An act to amend Sections 26001, 26002, 26015, 26031.6, 26036, 26038, 26039.4, 26039.6, 26051.5, 26060, 26067, 26068, 26069, 26070, 26070.2, 26080, 26100, 26110, 26152, and 26200 of, and to add Sections 22980.6 and 26000.5 to, the Business and Professions Code, to amend Sections 11006.5, 11018, 11018.1, 11018.5, 11357.5, 11361, 110611, 111691, 111920, 111921, 111921.5, 111921.6, 111922.3, 111923.3, 111925, 111925.2, 111926, 111926.2, 111926.3, 111927.2, and 113091 of, to amend and repeal Section 111923.9 of, to add Sections 111921.1 and 111921.8 to, to add and repeal Section 111929.5 of, and to repeal Article 10 (commencing with Section 111929) of Chapter 9 of Part 5 of Division 104 of, the Health and Safety Code, and to amend Sections 34010, 34013, 34014, and 34016 of, and to add Section 34015.3 to, the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to cannabinoids, and making an appropriation therefor.
AB 8 makes broad changes to California’s cannabis, hemp, food, tax, and enforcement laws to sharply limit intoxicating hemp products and bring hemp-derived cannabinoids under a tighter regulatory framework. The bill redefines industrial hemp for multiple state law purposes to focus on total THC rather than delta-9 THC, prohibits hemp flower and hemp prerolls for in-state sale or delivery, and bars industrial hemp raw extract from being added to food, beverages, dietary supplements, and similar products unless it is CBD or CBN isolate of more than 99% purity and contains no THC or synthetic cannabinoids. It also prohibits inhalable hemp THC products, synthetic cannabinoid products, and cannabis products manufactured outside the licensed market.
The bill also folds hemp entering the licensed cannabis market into the same oversight system as cannabis products. That means track-and-trace, testing, quality assurance, packaging, labeling, advertising, transportation, and security rules apply to hemp products that enter the licensed market or are used in cannabis products. It creates or expands inspection, seizure, forfeiture, and destruction authority for CDTFA, the Department of Cannabis Control, the State Department of Public Health, and law enforcement, and it adds new restrictions on tobacco retailers, who may not sell or store cannabis products at sites where tobacco is sold. AB 8 also changes cannabis tax law so that some hemp-derived products are treated as cannabis for excise tax purposes, and it adds a new tax liability and penalty structure for products presumed to be cannabis products.
In the health and safety provisions, AB 8 revises the statutory definitions of cannabis, cannabis products, industrial hemp, concentrated cannabis, and synthetic cannabinoids, and it updates the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law to reflect the new hemp restrictions. It preserves limited pathways for CBD isolate and CBN isolate in certain food, beverage, cosmetic, and pet food products, but only under the chapter’s testing and labeling rules. The bill also makes conforming changes to licensing, labor peace agreement, testing laboratory, and temporary event provisions within the cannabis regulatory scheme.
The overall sentiment reflected in the vote history was strongly supportive, with the bill advancing through committees and floor votes by wide margins and only one recorded no vote on the Assembly third reading and concurrence votes. The pattern suggests broad legislative agreement on the need to curb unregulated intoxicating hemp products and strengthen enforcement around the licensed cannabis market. The bill was also enacted as Chapter 248 in 2025, indicating it ultimately received gubernatorial approval.
The main points of contention are implicit in the bill’s scope rather than in recorded debate: it significantly tightens rules on hemp-derived cannabinoids, expands enforcement and seizure authority, and imposes new tax and criminal exposure on products treated as cannabis. Those changes affect hemp manufacturers, retailers, tobacco sellers, cannabis licensees, testing labs, and local enforcement agencies. The bill also creates state-mandated local program impacts and a higher-tax effect, which likely contributed to its fiscal scrutiny even though the final votes were overwhelmingly favorable.
AB 8 amends the Business and Professions Code, Health and Safety Code, and Revenue and Taxation Code to narrow the legal treatment of industrial hemp and expand cannabis-style regulation to hemp-derived products that contain cannabinoids or enter the licensed market. It changes key definitions, prohibits certain hemp products outright, subjects more products to cannabis testing and track-and-trace requirements, and expands CDTFA and law enforcement authority to inspect, seize, and forfeit noncompliant products. It also expands the cannabis excise tax base to cover products newly treated as cannabis or cannabis products, creating an appropriation and additional enforcement-related misdemeanor and civil penalty provisions.
The bill appears to have had broadly favorable legislative sentiment. Committee and floor votes were overwhelmingly in favor, with several unanimous votes and only one recorded dissenting vote on a major floor action. That pattern suggests the Legislature largely agreed with the bill’s goal of closing perceived loopholes in the hemp market and protecting the regulated cannabis system, even though the measure imposed significant new restrictions and enforcement tools.
The main controversy centers on the bill’s aggressive treatment of hemp-derived cannabinoids and its expansion of cannabis-style controls to products that had previously been treated differently under state law. Likely points of concern include the ban on hemp flower and hemp prerolls, the prohibition on intoxicating hemp ingredients in foods and beverages, the new presumption that cannabinoid-containing products are cannabis products unless proven otherwise, and the expanded seizure and tax authority. These changes affect hemp businesses, tobacco retailers, cannabis licensees, and enforcement agencies, and they raise both regulatory and economic concerns for the hemp industry while being framed by supporters as necessary consumer-protection and market-integrity measures.