The Next Cannabinoid Framework: What Cannabis Businesses Need To Know Before November

“If a restaurant violates a health code, we don’t ban restaurants. We enforce health codes.” That simple analogy became the defining message of one of the most policy-focused discussions at the IgniteIt Cannabis Capital Conference in Chicago, where industry leaders argued that consumer safety—not prohibition—should shape the next chapter of cannabinoid regulation.

As Congress debates the future of hemp-derived cannabinoids ahead of the November implementation of new federal restrictions, executives, patient advocates, policymakers, and industry representatives agreed on one point: regulation is necessary. The disagreement is whether lawmakers should regulate the category responsibly or effectively eliminate products that millions of consumers already rely on.

Moderated by Charlie Alovisetti, partner at Vicente LLP, the panel brought together Francis Creighton, President and CEO of the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA); Jared Stanley, co-founder of Charlotte’s Web and CEO of DeFloria; Paige Figi, Executive Director of Coalition for Access Now; and Jim Higdon, co-founder of Cornbread Hemp, to discuss what operators should expect over the coming months.

Consumer Safety Must Come Before Politics

For patient advocates, the discussion is about preserving access.

Paige Figi—whose daughter Charlotte helped bring national attention to the therapeutic potential of CBD—explained that her organization’s work has always focused on full-spectrum, non-intoxicating cannabinoid products intended for therapeutic use.

“I don’t call them consumers,” Figi said. “These are human beings. These are medical patients.”

She warned that broad prohibitions could unintentionally remove products that patients have depended on for years.

According to Figi, Congress should continue pursuing a science-based regulatory framework that preserves access while protecting public health.

The Industry’s Problem Wasn’t CBD—It Was The Loophole

Jared Stanley argued that the industry’s current predicament traces back to the unintended consequences of the 2018 Farm Bill.

He recalled that Charlotte’s Web had already been shipping full-spectrum hemp products nationwide years before the Farm Bill was enacted.

“For four years… there was no abuse, there was no intoxication,” Stanley said. “Companies were intended for wellness.”

The problem, he explained, emerged when legal loopholes allowed intoxicating hemp-derived products to enter unregulated retail channels.

“Gas station weed,” as several panelists described it, was never the original intent of Congress.

According to Stanley, legitimate wellness products were ultimately swept into the same regulatory debate despite not creating the underlying problem.

Regulation—Not Prohibition

Perhaps the panel’s strongest moment came when Stanley summarized the industry’s position using an analogy that resonated throughout the discussion.

“If a restaurant violates a health code,” he said, “we don’t ban restaurants. We enforce health codes.”

His point was straightforward.

The industry is not asking lawmakers to ignore safety concerns.

It is asking them to regulate unsafe products instead of prohibiting an entire category.

Francis Creighton, whose organization represents alcohol wholesalers, said that philosophy mirrors how alcohol has been regulated for decades.

“If someone else is selling an intoxicating product,” Creighton said, “we think it should be regulated.”

He pointed to alcohol’s framework—labeling requirements, taxation, licensing, product standards, and enforcement—as evidence that regulated markets better protect consumers than prohibition.

“Public health and public safety demand that responsible players get into this market,” Creighton added.

Science Should Lead Policy

Throughout the discussion, panelists repeatedly returned to one principle.

Science—not politics—should determine cannabinoid regulation.

Figi highlighted the growing body of clinical research supporting cannabinoid therapies and pointed to impairment studies that have helped inform emerging federal pilot programs.

“When we have gaps in understanding,” she said, “we need to go find the answers.”

Stanley echoed that sentiment.

“Let science and the consumer lead policy,” he said.

According to the panelists, establishing evidence-based standards today could also strengthen future cannabis reform efforts by demonstrating that the industry can operate safely under clear regulatory oversight.

Congress Is Still Negotiating a Legislative Fix

While the November deadline has received significant attention, panelists emphasized that federal policymakers continue working on legislative solutions rather than treating the issue as settled.

Speakers pointed to ongoing discussions involving members of both chambers of Congress, including Rep. Andy Barr, Rep. Morgan Griffith and Sen. Ron Wyden, alongside continued engagement from the White House.

According to Jim Higdon, multiple proposals remain under active discussion as lawmakers seek a framework that closes unintended loopholes without eliminating access to legitimate hemp-derived cannabinoid products.

For operators, that means November should not necessarily be viewed as the end of the policy process, but as one milestone within a broader legislative negotiation that could continue through additional rulemaking and future congressional action.

What the Alcohol Industry Thinks Cannabis Can Learn

Francis Creighton offered a perspective rarely heard during cannabis policy discussions by drawing comparisons to alcohol regulation.

Rather than advocating prohibition, the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America argues that intoxicating products should be subject to clear rules governing manufacturing, labeling, taxation, distribution, and enforcement.

Creighton noted that alcohol’s post-Prohibition regulatory framework helped move consumers into a regulated marketplace where products are tested, accurately labeled, and sold through licensed businesses.

The comparison illustrates how mature regulated industries often rely less on broad product bans and more on licensing, compliance standards, and enforcement against bad actors.

Not Every Cannabinoid Product Fits the Same Category

Another recurring theme throughout the discussion was that policymakers are often debating multiple product categories simultaneously.

Panelists distinguished between non-intoxicating full-spectrum wellness products, therapeutic cannabinoid formulations, intoxicating hemp-derived products, and hemp beverages sold through adult-use retail channels.

While each raises different regulatory questions, several speakers argued that broad federal restrictions risk treating fundamentally different products as though they present identical public health concerns.

That distinction, they argued, will become increasingly important as Congress develops a long-term cannabinoid framework based on product characteristics, intended use, and consumer risk rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Why Hemp Policy Could Shape Broader Cannabis Reform

Although much of the conversation focused on hemp-derived cannabinoids, the debate carries implications far beyond the hemp industry itself.

Jared Stanley warned that successfully regulating cannabinoid products would demonstrate to federal policymakers that cannabis markets can operate responsibly under science-based oversight.

Conversely, adopting broad prohibitions instead of targeted regulation could undermine confidence in future cannabis reform efforts.

In that sense, the framework Congress establishes for hemp today may become a blueprint for how lawmakers approach broader cannabis legalization, medical access and future federal oversight of the plant.

How the Legislative Process Could Determine the Outcome

Higdon explained that the hemp definition itself cannot simply be rewritten through the federal budget reconciliation process—a parliamentary procedure Congress uses to pass tax and spending legislation with a simple Senate majority.

While reconciliation can include taxes or fees affecting the industry, it generally cannot rewrite the underlying statutory definition of hemp contained in federal law.

Instead, changing that definition requires standalone legislation moving through the traditional congressional process.

That means bills must be introduced, debated in committee, approved by both the House and Senate, reconciled if different versions pass, and ultimately signed by the President before becoming law.

Throughout that process, federal agencies such as the FDA may also be directed to issue implementing regulations that determine how Congress’s language is applied in practice.

For cannabis businesses, this distinction matters because legislative negotiations and regulatory implementation often occur on separate timelines.

Even after Congress acts, agencies may require months to define technical standards, issue guidance, and establish compliance rules, extending the period of uncertainty before companies know exactly how new laws will affect their operations.

Operators May Have More Political Influence Than They Think

The discussion concluded with a call for greater industry engagement.

Several speakers encouraged operators to activate their customer bases, explaining that congressional offices closely monitor constituent communications.

Figi shared a statistic often repeated in Washington: roughly 60 constituent contacts on an issue can elevate it to a congressional office’s top priorities.

For businesses with customer email databases, panelists argued that advocacy may be one of their most valuable assets.

Jim Higdon urged companies to treat their customers not only as consumers but as engaged citizens, using simple advocacy tools that allow them to contact elected officials directly.

The message extended beyond hemp. “This isn’t about hemp,” Stanley concluded. “This is about the plant.” He argued that how Congress approaches cannabinoids over the coming months could shape broader cannabis reform for years to come.

As federal policymakers continue debating the future of cannabinoids, operators must prepare for a regulatory environment increasingly shaped by consumer safety, scientific evidence, product standards, compliance, federal legislation, and public policy advocacy. Join us at IgniteIt’s Cannabis Capital Policy Summit in DC on November 18, where Wall Street meets Washington, D.C. Prepare for industry leaders, regulators, operators, investors, and policymakers to continue these conversations and explore how evolving regulations are reshaping the future of cannabis and hemp businesses.