Our THC Beverages Op-Ed Matters for the Whole Industry

When WeedWeek included our recent op-ed in their May 1, 2026 newsletter, Calif. officials acknowledge testing gaps – Newsletter 5/1/26, I felt something I haven't felt in a while as a founder writing about THC beverages: heard.

I want to say thank you. Not just on behalf of myself, and not just on behalf of 23rd State — but on behalf of everyone in the cannabis and hemp-derived beverage category who believes this industry deserves a higher evidentiary standard than the one it's currently operating under.

If you're new here, I'm Leah Kollross, founder of 23rd State, a Minnesota-born cannabis beverage brand. We make THC and CBG-infused drinks — SHAKE edible glitter drops, FRESH PRESS pear cider, and Blush Crush Infused Bubbly. And we believe that the future of THC beverages depends on something the category has, until recently, been allergic to: independent, third-party scrutiny.

WeedWeek's mention may have been brief. But the implication was anything but small.

The THC Beverages Op-Ed That Started the Conversation

In late April, Marijuana Moment ran a guest op-ed I wrote arguing that the cannabis beverage industry has an evidence problem. The piece made a simple but, in my experience, deeply uncomfortable argument:

Too few THC beverage companies are willing to submit their products to independent, real-world research. The category is awash in marketing claims — about onset times, about dose accuracy, about consumer outcomes — but starved of the kind of third-party data that allows consumers, retailers, regulators, and investors to make informed decisions.

For a category positioning itself as the future of social drinking and a credible alcohol alternative, that gap is not just a marketing problem. It's a public-trust problem. It's a regulatory-credibility problem. And, in the long run, it's a category-survival problem.

When WeedWeek picked up the op-ed and pointed their readers toward it, they elevated that argument from a single founder's perspective to a piece of industry conversation worth tracking. That matters.

Why WeedWeek's Recognition Carries Real Weight

Anyone who has spent time in cannabis media knows that WeedWeek is not a publication that hands out attention casually. Alex Halperin and the team built a newsletter that operators, attorneys, regulators, journalists, investors, and policy advocates actually read — a rare thing in this fragmented industry. Their daily and weekly briefings function as a kind of trade-paper of record for U.S. cannabis.

So when WeedWeek points its readership to a story, the implicit signal is: this is worth your attention.

For an op-ed about transparency in the THC beverages category to land in that briefing — alongside coverage of California testing-lab gaps, Trump-administration rescheduling moves, MSO M&A activity, and federal Farm Bill negotiations — is meaningful. It says, loud and clear, that the question of whether cannabis beverage companies are willing to be independently studied belongs in the same conversation as lab integrity, regulatory enforcement, and federal cannabis policy.

That framing is exactly what the category needs.

The Evidence Problem in Cannabis Beverages, Briefly Restated

For readers who haven't yet read the original op-ed, the central argument is this:

Cannabis and hemp-derived beverage brands love to talk about the science. Onset within fifteen minutes. No hangover. Predictable dosing. Smarter, healthier, more controllable consumption than alcohol. These are the talking points you'll hear at every trade show and read in nearly every brand deck — including, for a long time, ours.

Talking points are easy. Independent evidence is hard.

Independent evidence is hard because it costs money. It requires submitting your products to researchers who have no financial incentive to make you look good. It exposes you to data you can't control. It risks revealing that your dosing is inconsistent, that your effects don't match your packaging, or that your consumers are using your product in ways you didn't anticipate.

Most brands won't do it. Some say they "can't afford it." Most simply don't want to.

That's the evidence problem. And it's why I argued — and continue to argue — that the THC beverages category cannot keep growing on the back of marketing language alone. Sooner or later, regulators, retailers, and consumers will demand more. The brands that have done the work will be ready. The brands that have not will be exposed.

How 23rd State Has Tried to Lead by Example

I don't write about the evidence problem from the outside. I write about it because we have spent the last eighteen months trying to do something about it inside our own company.

23rd State partnered with MoreBetter — an independent, technology-enabled research platform — to run a Real-World Infused Beverage Study tracking actual consumer outcomes from our SHAKE and FRESH PRESS products. Cohort 1 looked at sleep, wind-down occasions, and harm-reduction patterns relative to alcohol. Cohort 2 expanded the data set further. The study was not a marketing exercise. It was a peer-reviewable, methodologically transparent attempt to find out what our products actually do in the hands of real consumers, in real homes, on real evenings.

Some of the findings flattered us. Others surprised us. Some pushed us to refine formulations and education. That is the entire point of independent research. If your data only ever confirms what your marketing already says, your data isn't research. It's reassurance.

This is the work I wanted to call attention to in the op-ed — not because 23rd State is the only brand in the category trying to do it right, but because too few of us are. And the only way that changes is if independent scrutiny becomes a competitive expectation, not a competitive disadvantage.

What WeedWeek's Recognition Means for the THC Beverages Category

Here's why I think the WeedWeek mention is bigger than a single line item in a Tuesday newsletter:

It signals that the conversation is widening. Until recently, debates about evidence and testing in cannabis were largely confined to flower and concentrate categories — potency inflation, mold and aspergillus contamination, pesticide drift, lab shopping. Beverages were treated as a separate, friendlier story. WeedWeek placing the THC beverages evidence question alongside lab-testing scrutiny in California is, to my mind, a turning point. It tells the industry that beverage brands are not exempt from the same standards we expect of every other cannabis product on the shelf.

It validates the operators doing the harder thing. Investing in independent research is expensive, slow, and operationally inconvenient. Brands that take that path often feel like they're being asked to compete on one hand tied behind their back, while peers make sweeping claims with nothing to back them up. Recognition from a publication like WeedWeek tells those operators their work is being noticed.

It puts pressure on brands that haven't engaged. And honestly? That's a feature, not a bug. The THC beverages category will be healthier in five years if today's underperformers are pushed to either invest in real evidence or step aside for brands that will.

It reminds regulators that the industry can self-improve. Every time independent operators voluntarily raise their own standards, it strengthens the case that thoughtful regulation — not crackdowns, not bans — is the right path forward for cannabis and hemp-derived products at both the state and federal level.

An Open Invitation to Brands, Operators, and Regulators

I want to use this thank-you post for what it really is: a continuation of the conversation WeedWeek helped amplify.

To other THC beverage brands: I am not interested in calling anyone out by name. I am, however, deeply interested in finding partners who want to participate in independent studies, who want to share methodologies, and who want to set a category standard that protects all of us from the small handful of operators whose claims will eventually invite the regulatory backlash we don't want.

To retailers: ask your vendors for evidence. Not deck slides. Not anecdotal testimonials. Actual third-party study summaries with methodology you can read. The brands worth carrying will hand it over without hesitation.

To regulators and policy advocates — including my colleagues at the National Cannabis Industry Association and across the hemp and cannabis trade-association landscape: I believe the path to durable cannabis and hemp policy unification runs directly through evidence. Unified policy needs unified standards. Unified standards need data. The brands willing to gather that data should be the ones helping to write the rules.

And to the team at WeedWeek: thank you. Thank you for treating the THC beverages evidence problem as the industry-wide story it is, and not as a brand promotional cycle. Thank you for taking a relatively short op-ed from a Minnesota-based founder seriously enough to put it in front of your readership. And thank you for continuing to do the unglamorous work of holding this industry to a higher standard, week after week.

The work is just getting started. But it's better work, and a better category, because publications like yours refuse to let the easier story go unchallenged.

If you'd like to read the full WeedWeek newsletter that referenced the op-ed, you can find it here: Calif. officials acknowledge testing gaps – Newsletter 5/1/26. And if you'd like to read the original op-ed in its entirety, it's available on Marijuana Moment.

I'd love to hear what you think. More importantly, I'd love to see what you do about it.