This iconic company has survived war, Covid, grunge – but worries Gen Z and cannabis may hit it hard!

Gen Z and cannabis blamed for this companies troubles. Yes, Jack Daniel’s, the iconic Tennessee whiskey brand owned by Brown-Forman, is grappling with a sobering sales slump. They state Gen Z and cannabis blamed for the company’s troubles. They recently reported lower-than-expected earnings, citing a significant drop in U.S. whiskey consumption. In a candid earnings call, executives noted a generational shift in drinking habits and the growing popularity of marijuana as key factors behind the downturn.

RELATED: How Marijuana Can Heighten Intimacy With Your Partner

Jack Daniel’s, established in the 1830s and officially registered in 1866 in Lynchburg, Tennessee, is America’s first registered distillery and a National Historic Place. Owned by Brown-Forman since 1956, it became a global whiskey leader, selling over 12 million cases annually at its peak.Recently, sales have softened, declining in 2024.

According to Brown-Forman CEO Lawson Whiting, younger consumers are simply not drinking whiskey like previous generations. “The Gen Z consumer is more health-conscious, more selective, and less loyal to traditional spirits brands,” Whiting said. “We’re seeing that whiskey, and brown spirits in general, don’t resonate with them the way they did with millennials or Gen X.”

Indeed, multiple studies have shown that Gen Z is drinking less alcohol than previous generations at the same age. Many are opting for low-ABV beverages, mocktails, or skipping alcohol altogether. This cultural shift has put legacy alcohol brands on edge, as they struggle to evolve in an era where wellness trends often run counter to heavy drinking.

Adding to the industry’s woes is the steady normalization and legalization of cannabis across the U.S. With legal weed now available in dozens of states, consumers have more options for how to relax — and many are turning to THC instead of alcohol. For a brand like Jack Daniel’s, built on the ritual of drinking, this presents a formidable competitor.

RELATED: Being A Couch Potato Changes Your Personality

Brown-Forman isn’t alone. Other major alcohol producers have also flagged these demographic and behavioral changes as challenges to growth. While some have pivoted toward ready-to-drink products or invested in cannabis-adjacent ventures, Jack Daniel’s remains tethered to its heritage as a whiskey brand.

The company’s concern isn’t just about quarterly losses — it’s about long-term relevance. If Gen Z continues to move away from traditional spirits, and cannabis captures more market share in the relaxation and recreation space, Jack Daniel’s may find itself facing more than just a sales dip — it could be confronting a generational identity crisis.

As the brand looks to the future, it must decide whether to double down on tradition or adapt to a culture that’s increasingly turning the page on old-school drinking habits.

[PRESS RELEASE] – DOWNEY, Calif., July 3, 2025 – Blüm Holdings Inc., a California-based publicly traded holding company and cannabis operator, announced that it has signed a binding agreement to acquire the majority of the membership interests in another licensed adult-use and medical cannabis dispensary in Northern California.

This marks Blüm’s latest strategic acquisition as it continues to scale its retail platform across California. The new dispensary will join Blüm’s growing portfolio, which includes three other Northern California stores and a recently acquired Bay Area location.

The transaction is structured as an all-stock deal, valuing the business at up to $5 million, including performance-based earn-outs tied to revenue and EBITDA benchmarks. Under a management services agreement (MSA), Blüm is set to begin integration on July 1, 2025, assuming key centralized functions such as compliance, accounting, marketing and finance.

“We are deeply honored that this group of seasoned operators chose to entrust their business to Blüm,” Blüm Holdings CEO Sabas Carrillo said. “This deal reflects our ongoing commitment to partnering with strong operators who share our values and performance standards, while we provide the support and infrastructure to unlock further growth.”

The dispensary has established a strong presence in its local community, supported by consistent financial performance and an experienced, customer-focused leadership team. The earn-out structure is designed to align incentives and reward continued success.

Blüm Holdings has made meaningful progress in executing its turnaround strategy and positioning itself for long-term growth through disciplined acquisitions, operational excellence, and brand-forward retail execution. The company continues to identify and partner with operators who bring local expertise, cultural alignment and a proven track record.

“We didn’t get here alone,” Carrillo said. “This transaction reflects not just a business milestone, but a collective win for everyone who believed in us—our shareholders, advisers, teammates and partners. We’re just getting started.”

The transaction is expected to close upon the completion of definitive agreements and customary closing conditions. Closing is targeted for Q3 2025. No assurances can be provided that definitive agreements will be successfully negotiated, executed or closed, or that necessary regulatory approvals will be obtained.

A U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) contractor is suing the federal government, alleging that questions about his past marijuana use during a security clearance process violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The plaintiff in the case, Robert Filipiuk, is an aerospace engineer at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. In early 2023, as part of a DOD background check, he disclosed on a questionnaire that he’d used marijuana edibles roughly four times between March 2022 and October 2022.

By mid-2023, the agency issued a preliminary decision denying him access to classified information, a decision that was later reviewed. At the review hearing, when asked about his prior marijuana use, he declined to answer the questions.

Afterward, the administrative judge in the case told Filipiuk’s lawyer that “the Government expects that applicants will provide full disclosure and truthful answers to their questions.” He gave Filipiuk “one more chance to answer that question” about past cannabis use.

The engineer declined, and the judge issued an unfavorable security clearance decision.

Filipiuk’s complaint says the government violated his Fifth Amendment right against testifying against oneself by “by forcing him to choose between self-incrimination or holding a security clearance, a condition of his employment.”

It asserts the government violated the Constitution by informing Filipiuk that any information he shared could be disclosed to law enforcement but also warning that failure to answer the questions would lead to a loss of employment.

At the same time, the suit says, the government failed to offer Filipiuk temporary immunity in order to more openly discuss past cannabis use, “forcing him to choose between the threat of criminal prosecution and his security clearance, and ultimately his employment.”

“The loss of the security clearance will end his career,” the complaint continues, “which will also mean that Plaintiff will lose his livelihood as his entire career has been working technical jobs that require a security clearance.”

Losing the clearance will also hurt his earning potential, eliminate his health insurance and pension and negatively impact his reputation, the filing says.

It notes that Filipiuk was subjected to drug screening at least six times between August 2023 and November 2023, each time testing negative for marijuana and other drugs.

“In using Plaintiff’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment rights as a basis to revoke Plaintiff clearance, a condition of his employment, the Department violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and privilege against self incrimination,” the suit alleges. “Thus, pursuant to the APA [Administrative Procedures Act, this Court may set aside these actions and the findings and conclusions that resulted therefrom.”

As far as the security clearance, the lawsuit seeks a court injunction that would compel the government “to cease violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights through the security clearance process.” It further asks the court order DOD to “delete the questions Plaintiff declined to answer, Plaintiff’s declination to answer, and the accompanying reasoning from the records.”

The case, filed last week in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and first reported by Law360, is Filipiuk v. Department of Defense (25-01974).

Legal questions about federal workers testing positive for marijuana have ballooned in recent years, as more individual states have legalized the drug.

A recent policy paper from a pair of companies in the trucking industry, for example, said the sector was short about 80,000 drivers last year—an issue it asserted was exacerbated by workers testing positive for marijuana under the federal Department of Transportation’s (DOT) strict, zero-tolerance drug policy.

“A significant number of otherwise qualified drivers fail pre-employment or random drug tests due to marijuana use,” the report said. “These drivers are often unaware of the DOT’s strict zero-tolerance policy or mistakenly believe that legal marijuana use in their home state is acceptable under federal law.”

Congressional lawmakers at hearings earlier this year also heard from representatives of the trucking industry, who called for wider use of hair-follicle testing in the industry. The chair of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), meanwhile, recommended better education for drivers.

The U.S. Supreme Court in April ruled in favor of a trucker who sued a cannabis company after he was fired over a positive THC test that he said was caused by consuming a hemp-derived CBD product.

Separately, a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) official earlier this year downplayed criticism from the CEO of a drug-testing company that more widespread use of saliva-based drug testing “means truckers who use cannabis will be able to do so with near impunity, as long as they avoid a drug test for a couple of days.”

“When a donor receives a request for collection, the donor will not know if the test will be an oral fluid or urine collection until they arrive at the collection facility for a federal agency,” the unidentified SAMHSA official said in response. Not knowing whether to expect a saliva or urine test, in other words, would prevent drivers simply stopping marijuana use a few days before a saliva-based test.

The transportation industry also advised Congress in January that if marijuana is federally rescheduled, businesses want assurances that they won’t have to forgo zero-tolerance drug policies for drivers—while stressing that a key problem for the sector is a lack of technology to detect impaired driving.

While saliva and blood tests can detect recent marijuana use better than urine or hair samples, there’s another wrinkle: As recently acknowledged by a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) researcher, it’s unclear whether a person’s THC levels are even a reliable indicator of impairment.

Separately, people on both sides of the political divide have at times this year framed drug testing as a way to expel undesirable employees from government.

Elon Musk, during his time chairing the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), called it a “great idea” to mandate drug testing of federal employees.

Shortly after that, a Democratic congresswoman filed a bill that would have required Musk and other DOGE workers to submit to drug testing to maintain their “special government employee” status.

Read the full complaint in Filipiuk v. Department of Defense below:

Using Hemp Flour And Oil Can Make Gluten-Free Baked Goods With ‘Optimal’ Texture And ‘Significant’ Nutrition, Study Shows