A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 46-55-5 SO AS TO PROVIDE THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER IS TO ENCOURAGE THE LAWFUL CULTIVATION, HARVESTING, AND MANUFACTURING OF HEMP; BY AMENDING SECTION 46-55-10, RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL HEMP CULTIVATION TERMS AND DEFINITIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TERMS AND THEIR DEFINITIONS, AND TO REVISE THE DEFINITIONS OF EXISTING TERMS; AND BY ADDING SECTIONS 46-55-70, 46-55-80, AND 46-55-90 SO AS TO REGULATE THE DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF CONSUMABLE HEMP, TO PROVIDE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER MAY NOT BE CONSTRUED TO LIMIT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR TO PROHIBIT THE LAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, SALE, OR DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN CBD PRODUCTS, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES.
H. 4758 would substantially revise South Carolina’s hemp law to draw a sharp line between lawful industrial hemp and consumable hemp products that contain THC or other intoxicating hemp compounds. The bill states that the purpose of the chapter remains to encourage hemp cultivation, harvesting, and manufacturing, but it also declares a public-health rationale for prohibiting the possession, manufacture, distribution, sale, and online shipment of consumable hemp products that produce intoxicating or psychoactive effects. It adds and revises definitions for terms such as consumable hemp product, intoxicating hemp product, hemp, hemp products, THC, and related concepts.
The bill creates a new enforcement framework under Title 46, Chapter 55. Consumable hemp products sold or offered in violation of the chapter would be treated as contraband and subject to seizure by law enforcement. Violations involving sale or possession would be punished in the same manner as THC-related offenses under existing controlled-substance statutes, and online sales, direct deliveries, and direct shipments into South Carolina would be prohibited, with misdemeanor penalties of up to a $3,000 fine, up to three years’ imprisonment, or both. The bill also preserves interstate transport of compliant hemp through the state and expressly protects non-intoxicating CBD products, while allowing punishment if CBD products contain THC, intoxicating hemp compounds, or other controlled substances.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant for the hemp and retail markets. It would narrow the practical scope of lawful hemp commerce by banning a category of consumable hemp items that are currently sold in stores and online, while leaving agricultural hemp cultivation and processing for non-consumable uses intact. It would also create new enforcement responsibilities for law enforcement and potentially increase court, indigent defense, prosecution, and corrections workloads. The fiscal note says the Department of Agriculture and Department of Revenue expect no direct expenditure impact, but SLED anticipates major enforcement costs and additional staffing needs.
General sentiment in the available materials appears supportive of the bill among its sponsors and committee, with the House Judiciary Committee recommending passage with amendment. The bill’s stated policy goal is to protect public health and safety by restricting intoxicating hemp products, and the committee amendments appear aimed at refining definitions and clarifying interstate commerce and school notification provisions. No recorded floor votes or committee debate transcripts were provided, so the broader political sentiment beyond committee action cannot be assessed from the available record.
The main point of contention is the scope of the ban. Supporters appear to view intoxicating hemp beverages and similar products as an unregulated loophole that should be closed, while the bill’s structure suggests concern about products being sold in retail locations, delivered directly to consumers, or shipped online. Potential opponents would likely focus on the economic impact on hemp businesses, retailers, and consumers, as well as the enforcement burden and the bill’s broad treatment of consumable hemp products as contraband. The bill also includes a school-notification provision, indicating concern about educating students, parents, and school personnel about the change in law.
The bill would amend Title 46, Chapter 55 of the South Carolina Code to redefine hemp-related terms and prohibit the sale, possession, manufacture, distribution, online sale, direct delivery, and direct shipment of consumable hemp products containing THC or intoxicating hemp compounds. It would authorize seizure of prohibited products as contraband and tie penalties to existing controlled-substance provisions, while preserving lawful interstate transport of compliant hemp and allowing non-intoxicating CBD products that do not produce a psychoactive reaction. The measure would likely increase enforcement activity and could affect court, corrections, and law-enforcement workloads, but it would not materially change the Department of Agriculture’s hemp licensing program for growers and processors.
The available record suggests generally favorable sentiment among the bill’s sponsors and the House Judiciary Committee, which recommended the bill do pass with amendment. The committee amendments indicate an effort to clarify definitions and enforcement boundaries rather than reject the bill’s core policy. No vote totals or debate transcripts were provided, so there is no direct evidence of broader bipartisan support or opposition, but the bill’s framing as a public-health and safety measure suggests its proponents view it as a regulatory correction to the hemp market.
The central controversy is whether consumable hemp products with THC or other intoxicating cannabinoids should be treated as lawful hemp products or as prohibited controlled-substance-like items. Supporters are focused on banning intoxicating hemp beverages and similar products, especially those sold in retail stores or shipped directly to consumers, while critics would likely argue that the bill overreaches by sweeping in a broad category of hemp-derived consumables and imposing criminal penalties. Additional contention may arise over enforcement costs, the impact on hemp retailers and manufacturers, and whether the bill appropriately distinguishes between intoxicating products and lawful CBD items.