Colorado’s our legislative tracker is about to get an earful from two industries that make the same product and have very different ideas about who should be allowed to sell it.
A bill expected to drop in the coming weeks — sponsored by varies by state companies a shortcut around the entire framework.
Welcome to 2026’s most uncomfortable cannabis policy fight: the one happening inside the legal market, between the people who thought they’d already won.
What This Bill Actually Does
Right now, hemp-derived THC drinks can be sold in Colorado liquor stores and bars — but only if they contain no more than 1.75 milligrams of THC per serving and maintain a 15:1 CBD-to-THC ratio. Those requirements are so restrictive that only a handful of brands (think: Cann seltzers at the light-buzz end of the spectrum) actually qualify. Most THC products, including edibles and vapes, remain locked behind dispensary doors.
The proposed bill would:
– Raise the per-serving THC limit to 10 milligrams in hemp beverages (above 10mg, the product would have to be sold at a dispensary) – Eliminate the 15:1 CBD-to-THC ratio requirement entirely – Make qualifying hemp drinks available at liquor stores, restaurants, bars, and grocery stores – Keep testing oversight under the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment – Give the state’s Liquor Enforcement Division — not the Marijuana Enforcement Division — authority over retail sales
That last point is where things get complicated. Under this framework, a hemp-derived 5mg THC beer and a cannabis-dispensary-sold 5mg THC edible would be the same cannabinoid, the same psychoactive effect, and two completely different regulatory regimes.
Who It Affects
For the roughly 6,000 bars and restaurants in Colorado, this bill is a menu expansion. For 21-and-over consumers who don’t frequent dispensaries — maybe they’re occasional users, social drinkers looking for an alternative, or visitors unfamiliar with Colorado’s dispensary scene — it’s meaningful new access without a trip to a cannabis retail store.
For hemp beverage brands, it’s a potentially massive market opening. Colorado’s alcohol distribution network is well-established and reaches tens of thousands of retail outlets. The dispensary channel, by comparison, is a fraction of that footprint.
For Colorado’s licensed marijuana operators — cultivators, manufacturers, dispensaries — the bill is an existential threat disguised as market expansion. They built their businesses inside a compliance framework that requires seed-to-sale tracking, extensive lab testing under the Marijuana Enforcement Division, and state licensing fees that add up fast. If hemp companies can reach the same shelf at a fraction of the regulatory cost, the competitive math gets ugly.
Brian Vicente, one of the bill’s architects, estimates the legislation could generate $30 million annually in new tax revenue for a state currently facing a budget shortfall. “We were the first state to legalize marijuana and regulate it,” he said, “and since that time we’ve been lapped by a number of other states that have really embraced beverages.”
The Direction
This bill is expanding access — specifically, expanding access via a regulatory lane that bypasses the established cannabis regulatory system.
That distinction matters. Colorado’s marijuana industry didn’t object to more THC drinks reaching consumers. Chuck Smith, CEO of industry trade group Colorado Leads, said he supports low-dose beverages reaching everyday consumers who don’t frequent dispensaries. The objection is to how they’d get there.
“The bill, in essence, would bypass the entire regulated industry that we’ve all worked so hard to build since 2012,” Smith said.
Colorado’s situation is the leading edge of a national tension. The 2018 Farm Bill created a loophole that allowed hemp-derived intoxicating products — the Tennessee ban THC, hemp beverages, hemp-derived edibles — to proliferate nationally, including in states where marijuana remains illegal. Congress is expected to close that loophole with a federal ban on most hemp-derived intoxicating products later this year. Colorado’s proposed bill would allow these beverages to stay in the state marketplace even if the federal ban takes effect.
In other words: Colorado may be trying to carve out a state-level exemption that preemptively survives the coming federal crackdown.
What Happens Next
The bill has not yet been formally introduced as of March 30, 2026. Sponsors expect it to drop in the coming weeks. With Colorado’s legislative session running through mid-May, the window for passage this year is narrow.
Key obstacle: the marijuana industry’s political infrastructure in Colorado is well-funded and battle-tested. Colorado Leads and its members will likely oppose the bill aggressively at committee. Youth advocacy groups — particularly One Chance to Grow Up — are already mobilized and expect to argue that expanding THC product availability into grocery stores and restaurants puts intoxicating products within reach of minors.
If the bill doesn’t pass this session, the underlying pressure doesn’t go away. Neighboring states and markets without Colorado’s dispensary tradition are already selling higher-dose hemp beverages freely.
Who’s Behind This
Sen. Julie Gonzales (D-Denver) has been a consistent advocate for cannabis reform and harm reduction in the Colorado Senate. Her sponsorship signals the bill has progressive credibility — this isn’t a hemp industry end-run dressed up in bipartisan clothing; it’s a genuine attempt to expand low-dose cannabis access to consumers who aren’t currently being served. Her district includes Denver’s hospitality corridor, where bar and restaurant operators have been vocal about wanting more THC beverage options.
Rep. Steven Woodrow (D-Denver) framed his support in consumer terms: “As industry has matured, so has the consumer base, and folks want an alternative to smoking and vaping.” Woodrow has been active on cannabis policy and has generally aligned with harm reduction approaches.
Brian Vicente, founding partner at Vicente LLP, is one of the architects of Colorado’s original marijuana legalization framework — he was part of the Amendment 64 campaign that passed in 2012. His involvement lends the bill credibility and institutional memory, though his law firm’s role in drafting the legislation means his clients stand to benefit from its passage.
Chuck Smith, CEO of Colorado Leads, represents the regulated marijuana industry’s interests. His opposition isn’t reflexive anti-hemp sentiment — it’s structural: why should a product with the same psychoactive effect and the same consumer market face a fraction of the regulatory burden? His argument is that equity requires hemp companies to enter the marijuana regulatory framework, not bypass it.
Henny Lasley, executive director of One Chance to Grow Up, is the loudest voice on the prevention side. “This isn’t just a policy shift. This would be a fundamental change threatening the landscape of our communities.” Worth noting: similar arguments were made about full marijuana legalization in 2012. Colorado’s Marijuana Enforcement Division data, released earlier this week, found that licensed retailers denied entry 99% of the time to individuals lacking proper proof of age. The prevention concern is real — but the evidence on Colorado’s track record is also real.
The Bottom Line
Colorado built the country’s first regulated marijuana market in 2012. Fourteen years later, a newer regulatory category — hemp — is poised to undercut the framework those operators built, potentially selling the same cannabinoid in more locations under lighter oversight. The bill being drafted right now forces a question that’s been simmering since the the federal hemp ban passed: if THC is THC, why does where it comes from determine how it’s regulated?
The answer is political and economic, not scientific. How Colorado resolves it may determine the blueprint for every legal state that follows.
Related Stories
Responses