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.
SB1413 establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework for hemp-derived cannabinoid products (HDCPs) in Tennessee. The bill creates a new chapter in Title 57 that defines HDCPs and related terms, sets product standards, and limits the manufacture, wholesale distribution, retail sale, transport, advertising, and delivery of these products. It requires licensure for suppliers, wholesalers, and retailers; imposes age-verification and 21-and-over sales restrictions; prohibits self-checkout, vending machine sales, and direct-to-consumer shipping; and requires products to be tested, packaged, labeled, and displayed in specified ways. The bill also bans certain products outright, including synthetic cannabinoids, THCp, and products exceeding the THC threshold, while preserving law-enforcement and employer authority over impairment and drug-free workplace policies.
The bill shifts oversight away from the prior hemp-derived cannabinoid licensing structure in Title 43 and places administration primarily with the alcoholic beverage commission and the department of revenue. It repeals the existing Title 43 part governing these products, deletes a hemp-related tax provision in Title 67, and amends several criminal and regulatory statutes to align with the new chapter. It also establishes wholesale taxes, brand registration fees, annual license fees, inspection authority, civil penalties, and reporting requirements, with revenue dedicated in part to enforcement and administration. The act takes effect immediately for rulemaking and administrative preparation, with most substantive provisions effective January 1, 2026.
The general sentiment reflected in the committee votes was favorable but not unanimous. The bill advanced out of the Senate State & Local Government Committee on a 6-2 vote and out of the Senate Finance, Ways and Means Committee on an 8-1 vote, both with amendments and referral onward. That pattern suggests broad support for tighter regulation of hemp-derived intoxicants, paired with some reservations about the scope or details of the regulatory scheme.
The main points of contention appear to center on how restrictive the bill is and how it treats the hemp-derived cannabinoid market. The legislation imposes significant licensing costs, strict retail-location rules, product caps, and a ban on direct delivery, which may concern existing businesses and industry participants. It also creates criminal penalties for unlicensed activity and for certain sales or possession by minors, while authorizing seizure and forfeiture of noncompliant products. Supporters likely view these measures as public-health and youth-protection safeguards, while opponents may see them as overly burdensome or effectively prohibitive for parts of the hemp industry.
This bill substantially rewrites Tennessee law governing hemp-derived cannabinoid products by creating a new regulatory chapter in Title 57 and repealing the prior hemp-derived cannabinoid framework in Title 43. It also amends criminal, alcohol, tobacco, and tax provisions to conform to the new system, including changes to seizure/forfeiture rules, vending-machine restrictions, and the legal definition of smoking. The bill centralizes oversight in the alcoholic beverage commission and the department of revenue, establishes licensing and testing requirements, imposes wholesale taxes and brand-registration fees, and authorizes enforcement actions, civil penalties, and product confiscation against noncompliant suppliers, wholesalers, retailers, and transporters.
Committee action indicates generally supportive sentiment toward the bill, with both Senate committees recommending passage after amendment. The votes were not unanimous, however, showing that while there was enough agreement to advance the measure, some members had concerns about the policy approach or its implementation. Overall, the discussion history suggests a consensus in favor of stronger regulation of hemp-derived cannabinoid products, tempered by some opposition to the breadth of the restrictions and enforcement regime.
The most notable contention is between public-health regulation and industry access. The bill’s opponents are likely to object to the high licensing fees, mandatory testing, retail barriers, school-zone restrictions, product limits, and the ban on direct-to-consumer shipping and delivery services, all of which could significantly constrain existing hemp businesses. Another likely point of disagreement is the bill’s treatment of intoxicating hemp products versus non-intoxicating hemp derivatives, since it excludes many cannabinoids like CBD while banning or tightly regulating others such as delta-8, delta-10, HHC, THCV, synthetic cannabinoids, and THCp. Supporters, by contrast, appear focused on youth access, product safety, and enforceability, as reflected in the age-verification rules, packaging requirements, and enforcement authority granted to state agencies.