On Joe Rogan, a Republican senator described how alcohol interests and segments of the state-legal cannabis industry aligned to push back against hemp-derived THC.
For years, the crackdown on hemp-derived THC products has been framed as a matter of consumer safety. Products too strong. Rules too loose. Markets moving faster than regulators.
Also read: America Cards You for Beer. So Why Can’t It Card for Hemp-THC?
Last week, on one of the most widely watched podcasts in the world, a sitting U.S. senator described a different dynamic at play.
Appearing on The Joe Rogan Experience, Rand Paul said the push to effectively ban most consumable hemp THC products was driven not only by lawmakers, but also by lobbying pressure from the alcohol industry and segments of the state-legal cannabis industry itself.
The exchange was first reported by Marijuana Moment, and it caught Rogan visibly off guard.
A conflict between legal markets
Paul was describing how restrictive hemp language was added to a must-pass federal spending bill signed into law in November. While he attempted to block the provision, it ultimately advanced, setting the stage for a sweeping crackdown on hemp-derived THC products.
When Rogan asked who was behind the push, Paul was direct.
“There was a little bit of the alcohol lobby and the cannabis lobby,” he said. “The cannabis people hate the hemp people.”
Paul then explained why that tension exists.
“The cannabis industry developed state by state,” he said. “You really can’t make a marijuana product in Colorado and sell it in Kentucky. It can’t go across state lines.”
Hemp, by contrast, was federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill. That distinction allowed hemp-derived THC products to be sold and shipped across state lines, including into states where marijuana remains federally illegal.
“The hemp, because it was legalized nationally, they were selling it across state lines,” Paul said. “So we have big companies now that sell the hemp gummies. You can order them through the mail, across state lines, until this law came about.”
The McConnell provision
Paul placed responsibility for the restrictive language squarely on Mitch McConnell, describing him as a powerful figure whose influence has been built over decades of fundraising and political leverage.
The provision does not explicitly outlaw hemp products. Instead, it sets a maximum limit of 0.4 milligrams of THC per container.
Paul argued that the practical effect is the same.
“The McConnell language says you can’t have more than 0.4 milligrams,” he said. “Which is such a low number that I don’t think it’ll have any effect. I mean, frankly, the THC is the effect.”
By setting the threshold that low, the rule renders most existing hemp THC products commercially unviable. Paul also warned that the language could reach beyond finished products, effectively criminalizing plants and seeds and forcing farmers to reengineer their crops to remain compliant.
“There’s a real industry of farmers who grow this,” he said.
Regulation or protectionism
As the conversation continued, Paul framed the policy as another example of regulatory imbalance.
“They’re protecting you so you can take Ambien,” he said, “but god forbid you take a hemp gummy. They will put your ass in jail if you take a hemp gummy.”
Rogan responded with personal anecdotes, noting that family members had found hemp-derived products more effective when small amounts of THC were present, particularly for pain and inflammation.
Paul emphasized that he was not promoting cannabis use, but defending adult choice.
“I’m for the freedom to take it,” he said. “I’m for personal choice for adults.”
A revealing admission
Perhaps the most consequential moment came when Paul described how federal legalization would change industry dynamics.
“So the cannabis businesses in the states where it’s legal don’t want it legal nationally,” he said. “Because then it would interfere with their business, because you’d be able to order it through the mail.”
In that framing, the conflict was not primarily about health or safety. It was about market access.
Hemp’s federally legal status created a pathway that state-licensed marijuana businesses do not have. According to Paul, that imbalance helped align interests between alcohol producers facing competition from THC alternatives and cannabis operators constrained by federal prohibition.
The result is a policy that narrows consumer access, places new burdens on farmers, and reshapes the market under the banner of regulation.
Multiple lawmakers have since introduced legislation to delay implementation of the hemp THC ban, and polling shows broad opposition among cannabis consumers to recriminalizing hemp products.
Still, the significance of Paul’s comments remains.
On a mainstream platform, a U.S. senator described the hemp crackdown not as a moral stance or a public health necessity, but as the outcome of competing industries protecting their turf.
Once framed that way, the debate over hemp THC looks less like a safety discussion and more like a struggle over who gets to sell cannabis in America, and under what rules.
Photo: Shutterstock
