Despite broad agreement that doing nothing is not an option, the first meeting of a joint S.C. House-Senate conference committee charged with finding a compromise on proposed THC regulatory legislation quickly became an hour-long lesson in how hard it will be for lawmakers to do anything at all.
Senate Majority Leader and Committee Chairman Shane Massey, R-Edgefield, laid out the challenges in stark detail during the June 2 meeting.
First, the two chambers produced almost polar-opposite bills, with the House essentially banning all drinks and edibles containing more than trace amounts of THC, and the Senate opting instead to formally legalize and regulate the increasingly popular products.
The drinks and edibles, which have grown in recent years into a $1.5 billion Palmetto State industry, are currently produced and sold in what amounts to an unregulated legal gray area — broadly legal under federal law, but not explicitly authorized by state statute. As a result, products of any potency can be sold to people of any age, including children.
The Senate bill would address that legal gap with strict testing, licensing, packaging and point-of-sale signage requirements, as well as a 21-and-older age restriction. Products containing up to 5 mg of THC could be sold for off-premises consumption in retail establishments, while those containing up to 10 mg could only be sold in liquor stores.
Adding to the complexity of finding a House-Senate compromise, Massey noted, was the precarious nature of the Senate majority that passed the regulatory bill in the first place. It rested, he said, on a carefully crafted compromise among three groups — one group favoring a complete ban, a second favoring minimal or no legislation, and yet another favoring full-on regulation.
And any major change at this point — particularly a compromise along the lines of the House bill — would likely make it a non-starter in the upper chamber.
“As difficult as it is for me to say this, I don’t think the Senate can get the votes to ban it,” Massey said, stressing that he had personally worked behind the scenes in support of a ban. “And I’m concerned that if that’s what we’re faced with, we’ll get nothing.”
But perhaps the most significant complication facing lawmakers is what it would actually mean to do nothing.
Under federal legislation passed last year, intoxicating THC products that were legalized as hemp derivatives in 2018 would be outlawed again in November 2026. However, with a strong push currently underway in Congress to repeal the law, or at least delay its implementation, S.C. lawmakers are trying to legislate into uncertainty.
In other words, lawmakers favoring a ban could win simply by refusing to compromise. Or they could end up right where they are now — in a “Wild West” of unregulated products sold at any potency to anyone who can afford them.
Or as House Judiciary Chairman Weston Newton, R-Beaufort, a sponsor of his chamber’s ban, summed the situation up in a moment of understatement: “This may be one of the more challenging conference committees that we’ve had to deal with.”
The committee is currently in recess subject to the call of the chair.
Help keep the City Paper free.
No paywalls.
No subscription cost.
Free delivery at 800 locations.
Help support independent journalism by donating today.
