Senate committee hears AB 8 to reclassify intoxicating hemp as cannabis, expand enforcement

Assemblymember Agar Curry (author) told the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee on July 7 that AB 8 would expand enforcement against illegal intoxicating hemp products, ban synthetic cannabinoids and fold intoxicating hemp into the state cannabis supply chain so those products are fully registered, regulated and subject to the cannabis excise tax.

The bill’s author said the measure builds on her prior 2021 law (AB 45) that aimed to legalize non‑intoxicating hemp products. She told the committee that recent market developments have produced “highly intoxicating hemp products sold outside of dispensaries without age limits,” and said AB 8 would give state and local agencies additional authority to inspect, seize and destroy unlawful hemp products and require out‑of‑state manufacturers to register with California.

Supporters, including Amy Jenkins of the California Cannabis Operators Association and Ryan Sherman of the California Narcotic Officers Association, told the committee they have found many hemp products containing prohibited synthetic cannabinoids or very high levels of novel cannabinoids such as THCP. Jenkins cited a sampling described in testimony as an industry white paper finding that most tested products contained prohibited synthetics and many evaded taxes. Sherman said restricting intoxicating hemp sales to licensed dispensaries would better protect youth and align hemp products with the Medicinal and Adult‑Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act.

Opponents and concerned parties spoke chiefly about tax and small‑grower impacts. Jim Keddy of Youth Forward said one provision of the bill could reduce funding available for child care and youth programs, estimating a possible $180 million impact if the tax change remained. Numerous rural and small cannabis industry groups, and environmental and land‑trust organizations, registered opposition unless AB 8 is amended — many asked for parity between hemp and cannabis cultivation standards (for example pesticide and environmental safeguards) and for changes to the bill’s tax language.

Senators asked about net revenue impacts. Senator Nilo pressed whether the proposal would be revenue neutral after the bill both expands the base of products subject to the excise tax and—by the author’s amendments—retains a lower excise rate beginning in 2028. The author and witnesses said the bill adds products into the excise base and that analyses and required studies are intended to quantify net effects; supporters said the policy aims to stabilize tax revenue and preserve funding for programs supported by Prop 64 revenues. The author noted ongoing stakeholder talks with craft cultivators and small operators and said additional amendments are expected before appropriations.

Committee action: the bill was taken up and the committee established a quorum for roll call. Members cast initial votes and the measure was placed on call pending absent members; committee discussion and staff noted the bill will be considered in Revenue and Taxation for tax details. No final floor referral was recorded in the transcript excerpt; the committee left the item on call.

AB 8 remains under active negotiation on tax treatment and cultivation parity and will return to subsequent committees with expected technical and substantive amendments.