Senate committee weighs whether to ban or tightly regulate hemp‑derived THC beverages and synthetics
Loading...
Summary
A committee amendment would fold hemp‑derived THC beverages into a three‑tier retail system, set milligram limits for sold beverages, ban synthetic derivatives (delta‑8/delta‑10), require certificates of analysis and impose criminal and licensing penalties; senators debated banning versus strict regulation and enforcement challenges, including DUI testing and online sales.
Senators spent an extended period debating a committee amendment to H 39 24 that would either ban or strictly regulate hemp‑derived THC products, including beverages, gummies and vapes. The amendment’s sponsor described the current marketplace as a "wild, wild west" and proposed specific product categories, testing and penalties to curb youth access and weed out bad actors.
Under the amendment explained by the senator from York, the legislation would define hemp cannabinoid products and place them within a three‑tier sales system analogous to beer, wine and liquor. Retail‑available 12‑ounce cans would be limited to 5 milligrams of THC per serving and taxed like beer; higher‑potency single‑serving 12‑ounce cans (10 mg) and 750‑milliliter bottles (up to 17 servings at 10 mg each) would be treated like liquor and sold only at liquor stores.
The amendment would also outlaw synthetically derived cannabinoids such as delta‑8 and delta‑10 and require a certificate of analysis (COA) with a scannable QR code for every package listing THC, CBD, terpene profiles and chemical contaminants. Packaging modeled after products appealing to children would be prohibited. On‑premise sales (bars, restaurants) would be disallowed under the amendment; counties that presently allow Sunday alcohol sales would need a separate referendum to permit hemp beverages on Sundays.
Criminal penalties and licensing consequences were specified: selling to someone under 21 could trigger misdemeanor or felony penalties and lead to loss of retail licenses (beer/wine/liquor licenses) for repeat violations, the sponsor said. The amendment includes a safe‑harbor transition window for existing inventory to avoid takings challenges.
Senators debated whether to adopt amendment #1—a complete ban—or to accept the committee’s regulatory framework. Critics argued banning drives the market underground and harms small businesses while leaving bad actors in illicit channels; proponents of a ban argued it was the clearest way to keep intoxicating THC products away from minors and to avoid complicating DUI enforcement when testing for THC remains limited.
Law enforcement input was cited: SLED testified in committee that it supports strict regulation of beverages and gummies and favors restricting on‑premise sales; the sponsor said that SLED’s chief testified to the committee and issued a letter supporting regulatory limits. Members repeatedly asked how online and interstate shipments would be enforced; the sponsor said enforcement details are in the purview of executive agencies but noted existing models for controlling alcohol shipments could inform enforcement.
If the Senate chooses to regulate rather than ban, the amendment would create retail, labeling, testing and excise tax regimes and an 11% excise aimed at funding treatment programs. The debate closed with senators agreeing to take up amendment #1 first and then proceed to other amendments depending on the outcome.
