Tennessee House Bill HB0962

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/10/25
• Refer: 3/5/25
• Refer: 3/12/25
• Refer: 3/26/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39 and Title 43, Chapter 27, relative to hemp.

Summary

HB0962 creates a new regulatory framework in Tennessee law for hemp-derived cannabinoid products (HDCPs) sold at retail. The bill adds a new part to Title 43, Chapter 27 that allows a local government, by majority vote of its governing body, to establish an HDCP board to oversee permitting of retailers within its jurisdiction. If a local board is created, it may require retail locations selling HDCPs to obtain a local permit, charge an annual $250 fee per location, and adopt local rules regulating HDCP sales so long as those rules do not conflict with state law or Department of Agriculture rules. The bill also authorizes local law enforcement, under certain conditions, to enforce the chapter and local HDCP ordinances, conduct random inspections during normal business hours, and work with the department to enforce state rules. Retailers operating without a required permit or otherwise violating the chapter or department rules may face a $1,000 civil penalty per violation, permit revocation for up to one year, and possible ineligibility for renewal for an additional year. Permit fees and penalties collected under the bill must be deposited into the local general fund and used for enforcement of the new part. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.

Impact

The bill expands Tennessee’s hemp regulatory scheme by adding local permitting and enforcement authority over hemp-derived cannabinoid product retailers, while preserving the state department’s existing authority under Title 43, Chapter 27. It would not ban HDCP sales statewide, but it would allow cities, counties, and metro governments to impose additional local licensing, inspection, and penalty requirements on retailers operating in their jurisdictions. The bill also creates new local revenue streams from permit fees and civil penalties, with those funds earmarked for enforcement.

Sentiment

The available voting history shows strong, unanimous support in the House committees that considered the bill, with no recorded dissent in the subcommittee, Judiciary Committee, or Commerce Committee. That pattern suggests the measure was viewed favorably as a regulatory and enforcement bill rather than a controversial prohibition measure. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate or opposition arguments.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the bill’s delegation of authority to local governments to regulate hemp-derived cannabinoid products differently from one jurisdiction to another. Retailers may object to the added permit requirement, annual fee, inspections, and the possibility of civil penalties or permit revocation, especially if local rules vary across the state. Another possible issue is the balance between local enforcement and state oversight, since the bill allows local regulation only to the extent it does not conflict with state law or department rules, which could create disputes over preemption and enforcement scope.