House amends hemp bill, adopts federal THC threshold and tables dozens of changes after heated floor debate

The South Carolina House on Monday spent much of its session debating H.39 24, a measure that would regulate psychoactive “consumable hemp” products such as THC‑infused drinks and gummies, with members sharply divided over whether to ban the products or impose strict regulation.

Representative Jerry McCravey, who led floor amendments, framed the debate around public safety and labeling. “There were no warning labels… four of them ended up getting high,” he said, describing a case he said involved a family who consumed a THC beverage without realizing its effect. McCravey pressed for warning‑label requirements, single‑serving limits and insurance coverage for retailers to address what he called a public‑safety gap.

Representative Jordan, speaking in opposition to some changes, repeatedly warned members about procedural consequences of amending the Senate’s version. He said amending the bill on the floor would remove the option to simply concur or not concur and could leave the House reduced leverage in conference. “If we amend the bill… we lose the option to concur,” Jordan said, urging caution about how amendments would shape the bill’s path forward.

Over the course of the debate the House voted on dozens of member proposals. Notable floor actions included a close tabling vote (58–56) to set aside one amendment that would have preserved stricter elements of the Senate language, and a subsequent roll‑call that tabling a motion to recommit the bill to committee by a 78–38 margin. The chamber also adopted Amendment 17, which brings the bill into alignment with a forthcoming federal definition that would treat consumable products with 0.4% THC per serving as the threshold for psychoactivity. That amendment was adopted on the floor and recorded in the roll call.

Supporters of tighter regulation said the approach protects children and motorists, pointing to the delayed onset and combined‑use risks when THC is mixed with alcohol. Opponents — many of them representing small retailers and pharmacies that sell hemp products — warned that a broad ban or aggressive restrictions would eliminate livelihoods and immediately harm an industry some estimates put in the hundreds of millions statewide.

Representative Gil Gatch, who opposed the rushed ban vote earlier in the afternoon, pressed fellow members to weigh the economic consequences. “You’re destroying 3,500 people’s livelihoods,” he said, urging the House to preserve an option that would regulate the market without wiping it out.

The debate also touched on enforcement and technical issues: whether regulatory authority belongs with public‑health laboratories, whether server‑training rules should mirror liquor laws, liability insurance for retailers and a temporary “export loophole” for manufacturing that had been raised and subsequently tabled.

At the finish of its floor work Monday, with the amendment package largely set and key tabling motions carried, the House advanced the bill toward the Senate for conference consideration. That move leaves open whether the final policy will be a product of strict regulation, a negotiated compromise in conference or a later session reconsideration.

The House is expected to send the measure to a conference committee if the two chambers cannot resolve their differences; members emphasized that both public‑safety and economic impacts will remain central as lawmakers press for technical clarifications and implementation details.