Maine LD 1847: Medical Cannabis Testing and THC Potency Caps

Testing Requirements PLUS Potency Caps—When Good Intentions Create Unintended Consequences

Bill Status: Carried over to 2026 session after 2025 debate | Even stronger industry opposition than LD 104 | Pediatric safety concerns vs. patient access conflict

CBDT Impact: -1 to -3 percentage points legal market share | Potency caps drive high-need patients to illicit markets | Testing provisions positive, but caps overwhelm benefits

Last Updated: November 2025

The Bill at a Glance

Executive Summary

LD 1847 combines LD 104's testing requirements with controversial THC potency caps on medical edibles, packaging restrictions to prevent pediatric ingestion, and redirected tax revenue to public health awareness. While the bill addresses legitimate pediatric safety concerns—children unintentionally ingesting high-THC hemp candies packaged like regular snacks—the potency cap provisions would restrict access for legitimate medical patients who rely on high-dose edibles for chronic pain, cancer, and PTSD.

The Pediatric Crisis LD 1847 Addresses:

Testimony before Maine Legislature documented children unintentionally ingesting high-THC hemp products sold at gas stations and convenience stores. Products contained 100mg+ THC per package with packaging mimicking popular candy brands (Skittles, Sour Patch Kids, etc.). Minimal warnings. No age verification. Results: pediatric ER visits, calls to poison control, frightened parents discovering intoxicated children.

CBDT Framework Assessment:

LD 1847 impacts multiple framework variables with conflicting effects:

Positive:

• Safety/quality improvement from testing: +3-5 percentage points
• Reduced pediatric access concerns improves public perception: +0.5-1 point
• Packaging requirements reduce accidental ingestion: +0.2-0.5 points

Negative:

• THC potency caps restrict legitimate medical use: -3-5 percentage points
• High-need patients (cancer, chronic pain) migrate to illicit/adult-use: -1-2 points
• Price increases from testing without caps: -0.5-1 point

Net Impact: -1 to -3 percentage points legal medical market share

The Political Reality:

LD 1847 faces even stronger opposition than LD 104 because THC caps are seen as government overreach into doctor-patient relationships. Medical cannabis patients testified: "You're telling me I can't have the medicine my doctor recommends because someone else's kid ate candy they shouldn't have access to?"

Verdict: Split LD 1847 into two bills:

1. Pass LD 104 (testing + subsidies) separately
2. Pass pediatric packaging reforms (age verification, distinct packaging, storage requirements)
3. Reject THC potency caps (individual patient needs vary, arbitrary caps harm legitimate patients)

Address pediatric safety through point-of-sale controls and packaging—not by restricting medical patients' access to therapeutic products.

The Problem: Two Distinct Crises Bundled Into One Bill

Crisis 1: Medical Cannabis Testing (Same as LD 104)

Maine remains the only U.S. state without mandatory testing for medical cannabis. 42% contamination rate. Eagle 20EW pesticide creating cyanide gas. Chinese organized crime infiltration. [See full LD 104 analysis for details.]

LD 1847 Solution: Comprehensive testing requirements aligned with adult-use standards.

CBDT Impact: +3-5 percentage points (safety/quality improvement)

Crisis 2: Pediatric Ingestion of High-THC Products

The Problem: Maine's hemp loophole allowed sale of delta-8, delta-9, delta-10, HHC, THC-O, and other hemp-derived cannabinoids with minimal regulation. Products appeared at:

• Gas stations and convenience stores
• Smoke shops
• Online retailers
• No age verification required
• No child-resistant packaging required
• Packaging deliberately mimicked popular candy brands

The Cases:

Testimony from parents, law enforcement, and pediatricians documented:

• Children finding "gummies" at home, eating entire package (100mg+ THC)
• Severe intoxication: confusion, vomiting, rapid heart rate, panic
• Poison control calls increasing
• ER visits by children under 12
• Products packaged identically to Skittles, Sour Patch Kids, Jolly Ranchers
• Minimal warnings ("Keep away from children" in tiny text)

Example: 8-year-old found package of "Stoney Patch Kids" (parody of Sour Patch Kids) in parent's drawer, ate 10 gummies thinking they were candy. 150mg THC total. Rushed to ER with altered mental status, vomiting, tachycardia.

LD 1847 Solution: Restrict high-THC products to licensed cannabis dispensaries, mandate child-resistant packaging, require distinct appearance from regular candy.

CBDT Impact: +0.5-1 point (public perception improvement, legitimate safety concern addressed)

The Bundling Problem

LD 1847 combines these two legitimate concerns (testing contamination, pediatric safety) with a third, controversial provision: THC potency caps on medical edibles.

THC Potency Caps:

• Specific limits TBD (testimony suggested 5-10mg per serving, 50-100mg per package)
• Would apply to medical cannabis edibles
• Intended to prevent high-dose products from reaching children

The Conflict: Medical cannabis patients with chronic pain, cancer, or PTSD often require 50-100mg+ doses for therapeutic effect. Potency caps would force these patients to:

• Consume 10-20 low-dose edibles (impractical, expensive)
• Switch to flower/concentrates (some patients cannot smoke/vape)
• Purchase from illicit market (no potency caps)
• Switch to adult-use (if eligible, but defeats medical program purpose)

This is why LD 1847 faces stronger opposition than LD 104's testing-only approach.

What LD 1847 Does

Core Provisions

1. Mandatory Testing (Same as LD 104)

• Comprehensive laboratory testing for pesticides, mold, heavy metals, potency
• Seed-to-sale tracking
• Alignment with adult-use standards

2. THC Potency Caps on Medical Edibles

• Per-serving limits: 5-10mg THC (exact limit TBD in rulemaking)
• Per-package limits: 50-100mg total THC (exact limit TBD)
• Applies to medical cannabis edibles only
• Does NOT apply to flower, concentrates, tinctures, topicals

Rationale: Prevent high-potency products from reaching children through accidental ingestion or diversion.

3. Packaging Restrictions

• Child-resistant packaging mandatory (current requirement, strengthened enforcement)
• Distinct appearance: Gummies cannot mimic popular candy brands
• Clear labeling: Large warning text, THC content per serving prominently displayed
• Separate from regular food: Cannot package cannabis edibles with regular food products

4. Point-of-Sale Restrictions

• High-THC products (>5mg per serving) restricted to licensed cannabis dispensaries
• No gas station/convenience store sales of intoxicating cannabinoids
• Age verification required: 21+ (adult-use) or medical patient card
• Behind-counter storage (no self-service displays)

5. Youth Cannabis Use Study Group

• Establish commission to study youth cannabis consumption patterns
• Assess effectiveness of prevention programs
• Recommend evidence-based policies
• Report findings to Legislature (2026)

6. Tax Revenue Allocation

• Divert portion of adult-use tax revenue to public health campaigns
• Focus on youth prevention, safe storage education, parent awareness
• Fund substance abuse treatment programs

What LD 1847 Does NOT Do

The CBDT Framework Analysis

Lever-by-Lever Assessment

1. Price Gap (g) — MODERATE NEGATIVE

Weight: 4× (highest impact)

Two effects:

Testing Cost Impact (same as LD 104):

• Medical cannabis prices increase 5-10% to cover testing costs
• Small caregivers most affected (testing = 5-40% of revenue)
• Price gap impact: -0.5 to -1.0 percentage points

Potency Cap Impact:

• Patients needing high doses must purchase more low-dose units
• Example: Patient requiring 100mg dose
  • Current: One 100mg package = $20-30
  • With 10mg cap: Ten 10mg packages = $60-120 (3-4× price increase)
• Illicit market has no potency caps (100mg edibles readily available)
• Price gap impact: -1.0 to -2.0 percentage points

Combined price impact: -1.5 to -3.0 percentage points

2. Access Density (D) — MODERATE NEGATIVE

Weight: 1×

Positive Effect:

• Point-of-sale restrictions reduce illicit hemp products (gas stations)
• Legitimate dispensaries become exclusive source for high-THC products
• Access improvement: +0.2 to +0.5 points

Negative Effect:

• High-need patients cannot obtain therapeutic doses through legal medical program
• Must switch to:
  • Illicit market (no caps, same products previously available)
  • Adult-use (if eligible—but more expensive, less personalized)
  • Home cultivation (if capable—but edibles require expertise)
• Effective access reduction for 20-30% of medical patients (those requiring high doses)
• Access reduction: -1.5 to -2.5 percentage points

Net access impact: -1.3 to -2.0 percentage points

3. Safety/Quality (S) — MAJOR POSITIVE

Weight: 1.2× (second-highest)

Testing Requirements:

• Same safety improvement as LD 104
• Zero contaminated products reach patients
• Consumer confidence in legal market safety
• Impact: +3.0 to +5.0 percentage points

Pediatric Safety Improvements:

• Packaging restrictions reduce accidental ingestion risk
• Point-of-sale controls prevent children's access at gas stations
• Public perception: "Legal market protects children" vs. "Wild West hemp products"
• Addresses legitimate concern undermining public support for legalization
• Impact: +0.5 to +1.0 percentage points

Combined safety impact: +3.5 to +6.0 percentage points

4. Convenience (F) — MINOR NEGATIVE

Weight: 1×

Testing delays: 3-5 business days (same as LD 104)

Potency cap inconvenience: High-need patients must:

• Purchase and consume multiple low-dose products (10× packages vs. 1× package)
• Track multiple packages for daily dosing
• Increased cost and hassle

Combined convenience impact: -0.3 to -0.6 percentage points

5. Enforcement (E) — MINOR POSITIVE

Weight: 0.6×

Positive effects:

• Point-of-sale restrictions easier to enforce (licensed dispensaries only)
• Seed-to-sale tracking enables recalls
• Packaging requirements create visual distinction (enforcement officers can identify legal vs. illicit)

Limitations:

• Doesn't address illicit cultivation
• Potency caps may increase illicit demand (patients seeking unrestricted products)

Net enforcement impact: +0.2 to +0.5 percentage points

CBDT Score Summary

Critical Finding: While LD 1847's testing and packaging provisions improve safety dramatically (+3.5-6 points), the THC potency caps create access barriers and price increases that drive high-need medical patients to illicit markets (-3-5 points), resulting in NET NEGATIVE impact.

The Patient Opposition: Why THC Caps Are Different From Testing

Medical cannabis patients testified overwhelmingly against LD 1847—even more strongly than opposition to LD 104.

Patient Testimonies (Composite Examples)

Cancer Patient (Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea): "I need 75-100mg edibles before chemo to prevent vomiting. With 10mg caps, I'd have to eat 8-10 gummies. When you're nauseous, that's impossible. My doctor prescribed this dose. Why is the state overruling my oncologist?"

Chronic Pain Patient (Failed Back Surgery Syndrome): "I've been on opioids for 15 years. Cannabis edibles (50mg twice daily) let me reduce my oxycodone by 80%. But I need that dose—10mg does nothing. If medical program caps potency, I'll either go back to opioids or buy from illicit market. This is not helping me."

PTSD Patient (Combat Veteran): "High-dose edibles (100mg+ at night) are only thing that stops nightmares. VA doctors support my use but can't prescribe due to federal law. Now state wants to cap my access? I served my country and this is how Maine treats veterans?"

Pediatric Epilepsy Parent: "My daughter needs 80mg CBD + 20mg THC daily for seizure control. With potency caps, I'd have to give her 10+ gummies throughout the day. She's 7 years old. She needs one or two doses, not constant snacking on medicine disguised as candy. This law makes her condition HARDER to manage."

The Doctor-Patient Relationship Argument

Maine Medical Cannabis Association (physicians who certify patients) opposed LD 1847:

Argument: Individual patient needs vary dramatically based on:

• Body weight and metabolism
• Tolerance (chronic users require higher doses than occasional)
• Severity of condition
• Prior medication history
• Delivery method preference

Arbitrary caps (10mg, 50mg, 100mg) ignore medical individualization. Physicians should determine appropriate doses for their patients—not Legislature establishing one-size-fits-all limits.

Comparison to other medicines:

• Maine doesn't cap prescription opioid doses at arbitrary milligrams
• Maine doesn't cap benzodiazepine doses
• Maine doesn't cap prescription stimulant doses
• Physicians prescribe based on individual patient needs

Why treat cannabis differently? Especially when cannabis has FAR lower overdose risk than opioids, benzos, or alcohol (which has no potency caps on beer/wine/liquor).

The Illicit Market Alternative

Patient calculation:

Option A (Legal medical with caps):

• Dose needed: 100mg
• Legal maximum per package: 50mg (example cap)
• Must purchase: 2 packages
• Cost: $30-40 per package × 2 = $60-80 per dose
• Inconvenience: Track multiple packages, consume multiple products

Option B (Illicit market):

• Dose available: 100mg edibles readily available
• No caps, no restrictions
• Cost: $20-30 per dose
• Convenience: One product, familiar source

Many patients choose Option B. LD 1847's potency caps push high-need patients TOWARD illicit markets—undermining the bill's stated goal of improving safety.

Public Health Advocates' Counter-Argument

Supporters of LD 1847 (pediatricians, parents, child safety groups) argue potency caps are necessary:

The Diversion Concern

Argument: High-potency medical edibles (100mg+) are diverted to:

• Recreational users (medical card holders sharing/selling)
• Minors (teenagers obtaining from medical cardholders)
• Accidental ingestion (children finding products at home)

Evidence: National studies show 20-30% of medical cannabis patients report sharing with friends/family. High-potency edibles particularly attractive for diversion (single package provides multiple recreational doses).

Counter-argument (patients): Diversion is already illegal. Punish those who divert, don't restrict all patients.

The Accidental Ingestion Risk

Argument: High-potency edibles increase severity of pediatric ingestion incidents:

• 10mg gummy consumed by child = uncomfortable but manageable
• 100mg gummy consumed by child = ER visit, possible hospitalization

Rationale for caps: Reduce harm when accidental ingestion occurs (not eliminate, but minimize severity).

Counter-argument (patients):

• Child-resistant packaging prevents access (if used properly)
• Parent education on safe storage
• Don't restrict legitimate medical use because of parental negligence

Colorado Model Reference

Colorado implemented potency caps on adult-use edibles:

• 10mg THC per serving
• 100mg per package (10 servings)
• Child-resistant packaging

Result: Pediatric ingestion incidents declined 25% (2014-2018) while legal market continued growing.

LD 1847 advocates: Maine should follow Colorado's evidence-based approach.

Patients counter: Colorado caps apply to ADULT-USE (recreational). Medical programs should allow physician discretion for therapeutic doses exceeding recreational limits.

The Policy Split: What Should Pass vs. What Should Fail

Should Pass: Pediatric Packaging and Point-of-Sale Reforms

Consensus provisions from LD 1847 that address legitimate concerns:

1. Child-resistant packaging (strengthened enforcement)
2. Distinct appearance (no candy brand mimicry)
3. Point-of-sale restrictions (licensed dispensaries only for high-THC)
4. Age verification (21+ or medical card required)
5. Behind-counter storage (no self-service displays)
6. Clear labeling (prominent THC content warnings)

CBDT Impact: +0.5-1 point (pediatric safety, public perception)

Political viability: Strong bipartisan support

Should Pass: Testing Requirements (LD 104)

With cost subsidies for small caregivers:

1. Comprehensive laboratory testing
2. Seed-to-sale tracking
3. $1.2-1.8M annual subsidy program

CBDT Impact: +1-3 points (safety/quality improvement)

Political viability: 65-75% with subsidies

Should FAIL: THC Potency Caps on Medical Edibles

Reasons to reject:

1. Doctor-patient relationship: Physicians should determine appropriate doses
2. Individual variation: Patient needs vary (weight, tolerance, severity)
3. Illicit market migration: High-need patients forced to unregulated sources
4. Arbitrary limits: 10mg, 50mg, 100mg have no medical basis
5. Alternative solutions exist: Packaging, point-of-sale controls address same concerns
6. Medical vs. recreational distinction: Medical should allow therapeutic doses exceeding recreational limits

CBDT Impact: Caps alone = -3 to -5 points (access restriction, price increase)

Political reality: Strong patient opposition makes passage unlikely

2026 Legislative Outlook

Predicted outcomes:

Scenario 1: Bill Split (70% probability)

• LD 1847 amended to remove potency caps
• Testing + packaging reforms pass separately
• THC caps rejected or studied further
• Compromise satisfies most stakeholders

Scenario 2: Full Passage (15% probability)

• LD 1847 passes with caps as written
• Strong pediatric safety advocacy overcomes patient opposition
• Implementation delayed (12-18 months) to allow adjustment
• High-need patients migrate to adult-use or illicit markets

Scenario 3: Full Rejection (15% probability)

• Industry opposition defeats entire bill
• Testing reforms delayed to 2027
• Pediatric ingestion concerns persist
• Status quo continues (Maine remains only state without testing)

Most likely: Scenario 1. Committee separates testing/packaging (broad support) from potency caps (divisive). Pass consensus provisions, study caps further or reject outright.

Winners and Losers

Winners (If Passed Without Caps)

Medical Cannabis Patients:

• Safe, tested products free from contamination
• Maintained access to therapeutic doses
• Improved packaging protects their children

Children/Parents:

• Reduced accidental ingestion risk (packaging, point-of-sale controls)
• Clearer labeling enables safe storage

Licensed Dispensaries:

• Exclusive authorized source for high-THC products (gas stations excluded)
• Level playing field (all must test)

Public Health:

• Testing eliminates contamination
• Pediatric safety addressed through packaging, not access restrictions

Losers (If Passed With Caps)

High-Need Medical Patients:

• Cannot obtain therapeutic doses legally
• Forced to illicit market or adult-use (less personalized)
• Increased costs (multiple packages for single dose)

Physicians:

• Medical judgment overridden by arbitrary legislative caps
• Cannot prescribe optimal doses for individual patients

Medical Cannabis Program:

• Patient exodus to adult-use or illicit markets
• Revenue decline as high-dose users leave program
• Defeats purpose of medical program (individualized care)

Illicit Market:

• Gains customers driven away by caps
• Competitive advantage (no potency restrictions)

Conclusion: The Right Problem, The Wrong Solution

LD 1847 addresses two legitimate concerns:

1. Medical cannabis contamination (42% failure rate)
2. Pediatric ingestion of high-THC products

The testing and packaging reforms are correct policy. Maine should:

• Require comprehensive testing (same as 49 other states)
• Mandate child-resistant packaging
• Restrict high-THC products to licensed dispensaries
• Establish distinct appearance (no candy mimicry)
• Fund public education on safe storage

The THC potency caps are incorrect policy. Arbitrary milligram limits:

• Override doctor-patient relationships
• Ignore individual patient variation
• Drive high-need patients to illicit markets
• Achieve same pediatric safety goal through less restrictive means

CBDT Verdict: LD 1847 as written creates NET NEGATIVE impact (-1 to -3 points) because potency caps' harm outweighs testing/packaging benefits.

Legislative Recommendation:

Split LD 1847:

1. Pass testing provisions (LD 104 model with subsidies)
2. Pass packaging/point-of-sale reforms (consensus measures)
3. Reject or study potency caps (evidence insufficient, patient opposition strong)

Alternative to caps: If Legislature insists on addressing high-potency concerns:

• Require physician documentation justifying >100mg doses
• Enhanced patient education on storage/handling
• Voluntary reporting of adverse events
• Study actual diversion/ingestion data before implementing caps

Protect children through packaging and access controls—not by restricting sick patients' medicine.

Medical cannabis is MEDICINE. Physicians determine appropriate doses based on individual patient needs. Legislature should ensure safety (testing, packaging) without practicing medicine (arbitrary potency limits).

2026 Legislature: Pass the safety reforms. Reject the dose restrictions. Trust doctors to treat patients.

About This Analysis

This analysis applies the Consumer-Driven Black Market Displacement (CBDT) Framework, adapted for medical market access and safety assessment. Track all cannabis related legislation: http://tracker.silentmajority420.com

Analysis by The Silent Majority 420 | November 2025