GreenState regularly shares contributor perspectives on the industry and trends. The cannabis rescheduling ideas expressed here are wholly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of GreenState’s newsroom.
Living and working in Louisiana gives you a very specific vantage point. You get to see how decisions actually play out once they leave a hearing room and start touching shelves, menus, and small businesses that do not have a lot of room for error. That is why, when I hear conversations about tightening federal hemp rules, I do not think in hypotheticals. I think about what is already happening here.
RELATED: Op-ed: cannabis rescheduling is progress — not the finish line
Louisiana did not stumble into its current hemp framework by accident. The system wasn’t designed by mistake. In fact, it borrows a lot from how the alcohol industry has operated for decades. Rules around distribution, limited entry points, and approvals that happen far from everyday consumers all work together to decide which brands thrive and which barely get a shot. What looks like regulation on paper becomes gatekeeping in practice.
The shift that happened in 2024 made that especially clear. Hemp beverages did not suddenly become less safe. The products were already approved, already tested, and already operating under oversight from the Department of Health. What changed was who was allowed to participate in the process.
Brands could no longer submit directly, and distribution became mandatory. With that change, the number of viable paths into the market narrowed quickly, and with that, so did competition. For example, anyone with an existing alcohol license that did not have a hemp permit in hand was blocked from selling hemp-derived THC beverages. Gas stations were also prohibited from selling these beverages. Once again, more limitations were added to distribution routes, reducing competition and growth lanes.
Once you’ve watched that happen up close, it becomes hard not to see Louisiana as a preview rather than an outlier.
Control Disguised as Order
The public justification for tighter hemp rules tends to sound familiar. Safety concerns. Bad actors. The need for consistency. Those arguments are easy to repeat, and they land well politically, especially when people are not deeply familiar with how the category already operates. But when you look closely at what actually changes, safety is rarely the variable that moves. What does move is control.
In Louisiana, the addition of middlemen did not solve an access problem. Once distribution becomes mandatory, the center of gravity shifts. Decisions that used to happen between a retailer and its customer are now happening upstream. A distributor’s portfolio matters more than local demand, and shelf space becomes a function of what moves easiest through that system. Shops that once built their selection around their neighborhood often end up choosing from a narrower list, not because it fits their audience better, but because it is what is available at a workable price.
RELATED: The first legal weed generation is growing up. We’re not ready for the questions they’re asking
Here’s where the alcohol industry’s impact is obvious. Its three-tier system concentrates power, shields established companies, and forces smaller brands to grow big just to stay in the game. Applying that same structure to hemp beverages does not neutralize risk. It reshapes the market in favor of the players who already understand how to dominate it.
If a similar framework emerges at the federal level, the outcome will not be more order; it will be stagnation. There won’t be as many new brands popping up, fresh ideas will get stuck, and even if the market looks varied, most of it is really controlled by a few players.
Who Gets Squeezed When the Rules Tighten
When regulation moves in this direction, small businesses absorb the pressure first. Independent brands often do not have the capital, legal teams, or political access required to navigate licensing layers that keep shifting just out of reach. Retailers lose the ability to discover and support new products organically, and consumers see fewer choices, even if it appears otherwise.
I see this play out daily. Even if a store wants only one product, distribution rules often make that impossible, and in order to get the products they truly want, they’re forced to carry other brands they aren’t sold on. Big stores have the upper hand since they sell so much, and smaller shops have a harder time staying afloat. Before long, only a handful of brands actually make it to the shelves.
The worst part? It’s often presented as if this is just how markets grow, and it’s not. These are conscious decisions that favor a few at the top, rather than giving more people a chance to succeed.
What Brands Should Be Paying Attention To Now
If Louisiana teaches anything, it is that regulatory shifts rarely arrive all at once. The rules tend to come in steps, slowly closing in while protecting those who were licensed early or had the right connections. By the time other brands realize what’s happening, the window has already shut.
RELATED: What will weed look like in 2050?
While distribution is only mandatory in Louisiana for now, brands should consider getting as many licenses as they can, including distribution, processing, and retail, especially in the markets where they plan to focus. These licenses often stay with a brand even as rules change, which can make it easier to adjust when needed. Brands that succeed usually pick a few markets to focus on, work with reliable partners, and put their effort into the areas that will make the biggest difference. This is how you survive within the system.
Why Louisiana Matters Beyond Its Borders
Louisiana is often described as unique, and culturally, that is true. But structurally, what is happening here is not isolated. It raises a bigger question: who gets to decide what these new drinks look like as they grow? Hemp beverages sit between wellness, social drinking, and changing alcohol habits, which makes them exciting for some and worrying for the bigger players.
If federal hemp rules begin to resemble Louisiana’s framework, the transition will feel abrupt to those who have only operated in open markets. For those of us who have been navigating these constraints already, the pattern is familiar.
Louisiana may not be the model anyone asked for, but it is a useful one. It shows what happens when regulation prioritizes order over access, and how quickly a category’s future can be redirected by who controls the channels in between.
The real question is not whether this approach will spread. It is whether brands are paying close enough attention to recognize it when it does.
*This article was submitted by an unpaid guest contributor. The opinions or statements within do not necessarily reflect those of GreenState or HNP. The author is solely responsible for the content.