AN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF HEMP BEVERAGES, THC BEVERAGES AND KRATOM BEVERAGES; TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS; TO ENABLE THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCE AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO ADOPT RULES OR REGULATIONS AS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THIS SECTION; TO AMEND SECTION 75-103-3, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CONFORM; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
Senate Bill 2645 would prohibit the sale, offer for sale, holding for sale, or distribution of three categories of beverages in Mississippi: hemp beverages, THC beverages, and kratom beverages. The bill defines each category broadly, covering drinks containing hemp-derived cannabinoids, several forms of THC and other artificially derived cannabinoids, and kratom leaf or kratom extract. It makes violations a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500, up to three months in county jail, or both.
The bill also creates enforcement consequences for businesses that sell these products. Retail food establishments found in violation could face disciplinary action under existing food-establishment law, including possible suspension or revocation of a license by the Commissioner of Agriculture and Commerce. Restaurants that violate the ban would be subject to enforcement measures under rules adopted by the State Department of Health, including possible permit suspension or revocation. The Department of Agriculture and Commerce and the State Department of Health are authorized to adopt rules or regulations to implement the ban.
In addition to the beverage prohibition, SB2645 amends Mississippi’s kratom law to clarify that the state’s existing kratom rules do not authorize kratom beverages banned by the new section. The kratom provisions continue to bar sales of kratom products to anyone under 21, require kratom products to be kept behind the counter, impose labeling and ingredient requirements, and require registration with the Mississippi Department of Revenue before sale. The bill also preserves existing restrictions on kratom products containing controlled substances or excessive 7-hydroxymitragynine.
The bill’s overall impact would be to tighten Mississippi law around intoxicating or psychoactive beverages sold in retail and restaurant settings, while leaving non-beverage kratom product regulation in place. It would affect retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers, restaurants, retail food establishments, and state regulators, particularly the Department of Agriculture and Commerce, the State Department of Health, and the Department of Revenue. The act would take effect July 1, 2026.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate or voting pattern to assess. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to take a restrictive, enforcement-oriented approach to hemp-derived, THC-infused, and kratom beverages, with the main point of contention likely being the breadth of the ban and its effect on businesses that currently sell these products.
SB2645 would amend Mississippi law to create a statewide prohibition on the sale and distribution of hemp beverages, THC beverages, and kratom beverages, and it would add criminal and administrative penalties for violations. It would also reinforce and conform the state’s kratom product regulations by making clear that kratom beverage sales are not permitted under existing kratom law. The bill would directly affect retailers, restaurants, wholesalers, manufacturers, and distributors, and it would give the Department of Agriculture and Commerce, the State Department of Health, and the Department of Revenue roles in enforcement and rulemaking.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded public sentiment to summarize from the legislative record included here. From the bill’s structure, the measure reflects a precautionary and restrictive policy stance toward hemp-derived intoxicants, THC beverages, and kratom beverages, suggesting support from lawmakers concerned about consumer safety, youth access, and product regulation. At the same time, the absence of debate materials means any opposition or support from affected industries, health advocates, or retailers is not documented in the supplied context.
The likely points of contention are the breadth of the beverage ban and the economic and regulatory impact on businesses that sell hemp-derived or kratom-based products. Retailers and restaurants may object to losing a product category that is already being sold in some markets, while supporters are likely to emphasize public health, intoxication risks, and the need for clearer enforcement. Another possible issue is the bill’s broad definition of THC beverages, which includes multiple cannabinoids and artificially derived compounds, potentially raising questions about how the ban would be interpreted and enforced by state agencies.