Protecting Our Community Act
Senate Bill 265, the “Protecting Our Community Act,” creates a new regulatory framework in North Carolina for hemp-derived consumable products, including products containing hemp-derived cannabinoids such as delta-8, delta-9, and delta-10 THC. The bill would require manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of these products to be licensed by the Department of Revenue, with enforcement by the Alcohol Law Enforcement (ALE) Division. It sets age restrictions, bans sales to persons under 21, requires age verification for online sales, and imposes packaging, labeling, testing, and product-content limits designed to reduce youth access and improve consumer safety.
The bill also establishes a detailed compliance and enforcement system. It authorizes civil penalties, license suspension or revocation, product forfeiture, and in some cases criminal penalties for repeated violations. It requires independent laboratory testing, batch certification, child-resistant packaging, warning labels, and restrictions on advertising that could appeal to children. The bill further creates a “safe harbor” concept for hemp products intended for export but not sale in North Carolina, and it directs licensing revenue to support ALE enforcement costs.
In addition to regulating the market, the bill makes several related statutory changes. It repeals G.S. 90-94.1, revises ALE jurisdiction and court-cost provisions, and adds school-specific restrictions by requiring public school units to adopt policies prohibiting the use of hemp-derived consumable products on school property and at school-sponsored events. Those school provisions would apply beginning with the 2026-2027 school year, while the broader hemp regulatory provisions generally take effect July 1, 2026.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the record here. Based on the bill text, the overall policy approach is strongly regulatory and protective, emphasizing youth access prevention, product safety, and enforcement. The title and structure suggest a public-safety framing rather than a permissive approach to hemp-derived intoxicating products.
The main points of contention likely concern the scope and cost of regulation, including licensing fees, testing mandates, product potency limits, and the treatment of hemp-derived cannabinoids that are currently sold in retail markets. Potentially affected parties include hemp growers, processors, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, online sellers, testing laboratories, schools, and consumers, especially adults who use hemp-derived consumable products and minors who would be barred from possession or purchase.
The bill would add a new Chapter 18D to the General Statutes governing hemp-derived consumable products, creating licensing, testing, packaging, labeling, advertising, and sales restrictions for manufacturers, distributors, and sellers. It would also amend related provisions in Chapters 18B, 7A, 90, and 115C to expand ALE enforcement authority, impose court costs for certain violations, repeal G.S. 90-94.1, and require public school units to prohibit hemp-derived consumable products on school property and at school-sponsored events. The Department of Revenue would administer licensing and civil penalties, while ALE would conduct inspections and enforcement, and licensing fees would help fund enforcement activities.
The available materials show no committee discussion or recorded votes, so there is no documented legislative sentiment from debate or roll call. The bill text itself reflects a clear protective and restrictive policy stance, focused on limiting youth access, standardizing product safety, and increasing state oversight of a rapidly growing hemp-derived consumables market. The overall tone is regulatory rather than permissive, with school restrictions and enforcement provisions reinforcing that public-safety orientation.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s broad regulatory reach and its economic impact on the hemp industry. Manufacturers, distributors, and retailers may object to licensing fees, mandatory testing, potency caps, child-appealing packaging restrictions, and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance. Supporters would likely emphasize youth protection, product consistency, and enforcement against intoxicating hemp products, while opponents may argue that the bill sweeps too broadly and could burden lawful hemp businesses, online sellers, and small operators. The school-ground prohibition is likely less controversial than the commercial restrictions, but it still expands the scope of prohibited hemp use in public settings.