A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 46-55-5 SO AS TO PROVIDE A PURPOSE OF REGULATING THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CONSUMABLE HEMP PRODUCTS; BY AMENDING SECTION 46-55-10, RELATING TO HEMP FARMING DEFINITIONS, SO AS TO ADD DEFINITIONS FOR "CONSUMABLE HEMP PRODUCT" AND "INTOXICATING HEMP PRODUCT"; BY ADDING SECTION 46-55-70 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF CERTAIN CONSUMABLE HEMP PRODUCTS; BY ADDING SECTION 46-55-80 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT BEING LIMITED; AND BY ADDING CHAPTER 14 TO TITLE 61 SO AS TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS RELATING TO INTOXICATING HEMP BEVERAGES, PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT, PROVIDE FOR INTOXICATING HEMP BEVERAGE PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR LICENSING AND TAXES.
H4759 would create a new regulatory framework in South Carolina for consumable hemp products and intoxicating hemp beverages. It adds definitions for consumable hemp products, intoxicating hemp products, hemp beverages, and related terms, and it declares that the manufacture, sale, and distribution of consumable hemp products are prohibited unless specifically authorized by the new hemp provisions. The bill also states that its purpose is public health and safety, emphasizing age verification, product control, and enforcement.
The bill largely bans the sale, possession, online sale, direct delivery, and direct shipment of consumable hemp products other than hemp beverages governed by the new Title 61 chapter. It authorizes seizure of prohibited products as contraband and assigns enforcement to SLED, while preserving continuous interstate transportation of compliant hemp through the state. For hemp beverages, the bill creates a separate licensing, testing, labeling, packaging, and taxation system administered by the Department of Revenue, with SLED enforcing compliance.
Under the hemp beverage chapter, products would be limited to beverages containing no more than 5 milligrams of hemp-derived THC per 12-ounce serving, sold only in 12-ounce cans or bottles, and barred from containing other intoxicating hemp compounds. The bill requires independent laboratory testing, certificates of analysis, child-resistant packaging, warning labels, age verification, and restrictions on sales to persons under 21. It also imposes licensing requirements for manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers, with substantial biennial license taxes and taxation of hemp beverage sales at rates comparable to alcoholic liquors.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant because it would sharply narrow the market for most consumable hemp products while creating a tightly controlled pathway for hemp beverages. It would amend Title 46 hemp farming law and add a new Title 61 chapter that effectively treats hemp beverages much like alcohol for licensing, distribution, retail, and tax purposes. It also directs school districts to notify students, parents, and school personnel about the new law, and it includes an effective date structure that makes the under-21 prohibition effective immediately upon gubernatorial signature, with the rest effective October 1, 2026.
The general sentiment reflected in the House voting history suggests the bill is controversial but had enough support to advance over repeated procedural challenges. Multiple motions to recommit and reconsider were defeated, and several amendment-related votes were close or divided, indicating substantial disagreement over the bill’s scope and details. The main points of contention appear to be whether the state should broadly prohibit consumable hemp products, how strictly to regulate hemp beverages, and whether the licensing/tax structure is too restrictive or burdensome for businesses. The bill’s sponsors and supporters appear to favor stronger regulation and enforcement, while opponents seem concerned about overregulation, criminal penalties, and the practical effects on hemp retailers and consumers.
The bill would amend Chapter 55 of Title 46 to define and restrict consumable hemp products and add a new Chapter 14 to Title 61 governing intoxicating hemp beverages. It would make most consumable hemp products illegal to sell or possess in South Carolina unless specifically authorized, prohibit online and direct-to-consumer sales, and authorize SLED to seize prohibited products as contraband. For hemp beverages, it would create a separate regulatory regime with Department of Revenue licensing, SLED enforcement, product testing, packaging and labeling rules, age restrictions, and alcohol-like taxation and licensing fees, thereby substantially changing the legal treatment of hemp-derived intoxicants and related commercial activity in the state.
The available vote history indicates mixed but ultimately sufficient support for the bill, with repeated efforts to recommit or reconsider failing and several close votes on amendments and procedural motions. That pattern suggests the bill drew meaningful opposition and concern, but also a coalition of members willing to back a stricter hemp regulatory framework. Overall, the sentiment appears to be that the state should act to control intoxicating hemp products, though not without debate over how far the restrictions should go.
The biggest points of contention are the bill’s broad prohibition on consumable hemp products, the criminal penalties for unlawful sales and possession, and the decision to regulate hemp beverages through a highly structured alcohol-style licensing and tax system. Opponents likely object to the severity of the restrictions, the ban on online/direct shipments, and the high cost of licenses, while supporters emphasize public health, youth access prevention, and enforcement clarity. The close procedural votes and failed motions to recommit/reconsider show that members disagreed not just on the policy direction, but also on whether the bill should be narrowed or sent back for further work.