Maryland veterinarians may now discuss cannabis products for pets with their clients, a shift that removes a long-standing constraint on the exam-room conversation and aligns the state with a small but growing group of jurisdictions that have acted on the question.

The change, reported by MJBizDaily, addresses a gap that has frustrated practitioners in states with legal cannabis markets: owners were administering cannabinoid products to their animals, while the professionals treating those animals were barred from talking about it. Maryland has now closed that gap for its licensed veterinarians.

What does the change actually permit?

The core of the shift is disclosure, not prescription. Veterinarians in Maryland are allowed to discuss cannabis products intended for pets — a category that has expanded rapidly in retail channels as hemp-derived cannabinoids spread through consumer markets after federal hemp legalization.

For practitioners, the practical effect lands at the exam table. When an owner reports giving a dog or cat an over-the-counter cannabinoid product, a Maryland veterinarian can now address dosing questions, potential adverse effects, and interactions with other medications without fearing professional consequences for the conversation itself.

That matters because client use of these products has outpaced regulatory clarity in most states. Surveys in the veterinary literature have repeatedly found that significant shares of dog and cat owners administer cannabis or hemp products, often without telling their veterinarian — frequently because no one asked, or because the owner expected a dismissive response.

How does Maryland fit the national picture?

State veterinary boards have moved unevenly on cannabis. Some states prohibit veterinarians from discussing cannabis with clients at all; others permit discussion but stop short of allowing recommendation; a smaller number have adopted explicit policies letting veterinarians engage with the topic openly. Maryland's action places it in the permissive camp.

The federal backdrop remains unchanged. The FDA has not approved cannabis or CBD products for animal use, and the agency has stated that such products cannot lawfully be marketed as animal drugs or feed additives without approval. Any cannabis product positioned to treat, cure, or mitigate disease in animals falls under FDA drug rules regardless of state policy. Maryland's change therefore governs what a veterinarian may say — not what a manufacturer may sell or claim.

What are the companion-animal and practice implications?

For companion-animal practice, the immediate benefit is history-taking. Toxicology calls involving pets and cannabis products have climbed nationally as state legalization has spread, and veterinarians who can ask direct questions — and receive honest answers — are better positioned to manage exposures and counsel on product choices.

The change also carries a communications burden. Veterinarians will need to distinguish among the products clients actually buy: hemp-derived CBD supplements, products with detectable THC, and items of unverified composition. Discussing that landscape accurately requires familiarity with a largely unregulated retail category, and with the FDA's position that no cannabinoid product carries approval for animal use.

What comes next?

Maryland's move is a state-level answer to a question Congress and federal regulators have left unresolved. Until FDA CVM establishes a pathway for cannabinoid animal products — or legislation creates one — practitioners should expect the rules governing what they can say about cannabis to keep shifting state by state, with Maryland now among the states where the conversation is officially open.