Beer Industry Group Pushes Tighter Regulations For Cannabis Products—And Higher Taxes Than Are Levied On Alcohol

A leading beer industry trade group has put out a statement of guiding principles to address what it calls “the proliferation of largely unregulated intoxicating hemp and cannabis products,” warning of risks to consumers and communities resulting from THC consumption.

Among other recommendations, the Beer Institute advises in the new document that lawmakers take a “zero tolerance approach” to THC and driving—a policy that could prevent casual cannabis consumers from ever being able to legally drive due to how long the drug’s metabolites stay in the body after use—and keep in place the federal ban on combining intoxicating cannabinoids and alcohol.

The group also calls for a federal excise tax on both hemp and cannabis products, “with the tax rate set higher than the highest rate for any beverage alcohol product.”

“For decades, America’s brewers and beer importers have demonstrated their commitment to fostering a culture of moderation and the responsible consumption of our products, all within a robust regulatory and and taxation system,” president and CEO Brian Crawford claimed in a statement last week. “The current patchwork of intoxicating hemp and cannabis laws and regulations do not meet the same standards to which the beer industry willingly adheres.”

The Beer Institutes’s new guiding principles on hemp and cannabis products don’t take a position on legalization broadly, saying instead that “legalization of consumable cannabis products is for American voters, state legislatures and Congress to decide.” Nevertheless, it emphasizes the the “lack of scientific data regarding the consumption of intoxicating hemp and

The trade group, which represents American brewers, importers and industry suppliers, says that if intoxicating hemp products are legalized—which, under the 2018 Farm Bill, they already are at the federal level—then “policymakers should implement appropriate regulatory frameworks at the state and federal levels that inform and protect consumers and ensure intoxicating hemp and cannabis products are marketed, sold and consumed responsibly.”

Notably, the group’s guidance does not evaluate relative harm associated with alcohol versus marijuana consumption. A separate study earlier this year by investigators at the Alcohol Research Group and RTI International, however, found that secondhand harm from alcohol was nearly six times that of cannabis. Perceived harms from opioids and other drugs also outweighed those related to marijuana.

Separate research published earlier this year also found that the use of marijuana alone was not associated with higher risk of a car crash, while alcohol—whether used by itself or combined with marijuana—showed a clear correlation with increased odds of a collision.

“The Beer Institute supports a ‘zero tolerance approach’ for THC-impaired driving until proper field measurement technology and protocol are widely available and guidance on safe levels of consumption is established,” the organization’s new guiding principles document says.

It did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the greater harms attributable to alcohol or its call for a zero-tolerance approach to THC and driving. Because THC metabolites can remain detectable in a person’s blood for weeks or months after consuming marijuana, the policy could bar casual cannabis consumers from ever legally driving.

As for mixing alcohol and cannabinoids, the statement of principles says that policymakers should not only retain the current prohibition on combining alcohol and THC but also “should prohibit co-location of the sale of alcohol beverages in the same retail venues as intoxicating hemp and cannabis products.”

Other recommendations include ensuring packaging and labeling of cannabis and intoxicating hemp don’t appeal to people under 21 and include information like product potency and health and safety warnings.

The group also wants to see “immediate and sustained medical and safety research on intoxicating hemp and cannabis products, including beverages, to help ensure consumer safety,” according to the report.

In September, the Beer Institute applauded changes backed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) that outlawed intoxicating hemp-derived cannabinoids and required all CBD products be completely free of THC.

“The Beer Institute thanks Governor Newsom for his leadership in closing an unintended loophole that has enabled the proliferation of unregulated intoxicating hemp products,” Crawford said at the time. “Intoxicating hemp products are being sold as food and beverages, despite not being deemed safe for the U.S. food supply by federal regulators, and in some cases without age restrictions.”

The Beer Institute said in an email to Marijuana Moment at the time that its position “aligns with a bipartisan coalition of 21 state attorneys general” who wrote a letter in March urging Congress to amend federal law so that intoxicating cannabinoids are not included in the federal definition of hemp.

Growing evidence suggests that frequent marijuana use is now more common among Americans than regular alcohol use. A recent study found that more Americans consume cannabis every day than drink alcohol on a daily basis. Since 1992 the per capita rate of daily cannabis consumption in the country has increased nearly 15 times over.

A multinational investment bank said in a report late last year that marijuana has also become a “formidable competitor” to alcohol, projecting that nearly 20 million more people will regularly consume cannabis over the next five years as booze loses a couple million drinkers. Marijuana sales are estimated to reach $37 billion in 2027 in the U.S., it said, as more state markets come online.

A separate study out of Canada, where marijuana is federally legal, found that legalization was “associated with a decline in beer sales,” suggesting a substitution effect.

Data from a Gallup survey published in August of last year also found that Americans consider marijuana to be less harmful than alcohol, cigarettes, vapes and other tobacco products.

At the federal level, meanwhile, Senate Democrats this week released the long-awaited text of an agriculture bill that contains several proposed changes to federal hemp laws—including provisions to amend how the legal limit of THC is measured and reducing regulatory barriers for farmers who grow the crop for grain or fiber. Some stakeholders are concerned the intent of the legislation is to “eliminate a whole range of products” that are now sold in the market.

Jonathan Miller, general counsel for the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, told Marijuana Moment that stakeholders are “trying to figure all this out,” with questions remaining about the scope of the restrictions that are being proposed.

“We’re obviously opposed to it, but we don’t know how strongly we’re opposed,” he said. “It’s certainly intended to eliminate a whole range of products, but it could eliminate the whole hemp extract industry.”

Miller added that it’s widely understood on Capitol Hill that the bill is unlikely to advance to enactment in the remainder of the session, so there will be additional opportunity to amend it.

In May, GOP House leaders released their own draft version of the agriculture legislation, which could also reduce regulatory barriers for certain hemp farmers and scale-back a ban on industry participation by people with prior drug felony convictions.

But under an amendment adopted by the House Agriculture Committee, it would also remove cannabinoids that are “synthesized or manufactured outside of the plant” from the federal definition of legal hemp. The change is backed by prohibitionists as well as some marijuana companies, who’ve described the restriction as a fix to a “loophole” in the 2018 Farm Bill.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) said in a report in June that hemp provisions included in that spending bill could also “create confusion” for the industry due to a lack of clarity around the type of allowable products.

Anti-drug groups, law enforcement and some health organizations have called on Congress to embrace the ban, arguing that “trying to regulate semi-synthetic cannabinoids will not work.”

In addition to Miller’s amendment in the farm bill, the House Appropriations Committee in July approved a separate spending bill that contains a similar provision to prohibit cannabinoid products such as delta-8 THC and CBD containing any “quantifiable” amount of THC.

Hemp-derived cannabinoids also came up in a recent federal appeals court decision in which judges ruled that cannabinoids derived from hemp, such as THC-O-acetate, indeed qualify as hemp and are legal under the 2018 Farm Bill. In making that ruling, the court rejected the Drug Enforcement Administration’s more restrictive interpretation of the law.

How to address hemp-derived cannabinoids has caused some fractures within the cannabis community, and in some cases marijuana businesses have found themselves on the same side as prohibitionists in pushing a derivatives ban.

Lawmakers and stakeholders have also been eyeing a number of other proposals that could be incorporated into the Farm Bill—and which could come up as proposed amendments as the proposal moves through the legislative process—including measures to free up hemp businesses to legally market products like CBD as dietary supplements or in the food supply.

Also, in September, a Democratic senator introduced a bill that would create a federal regulatory framework for hemp-derived cannabinoids, allowing states to set their own rules for products such as CBD while also empowering the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure that certain safety standards are met in the marketplace—including making sure that products aren’t marketed to children.

Recent USDA data showed a slight rebound in the hemp economy in 2023—the result of a survey that the department mailed to thousands of farmers across the U.S. in January. The first version of the department’s hemp report was released in early 2022, setting a “benchmark” to compare to as the industry matures.

Meanwhile, USDA announced this month that it is once again delaying enforcement of a rule requiring hemp growers to test their crops exclusively at labs registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), citing “setbacks” at the agency that have led to “inadequate” access to such facilities.

DEA Judge Rejects Veterans Group’s Petition To Participate In Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing