Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hemp Cannabinoid Beverages topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee debates hemp-cannabinoid beverage rules, defers votes to study three issues
Summary
A legislative subcommittee reviewed stakeholder amendments to a bill regulating hemp-cannabinoid beverages — covering labeling, packaging, taxation, display rules, Sunday sales and refrigeration — and delayed votes to allow two weeks of additional study on wholesale grandfathering, a proposed product registry and a 10 mg can proposal for liquor stores.
A legislative subcommittee examined proposed amendments to a bill that would regulate hemp-cannabinoid beverages, heard a staff synopsis of stakeholder suggestions and deferred votes to allow members to study three outstanding issues.
Miss Baker Mara, the staff presenter, outlined recurring themes from stakeholders, including treating the products similarly to beer and wine for display and sales rules, allowing QR codes on packaging linking to certificate-of-analysis (COA) lab results rather than requiring paper COAs in stores, and removing a proposed child-resistant-packaging requirement for cans because the bill already bans gummies and other forms that would have required such packaging. "We received from various stakeholders comments and some drafts of language that they would propose," she said. "...requiring a retailer to have a paper copy on hand in the store is something that may be overly burdensome." (Staff comment summarized from transcript.)
Why it matters: The committee is balancing consumer information, public-safety concerns and retail practicality. Major unresolved issues the panel flagged could determine where the products may be sold, how they are taxed and what consumer protections will be required.
Members pressed staff and each other on a set of specific points. The chair and several senators discussed Sunday sales at length, noting many county referendums that allow "beer and wine" may not automatically cover intoxicating hemp beverages; the chair said counties may need separate referendums and asked staff to collect county referendum language so the committee can determine whether existing local votes would apply. Senator from Greenville asked whether staff could identify which counties' referendum language would be broad enough to include these drinks; staff said they were compiling that list but did not share it during the meeting.
On taxation and product limits, members debated whether to tax by container type or by milligram of active ingredient. The working consensus was to treat retail 5-milligram/12-ounce cans as taxed like beer and to allow higher-strength products in liquor stores subject to per-serving caps. Committee discussion referenced a proposed limit of 10 milligrams per serving for liquor-store products and a bottle-size cap tied to servings (members discussed 17 servings as a roughly 750-milliliter bottle equivalent); staff said draft statutory language should be clarified to reflect acceptable container sizes and per-serving limits.
The panel also discussed display and placement rules: several members favored treating placement resets and display rules consistently with existing beer and wine statutes rather than imposing behind-the-counter requirements. Chair noted that the bill as drafted bans on-premise consumption and that law-enforcement feedback favors no on-premise consumption because of concerns about impairment and roadway safety.
On labeling and consumer information, staff said manufacturers — not laboratories — would be responsible for placing QR codes on packaging that link to lab COAs. Members agreed that mandating particular warning-language phrasing could hinder interstate commerce, so the committee is leaning toward a general list of required warnings rather than state-specific wording.
Cold versus room-temperature storage drew a prolonged exchange. The chair and some members argued selling cans unrefrigerated may discourage immediate consumption and reduce roadside impairment; others argued that if the products are treated like beer, retailers should decide refrigeration policy and that enforcement of open-container/driving-while-impaired laws remains the tool for public safety. "If we're treating this like beer in a convenience store, then the same rules should apply," the senator from Greenville said. (Quote from transcript.)
The committee agreed on several constraints in principle: no vending-machine sales; product registry ideas would be run by the Department of Revenue if adopted; and the bill is not intended to ban CBD or other non-intoxicating cannabinoids, which would remain governed by separate laws. The panel requested more study on three items — wholesale-license grandfathering, a product registry, and whether to allow 10 mg/12-ounce cans in liquor stores — and limited testimony on those topics at the next meeting. The chair said the subcommittee expects to adopt a package and move the bill to the full committee after that additional study.
There were no formal roll-call votes on amendments during this meeting. The meeting ended after the chair called for and received a motion to adjourn.
The committee's next steps include staff research on county referendum language for Sunday sales, proposed statutory clarifications on container sizes and serving limits for liquor-store sales, and stakeholder input (including WSWA and others) on grandfathering and the three-tier distribution system. The subcommittee scheduled follow-up consideration and limited testimony on the three flagged topics before forwarding a consolidated amendment package to the full committee.
