Minnesota’s hemp industry is facing one of the most critical moments in its history. In my opinion, decisions made today will determine whether local operators survive or whether big cannabis and out-of-state brands take over. That’s why I feel compelled to raise the alarm about Glenn McElfresh — a board member of the Hemp Beverage Alliance and co-founder of Plift.
Glenn’s Background
From my perspective, Glenn is polished, smart, and comes across as friendly. He co-founded Plift, a hemp-derived THC beverage brand, after working in big cannabis. Nothing But Hemp carried his products for a while, but sales never moved. In my experience, consumers didn’t connect with the branding, and we dropped the line.
That in itself was just business. What concerns me more is Glenn’s politics — and the way I believe he has been willing to discredit others to protect his narrative.
Undermining My Work
After I reported on the most recent OCM (Office of Cannabis Management) meeting — complete with a recording — Glenn didn’t engage with me directly. Instead, he circulated my article to my own clients and peers in the industry, suggesting it was “exaggerated” and “unprofessional.”
In my view, that wasn’t simply disagreement. That came across to me as an attempt to damage my credibility with the very people I do business with.
My Response to Glenn
Here is what I said in reply after Glenn’s message:
“I want to clear the air regarding the comments that my updates about the OCM meeting contained ‘wrong information.’ What I shared wasn’t speculation — it came directly from the meeting itself. If anyone doubts this, I encourage you to listen to the full recording.
Manufacturers especially need to understand this: the OCM made it clear that we will be required to follow marijuana protocols for site requirements, security, and more. These are not small details — they come with enormous costs and burdens that, in my opinion, will hit Minnesota-based manufacturers the hardest.
Here’s the reality as I see it: Glenn and Plift don’t operate manufacturing facilities in Minnesota. Glenn represents an out-of-state brand, which in my view means these regulations actually give his company a competitive advantage because he doesn’t shoulder the same local costs. For Minnesota operators, the math is very different. In fact, the cost of compliance is so high that I’ve made the decision to move my own manufacturing facility to Wisconsin. That’s how unworkable these regulations are.
Ask yourself: why would I move to Wisconsin and sign a new lease — and take that risk?
Let’s be honest: in my opinion, Glenn comes from big cannabis. He’s a skilled politician, and I believe he’s playing a very strategic game here. Ask yourself this — what do I gain by speaking up? Nothing, other than trying to protect the Minnesota-based businesses that I believe will be crushed under these rules. And what does Glenn and Plift gain? To me, the answer is obvious.
So you can either believe a carefully packaged message from Plift, or you can believe what was said directly by Eric Tabual during the meeting — ‘from the horse’s mouth.’
In addition, Glenn, talking behind someone’s back is just wrong. Want to have a debate? Let’s do it in a public forum.”
Here is the recording listen for yourself - might need to fast forward and turn up the volume. https://drive.google.com/file/d/18PE7SPKEk16Qdut65uqvK-XMbj5R5Fqy/view?usp=drive_link
The Reality From OCM
Here’s what OCM actually said in that meeting, directly from Director Eric Tabual and staff:
-
There will be no extensions
-
Manufacturers must meet marijuana-level standards for facilities, security, and testing
-
Old inventory must be restickered
-
In-state testing is required going forward
-
OCM’s recommendation? “Make more product before December 31.”
These aren’t my words. They’re from the meeting itself.
Listen to the full recording here.
The “Keep Talking” Approach
Some in the industry have suggested that the best path forward is to simply keep having talks with the OCM — to continue negotiating in hopes they’ll soften their stance.
But in my opinion, that approach is unrealistic. Director Tabual made it clear: they will follow the black letter of the law, nothing more. They will not extend deadlines. They will not loosen requirements. They told us directly that we should “make more product before December 31” as if that were a serious solution.
From my perspective, when an agency openly states it will not bend, more “talks” won’t change anything. Dialogue has its place, but relying solely on meetings with OCM while deadlines barrel toward us is, in my view, a recipe for disaster.
Why Glenn’s Message Is Dangerous
In my opinion, Glenn and Plift don’t manufacture in Minnesota. These rules won’t crush him the way I believe they’ll crush Minnesota-based operators. From where I sit, the new regulations tilt the playing field in his favor.
That’s why his advice — don’t sue, trust the process, keep calm — is, in my view, dangerous. For him, it’s a strategy. For us, I believe it’s a cliff.
Legal Precedent: Hemp Lawsuits That Have Won
Across the country, hemp operators have pushed back in court — and in my view, won important victories. Lawsuits have successfully paused or overturned restrictive state rules, giving the industry time to adapt.
New Jersey is a prime example. In 2024, lawmakers passed sweeping amendments to the state’s hemp law (NJHAA), imposing new restrictions on intoxicating hemp products and limiting sales channels. A coalition of hemp businesses filed suit, arguing that the law conflicted with the 2018 Farm Bill and discriminated against out-of-state producers.
On October 10, 2024, a federal court agreed in large part with the hemp operators. The judge blocked key provisions of the law, ruling that New Jersey could not criminalize the shipment or sale of out-of-state hemp products. The court also found that parts of the law violated the Dormant Commerce Clause by favoring in-state actors. Enforcement of many restrictions was halted, leaving the industry breathing room to regroup.
To me, the lesson from New Jersey is clear: lawsuits can buy time, force regulators to rethink, and protect hemp operators from being crushed by bad laws. Even partial wins can shift leverage and slow down harmful policies.
Minnesota’s Timeline
Some suggest waiting until the Legislature can fix things. But the reality, as I see it, is sobering:
-
A possible special session is expected to focus on gun laws, not cannabis
-
The regular session won’t start until February
-
Most bills won’t pass until May
-
New laws typically won’t take effect until July
That leaves Minnesota hemp businesses stuck under impossible rules for months. By then, I believe many may not survive.
The Options
From my perspective, we only have a few paths forward:
-
Follow Glenn off a cliff — stay quiet, comply, and watch local hemp businesses collapse
-
Seek an injunction — respectfully show OCM that the hemp industry means business, and buy time for a real solution
-
Leave Minnesota entirely — relocate operations to survive elsewhere
At Nothing But Hemp, we’ve chosen a hybrid approach: moving our manufacturing to Wisconsin while keeping our retail, wholesale, and delivery operations alive here.
A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
Glenn positions himself as the calm, polished voice of reason. But in my opinion, his strategy protects big cannabis interests, not Minnesota hemp. And by discrediting my reporting behind closed doors, he showed his true colors.
This isn’t about personalities. From my perspective, it’s about survival. Minnesota operators must decide: will we roll over and accept impossible rules, or will we fight for a future where hemp can thrive here?
A Call to Action
Minnesotans, wake up. In my view, you have more to lose than you realize, and time is running out. Don’t be lulled into complacency by smooth political talk. The facts are clear, the costs are real, and the deadline is near.
As my mentor once told me: always call things out when the opposing party is not good for the industry. That’s what I’m doing here.
The question is — will you stand with local hemp businesses, or, in my opinion, follow a wolf in sheep’s clothing off the cliff?
