South Carolina's Hemp Industry on the Brink: A Fight for Wellness and Local Business Survival

COLUMBIA, S.C. – April 21, 2026 – South Carolina’s burgeoning hemp and CBD industry is on a collision course with the state legislature this week as House Bill 3924, a sweeping piece of legislation, heads for a final vote. Small business owners, retailers, and consumers are sounding the alarm, warning that the bill, if passed, would effectively dismantle the state's wellness market, shuttering hundreds of specialty stores and severely limiting consumer access to popular products.

Industry advocates, led by retailers like Sunmed | Your CBD Store®, argue that the bill’s broad language goes far beyond reasonable regulation, creating what they term a “liquor-store monopoly” on a billion-dollar industry. The legislation proposes to outlaw nearly every hemp, CBD, and wellness product currently sold in dedicated retail shops, from tinctures and topicals to gummies and creams. In their place, it would establish a restrictive system where only a narrow category of hemp-derived beverages could be sold, and only by businesses already licensed to sell alcohol.

For entrepreneurs who have spent years building their businesses in a complex and evolving regulatory landscape, the bill represents an existential threat. One business owner who entered the market in 2017 described the legislative uncertainty of the past several years as an “absolute roller coaster,” expressing profound stress over the possibility of having the “rug being pulled out from underneath” them after years of investment and community building.

Decoding H.3924: Regulation or Prohibition?

Proponents of H.3924, including its majority-Republican sponsors and some law enforcement groups, frame the bill as a necessary step to bring order to the “wild, wild West” of hemp-derived products. Their stated rationale focuses on public health and safety, particularly preventing underage access to intoxicating substances. The bill introduces a strict 21-and-over age requirement for purchasing any consumable hemp product and includes marketing restrictions designed to prevent appeals to minors.

However, opponents argue the bill’s mechanics amount to de facto prohibition, not regulation. The legislation’s power lies in its definitions. It creates a new category of “consumable hemp product” that includes not only intoxicating compounds like Delta-8 THC, Delta-10 THC, and HHC, but also, by omission and restriction, most of the non-intoxicating, full-spectrum hemp products that form the backbone of the wellness industry. According to an analysis by the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, a national advocacy group, the bill as written would prohibit all other full-spectrum hemp products, effectively eliminating the non-intoxicating wellness items that many consumers use for pain, anxiety, and sleep.

Under the proposed law:

• Gummies, tinctures, and topicals would be banned from sale.
• On-premise consumption at bars or restaurants would be prohibited.
• The only permissible products would be hemp-derived beverages with strict THC caps—5 milligrams per 12oz can or 10 milligrams per serving in a larger bottle.

This narrow product allowance comes with a significant catch: these beverages could only be sold by businesses holding an off-premises beer and wine permit or a full retail liquor store license. This provision would immediately disqualify the hundreds of existing specialty CBD and hemp wellness stores across the state, forcing them to either close or attempt to secure costly and difficult-to-obtain alcohol licenses and comply with restrictive zoning laws, such as not being located within one thousand feet of a school or church.

The Battle for the Wellness Aisle

The redirection of sales channels to liquor and beer stores is at the heart of the industry's opposition. Retailers argue that this move is not about safety but about market capture, effectively handing a thriving industry to the established and politically powerful alcohol lobby. Instead of fostering a competitive market with science-based safety standards, they contend the bill picks winners and losers, sacrificing small, local businesses in the process.

“Retailers are advocating for science-based safety standards and reasonable compliance requirements that protect consumer choice without destroying South Carolina’s hemp industry,” stated Patrick Shatzer of Sunmed in a public appeal. The company, which operates the largest chain of CBD stores in the country, has warned that H.3924 will force statewide store closures.

The U.S. Hemp Roundtable has formally registered its opposition, urging lawmakers to seek a “more balanced, workable regulatory framework.” The group warns that the bill will lead to a “significant contraction of South Carolina’s hemp market” and reduce consumer access to regulated products, potentially pushing consumers toward the unregulated, illicit market—the very outcome proponents claim they want to avoid.

A Chilling Effect on Consumer Choice

Lost in the legislative debate over market share and regulatory language are the thousands of South Carolina residents who rely on these products. During Senate debates, lawmakers acknowledged the popularity of THC-infused drinks, particularly among adult women, but the bill’s impact extends far beyond recreational beverages. Consumers use CBD topicals for localized pain relief, full-spectrum oils for managing anxiety, and clinically studied gummies for sleep—all products that would vanish from shelves.

For many, these wellness stores provide not just products but also education and guidance in a market that can be confusing. The bill would eliminate these specialized environments, forcing consumers to navigate their wellness needs in the aisles of a liquor store. Some lawmakers have raised concerns about this impact, questioning the wisdom of disrupting the marketplace so severely, especially after years of tacit state approval.

As the bill returns to the House for a final, decisive vote, the fate of hundreds of small businesses and the wellness routines of thousands of South Carolinians hangs in the balance. Industry advocates and concerned citizens are making a final push, contacting representatives to vote 'NO' in a last-ditch effort to preserve an industry they believe is being unfairly targeted. The outcome will set a significant precedent for how South Carolina—and potentially other states—grapples with the intersection of wellness, business, and regulation.