Senate committee debates hemp regulation substitute, tables amendment for further review

The Senate Health Committee discussed a substitute to SB 132 that would regulate and license psychoactive hemp products, including hemp beverages and non-beverage products, by establishing labeling, testing and safety standards and by treating some hemp beverages similarly to beer and other hemp products similarly to tobacco and vape items. The substitute would shift some measures from percentage THC to milligram limits, with a 10-milligram-per-serving rule cited in committee discussion. Lawmakers said such per-serving limits are intended to standardize product labeling and help enforcement.

Angelo Dellemono, director of the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, told the committee there is no widely accepted per-se THC impairment threshold comparable to alcohol. "The per se limit for alcohol has been well studied ... There isn't a per se limit for THC. It varies by user," Dellemono said, warning that chronic users and first-time users respond differently and that field assessment of impairment remains necessary. He also described laboratory challenges distinguishing raw plant material and synthetic cannabinoids and said regulating packaged hemp products could reduce that confusion for law enforcement.

Senators raised technical and enforcement questions about converting from percentage THC to milligram servings and how a 10-milligram serving would translate to impairment for an average person. One senator described the market as the "Wild West," with underage sales and products contributing to ambulance calls from schools; several senators urged clearer labeling of delta-8, delta-9 and delta-10 content and testing for contaminants and heavy metals. The substitute also includes provisions to strengthen labeling and testing and gives the regulatory board greater authority to confiscate unsafe products.

Senator Roberts offered an amendment focused on smokeable hemp products (raw plant material and products containing psychoactive cannabinoids). The amendment was discussed, briefly adopted by voice, and later tabled so members could review it further; the committee chair said the amendment package would be discussed when the bill returns and set a follow-up committee meeting for the next day or the next Tuesday.

Other points raised in committee included a 10% tax in the substitute (discussed as a potential revenue source to fund enforcement through the ABC Board and other agencies), and confirmation that municipalities that have local bans may retain them under the substitute (the sponsor said state law would not preempt local bans). Lawmakers asked stakeholders to provide more evidence about dosing and enforcement before the committee finalizes the measure.

No final committee adoption of the underlying bill is recorded in the transcript; the amendment discussed was tabled for later consideration and the committee scheduled additional review.