THC Drinks Face New Restrictions as Florida Senate Advances Hemp Bill

18 March 2025

Florida lawmakers are advancing a new bill to regulate the state’s hemp industry, including banning Delta-8 products, restricting THC-infused beverages, and limiting advertising. The proposal, SB 438, follows Governor Ron DeSantis’ veto of a similar bill last year and aims to address concerns about product safety and market regulation.

---

For the third consecutive year, Florida lawmakers are advancing legislation to tighten restrictions on the state’s hemp industry. Senate Bill 438, sponsored by Sen. Colleen Burton (Republican from Lakeland), proposes a sweeping set of changes aimed at limiting access to intoxicating hemp-derived products, such as Delta-8 THC, and placing tighter controls on THC-infused beverages. The bill has already passed its first Senate committee and is moving forward despite opposition from small business owners, hemp advocates, and industry leaders.

Now, a companion bill—HB 1597—is gaining traction in the Florida House of Representatives. While SB 438 focuses on product restrictions and retail limitations, HB 1597 adds a deeper regulatory framework around testing, labeling, retail sales, and event promotion. Together, the bills signal the most aggressive legislative effort to date to reshape Florida’s multibillion-dollar hemp marketplace—potentially setting the stage for a major consolidation of the industry and limiting access to popular hemp-derived THC products.

Further Details and Fact Analysis:

What’s in the Bills?

SB 438 and HB 1597 both take aim at the rising availability of intoxicating hemp products, particularly those containing synthetic or semi-synthetic cannabinoids. If passed, the legislation would:

• Ban a wide range of cannabinoids including Delta-8, Delta-10, THCP, THCV, THC-O, and HHC, citing concerns over their unregulated chemical conversions and psychoactive effects.
• Restrict THC-infused beverages to 5mg per serving and limit their sale to alcohol-licensed retailers—shutting out cafes, wellness shops, and specialty hemp retailers not licensed under alcohol statutes.
• Impose strict advertising and location rules, including a 500-foot buffer from schools, gas stations, daycares, and other hemp retailers. Businesses would also be prohibited from using terms like “THC” or “medical card” in advertising.
• Require all hemp extract products to be tested in certified medical marijuana labs, undergo strict labeling, and meet new packaging standards to ensure they are not "attractive to children."
• Ban festival, street, and unpermitted sales, and require event organizers to register vendors, verify source compliance, and maintain testing records.

What HB 1597 Adds to the Equation:

The House bill reinforces the Senate’s approach but adds operational restrictions. It prohibits cross-contamination between marijuana and hemp products in labs, mandates detailed tracking of lab samples and results, and introduces state inspection powers and recall procedures. It also appropriates $2 million for testing infrastructure and adds penalties for noncompliant distributors, event organizers, and retailers.

Who’s Affected?

Small Businesses and Hemp Retailers: Independent retailers and beverage manufacturers could be hit hardest. The requirement to sell infused drinks only through liquor-licensed vendors shifts market power toward larger, established players. Additionally, location-based restrictions may force some hemp stores to relocate or shut down entirely.

Cannabis and THC Users: Consumers who rely on accessible, lower-THC hemp alternatives like Delta-8 may see their options vanish. Advocates warn that the ban could drive users toward unregulated or out-of-state markets.

Medical Cannabis Patients: Though medical marijuana is regulated separately, patients who use hemp-derived products for cost or accessibility reasons may be impacted by reduced availability or retail closures.

The Hemp Industry at Large: These bills represent a significant escalation in regulation and could accelerate consolidation across the Florida market. Businesses with the legal, financial, and logistical resources to adapt will likely survive—while many smaller operations may not.

The Broader Implications:

While proponents argue these measures are necessary for consumer safety and to close regulatory loopholes, critics call them anti-competitive and overly burdensome. They argue that Florida's approach could serve as a model—or a warning—for other states navigating the blurred line between hemp and marijuana.

The outcome of these bills could redefine the state’s position in the national hemp industry. Whether Florida remains a leader in innovative cannabinoid products or pivots to a tightly restricted market will be decided in the coming legislative weeks.

Listen to the story as part of the weekly cannabis news roundup: