Marijuana And Hemp Leaders Have Found Agreement On Many Significant Policy Issues (Op-Ed)

“With marijuana and hemp leaders working together toward a shared vision of more effective federal policy, the path ahead is brighter for the entire cannabinoid marketplace.”

By Adam Rosenberg, National Cannabis Industry Association and Eric Berlin, Dentons

Last fall, we wrote that marijuana and hemp businesses were working together as a group informally called the “Commission” to find areas of substantial agreement and that collaboration was going better than expected.

Today, we share the first results of those discussions.

The effort has brought together leaders from many of the most prominent marijuana and hemp industry and advocacy groups in the United States, representing thousands of businesses across marijuana, intoxicating hemp, non-intoxicating hemp and cannabinoid innovation.

The conversation continues to mature as policymakers at both the state and federal levels confront the urgent question of how to build a regulatory framework that reflects the realities of today’s cannabinoid marketplace and avoids the confusion created by arbitrary legal divisions.

One of the quiet casualties of cannabis reform has been how THC itself is regulated. Current law artificially distinguishes “hemp” and “marijuana” based on factors like plant genetics and THC concentration of the source material, creating two different legal universes for a singular plant species, Cannabis sativa L.

This bifurcation generates confusion and even latent hostility within the cannabis community.

Consumers are expected to navigate a maze of labels with phrases like hemp-derived, Farm Bill compliant, delta-8, delta-9, medical and recreational. However, there is no clear guidance on the products’ effects and impacts on public health and safety. Companies selling products with similar effects often become territorial about the regulatory scheme, or lack thereof, under which they operate.

The Commission’s discussions have yielded ten statements reflecting emerging consensus among participants, representing a shift that moves the debate away from competing market identities and toward consumer-centered standards. The statements offer a pragmatic blueprint grounded in product safety, regulatory clarity and respect for state authority.

They are as follows:

• Regulating End Product vs. Source Material

  • Formulation, form factor, intoxicating potential and intended use, instead of just the source material (hemp vs marijuana), should determine how cannabinoid products are regulated.

  • Hemp for fiber, hurd and grain should be regulated separately from cannabinoid production.

• Age Restrictions

  • The sale of any ingestible product with a quantifiable amount of THC should be restricted to adults 21+ or in compliance with a state medical marijuana program.

• Synthetic Cannabinoids

  • Compounds that are not naturally found in the cannabis plant should not be marketed or regulated as cannabis products (and can be addressed outside of cannabis policy).

• Distinguishing Distribution Channels

  • Consistent standards for labeling, testing, quality control and product safety should be uniform across states.

  • Federal agency oversight should be split between the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, the Food and Drug Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture based on intended use and intoxicating potential.

  • States should have authority over availability of products and how they are distributed to consumers.

• Interstate Commerce

  • Interstate commerce of wholesale cannabis products should be permitted, with a reasonable transition period for products that are currently restricted to intrastate commerce.

  • Traceability and product authentication standards should be established uniformly across the country.

• Licensing

  • States should retain their traditional role of determining the license structure (if any) within their state, subject to Dormant Commerce Clause concerns.

What began as good-faith dialogue has now produced shared principles for regulating cannabinoid products.

This emerging consensus honors the plant’s diversity and the current market’s realities rather than illusory categories.

With marijuana and hemp leaders working together toward a shared vision of more effective federal policy, the path ahead is brighter for the entire cannabinoid marketplace.

Adam Rosenberg is Chairman of the Board of the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) and Partner at Vlasic Bioscience, with extensive experience spanning the entire cannabinoid supply chain, investment, education, and regulatory policy. Eric Berlin is a partner at Dentons and leads the firm’s U.S. Cannabis practice, advising clients on regulatory, transactional, and policy matters across the cannabinoid marketplace.