Senate passes bill to regulate high‑THC hemp products after lengthy debate

The Tennessee Senate passed House Bill 13 76 on final consideration after more than an hour of floor debate about whether the measure would curb an unregulated market for high‑THC hemp products or unfairly penalize farmers and local retailers.

Senator Briggs, the bill sponsor, said the legislation was designed to bring products currently sold in some Tennessee stores under a regulatory structure. “We essentially are dealing with unregulated recreational marijuana with no regulation,” Briggs said on the Senate floor, describing the bill as mainly regulatory with a smaller portion addressing THC definitions.

The bill creates a modified three‑tier system for cannabis‑derived products—suppliers, wholesalers (tax collectors) and retailers—mirroring Tennessee’s alcohol distribution framework, Briggs told the Senate. It shifts primary oversight and enforcement from the Department of Agriculture to the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission for retail compliance, while field testing would remain with the Department of Agriculture, he said. The measure also sets a total THC threshold and taxes: sponsor remarks cited a 0.3 percent total‑THC limit to distinguish hemp from marijuana, a per‑milligram tax on cannabinoid products instead of a flat sales tax, and a per‑ounce tax on flower; Briggs described a $50 per ounce tax on flower with revenue splits and additional registration and per‑gallon taxes for certain infused products.

Supporters framed the bill as a public‑safety and youth‑protection measure. Senator Rose said the priority was protecting children and expressed concern that gummies and other edible products were being sold in convenience stores and reaching schools. Senator Yeager, who co‑sponsored the measure, said scientific and medical concerns—particularly the health effects of high‑potency products—supported regulation.

Opponents and some questioning senators raised practical and legal concerns. Senator Roberts, who said he had visited a retail store to inspect products, warned that the bill might create a civil prohibition without criminal alignment, allowing residents to possess products purchased outside Tennessee without criminal penalty. Several senators expressed concern that the bill’s THC definitions do not tie cleanly to federal law and could leave Tennessee businesses and farmers vulnerable to legal uncertainty if the federal standard changes or if litigation resolves definitions differently.

Senator Massey asked whether the bill would allow in‑state retailers to sell online to out‑of‑state customers; Briggs said in‑state retailers would be prohibited from selling online to in‑state consumers but could sell to out‑of‑state consumers, and out‑of‑state retailers could not sell online to Tennessee consumers. Briggs said wholesalers would serve as the tax collectors in the distribution chain.

Several senators urged caution about moving state‑by‑state regulation without federal coordination. Senator Yarborough and others argued that, because markets and definitions are evolving nationally, Tennessee should consider federal alignment to avoid driving black‑market activity or creating conflicting rules with neighboring states.

After debate, the Senate voted to pass House Bill 13 76; the presiding officer announced the measure had received the constitutionally required majority and declared it passed. The transcript did not include a full named roll‑call with a complete vote tally in the record of the floor remarks.

Votes at a glance House and Senate action recorded on the floor included many bills moved on first consideration, concurrence votes on House amendments, and final passage of several measures with little discussion. Items recorded on the Senate floor that day included (as reflected in the transcript): Senate Bill 7 (concurred with House amendments), Senate Bill 26 (concurred), Senate Bill 161 (concurred), Senate Bill 252 (concurred), Senate Bill 359 (concurred), Senate Bill 468 (concurred), House Bill 13 76 (passed on third/final consideration, discussed above), House Bill 4 90 (passed), House Bill 11 27 (passed), House Bill 11 28 (passed), House Bill 10 50 (passed), House Bill 13 30 (passed), and numerous other bills and resolutions introduced, referred, or passed on first consideration. The floor transcript recorded motions to concur, to non‑concur, and procedural motions; where a formal roll‑call tally was not read into the floor transcript, the record notes the presiding officer’s announced outcome but did not provide a complete named vote list in the excerpt provided.

What the bill does and what remains unclear House Bill 13 76 establishes a regulatory framework for hemp‑derived cannabinoid products, sets a total‑THC threshold (sponsor cited 0.3 percent total THC as the dividing line between hemp and marijuana for the statute), assigns primary retail compliance and enforcement functions to the Alcoholic Beverage Commission, and imposes product taxes and brand registration fees described by the sponsor. The bill contains provisions limiting online sales and defining roles for suppliers, wholesalers and retailers.

The transcript includes substantive sponsor descriptions but does not include final statutory text, so several implementation details remain to be confirmed in the enrolled bill and implementing rules: the exact metric for measuring “total THC” in laboratory practice, the mechanics and timeline for transferring enforcement duties between agencies, how lab testing protocols will be standardized for products in different forms (edibles, concentrates, liquids for kegs), and whether federal guidance or litigation will change the state’s approach. The sponsor and other members explicitly noted litigation and federal definitions as outstanding questions.

Next steps and implications Senate passage completes the Legislature’s action on the bill and it will proceed to enrollment and then to the governor for signature or veto (the bill had already been considered by the House). Supporters said the law brings needed consumer protections and enforcement structure to an active marketplace; opponents warned of regulatory, legal and market disruption for growers and small retailers. Several senators urged careful rulemaking and attention to federal definitions and pending litigation before implementing enforcement actions.

Ending note Floor discussion combined public‑health arguments, regulatory detail and concerns about process and consequences for businesses and farmers. Sponsors urged prompt implementation and enforcement; critics urged alignment with federal standards and caution about unintended effects on lawful Tennessee hemp producers and retailers.