AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39; Title 40; Title 43, Chapter 27; Title 53, Chapter 11; Title 57 and Title 67, relative to the regulation of hemp-derived cannabinoid products.
HB1376 creates a comprehensive new regulatory framework for hemp-derived cannabinoid products (HDCPs) in Tennessee. It repeals the prior hemp-derived cannabinoid provisions in Title 43 and replaces them with a new chapter in Title 57 that defines HDCPs, hemp-derived cannabinoids, suppliers, wholesalers, retailers, serving sizes, testing standards, packaging and labeling rules, transportation requirements, and prohibited products. The bill covers products such as delta-8, delta-10, HHC, and THCv, while excluding certain non-intoxicating cannabinoids and synthetic cannabinoids, and it expressly bars products exceeding 0.3% total THC or total theoretical THC on a dry-weight basis.
The bill requires state licensing for manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers, with application fees, annual license fees, background checks, inspection authority, and penalties for unlicensed activity or violations. It also imposes wholesale taxes on HDCPs, requires brand registration, prohibits direct-to-consumer shipping and delivery, restricts sales to face-to-face transactions at licensed locations, and limits retail placement near schools unless products were already being sold there as of December 31, 2023. Additional provisions regulate child-resistant packaging, warning labels, advertising aimed at minors, storage, and the use of vending machines, while giving the Alcoholic Beverage Commission and Department of Revenue oversight and enforcement authority.
The bill’s impact on state law is broad: it shifts hemp-derived cannabinoid regulation into a more formalized licensing-and-tax structure, amends multiple code sections related to controlled substances, tobacco/vaping, alcohol, and hemp enforcement, and gives the new chapter priority over conflicting laws. It also changes seizure and forfeiture rules for noncompliant products, authorizes civil and criminal penalties, and directs revenue from fees and taxes to the state general fund and agency administration. The bill delays full implementation until January 1, 2026, while allowing rulemaking and administrative preparation to begin immediately.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history appears supportive but not unanimous. The bill advanced through several committees with strong favorable votes, often with amendments, and passed the House floor by a clear margin. The final vote in the House was 69-21 on third consideration, and the bill ultimately became law, indicating broad legislative support for tighter regulation of intoxicating hemp products.
The main points of contention likely centered on how restrictive the framework should be and which products should be allowed to remain on the market. The bill’s limits on THC content, bans on synthetic cannabinoids and THCp, prohibition on delivery and vending machine sales, school-zone restrictions, and licensing/tax burdens on businesses would all be expected to draw concern from hemp retailers and manufacturers. At the same time, supporters likely emphasized public health, youth access prevention, product testing, and enforcement consistency as reasons for the new controls.
HB1376 repeals Tennessee’s prior hemp-derived cannabinoid provisions and replaces them with a new regulatory chapter that governs manufacture, wholesale distribution, retail sale, testing, labeling, transportation, taxation, and enforcement of hemp-derived cannabinoid products. It amends related statutes in Titles 39, 53, 57, and 67 to align criminal penalties, seizure authority, vending-machine restrictions, and agency oversight with the new framework. The bill also creates new licensing and fee requirements, imposes a wholesale tax, and gives the Alcoholic Beverage Commission and Department of Revenue primary administrative and enforcement roles.
The bill appears to have been generally well received by legislative majorities, with repeated committee approvals and final passage in both chambers. The votes suggest broad agreement on the need to regulate intoxicating hemp products more tightly, though the floor vote margins show that some members remained opposed or concerned about the scope of the regulation. Overall, the sentiment was favorable toward stronger oversight, age restrictions, and product controls.
The most notable contention likely involved the bill’s strict limits on hemp-derived cannabinoid commerce, including licensing costs, testing requirements, school-buffer rules, bans on direct shipping and delivery, and prohibitions on certain cannabinoids such as synthetic cannabinoids and THCp. Retailers, wholesalers, and hemp businesses would be most affected by these provisions, while supporters and public-safety advocates likely backed the bill for its consumer-protection and youth-access safeguards. The amendments adopted during floor consideration also suggest that members negotiated details of the regulatory structure before final passage.