Emerald Insights Podcast featuring Ed Keating, Chief Economist of Emerald Intel, and Christopher Lackner, CEO of Hemp Beverage Alliance
The hemp beverage category has moved from regulatory curiosity to commercial force in just a few short years. What began as a Farm Bill byproduct is now approaching a $29 billion industry — and facing a federal inflection point that could determine its trajectory for the next decade.
In this episode of the Emerald Insights Podcast, Ed Keating sits down with Christopher Lackner, CEO of the Hemp Beverage Alliance, to unpack the rapid rise of THC-infused beverages, the regulatory uncertainty now confronting them, and why he believes normalization — not prohibition — is the more likely outcome.
The conversation is less about cannabis culture and more about systems: distribution models, compliance architecture, and how this category fits into existing commercial infrastructure.
Below are the highlights. Watch or listen to the full podcast here.
How Did Hemp Beverages Scale So Quickly?
The origin story begins with the 2018 Farm Bill. Hemp was legalized, CBD surged, and expectations were high. But CBD alone did not create a durable consumer category.
The inflection point came when operators realized that hemp-derived THC could be formulated into low-dose, sessionable beverages — delivered in a format consumers already understood.
As Lackner explains:
“The hemp industry as a whole is about twenty nine billion dollars. The beverage industry is a part of that. But we do envision once a full regulatory system comes online that we could easily hit thirty billion dollars as an industry size within five to ten years.”
That projection is not speculative hype. It is rooted in consumer behavior. Alcohol consumption is declining in key demographics. Consumers are seeking alternatives that offer relaxation without the same aftereffects.
Crucially, hemp beverages do not require behavioral retraining. They are packaged in cans, sold in multi-packs, and consumed socially.
Lackner returns repeatedly to a simple framing:
“If you treat this like alcohol, run it through the alcohol system… this becomes no big deal.”
That phrase — “no big deal” — is strategic. It reflects how the category has gained traction not by disrupting the system, but by fitting into it.
Why Does the Alcohol Model Create Structural Advantage?
Cannabis operators are accustomed to building entirely new regulatory frameworks state by state. Hemp beverages offer a different path.
They leverage the existing three-tier alcohol distribution system — manufacturers, distributors, and retailers — without reinventing supply chains.
As Lackner notes: “All the systems that are in place for the alcohol distribution model work perfectly for this product.”
This compatibility reduces friction. Cans move through the same conveyor belts. Pallets stack the same way. Distributors already know how to manage age-gated retail environments.
For craft brewers facing declining beer sales, the pivot is operationally straightforward. Lackner highlights that production timelines are significantly shorter than beer:
“The time that it takes to manufacture a hemp beverage is probably ten to fifteen percent of the time it takes to manufacture beer.”
In a capital-intensive industry, that efficiency matters.
For cannabis operators watching from the sidelines, the lesson is clear: the fastest-growing cannabinoid category is the one that did not attempt to rebuild infrastructure from scratch.
What Is Driving Regulatory Anxiety at the Federal Level?
Despite its momentum, the category now faces a federal clock.
Language inserted into a November spending bill created a scenario in which intoxicating hemp products could effectively be eliminated unless a regulatory framework is implemented by November of this year .
The impact has been immediate.
“There’s a lot of confusion in the market right now. There’s a lot of anxiety.”
States that were actively developing frameworks paused to reassess. Legislators are weighing whether to invest in regulation if federal policy could override their efforts.
Yet Lackner emphasizes that this is not an unregulated free-for-all. Twenty-eight states already have regulatory systems in place for hemp beverages .
More importantly, he argues that those systems are working:
“We do know that in states where there is a regulatory framework for hemp beverages, the system, the product sells, public health is not compromised, tax revenues come in, and everybody wins.”
For policymakers, that evidence reframes the debate. The question is no longer whether regulation is possible, but how to standardize it.
Are Bad Actors Undermining the Category?
One of the most pointed segments of the discussion addresses products that are not beverages at all.
High-potency, copycat edibles — often designed to resemble popular snack brands — have fueled political backlash.
These products, Lackner argues, create reputational risk for responsible beverage operators who are manufacturing low-dose, regulated products.
For cannabis executives, the pattern is familiar. Categories are often judged by their least compliant participants. In that context, federal regulation may actually protect the beverage segment by distinguishing it from untested, high-potency alternatives.
What Happens When Big Alcohol Moves In?
Craft brewers and distributors have generally embraced the category. Larger supplier organizations, however, advocated for regulation before expansion .
Lackner reads that posture as strategic rather than hostile.
“Anybody would be a fool to not have R&D on this.”
The implication is clear: once federal rules are settled, significant capital could enter the space quickly.
For current operators, the regulatory window may represent both opportunity and urgency.
What Does Normalization Actually Look Like?
Minnesota offers a tangible case study. Hemp beverages are sold in restaurants, liquor stores, and entertainment venues alongside traditional alcohol products .
And the feared chaos has not materialized.
“You are not going to see a zombie apocalypse.”
Instead, the category functions as another adult beverage option in age-gated environments.
Lackner’s long-term prediction reflects that trajectory: “[In the near future] somebody is gonna go to Hemp Beverage Arena.”
It is less a statement about branding and more about ubiquity. He expects hemp beverages to integrate into mainstream commerce much like hard seltzer did — without cultural upheaval.
What Should Cannabis Operators Take Away?
For cannabis operators, hemp beverages offer both a commercial opportunity and a structural lesson.
They demonstrate how cannabinoids can scale when aligned with existing distribution systems. They show how low-dose formats expand demographic reach. And they highlight the dual role of regulation as both constraint and catalyst.
The next several months will be pivotal. Federal policymakers may implement a framework, extend the deadline, or introduce temporary adjustments.
But the broader signal is already visible. Consumer demand exists. Distribution channels are receptive. State-level models are functioning.
As Lackner summarized, normalization — not novelty — is the strategic path forward.
To hear his full perspective on federal strategy, state dynamics, and the future of the hemp beverage category, listen to the complete episode of the Emerald Insights Podcast.
For operators navigating the regulated cannabinoid marketplace, this is a conversation that informs more than headlines — it informs strategy.
