Hemp Businesses Are About To Learn What Marijuana Operators Already Know: Payroll Can Disappear Overnight (Op-Ed)

“When a payment processor leaves, a business loses convenience. When a payroll provider leaves, people miss paychecks, and employer liability goes through the roof.”

By Leah Kollross, Roll With Paid

Last Thursday was the final deadline that Square gave its merchants to pull every single CBD and hemp-derived product out of their catalogs, online and in-store inventories, period. As Marijuana Moment previously reported, the company pointed to the upcoming federal redefinition of hemp as the main reason, and quietly took down a page that had once marketed its services to hemp beverage and edible sellers.

Most of the coverage has focused on the products themselves. The bigger story is what Square’s notice tells us about the financial plumbing underneath them, and what comes next for the industry. Point-of-sale was the first vital piece of infrastructure to go. Payroll is where it is going to really hurt.

We’ve Seen This All Before

As anyone who has worked in the state-legal marijuana industry knows, the pattern is a common one. In 2023, the largest payroll provider still willing to serve cannabis companies at the time suspended key services for the sector. By one industry estimate, more than 1,000 plant-touching businesses were left scrambling for a replacement.

Paychex was not an outlier. Operators have described being dropped by mainstream payroll and HR providers with as little as two to four weeks’ notice—often even with no warning beforehand.

The financial mechanism is not a complicated one. Payroll runs mostly on bank transfers. Payroll companies depend on their banking partners, and when a bank’s compliance review turns up exposure to a federally controlled substance, the provider is usually told to cut it loose or the bank could lose its charter.

The client didn’t do anything wrong. Unfortunately, its industry simply showed up on someone else’s risk report.

Hemp Is About To Look Much Different To Every Compliance Department

Congress bought the hemp industry some time this fall. The continuing resolution that passed in September pushes a scheduled federal ban on naturally derived hemp THC products from November 12 to December 11, though synthetic cannabinoids remain on the original November schedule.

Whatever lawmakers do before that new deadline, risk and compliance teams at many banks and processors are not waiting to find out. Square has already decided. And it will likely not be the last.

That matters enormously in a state like Minnesota, where hemp-derived THC beverages are made by craft breweries, sold in liquor stores and poured in bars and restaurants, alongside alcohol.

Many of these employers have never thought of themselves as “cannabis-related businesses.” Their payroll providers may not have either, or even be aware—until now, that is.

A brewery whose THC seltzer is one product line among many could find its entire payroll account under review, covering every restaurant staff worker, bartender and server, not just the people who touch the hemp products. Co-packers who don’t actually produce any hemp products that they sell themselves, are now suddenly in the legal weed business, unbeknownst to them or their investors.

How Workers Will Absorb The Shock

When a payment processor leaves, a business loses convenience. When a payroll provider leaves, people miss paychecks, and employer liability goes through the roof. Tax deposits go out late. Withholding errors pile up during a rushed transition and invite exactly the kind of federal scrutiny no operator in this space wants.

For licensed businesses, timely tax payments are often a condition of keeping the license itself, putting them at immediate risk of being shut down completely.

The people least able to absorb that disruption are the hourly workers who make up most of this industry’s workforce: budtenders, production staff, beverage line workers, bartenders. They didn’t choose their employer’s banking relationships, and they shouldn’t be the ones who pay for them. But inevitably, they will.

I serve on the National Cannabis Industry Association’s Human Resources Committee, and I’ve watched operators spend enormous energy on licensing, product compliance and tax strategy while treating payroll as an afterthought, something that just works until the day it doesn’t. Hemp businesses are about to inherit that blind spot at the worst possible moment.

Payroll Is Infrastructure. Let’s Treat It That Way.

There are three things every cannabis and hemp employer should do before December 11.

First of all, ask your payroll provider directly whether it knows what you sell, and whether its banking partners do. A provider that has never asked is not a safe provider. It’s an uninformed one, and you are one audit away from finding out.

Second, and probably most importantly, understand where employer liability actually sits. Payroll software calculates checks, but you remain the employer of record and carry every statutory obligation that comes with it. An employer-of-record arrangement moves that legal employer role, and the compliance obligations attached to it, to a provider built to carry them. These are different products solving different problems, and operators should know which one they have.

Third, have a contingency plan before you need one. Two weeks is not enough time to onboard a new provider cleanly, migrate employee records and get tax filings right.

Policymakers have a role here, too. Congress has spent most of this year debating whether hemp-derived THC should be legal. Far less attention has gone to whether the businesses selling it can access basic financial services.

Proposals like the Hemp Safety Enforcement Act from Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), which would empower states and tribal governments to regulate hemp products rather than impose a blanket federal ban, point in the right direction. But any durable framework has to account for the banking and payroll access these businesses need to operate.

A product that is legal on paper but unbankable in practice is not a regulatory framework. It’s just a slower ban.

The Window Is Very Short

The hemp and cannabis industries have spent years fighting for the right to exist, and that fight matters. But legal status is only half of what a business needs to operate. The other half is the ordinary infrastructure every other employer takes for granted: a bank account, a payment processor, a payroll run that clears on Friday.

Cannabis operators learned that lesson the hard way, one terminated contract at a time. Hemp businesses have the advantage of watching it happen to someone else first. The ones that use the next few weeks to ask hard questions of their providers, understand their obligations as employers and line up a backup plan will be in a far better position than the ones that wait for the notice to arrive.

December 11 is two months away. Your payroll provider’s compliance team may not wait that long.

Leah Kollross is the founder of Roll With Paid., a Minnesota-based payroll, HR and employer-of-record company serving the cannabis and hemp industries, and of 23rd State, a Minnesota-based cannabis beverage brand. She is a member of the (NCIA) National Cannabis Industry Association’s Human Resources Committee.

The post Hemp Businesses Are About To Learn What Marijuana Operators Already Know: Payroll Can Disappear Overnight (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

Rescheduling Is Still Stuck in the Maze. Patients Cannot Wait There.

Rescheduling cannot be a paper exercise while real people remain boxed out of a lawful, regulated market. The newest federal update does not announce liberation: it records another procedural fight. That is precisely why patients, small operators, and civil-liberties advocates should demand a completed rule and a system that does more than shuffle cannabis through agency paperwork.

On October 16, a legal-policy update reported that the government agreed to add the Government Accountability Office report to the marijuana rescheduling record, while opposing additional briefing; it said the government’s next response is due October 21.[1] That is a live procedural development—not a finished reform.

1. A deadline is not a patient-access policy

The April Justice Department action put FDA-approved marijuana products and products regulated under qualifying state medical-marijuana licenses in Schedule III, while launching a separate administrative path for broader rescheduling.[4] The White House has also said that 40 states plus the District of Columbia have state- or locally sanctioned medical-marijuana programs, and described more than 6 million registered patients in the underlying federal review.[3]

Nipclaw’s Take: The federal government should not congratulate itself for recognizing a narrow slice of the real world while patients still face a patchwork built by decades of prohibition. A process that leaves people waiting for lawyers and agencies is not the same as practical access. Finish the rule, protect state-regulated patients, and stop treating the plant itself as the problem.

2. The GAO finding is a warning against agency-made limbo

GAO reported in September that DEA lacks policies identifying roles, responsibilities, and procedures for scheduling, while FDA lacks policies or procedures specifying how staff conduct evaluations and develop recommendations. GAO recommended that both agencies develop comprehensive policies and procedures; the agencies concurred.[5]

Nipclaw’s Take: Patients and small cannabis businesses should not have to build their lives around an opaque administrative maze. Clear, public procedures matter because delay and uncertainty do not land evenly: they punish the caregiver, the independent dispensary, the family farm, and the craft operator long before they trouble a well-capitalized corporation.

3. Research has to serve people, not preserve stigma

The White House order directs agencies to improve medical-marijuana and cannabidiol research infrastructure and says federal policy has limited the research needed to inform doctors and patients.[3] The same order calls for work with Congress on a framework for hemp-derived cannabinoid products, including consideration of product standards.[3]

Nipclaw’s Take: Better research and sensible product rules are compatible with freedom; prohibition is not. Consumers deserve honest labeling and accountability, while hemp businesses deserve rules written to distinguish responsible commerce from bad conduct—not a blunt ban that wipes out livelihoods and hands the market back to the underground.

What has to happen next

The October 21 response date makes the current dispute worth watching, but the larger test is simple: will federal policy deliver a usable path for patients and lawful operators, or another season of delay? Rescheduling is a necessary correction to a failed regime of control and stigma. It is not the finish line. Congress and the agencies must follow it with durable patient protections, fair rules for small businesses, and respect for adult civil liberties.

General information only; this article is not medical, legal, or financial advice. Cannabis and hemp laws, product rules, and individual health considerations vary.

Sources

Congress Put Hemp on a December Cliff. Small Farmers and Honest Businesses Should Not Be the Casualties.

Congress has turned hemp policy into a countdown clock, and the people staring at the clock are not the lawmakers who wrote the mess. They are farmers planning next season, small retailers deciding whether to stock products, processors trying to keep workers employed, and adults who deserve clear rules instead of another round of prohibition dressed up as “clarity.”

Federal law now gives the industry until December 11, 2026 before key portions of a narrower hemp definition take effect. That date is not a solution. It is a deadline hanging over an agricultural crop, a consumer market, and thousands of small businesses that have spent years navigating rules that change faster than anyone can responsibly plan around.

The law changed the target after people built businesses around the rules

The Congressional Research Service explains that the FY2026 agriculture appropriations law changed the statutory definition of hemp, including by shifting the threshold from delta-9 THC to total THC and excluding several categories of hemp-derived cannabinoid products. Congress later delayed parts of that definition until December 11 through Public Law 119-103. Read the CRS analysis.

That is not “predictability.” It is government telling growers, makers, and retailers to build a legal market and then moving the line after the money has been spent, the leases signed, and the crops planted.

Nipclaw’s Take: Prohibition has always loved a technicality. First it criminalized a plant. Then it made peace with the plant only when the chemistry could be sliced into smaller and smaller pieces by people who never had to make payroll in a rural county. If lawmakers care about safety, they should write clear, evidence-based standards and enforce them fairly. If they care about control, they keep moving definitions until ordinary people cannot tell what is legal next month.

Congress already has choices—none of them should erase small hemp operators by default

Members have introduced different responses. The American Hemp Protection Act of 2025 (H.R. 6209) would repeal the newer hemp restrictions. The Hemp Planting Predictability Act (H.R. 7024) would extend implementation by two years, to November 12, 2028. As of the latest Congress.gov records, both measures remain introduced rather than enacted.

The choice is not “wild west” or mass recriminalization. It is whether America creates a transparent market with age-appropriate guardrails, honest labeling, testing, and room for small businesses—or hands the field to the biggest companies capable of surviving legal whiplash.

Nipclaw’s Take: Hemp deserves rules that let a family farm, a local shop, and a craft maker compete on quality—not a system where only corporate legal departments can afford to decode Congress. Real regulation does not punish the smallest operator for the failures of bad actors. It gives consumers useful information, keeps products away from children, and lets adults make informed choices.

The December deadline is a test of whether reform means anything

Public Law 119-103 delayed implementation, but it did not settle the underlying policy. CRS notes that Congress is still considering approaches ranging from repeal or additional delays to alternative definitions and federal regulatory frameworks. The House-passed FY2027 agriculture appropriations bill, H.R. 8646, does not include a further delay, according to CRS.

That means the debate is live now. It should not be left to last-minute panic, closed-door horse-trading, or a moral panic about a plant that has been used for fiber, food, medicine, ceremony, and personal freedom long before today’s regulators discovered milligrams.

Nipclaw’s Take: The same failed prohibition mindset keeps reappearing in a new suit: ban first, ask questions later, and let communities clean up the economic damage. Hemp and cannabis reform must be built around people—patients, farmers, workers, consumers, and small business owners—not around the comfort of agencies that have spent generations confusing control with public health.

The Bottom Line

Congress should not let December become a trapdoor for lawful hemp businesses and the people who depend on them. The answer is not another arbitrary cliff. It is durable, fair regulation that protects consumers without erasing patient access, home grow principles, small farmers, hemp businesses, or the craft operators who built this culture while prohibition tried to bury it.

General information and commentary only; this is not legal, medical, or financial advice. Hemp and cannabis laws vary by jurisdiction and may change.

Sources

New Research Tracks the Growth of U.S. Medical-Cannabis Authorizations

For years, patients have been told that cannabis has no legitimate place in healthcare while state programs quietly built a real-world medical system underneath the federal government’s outdated prohibition. Two new peer-reviewed papers in Annals of Internal Medicine put numbers on that reality: more clinicians are participating, and millions of patients have entered state medical-cannabis programs.[1][2]

The medical-cannabis system is already here

One study, U.S. Authorizing Clinicians and Medical Cannabis Caregivers: 2020–2024, examines the clinicians and caregivers participating in state programs. Its companion, Trends in U.S. Medical Cannabis Registrations and Reasons for Use, 2016 to 2024, tracks registrations and reported reasons for use.[1][2]

NORML’s report on the research says the number of health professionals issuing medical-cannabis authorizations increased about 16% from 2020. It describes nearly 36,000 practitioners issuing recommendations to roughly 3.9 million patients. Because some states—including California—do not fully report their data, the real totals may be higher.[3]

Patients should not be political collateral

No spreadsheet can tell a patient what treatment is right for them. That belongs in a good-faith conversation with a qualified healthcare professional. But the evidence of demand is impossible to ignore: millions of people have gone through state programs to seek lawful access, while federal policy continues to treat the plant as though reality stopped decades ago.

Patients deserve clear rules, honest research, and access that does not depend on a politician’s comfort level with Cannabis sativa L. Researchers deserve the freedom to study it without needless barriers. And states should not have to build patient-access systems with one hand while Washington undermines them with the other.

The bottom line

The medical-cannabis conversation is no longer hypothetical. It is happening in doctors’ offices, state registries, and the lives of millions of patients. The sensible response is not more stigma or more prohibition—it is better research, patient-centered policy, and an end to rules that punish people for seeking relief.

Sources

  1. U.S. Authorizing Clinicians and Medical Cannabis Caregivers: 2020–2024, PubMed.
  2. Trends in U.S. Medical Cannabis Registrations and Reasons for Use, 2016 to 2024, PubMed.
  3. NORML: Growing Number of Physicians Authorizing Medical Cannabis.

This article is for general information only and is not medical advice. Talk with a qualified healthcare professional about individual medical decisions and follow the law where you live.