THC ban stalls in S.C. House after rare bipartisan pushback

A funny thing happened on the way to the banning, or at least partial banning, of THC-infused edibles and beverages in the state of South Carolina.

A lot of members of the S.C. House of Representatives just said no.

That was the upshot of an occasionally raucous afternoon and evening of floor debate on Feb. 4, when a rare coalition of Democrats and breakaway Republicans forced leaders in the supermajority GOP chamber to pull back a pair of THC-related bills that most expected to pass comfortably.

The first bill, which supporters and opponents alike referred to as a partial hemp ban, would outlaw all THC-infused edibles and allow 12 oz. containers of drinks with 5 milligrams or less of THC. Purchasers would have to be 21 or older and sales would only be allowed in liquor stores. After hours of debate, the bill was sent back to the House Judiciary Committee.

The second proposal, an outright ban on all THC-infused products, ended the week in limbo, never having reached the floor.

Both bills were sponsored by powerful House Judiciary Chairman Weston Newton, R-Beaufort, who made it clear he preferred the full ban, but would support the partial ban as a compromise if necessary.

Proponents argued the partial ban would protect children from an unregulated market without age or potency limits. Additionally, they noted, State Law Enforcement Division Chief Mark Keel has long supported banning all or most THC products for what he has called public safety reasons.

“I’ve heard it called the Wild West,” S.C. Rep. Jay Jordan, R-Florence, told his colleagues. “This is an effort to rein that in.”

But opponents were quick to note that THC products are a $1.5 billion business in South Carolina, employing 3,500 people in 1,800 small businesses — most of which would be shuttered by the bill.

What’s more, they argued, it’s not necessary to ban a whole category of popular consumer products that many say give them opioid-free relief from conditions like chronic pain and PTSD in order to set reasonable age restrictions.

That debate came to a head when Dorchester Republican Rep. Greg Ford, who became a grower, processor and retailer of hemp after doctors recommended THC for his then-young son’s life-threatening seizures, introduced a 28-page amendment to effectively legalize and regulate the industry. His son, he said, is now 24 and relies on THC for his health.

“The reason he turned 24 is because we found the hemp products,” Ford said.

After the amendment failed in a close vote, suggesting the partial ban was in trouble, House members voted to return it to committee.

A growing industry under threat

The legal THC products industry in S.C. was born eight years ago, when the U.S. Congress included language approving foods and beverages containing up to 0.3% of Delta-9 THC derived from hemp, but not marijuana, in the 2018 farm bill.

Seemingly overnight, products containing intoxicating levels of Delta-9, as well as other, less common hemp derivatives like Delta-8 and Delta-10, began appearing on shelves in gas stations, vape shops and specialty stores across the Palmetto State.

And according to industry leaders like Rebel Rabbit co-founder Pierce Wylie, some of the early operators, in particular, were “bad actors” who used lab-synthesized THC and marketed their products in ways that appealed to children.

That’s why he says he supports strong regulations to protect consumer safety and keep the products out of the hands of kids. But with a S.C.-based THC drink manufacturing operation now serving consumers in 14 states, Wylie said the partial ban’s 5 milligram limit would threaten everything he’s built over the past five years.

“There has to be a middle ground where we can protect consumer safety, but also give customers access to a level of THC that’s effective for them,” Wylie told Statehouse Report, adding that 10 milligrams seems to be a more reasonable limit based on consumer research.

But if the partial ban is a threat to manufacturers like Wylie, it’s a potential extinction-level event for retailers such as David Spang, founder of Coastal Green Wellness, which has stores in S.C. and Georgia.

Not only would it eliminate edibles entirely, he noted in a Feb. 5 interview, but it would also require the allowed 5 milligram drinks to be sold in liquor stores.

“So it would just take it out of the hands of the small businesses that helped build this business and hand it over to the alcohol industry,” he said.

What’s next

As noted by industry representatives like Spang, who also serves as president of the pro-regulation S.C. Healthy Alternatives Association,, reaching a compromise with the S.C. legislature would only be the first step toward saving their industry.

The second step? Convincing the U.S. Congress to reverse or delay a provision buried in the November 2025 government reopening bill that radically reduced the allowable concentration of Delta-9 THC from 0.3% by dry weight to .4 milligrams per food or drink item — a trace amount with no psychoactive or pain-relieving effect, industry sources say.

Christopher Lackner, president of the Hemp Beverage Alliance, a national industry trade group, told Statehouse Report on Feb. 6 that he’s “optimistic” about bills in the U.S. House and Senate that would delay implementation of the new federal law for two years. If passed, he said, lawmakers would use that time to create national regulations.

“We’ve heard from several legislators that they weren’t aware of the provision or didn’t have a full understanding of it,” Lackner said. “And what we’re seeing now is legislators rallying to find a regulatory path for hemp products.”

Back in S.C., Charleston Democratic Sen. Deon Tedder, who’s introduced his own THC bill in the upper chamber, said careful regulation at the federal and state levels make more sense than any kind of ban.

“Banning this industry would be draconian, killing jobs and killing businesses,” he said. “What we need to do is make sure it’s safe, and that there are guardrails to protect children.”

What’s more, Tedder said, after speaking with Ford about his son’s story, he’s more convinced than ever of the importance of protecting medical access to safe THC products.

“That’s a parental rights issue with regard to their child’s health,” Tedder said. “And we shouldn’t be trying to interfere with that.”

Lawmakers told Statehouse Report they weren’t sure when or in exactly what form the partial ban bill would return to the floor from committee.