The cannabis industry has long been scrutinized for its perceived risks, with debates circling around regulation, safety, and taxation. But earlier this month, the Beer Institute, a leading beer industry trade group, proposed “Guiding Principles” for the regulation of intoxicating hemp and cannabis products, which feels particularly ironic—and not just for those deeply involved in cannabis advocacy. After all, can an industry responsible for high rates of alcohol-related harm legitimately position itself as a thought leader on regulating another intoxicating product? Let’s take a closer look at their recommendations and assess what their stance could possibly signify.
The Beer Institute’s Call for High Taxes and Tougher Restrictions
“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 taxation system,” said Brian Crawford, president and CEO of the Beer Institute. “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 so-called “Guiding Principles” outlined by the Beer Institute advocate for stricter rules on intoxicating hemp and cannabis products. Among its key points are the following recommendations:
- Higher Taxes for Cannabis Products: The Beer Institute is pushing for a federal excise tax rate on intoxicating hemp and cannabis products, “set higher than the highest rate for any beverage alcohol product.”
- Zero Tolerance Policies for Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis: They suggest a “zero tolerance approach” to cannabis-impaired driving until reliable field measurement technology and guidance on safe consumption are established, essentially penalizing casual cannabis consumers whose metabolites can remain in the body long after impairment subsides.
- Separate Retail Spaces: The group opposes selling cannabis and alcohol in the same venues to avoid consumer confusion, calling for cannabis products to be sold exclusively in dispensaries.
- Stringent Regulation: They recommend establishing a comprehensive federal framework to enforce rules on labeling, advertising, potency testing, and product warnings, similar to the regulations governing alcohol.
While many of these proposals might seem reasonable on paper, they raise eyebrows for their underlying tone. The Beer Institute frames itself as a beacon of responsibility, giving the distinct impression that the cannabis industry is somehow “more dangerous” than alcohol—despite evidence that alcohol-related harm vastly eclipses that caused by cannabis use.
The Irony of Beer Regulating Cannabis
It’s hard not to notice the contradictions in the Beer Institute’s assertive recommendations. Alcohol, while legal and widely consumed, has measurable social and health costs, particularly related to road safety.
According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in June this year, drunk driving caused over 13,000 fatalities for the second year in a row in 2022, representing 32% of all traffic deaths. By comparison, cannabis-related traffic incidents are significantly lower, and cannabis has not been definitively linked to the same scale of destructive outcomes.
The call for a “zero tolerance” cannabis-impaired driving policy is particularly ironic given that alcohol impairment levels are measured by Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) metrics often exceeding 0.08%. Not only does this suggestion lack scientific feasibility since THC remains traceable long after its effects wear off, but it also imposes undue barriers on responsible cannabis users while ignoring much graver alcohol-related threats on the roads.
And then there’s their request for higher taxes on cannabis than alcohol—a product that has no known lethal overdose threshold—despite decades of alcohol-related public health crises. Such a tax framework feels like an attempt to position cannabis as a public enemy rather than a consumer-friendly alternative.
In September, the Beer Institute expressed its support for legislation in California that tackles intoxicating hemp-derived cannabinoids. Backed by Governor Gavin Newsom, these changes outlaw the sale of intoxicating hemp products that contain any trace of THC. The law mandates that all CBD products marketed within the state be completely free of THC, aligning with the Beer Institute’s advocacy for stringent regulations in the cannabis industry.
What Does the Beer Industry Stand to Gain?
Why would the beer industry care so deeply about cannabis regulation? Hint—it’s not altruism. For example, ensuring that businesses responsibly label, market, and sell cannabis products to adults over 21 aligns with core tenets of consumer protection. Cannabis legalization and normalization, especially in the form of edibles and cannabis-infused beverages, directly compete with alcohol consumption and the profitability of the beer industry.
The growing popularity of adult-use cannabis has already started impacting alcohol sales. Data from Cowen & Co. analysts revealed that in states like Colorado, Nevada, and California—where legal recreational cannabis is widely accessible—alcohol consumption is on the decline. By advocating for excessive taxation, strict driving laws, and more burdensome rules for cannabis businesses, the beer industry could be attempting to stifle competition before it builds more traction.
This move also protects their public image. With cannabis taking center stage in regulatory debates, craft beer brewers and alcohol importers can position themselves as upholders of responsible consumption—while quietly ignoring the incredible toll alcohol has had on public health for centuries.
Unlikely Allies? Or a Need for Self-Reflection
What complicates this situation is that some of the Beer Institute’s proposals do have merit. For example, labeling, marketing, and selling cannabis products responsibly to adults over 21 aligns with core tenets of consumer protection. Likewise, researching the long-term effects of THC and other intoxicating compounds to establish clearer safety protocols is in the public’s best interest.
However, what undermines these suggestions is the glaring lack of accountability for the industry that’s making them. The beer industry touted its own commitment to “moderation” in the press release but failed to acknowledge that alcohol remains a primary contributor to preventable deaths worldwide and a factor in crimes including assault and domestic violence. A balanced regulatory discussion requires avoiding the demonization of one intoxicant while conveniently exonerating another.
The Cannabis Industry Deserves Its Own Voice
The cannabis industry should base its response to these proposals on data, not emotion, to expose the logical flaws in the Beer Institute’s guiding principles. Here’s what cannabis advocates can emphasize:
Safe Roads Without Double Standards
Regulate cannabis consumption and driving with evidence-based measures, similar to the approach used for alcohol. Demand advancements in impairment detection methods to ensure fairness and uphold road safety without unfairly targeting cannabis users.
Reasonable, Comparable Taxes
Excessive taxation has already proven to suffocate the cannabis market while funneling revenue to illicit production. Policymakers must advocate for balanced federal and state tax rates that enable the cannabis industry to grow sustainably.
Consumer-Focused Regulation
Support shared concerns for age-restricted sales, proper labeling, and packaging standards while ensuring lawmakers don’t overburden cannabis operations with impractical requirements that alcohol companies have never faced.
Highlight the Real Risks of Alcohol
Keep the conversation honest. Since these proposals prioritize public welfare and health, regulators should examine alcohol with a more critical lens.
The release of the Beer Institute’s guiding principles demonstrates how cannabis legalization continues to ruffle feathers across industries. And that’s no surprise—cannabis is set to challenge the dominance of alcohol in the recreational space and forge new norms in responsible consumption.
Yet as we move forward, one thing is clear—the cannabis industry deserves its own voice in shaping these regulations. It must call for thoughtful, evidence-based policies that genuinely promote safety and consumer education without succumbing to fear tactics or industry rivalries.
The question remains: Should an industry responsible for decades of harm have a say in regulating a plant on the verge of a new chapter in cultural acceptance? Food (or drink) for thought.
