The hemp and marijuana industries are approaching another turning point. As federal policymakers weigh cannabis rescheduling and Congress debates the future definition of hemp, businesses on both sides are preparing for a range of possible outcomes.

During a panel discussion at the Hemp Beverage Expo, industry leaders explored what those scenarios could look like, from cannabis remaining in Schedule I to a move to Schedule III, and whether the long-term path ultimately leads to a unified regulatory framework for one plant.

Navigating Yet Another Regulatory Shift

Everyone agreed that uncertainty isn’t new to the cannabis industry.

Kristen Rogers, CEO and co-founder of Levia Brands, said operators in regulated cannabis have spent years adapting to changing rules, making them accustomed to shifting compliance requirements and evolving state regulations.

“We’ve lived in a gray zone our entire experience,” she said. “Nothing is set in stone. We pivot really quickly.”

Rather than viewing rescheduling as another disruption, Rogers said she sees it as progress. Even if hemp beverages don’t directly benefit from a move to Schedule III, she believes any federal recognition of cannabis represents a meaningful step forward for the broader industry.

Rogers said the greatest benefit of rescheduling is for the expansion of cannabis research. More clinical data could help validate cannabinoid-based products, reduce stigma, and provide the evidence needed to support future regulatory decisions.

“The overarching win right now with the move to Schedule III is data and research,” Rogers said. “That’s how we’re going to move forward. That’s how we’re going to break these stigmas.”

Matt Baumgartner, CEO of Keef Brands, agreed, noting that long-time cannabis operators have spent years adjusting to moving regulatory targets, from labeling requirements to compliance changes.

“For the last 16 years,” he said, “it’s been a moving goalpost.”

Attorney Sean Hauser, managing partner at Vicente LLP, compared today’s cannabis landscape to the years following the end of alcohol prohibition, arguing that dismantling prohibition and building new regulatory systems is inherently a gradual process.

Hauser said the industry is in a stronger position than ever before because federal policymakers are finally engaging meaningfully with it on cannabis regulation. This allows responsible hemp and cannabis operators to continue advocating for a federal framework that will hopefully bring both markets under a more unified regulatory system.

She views Schedule III as a transitional step rather than a final endpoint for federal policy. While it could expand research and bring greater federal clarity, she said it does not resolve the unresolved status of hemp beverages seeking access to mainstream retail channels such as grocery stores, bars, and beverage distributors.

Ultimately, more legislation is still needed to establish clear federal boundaries between fully regulated cannabis and hemp-derived consumer products. She noted that stakeholders continue to view the upcoming November decision as a critical juncture for the future of hemp beverages.

Could Hemp Brands Pivot Into Regulated Cannabis?

Panelists also discussed whether hemp beverage brands could successfully pivot into state-regulated cannabis markets if the federal hemp ban goes into effect.

Matt Baumgartner cautioned that the transition is far more complicated than many operators realize. Beyond obtaining licenses, brands must learn an entirely different regulatory system, including state-by-state compliance requirements and selling through dispensary channels rather than traditional retail.

Kristen Rogers was more optimistic. She said established hemp brands shouldn’t rule out regulated markets, particularly in newer cannabis states where there may be opportunities to enter through partnerships or co-packing arrangements.

Sean Hauser said some companies may pursue medical cannabis licenses in states that expand their regulated programs following rescheduling.

While that pathway could provide access to a federally recognized framework and potentially eliminate obstacles such as Section 280E, she cautioned that businesses would still need to navigate a patchwork of state regulations. For the foreseeable future, many brands may need to operate in both hemp and regulated cannabis markets, adapting their strategy to each state’s rules.

Despite the potential for hemp brands to enter regulated cannabis, panelists agreed that dispensaries are not the ideal long-term retail channel for beverages. Baumgartner argued that consumers are more likely to purchase low-dose beverages through familiar retail outlets rather than making a dedicated trip to a dispensary. He pointed to a tiered framework that would reserve dispensaries for higher-potency products while allowing lower-dose beverages to be sold in traditional retail environments.

Rogers supported the model and compared it to the structure of an over-the-counter versus a prescription model. In her view, lower-dose beverages would function more like consumer wellness products available in mainstream retail, while higher-dose products would remain in dispensaries, which aligns better with how consumers already navigate product strength and use cases.

The Long Road to One Plant

Panelists acknowledged that while the vision of low-dose cannabis beverages in traditional retail and higher-potency products in dispensaries may seem logical, the obstacles remain.

Baumgartner said years of operating under restrictive regulations have left many cannabis companies without the financial resources to advocate for meaningful reform. Between heavy taxation and limited profitability, he argued, the industry has struggled to build the capital needed to influence policy.

Hauser added that political realities have also slowed progress. She said the hemp industry has helped familiarize southern states with cannabis through beverages, creating momentum that didn’t exist a decade ago, but decades of prohibition cannot be undone overnight.

Looking ahead, the group is hoping for the day when a “one-plant” regulatory approach ends the divide between hemp and marijuana. They argued that a unified framework would reduce industry infighting and better support in-state growers. It would also create a more practical retail model, allowing low-dose beverages to compete in mainstream consumer channels.