South Carolina Lawmakers Split on Banning or Regulating Intoxicating Hemp THC Products

10 February 2026

South Carolina lawmakers are again wrestling with what to do about intoxicating hemp products that can get consumers high, and the disagreement runs straight through the state’s Republican-controlled House.

The products include THC-infused drinks, gummies, and tinctures sold at small businesses, corner stores, restaurants, gas stations, smoke shops, and grocery stores, according to law enforcement leaders. South Carolina does not regulate hemp, the sources say, so there are no statewide testing requirements and no excise tax tied to the intoxicating substance.

Marijuana remains illegal in South Carolina for both medical and recreational use, but a growing market for intoxicating hemp products emerged after the 2018 federal Farm Bill legalized hemp nationwide, as long as it contains no more than 0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight.

In early February 2026, the South Carolina House faced competing proposals that would either ban intoxicating hemp products outright or restrict the market through strict regulations. House Judiciary Chairman Weston Newton, R-Beaufort, has sponsored dueling bills that reflect both approaches. Newton told colleagues that keeping minors from accessing these products is the intent, and he has suggested a full ban may be difficult to implement because hemp-derived THC products are already mainstream in South Carolina.

The bill that drew the most attention would have allowed only low-dose “intoxicating hemp beverages,” capped at 5 milligrams of THC per 12 ounces, and sold only in liquor stores. It included age restrictions, packaging rules, an excise tax, and testing and licensing requirements. Supporters argued that treating hemp-derived THC like liquor would make enforcement easier because liquor stores already operate under established oversight.

But freshman Rep. Greg Ford, R-Dorchester, challenged that narrow approach with an effort to broaden what would remain legal. Ford, a former hemp farmer, told lawmakers his 24-year-old son uses a THC tincture to treat seizures and that CBD alone does not work for him. Ford said his son’s condition pushed him into growing and processing hemp, and he described having to perform CPR on his son after seizures when the child was nine years old. Ford argued that limiting legal products to drinks would cut off people who rely on gummies or tinctures, and he framed that as lawmakers “picking winners and losers.”

Ford proposed a 28-page overhaul that would have allowed licensed sales of beverages, edibles, and tinctures containing up to 10 milligrams of THC per serving, with sales prohibited to anyone under 21. Ford said he arrived at the 10 milligram serving limit after talking with business owners who sell hemp products and who described it as a low-end dosage in what’s currently on the market.

The House rejected Ford’s attempt to overhaul the bill, and disagreement among Republicans and Democrats then led to the regulatory bill being sent back to committee. One account described a close vote, 59-52, to reject Ford’s overhaul before the recommitment. Another described that House Republican leadership voted against recommitting but that members of the House Freedom Caucus and Democrats supported sending the bill back for more changes. Either way, the result was the same, the bill went back to committee and the House did not take final action on a complete ban during that debate.

Law enforcement leaders have urged legislators to take a harder line. Letters from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, the South Carolina Police Chiefs’ Association, and the South Carolina Sheriff’s Association warned about minors getting high-inducing products and about intoxicated driving. SLED Chief Mark Keel said Ford’s approach would essentially “legalize recreational marijuana” and argued that replacing “marijuana” terminology with “hemp-derived cannabinoid” is a distinction without much difference when the products are intoxicating. Keel said Ford’s proposed enforcement and inspection structure would be “wholly unenforceable.” He said he would support a total ban, or, short of that, strict regulation of THC beverages and gummies for adults 21 and older sold only in liquor stores. Keel wrote that beverages should be capped at 5 milligrams per 12 ounces and that a four-pack of gummies should not contain more than 10 milligrams total. Keel also said he believes SLED should retain inspection authority rather than shifting it to the Department of Agriculture, as Ford proposed.

Police chiefs association director JJ Jones said the marketing of hemp products has blurred the lines on legality and that the House floor debate further muddied the message about what is legal versus illegal. Jones also said the only way to verify the amount of THC in products is to test them.

Attorney General Alan Wilson urged lawmakers to move restrictive legislation forward, saying it is time to remove the “gray area” around THC-infused hemp beverages and to put guardrails in place so intoxicating drinks do not keep ending up in the hands of kids.

Some lawmakers emphasized potential health uses and business impacts. State Reps. Seth Rose, D-Richland, James Teeple, R-Charleston, and Gil Gatch, R-Dorchester, argued THC products may help people with seizures or PTSD, and Gatch raised concerns about small business owners losing revenue under bans or strict restrictions.

The legislative process is not finished. A separate Newton bill that bans all THC products remains on the House calendar. Meanwhile, Senate lawmakers are still considering their own approach, including a separate bill that would ban sales to people under 21, and a Senate hearing on a different hemp-derived THC regulation bill that Majority Senate Leader Shane Massey said is unlikely to reach the floor until March.

For South Carolinians, the immediate reality is that intoxicating hemp products remain in a legal gray zone with little statewide oversight. But the debate suggests lawmakers are preparing to tighten the rules, and the biggest open question is how sweeping the change will be, a full ban, a liquor-store-only beverage model, or a broader licensed adult market that allows edibles and tinctures.