process argument is easy to translate. Johnson signaled that youth protections and product safety rules belong in a regulatory structure that has clearer standards for testing, labeling and enforcement. His veto positioned the Council’s ordinance as too broad and too fast, especially with federal changes to hemp already on the calendar, an angle also reflected in CBS’ reporting on the aftermath.
That position left Johnson exposed to a blunt political attack: the idea that the city chose business interests over kids. Critics pushed that line during the override vote, according to CBS, and the optics are potent because the products at issue sometimes borrow the look and feel of familiar snacks.
The case supporters made for restricting hemp THC
Supporters of restrictions argued that hemp-derived intoxicants are functionally cannabis products without cannabis-style rules. Their case had three main pillars: youth access, product integrity and regulatory parity.
Youth access is the easiest argument to sell because the examples are visual. The federal government has already targeted “copycat” packaging for THC edibles. The FTC and FDA announced another round of enforcement in 2024, sending cease-and-desist letters to companies marketing Delta-8 THC edibles in packaging designed to resemble foods children eat, according to the FTC press release and an accompanying FTC consumer alert. Chicago lawmakers who supported the ordinance argued the city had its own version of that problem.
Product integrity is less flashy and more serious. FDA has warned consumers about Delta-8 THC products, citing adverse event reports and poison control center exposure cases, and noted concerns about inconsistent labeling and manufacturing methods, as described in the agency’s consumer update. City-level supporters framed their ordinance as a way to impose at least a baseline of labeling and traceability for products that remain legally sold through the beverage lane.
Regulatory parity is where cannabis politics get personal. Licensed cannabis operators comply with testing rules, packaging restrictions, age verification requirements and tax structures. Hemp-derived intoxicants can operate outside that system, often relying on the federal 2018 Farm Bill framework that keyed legality to delta-9 THC concentration rather than total THC. Supporters argued that a market selling near-substitute intoxicants without comparable controls invites consumer harm and undermines the regulated cannabis market.
The case opponents made against Chicago’s approach
Opponents did not deny there are bad actors in the hemp THC market. Their argument focused on scale and collateral damage.
City officials themselves raised enforcement and economic concerns during the January debate. WTTW reported that Business Affairs and Consumer Protection Commissioner Ivan Capifali warned the initial proposal would be difficult to enforce and could threaten hundreds of businesses, and he cited estimates of 10,000 jobs at risk and a $10 million hit to sales tax revenue in his testimony, as described in WTTW’s Jan. 21 report. Those figures were part of a policy argument, and they function as estimates rather than audited economic data, which is one reason Chicago’s debate became a fight over what counts as evidence.
Opponents also argued the ordinance would distort competition by channeling customers into dispensaries and select licensed venues while shrinking the market for hemp-focused small retailers. Axios reported on small businesses lobbying the mayor to veto the measure, framing it as a ban that would push most sales into dispensaries while leaving THC drinks exempt in some liquor settings, as described in Axios’ reporting.
The carveouts gave critics an easy talking point: the law drew lines based on product format. Ald. Daniel La Spata, who voted against the ordinance, mocked the logic by saying it would be legal “if you drink it with a straw” while illegal if it is chewed, a quote reported by WTTW. That critique stuck because it captures how regulatory compromises can look arbitrary to consumers and businesses.
When the Council tried to override Johnson, the vote math showed the coalition’s limits. CBS reported the Council voted 26-20 on the override motion, with several alderpersons who supported the ordinance switching sides or not voting, which is laid out in CBS’ Feb. 18 coverage. Opponents took that result as proof that the ordinance overreached. Supporters took it as proof that the city’s politics lag behind the market.
The market context: hemp THC beverages are going mainstream
Chicago’s timing is not an accident. Hemp-derived THC beverages have moved beyond novelty shelves and into major venues, which raises the stakes for regulators and public health officials.
The United Center announced it would begin selling hemp-derived THC drinks at concerts and non-sporting events, billing itself as the first major arena in the country to do it, according to Axios. The report said the venue’s lineup included multiple 5-milligram options for customers 21 and older and noted that Bulls and Blackhawks games were excluded for now.
That shift is cultural, and it is commercial. Beverages sell the idea of controlled dosing, familiar social rituals and an alternative to alcohol. The Guardian framed the United Center move as part of a broader trend and highlighted concerns about labeling, staff training and public safety, including impaired driving and mixing THC with alcohol, as described in its Jan. 28 report. Food & Wine also covered the arena rollout and emphasized the 21-and-older model and the 5-milligram servings as the industry leans into “low and slow” consumption, as described in its report.
None of this is unique to Chicago. The same beverage trend shows up in other markets, including in event culture where cannabis is treated less like a countercultural accessory and more like a calibrated consumer product. Arizona’s cannabis community has watched similar product formats migrate into mainstream conversation, especially as venues and promoters look for alternatives to alcohol-centric models. Trap Culture’s audience does not need a lecture on why that matters. The story is already familiar: once a product shows up at big events, regulation tends to follow.
The federal backdrop: the November 2026 cliff
Local debates about hemp THC are now tied to federal law in a way that feels almost designed to cause confusion.
Congress enacted changes to the federal definition of hemp in Public Law 119-37, part of a spending package signed on Nov. 12, 2025. Section 781 of the law changes the hemp definition effective 365 days after enactment and shifts the standard from delta-9 THC alone to “total tetrahydrocannabinols,” explicitly including THCA, capped at 0.3% on a dry weight basis, as stated in the law text.
The same section adds exclusions that go directly at intoxicating consumer products. The law excludes final hemp-derived cannabinoid products containing more than 0.4 milligrams combined total per container of total tetrahydrocannabinols, including THCA, plus any other cannabinoids with similar effects as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as specified in the exclusion language. The law also defines “container” as the innermost packaging in direct contact with a final product, which matters because compliance can hinge on whether “per container” means a single gummy, a bag of gummies or a multi-serve bottle.
That federal shift is the timer sitting under Chicago’s fight. The city was debating rules for products that may be forced into a different legal category once the federal definition change takes effect in November 2026. WTTW noted the looming federal change in its coverage of the January vote, describing it as a factor that shaped the city’s options, as reported in its Jan. 21 story.
This is where policy gets messy in a hurry. A city can attempt to regulate a market that may shrink or transform under federal definitions. A city can also wait and risk leaving consumers and teens exposed to a gray market for another year. Chicago’s mayor and Council picked different risks.
What stays legal now in Chicago
Johnson’s veto means the ordinance’s restrictions do not take effect, including the April 1 start date for broader limitations. The market continues under existing rules, which is why hemp THC retailers framed the veto as a lifeline and why ordinance supporters framed it as a delay that puts children at risk.
City Council members who criticized the veto during the override vote repeated the youth-protection argument. CBS quoted Ald. Anthony Beale saying the ordinance aimed to protect children from misleading packaging, while opponents argued the Council banned “some of the good products” along with the bad, according to CBS’ report. ABC7 covered the same meeting and captured alderpersons framing the debate as a question of whether government can properly regulate the category if it allows it, as reported in ABC7’s recap.
For consumers, the veto changes less than the headlines suggest. The shelves stay stocked. The labeling standards remain inconsistent across brands and retailers. The risk profile depends on what a consumer buys, how it is made and whether testing results are real and accessible. That practical reality is exactly what drove both sides to claim they were protecting the public.
What happens next
Chicago can return with narrower legislation that focuses on age verification, testing, labeling and enforcement without effectively pushing most hemp THC commerce into dispensaries. The city can also revisit zoning and licensing, which can reshape retail behavior without a sweeping “ban” framing.
Illinois lawmakers have already signaled interest in standardizing rules. A bill filed in the 104th General Assembly, SB3919, proposes changes to state law that would prohibit sales of hemp products intended for human consumption to people under 21 and would restrict “synthetic hemp products,” among other provisions, according to the bill’s full text summary. State action would reduce the patchwork problem where cities experiment with different rules and businesses chase the easiest jurisdiction.
Federal agencies will keep applying pressure on the worst marketing abuses in the meantime, especially packaging designed to appeal to kids and deceptive health claims, which fits the pattern laid out in the FTC-FDA enforcement actions. Congress can still revisit or delay the federal hemp rewrite, and industry groups are lobbying hard around that possibility, which is why the November 2026 deadline remains a focus for everyone who sells or regulates hemp THC.
Chicago’s current reality is simple. The veto preserved the market. The vote preserved the fight. The federal clock preserved the urgency.
***
Trap Culture is the ultimate destination for cannabis enthusiasts who want to experience the best of Arizona’s cannabis culture. Whether you are looking for the hottest cannabis-friendly events, the latest news on cannabis legalization, trends in the industry and exclusive, limited-edition products from the top brands in the market, Trap Culture has you covered. Visit our website to learn more about our events, our blog, and our store. Follow us on social media to stay updated on the latest news and promotions. Join the Trap Culture family and experience the most immersive and engaging social cannabis events in Arizona.
Follow us on social media
