Psychoactive cannabinoids in hemp; regulate under Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; hemp beverages and psychoactive hemp products defined; licensure required; penalties imposed for violations
SB237 would create a comprehensive regulatory framework for hemp-derived products containing psychoactive cannabinoids in Alabama. It adds a new chapter to Title 28 to regulate “hemp beverages” and “psychoactive hemp products” under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, requiring licenses or permits for manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers. The bill sets detailed rules for labeling, testing, packaging, advertising, product placement in stores, age verification, and recordkeeping, and it treats hemp beverages more like beer or wine and psychoactive hemp products more like tobacco or nicotine products for regulatory purposes.
The bill also imposes a 10% excise tax on retail sales of both hemp beverages and psychoactive hemp products, with revenue split among the State General Fund, ABC Board administration, law enforcement, and local governments. It prohibits sales to anyone under 21, establishes escalating civil penalties for age-verification violations, and authorizes seizure of noncompliant products as contraband. In addition, it bans smokable hemp products by creating new criminal offenses for possession and amends existing tobacco-law provisions to include psychoactive hemp products in the state’s age-restriction, permitting, advertising, and enforcement rules.
SB237 would significantly expand state regulation over hemp-derived intoxicating products by bringing them under ABC Board licensing and enforcement authority, creating new statutory definitions, permit categories, taxes, and compliance obligations. It would amend multiple sections of Title 28 governing tobacco and nicotine products to add psychoactive hemp products, and it would add new criminal provisions in Title 13A to prohibit possession of smokable hemp products. The bill would also affect manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, local governments, and consumers by imposing product standards, limiting sales locations and marketing, and creating new penalties and tax liabilities.
The bill’s structure suggests a public-safety and youth-protection approach, emphasizing age limits, product testing, child-resistant packaging, and restrictions on marketing and retail placement. Its introduction by a large group of senators and referral to the Healthcare committee indicate substantial legislative attention to the issue. However, the bill’s current status as indefinitely postponed suggests it did not advance, which may reflect unresolved concerns about the scope of regulation, criminal penalties, taxation, or the treatment of hemp-derived intoxicants.
Likely points of contention include whether hemp-derived intoxicating products should be regulated like alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis; whether the ABC Board is the appropriate agency; and whether the bill goes too far by banning smokable hemp products and creating felony exposure for repeated violations. Retailers and hemp businesses may object to licensing costs, testing and labeling mandates, advertising limits, and the 10% excise tax, while supporters would likely emphasize consumer safety, youth access prevention, and product consistency. Local governments are given authority to further restrict sales, which may also raise concerns about patchwork regulation across jurisdictions.