Hemp CBD Across State Lines: Guam

Home | Canna Law Blog | Hemp CBD Across State Lines: Guam The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill) legalized hemp by removing the crop and its derivatives from the definition of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and by providing a detailed framework for the cultivation of hemp. The 2018 Farm Bill gives the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulatory authority over hemp cultivation at the federal level. In turn, states have the option to maintain primary regulatory authority over the crop cultivated within their borders by submitting a plan to the USDA. This federal and state interplay has resulted in many legislative and regulatory changes at the state level. Indeed, most states have introduced (and adopted) bills that would authorize the commercial production of hemp within their borders. A smaller but growing number of states also regulate the sale of products derived from hemp. In light of the rapidly evolving legislative changes, we are also presenting a 50-state series analyzing how each jurisdiction treats hemp-derived cannabidiol (Hemp CBD). Today we go beyond the 50 states once more, to where America's day begins: the territory of Guam. Guam has not submitted a state hemp plan to the USDA, and there are no indications that it plans to do so. As to the legal situation regarding Hemp CBD in Guam, there have been mixed signals from officials. Consider the confusion that followed last summer after the Guam Customs & Quarantine Agency (GCQA) seized unspecified CBD products. (One of the quirks of Guam's political status is that it is not part of the customs territory of the United States.) According to GCQA's director, the seized products had tested positive for THC, but the lack of a cannabis laboratory on Guam had prevented GCQA from determining if the THC content was below 0.3 percent. On July 7, Guam's congressional delegate, Michael F.Q. San Nicolas, decried the seizures as lacking due process. Previously, San Nicolas had been informed by GCQA's director that the seizures were made pursuant to an order by the Department of Public Health and Social Services (DPHSS). However, DPHSS' director in turn denied that any such order had been issued by the department. According to San Nicolas, the statements by GCQA and DPHSS are "blatantly inconsistent, and thus appear to be a clear area of concern." Just two days later, Guam's attorney general, Leevin T. Camacho, chimed in: 'We realize the 2018 Farm Bill and recent local law have given some the impression that CBD has been completely decriminalized and that CBD sales are now legal everywhere and by everyone,' Camacho said. 'But decriminalization does not mean no regulation.' CBD is still considered a drug, and the Federal Drug Association [sic] has authority to regulate products containing it. Products where CBD has been added aren't approved for interstate commerce, according to Camacho. 'Our office will work with our clients — local government agencies — on the establishment and consistent enforcement of regulations for CBD products,'" he said. 'When these products are available, we want them to be accurately labeled and safe for consumers.' The AG's concerns clearly went beyond ensuring that the products met the THC threshold. "Our office is concerned about consumer safety," he said, "making sure that products inform consumers about what they contain, and what those products do." Yet despite AG Camacho's admonitions, by the end of that week, Guam's governor, Lou Leon Guerrero, had instructed GCQA to release the seized CBD products, citing the absence of clear guidelines from the FDA. Gov. Leon Guerrero did raise the possibility of further disruption as Guam works "through the complex and changing regulations governing CBD." The governor also expressed her own concerns regarding product safety. The governor’s office said DPHSS 'will ensure that CBD products, both edible and not, are not marketed for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease and/or for the intent of affecting the structure or any function of the body.' . . . 'Consumers should be aware that only one CBD prescription drug has been approved by the FDA. No other CBD products have been approved by any local or federal regulatory body for safe consumption,' the governor’s office said. 'It is a staple responsibility of DPHSS to ensure that the general public is not impermissibly swayed to consume or use products based on unsubstantiated promises.' Despite some grumbles from law enforcement, it appears the Guam authorities have laid off CBD since the governor's decision. In any case, with Guam now working on drafting rules for implementing its recreational cannabis rules (COVID-19 delays aside), it is hard to imagine too much controversy regarding the overall legality of Hemp CBD in the future. That said, there could still be considerable back-and-forth regarding specific products such as edibles and cosmetics, especially given the clear concerns held by local officials regarding consumer safety and health issues. We’ll continue to monitor all things hemp in Guam and elsewhere, and step back into the regular order as we cover Virginia next week. For previous coverage in this series, check out the links below: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas U.S. Virgin Islands Utah Vermont Check Out Our Cannabis Law Services Share Twitter Facebook LinkedIn E-mail Comment Fred Rocafort Fred leads Harris Sliwoski’s intellectual property practice and is the coordinator of the firm’s international team. Much of Fred’s practice consists of helping cannabis businesses protect their brands. He also works with entrepreneurs and companies entering the Web3 space, a new frontier for IP law. Prior to joining Harris Sliwoski, Fred worked overseas for more than a decade, in both government and private sector roles. Fred is a regular contributor to the award-winning China Law Blog and Canna Law Blog. Fred began his career overseas as a U.S. consular officer in Guangzhou, China, where he advocated for fairer treatment of American companies and citizens in China and for stronger intellectual property rights enforcement. After entering the private sector, Fred worked at a Shanghai law firm as a foreign legal advisor and later joined one of the oldest American law firms in China, helping foreign companies navigate the Chinese legal environment. He also led the legal team at a Hong Kong-based brand protection consultancy, spending most of his time out in the field, protecting clients against counterfeiters and fraudsters in Greater China, Southeast Asia and Latin America. In addition to his IP work, as a native Spanish speaker, Fred works closely with different Harris Sliwoski teams on Latin America and Spain matters. Fred also provides advice to cannabis industry participants and other businesses on import and export transactions. Fred is an ardent supporter of FC Barcelona—and would be even in the absence of Catalan forebears who immigrated to Puerto Rico in the mid-1800s. Harris Sliwoski Attorney Read more posts [email protected] Read More Hemp/CBD Related Posts September 25, 2026 DEA Enforcement in a Changing Cannabis Landscape: Rescheduling, Hemp, and What Comes Next September 17, 2026 The Supreme Court May Decide if Cannabis-Related Residency Requirements are Unconstitutional September 16, 2026 A $31.8 Million Cannabis-Related Verdict That a Federal Court Wouldn’t Enforce September 15, 2026 Jason Adelstone Moderates Federal Cannabis Policy Discussion at IgniteIt Denver September 11, 2026 Medical Marijuana in Schedule III Survives Its First Major Challenge September 10, 2026 How to Acquire a Colorado Cannabis License September 4, 2026 The Intoxicating Hemp Products Ban Was Delayed a Month. Now What? August 31, 2026 Is the Global Shift to the Right Threatening International Cannabis Reforms? August 28, 2026 Oregon Cannabis Roundup: Fall 2026 August 26, 2026 Five Bills Every California Cannabis Operator Needs to Track in 2026 August 14, 2026 California Cannabis Contracts After Rescheduling: Why Your Contracts Need a Second Look August 4, 2026 DCC License Conversions After Rescheduling: How and When to Split A/M Licenses in California August 3, 2026 The Contradictions of Cannabis Law: From the United States to International Treaties July 28, 2026 What California Operators Must Do After Rescheduling: DEA Registration, License Restructuring, and 280E July 24, 2026 Medical Marijuana Schedule III Litigation: The D.C. Circuit's First Major Test Leave a comment Cancel reply