New York Bans Caffeine-Infused Cannabis Pills, But THC Coffee Remains on Shelves

In a surprising move, New York regulators have banned certain caffeine-infused cannabis products, specifically pills from Hudson Cannabis, but other products combining caffeine and THC, such as cannabis-infused coffee, are still available. The state Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) issued a stop order to Hudson Cannabis over the summer, prohibiting the sale of its popular caffeine-cannabis blends. The decision has stirred controversy and sparked questions about how New York regulates cannabis and caffeine combinations.

Caffeine and THC: A Selective Ban

Hudson Cannabis, known for its 1906 brand, had been selling caffeine-infused cannabis pills since February 2023. The product lines, marketed as “Go” and “Genius,” combined cannabis extracts with caffeine, touting effects like energy boosts and enhanced focus. “Go” contained 80 milligrams of caffeine with two milligrams of THC, while “Genius” offered a lower dose of 20 milligrams of caffeine alongside slightly higher levels of THC and other cannabinoids like CBD and CBG. Both were popular across New York’s dispensaries and in six other states.

However, in July, the OCM intervened, stating that the caffeine-cannabis blend in these pills posed a risk to public health. They sent Hudson Cannabis a quarantine order, instructing them to cease sales immediately. According to the OCM, combining caffeine with THC “may jeopardize public health or safety,” a claim Hudson Cannabis has pushed back on, arguing that their products are legally sold nationwide and have shown no adverse effects.

Hudson Cannabis Responds: An “Arbitrary” Decision

Hudson Cannabis quickly appealed the OCM’s decision, calling it arbitrary and unfounded. Melany Dobson, co-founder of Hudson Cannabis, expressed frustration, noting that the pills had been on the market for over 18 months with no reported safety concerns. “This type of arbitrary and capricious behavior,” she said, “only serves to benefit the illicit market Gov. Hochul claims to care about shutting down.”

Attorney Matthew Schweber, representing 1906, also questioned the regulatory basis for the ban. He pointed out that the prohibition applies to added caffeine but exempts “naturally occurring caffeine” found in products like coffee and tea. For instance, Harney Brothers Cannabis-Infused Nitro Coffee, with 225 milligrams of caffeine per serving, remains legal under the same regulations. This selective enforcement, Schweber argued, lacks a clear rationale.

Confusion in Cannabis Regulation

The discrepancy has sparked confusion among retailers and consumers alike. For cannabis store owners, the ban came as a surprise. Osbert Orduna, CEO of The Cannabis Place in Queens, expressed his disappointment, noting that 1906’s products were popular with a wide demographic, from gym-goers to busy professionals. The pills, he said, offered convenience and a controlled dosage, making them a preferred choice over other forms of cannabis products.

The ban also raises questions about the OCM’s stance on caffeine-cannabis combinations. While OCM warns of potential health risks, Schweber claims they have yet to provide concrete evidence of these risks. He questions whether caffeine increases THC’s potency, toxicity, or addictive potential, a point regulators have not clarified. The OCM’s reluctance to address these specific concerns has fueled speculation that the ban might be based more on regulatory preference than empirical evidence.

Regulatory Loopholes: Pills vs. Coffee

The selective nature of the ban underscores the complex and sometimes inconsistent cannabis regulations in New York. While the OCM claims that adding caffeine to cannabis products like pills is risky, products with naturally occurring caffeine are allowed. This has resulted in an unusual scenario where Hudson Cannabis’s pills are banned, yet cannabis-infused coffee, containing far higher doses of caffeine, is permitted.

Schweber argues that this loophole makes little sense and calls into question the OCM’s approach to regulating cannabis products. “OCM can’t say which prohibition exactly caffeine triggers,” he said, expressing frustration over the lack of transparency. This inconsistency, Schweber claims, is creating a regulatory environment that benefits some companies over others without a clear public health justification.

Consumer Impact and Market Implications

For consumers, the ban affects a popular choice in New York’s growing cannabis market. Pills like those offered by 1906 are often seen as a discreet and convenient alternative to other cannabis products, making them attractive to a broad range of users. Orduna and other dispensary owners worry that the ban could drive customers toward the unregulated market, where similar products are still available but lack the quality control of licensed dispensaries.

The ban also spotlights the complexities of regulating cannabis in a market that is still finding its footing. As more states embrace legalization, regulators face the challenge of creating fair and consistent rules that protect public health while allowing innovation and competition. The lack of clarity around caffeine-infused products indicates that New York’s cannabis laws may need further refinement.

While Hudson Cannabis awaits a response to its appeal, consumers and industry stakeholders are left questioning the criteria for what makes a cannabis product safe or unsafe. As the cannabis industry continues to grow, this debate over caffeine-infused products will likely be one of many regulatory challenges facing New York’s cannabis market in the years to come.