Senate rejects ban, adopts regulated framework for hemp-derived THC beverages
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
After hours of debate and a failed amendment to ban hemp-derived THC products, the South Carolina Senate adopted a committee amendment that would permit only certain THC-containing beverages under a regulated, three-tier system while criminalizing most non‑beverage THC products.
The South Carolina Senate spent the afternoon and evening wrangling over H.3924, a bill that would set statewide rules for hemp-derived THC products, ultimately adopting a committee amendment that narrows legal retail sales to certain beverages while leaving non-beverage THC products illegal.
Senator Johnson, the amendment’s sponsor, said the change was intended to regulate an existing market rather than leave it unregulated. "We are placing beverages only. Hemp beverages only will be placed into the 3 tier system," he told colleagues, outlining a scheme that allows 12-ounce cans with a maximum of 5 milligrams of delta-9 THC per serving to be sold in ordinary retail outlets and higher-strength products (up to 10 mg per serving or 750 ml bottles with multiple servings) only in liquor stores.
The committee amendment requires independent laboratory testing and a certificate of analysis (COA) for every product; manufacturers must provide a COA accessible by QR code on the product. It also copies age, sales and penalty provisions from the state’s alcohol laws and caps per-serving potency. Senator Johnson said preexisting inventory may be sold through 11/12/2026 if accompanied by a COA.
Opponents pressed enforcement and safety questions. Senator Cash argued for an outright ban, calling the 2018 federal farm‑bill standard a "loophole" that industry had exploited to create high‑potency products and said the state would be "owning" that choice if it regulated rather than banned them. "This amendment is to ban the hemp derived THC products, not not to regulate," he said.
Other senators focused on practical issues: how to verify potencies, whether accredited in‑state testing capacity exists, how to prevent child‑appeal packaging, whether insurance policies would cover incidents involving THC products, and how law enforcement would handle driving‑under‑the‑influence investigations. Officials and committee testimony cited by sponsors said blood tests and oral swabs can identify recent consumption within a few hours and that SLED and the Department of Revenue (DOR) would have enforcement roles, but many senators called for clearer DUI/testing standards.
A roll-call vote on Senator Cash’s ban amendment failed 18–22. After debate and technical cleanup amendments, the Senate adopted the committee amendment by roll call, 29–4.
What happens next: the committee amendment becomes the Senate’s amended position on H.3924; if the bill advances, supporters suggested that additional technical fixes and potential alignment with DUI provisions will be considered in follow-up work or future amendments.
The debate included extensive exchanges on enforcement and public‑safety tradeoffs, and senators noted they may revisit DUI standards and testing procedures as the regulatory scheme is finalized.