HB445 creates a new regulatory framework in Title 28 for “consumable hemp products” in Alabama, including hemp-derived products containing CBD or THC. The bill places manufacture, wholesale distribution, and retail sale under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board’s licensing and enforcement authority, and it makes unlicensed activity unlawful beginning January 1, 2026. It also requires local approval for licenses, background checks for applicants, surety bonds, monthly reporting, recordkeeping, inspections, and board rulemaking to implement the program.
The bill sets product standards and consumer protections for hemp-derived products. It limits THC per serving, requires single-serve packaging for edibles, mandates child-resistant and non-misleading labeling, requires certificates of analysis from certified laboratories, and bars products that contain alcohol or other intoxicating compounds beyond cannabinoids. It also prohibits inhalable hemp products, bans online sales, direct delivery, drive-through sales, and direct shipment, and restricts retail locations to 21-and-over premises except for topical products sold in pharmacies under pharmacist supervision. Retailers must verify age before sale, and the bill imposes escalating penalties for underage sales and other violations.
HB445 also creates a new excise tax of 7 percent on gross sales from manufacturers and wholesalers, with revenue split among the State General Fund, counties, and municipalities. It establishes the Consumable Hemp Product Compliance Fund to support administration, enforcement, compliance checks, and product testing, with remaining balances transferred to the General Fund. The bill authorizes seizure and forfeiture of unlawful products and related equipment, and it provides civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance. It additionally repeals Section 13A-12-214.4, which concerns the sale of psychoactive cannabinoids.
Overall, the bill appears to have been received favorably by a majority of lawmakers, as reflected in repeated passage votes in the House and later concurrence/adoption votes. The voting history shows substantial support but not unanimity, suggesting the chamber viewed the measure as a significant regulatory and revenue package rather than a routine technical change. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the bill’s enactment and repeated favorable votes indicate broad institutional support for tighter control of hemp-derived intoxicating products.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s strict restrictions on hemp products and the extent of state control it imposes. Potential concerns include the prohibition on inhalable products, the ban on online and direct-to-consumer sales, the 21-and-over retail requirement, the licensing and background-check regime, and the new excise tax and fees. Supporters likely emphasized public health, youth access prevention, product safety, and enforceability, while critics may have viewed the bill as overly restrictive for hemp businesses and consumers.
HB445 adds Chapter 12 to Title 28 of the Code of Alabama 1975 and shifts regulation of consumable hemp products to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. It creates a licensing system for manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers; imposes product testing, labeling, age-verification, and retail-location requirements; establishes tax collection and distribution rules; and authorizes seizure, forfeiture, and penalties for unlawful products and unlicensed activity. It also repeals Section 13A-12-214.4, altering existing law on psychoactive cannabinoids.
The overall sentiment appears supportive, with the bill passing the House and later receiving favorable action in subsequent votes, though not without opposition. The vote margins show meaningful but not overwhelming consensus, indicating that lawmakers generally accepted the need for regulation while some members remained concerned about the scope and impact of the restrictions. The bill’s enactment suggests the prevailing view was that stronger oversight of hemp-derived cannabinoid products was warranted.
The most notable contention centers on how tightly the bill regulates hemp-derived cannabinoid products. Opponents are likely to object to the ban on inhalable hemp products, the prohibition on online/direct shipment sales, the 21-and-over retail restriction, the requirement that retailers be either liquor-license holders or standalone hemp stores, and the new taxes and licensing costs. Supporters likely argue these measures are necessary to protect public health, prevent youth access, ensure product safety, and give the state effective enforcement tools.