Marijuana Moment: The Cannabis Industry Should Join Us In Supporting Hemp Drink Regulation Over Prohibition, Alcohol Industry Lobbyist Says (Op-Ed)

[Tokeativity]

“Opposing a workable regulatory structure because it is not comprehensive cannabis reform risks repeating the very piecemeal approach the cannabis sector has spent years criticizing.”

By Dawson Hobbs, Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America 

The cannabis industry has spent years asking Congress for something more durable than prohibition, enforcement discretion and state-by-state improvisation. That is why cannabis stakeholders should seriously consider the Beverage Regulatory Parity Act even if they have been skeptical of hemp-derived THC products or worry that new federal rules could further complicate marijuana’s uneven treatment.

That concern is understandable. For state-licensed cannabis operators, it can feel backwards to watch hemp-derived THC beverages seek a federal regulatory pathway while marijuana remains federally illegal and licensed cannabis businesses remain locked out of ordinary banking, interstate commerce, tax treatment and mainstream retail channels.

But Congress is not choosing between comprehensive cannabis reform and a hemp beverage bill. It is choosing whether a product category that is already being sold and consumed will remain unregulated, face an ineffective federal ban or be properly regulated and taxed.

The Beverage Regulatory Parity Act, introduced by Reps. Beth Van Duyne (R-TX) and Greg Landsman (D-OH), would create that pathway for a narrow category: low-dose, hemp-derived THC beverages. The important policy move is not simply that the bill would allow these products to remain available. It is recognizing them as intoxicating adult beverages, not as agriculture products, wellness items or novelty goods.

That distinction matters. A beverage with intoxicating THC should be subject to adult-beverage rules: age restrictions, accurate labeling, product testing, accountable distribution, advertising standards, tax collection and meaningful enforcement across the supply chain.

The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp as an agricultural crop, opening the door for hemp fiber, grain, CBD and other uses. Some intoxicating derivatives raise significant public safety and regulatory concerns and should be heavily regulated or restricted. Hemp-derived THC beverages are different: the finished product is bought, sold and consumed like an adult beverage, and America already has a system that can be applied to them.

Some responsible hemp businesses are already trying to fill the regulatory gap with voluntary lab testing, transparent potency information and following responsible marketing practices. But voluntary best practices are not a substitute for consistent rules. They protect consumers only unevenly, and they leave compliant companies competing against products that may not meet the same standards.

For the cannabis industry, the relevant question should not be whether hemp beverages arrived through the same legal pathway as state-licensed cannabis. They did not. The better question is whether leaving these products outside a workable federal framework advances the industry’s long-term interests. It does not.

A market without clear potency standards, age restrictions, product testing, label requirements, responsible distribution, trade-practice rules or meaningful federal enforcement does not strengthen cannabis policy. It gives opponents of cannabis reform an easier argument: that intoxicating cannabinoid products cannot be responsibly integrated into the economy outside prohibition.

The Beverage Regulatory Parity Act is also not a shortcut around broader cannabis reform. It does not address core issues such as 280E business tax parity, marijuana descheduling or harmonizing state cannabis licensing systems. Nor does it address every competitive concern raised by operators who have spent years complying with costly state regulations while hemp-derived beverages found shelf space in conventional retail. Those concerns deserve to be taken seriously.

But opposing a workable regulatory structure because it is not comprehensive cannabis reform risks repeating the very piecemeal approach the cannabis sector has spent years criticizing. In 2023, Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) publicly supported federal legalization and regulation of adult-use cannabis because federal inaction and fragmented policy were producing a de facto national market without adequate rules for product safety, trade practices, interstate sales or enforcement.

Hemp beverages now present a narrower version of the same problem. Congress can establish a clear framework for an intoxicating cannabinoid product category or allow the market to be shaped by loopholes, bans and uneven enforcement.

That is why the regulatory functions of the beverage alcohol system are relevant, even for those who do not believe cannabis policy should simply copy alcohol policy.

The model is not just about who sells a product. It is about licensing accountable actors, separating supply-chain functions, maintaining records and inspections, reviewing labels, restricting youth-oriented marketing, collecting excise taxes, policing unfair trade practices, preserving state authority and ensuring hemp beverages are appropriately dosed. The bill limits potency to 5 mg of THC per serving, creating a narrow band of products available to responsible adults.

Those tools are well suited to products that can cause intoxication and impairment. They are poorly matched to hemp as a crop, but highly relevant to a shelf-stable beverage containing intoxicating THC.

The market already exists. The question is whether it will be governed by consistent rules. There should be common ground on the answer: states should have the authority to allow (or prohibit) intoxicating THC beverages for adults 21 and over, provided those products are tightly regulated and subject to standards that consumers, regulators and responsible businesses can understand.

The alternative is more confusion, more enforcement whiplash and more evidence for those who argue that cannabinoid products cannot be responsibly integrated into the economy.

Pushing an existing market back into the shadows would not eliminate demand, improve product safety or resolve the contradictions in federal cannabis law. It would leave consumers with fewer lawful options and responsible businesses with no clear path forward. The hemp plant will remain legal, and those who don’t care about responsibility or public safety will still use it to make intoxicating products. Only the most responsible actors will exit the marketplace.

Supporting the Beverage Regulatory Parity Act is not an endorsement of unequal treatment between hemp and marijuana. It is a recognition that federal regulation is better than prohibition, and that low-dose, hemp-derived intoxicating beverages are an appropriate place to draw a clear line. Not hemp agriculture, not unregulated THC and not a substitute for comprehensive cannabis reform, but a distinct low-dose adult beverage category with rules that match the product.

Dawson Hobbs is executive vice president of government affairs for Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA), where he leads the association’s state, federal and regulatory efforts, championing policies that preserve the three-tier system and promote responsible alcohol regulation.

The post The Cannabis Industry Should Join Us In Supporting Hemp Drink Regulation Over Prohibition, Alcohol Industry Lobbyist Says (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net