Subcommittee reviews amendment to regulate THC hemp beverages; law enforcement warns testing will be complex

The agriculture subcommittee met to discuss a proposed 16–17 page amendment that would bring THC-containing hemp beverages under Title 61, create a three-tier licensing system for manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, and set packaging, labeling and tax rules similar to liquor, the panel heard.

The amendment’s summary, presented by staff member Mara, proposes new definitions (including "synthetic cannabis product" and an "allowable THC concentration"), lab testing requirements to ISO/IEC standards, child-resistant packaging and limits on marketing to children. Penalties would escalate with repeated violations, and the Department of Revenue would have authority to revoke or refuse renewal of licenses, Mara said.

Why it matters: committee members emphasized that products containing THC are already widely available in convenience stores and other outlets and that the absence of guardrails leaves enforcement and public-safety questions unresolved. Chair said the amendment is intended to regulate intoxicating hemp beverages rather than to ban all THC products outright and that the committee will seek stakeholder input before advancing the language.

Law enforcement and toxicologists told the panel that detecting and proving impairment from non‑alcohol substances presents practical and scientific challenges. "When you start talking about items other than alcohol, then the testing process gets extensive," Major Sean Stankus testified, warning that urine testing often shows only prior use and that blood draws and laboratory analysis are typically needed for impairment cases.

An unnamed pharmacologist and toxicologist told the committee that blood testing is the preferred method for associating concentration with impairment because blood reflects what is reaching the brain. "We prefer blood because... that's what's reaching the brain," the expert said, and added that metabolite ratios can help estimate time of exposure. By contrast, the witness said, urine primarily indicates historical use and "says nothing about impairment."

On policy specifics, the chair described limits being considered in the circulated draft: a prohibition on on‑premise consumption; a prohibition on sales to anyone under 21; a 5‑milligram cap per 12‑ounce serving for convenience‑store sales; and a 10‑milligram per serving cap (one‑ounce serving) for liquor‑store sales. The chair also said the amendment would not permit non‑beverage THC forms such as gummies, smoked products or other edibles under this particular draft.

Committee members repeatedly urged the drafting team to coordinate this language with broader statutory reform. Several senators asked that the amendment be paired with work on Senate Bill S 52 and suggested including scientific guidance or an appendix on blood‑concentration thresholds if possible. Senator Calvin said, "I would love some continued work, with law enforcement and and doctor too," and urged urgency because products remain largely unregulated until November 2026.

What the committee decided: no vote was taken. The chair said the committee will solicit written and limited in‑person testimony, circulate the working draft for feedback and plan to revisit the amendment in roughly two weeks. A motion to adjourn was made and the meeting ended.

Next steps: the committee has scheduled limited testimony and further stakeholder engagement; the draft amendment remains subject to change and the panel did not advance it to the floor at this meeting.