Let me start by saying this: Florida’s approach to hemp regulation has been an absolute mess for years, and we’re about to witness round two of lawmakers trying to fix what they probably shouldn’t have unleashed in the first place.
For the second year in a row, the Florida Senate has unanimously passed new regulations on hemp-derived THC products. But this time, there’s a twist: they’re coming for THC-infused beverages, which have become the industry’s hottest new product and, according to legislators, one of its biggest problems.
Senator Colleen Burton (R-Polk County) is leading this charge, and honestly? After reading what’s been happening with unregulated hemp products in Florida, I can’t entirely blame her. Though I have some serious questions about the execution.
The Dire Warning That Started It All
Burton opened debate on Senate Bill 438 with language that should make anyone pay attention, regardless of where you stand on cannabis policy:
“We have retailers in the state of Florida that are selling products that are intoxicating. They are selling products that are putting adults and children in the hospital. And, sadly, they are selling products that are causing the deaths of Floridians.”
That’s not hyperbole for political effect. She referenced a Jacksonville news report about a Georgia woman whose 25-year-old son died from heart disease, which she believes was caused by Delta-8 gummies. “That young man did not know that what he was ingesting was going to hurt him,” Burton said.
Now, let me be clear about my perspective here: I’m generally pro-cannabis, pro-legalization, and pro-letting adults make their own choices about what they consume. But the wild west of unregulated hemp-derived cannabinoids is a different animal entirely. This isn’t traditional cannabis with known terpene profiles and understood effects. This is chemically altered compounds sold at gas stations with zero oversight.
There’s a difference between supporting cannabis legalization and supporting a completely unregulated market where nobody knows what they’re actually buying. And Florida has definitely had the latter.
What SB 438 Actually Does (The Details Matter)
Let’s break down what this bill would actually implement, because the details reveal both the problems lawmakers are trying to solve and some potential unintended consequences.
The Outright Bans
SB 438 would completely ban all Delta-8 products. Not regulate them. Not require testing. Ban them entirely.
For context, Delta-8 THC is a hemp-derived cannabinoid that’s been converted through chemical processes to create psychoactive effects similar to Delta-9 THC (the main psychoactive compound in cannabis). It exists in a legal gray area because it’s technically derived from legal hemp, but it’s definitely intoxicating.
The bill also prohibits Delta-10 THC, HHC, THC-O, THCP, and THCV. Basically, if it’s a synthetic or semi-synthetic cannabinoid that’s been chemically altered from hemp, it’s out.
My take? This is probably the right call. These compounds haven’t been adequately studied. We don’t know their long-term health impacts. They’re not naturally occurring in significant quantities. And they’re being sold to consumers who often have no idea they’re consuming chemically altered substances.
The Potency Caps
For Delta-9 hemp products (the naturally occurring THC), the bill sets strict limits:
- No more than 5 milligrams per serving
- Maximum of 50 milligrams per container
For THC-infused beverages specifically:
- Maximum of 5 milligrams per container (not per serving, per entire container)
These are pretty restrictive limits, especially compared to what’s currently available in dispensaries in states with regulated adult-use cannabis markets. A typical edible in a legal state might contain 10mg per serving, with multiple servings per package.
But here’s the thing: hemp products are being sold at gas stations and convenience stores without age verification or education about dosing. A 5mg limit for that kind of unrestricted retail environment? That’s actually not unreasonable for cannabis-based products when consumer education is minimal.
The Testing Requirements
This is huge, and it’s where the bill actually shows some sophistication:
Each batch of hemp extract must be tested in a certified marijuana testing laboratory before it can be sold. The lab has to verify:
- That the product actually meets the definition of hemp and hemp extract
- That THC and CBD concentrations match the labels
- That the product is free from contaminants unsafe for human consumption
Results must be verified and signed by two laboratory employees.
Why does this matter? Because currently, the hemp market is absolutely flooded with mislabeled and contaminated products.
During a Florida House workgroup session earlier this year, a Lakeland testing lab owner who contracts with the Florida Department of Agriculture testified that his lab tested 50 out of 53 flower hemp samples from smoke shops across the state. The results? They were over the legal 0.3% Delta-9 THC limit, and many contained contaminants.
Let that sink in: 94% of the samples were technically illegal, and nobody knew because there was no mandatory testing. Consumers were buying products thinking they were safe and legal, and they were neither.
Senator Gayle Harrell (R-Southeast Florida) put it bluntly: “These are very intoxicating products. They’re addicting products at the end of the day. And people need to know that. We need to make sure that people know what they’re buying. And we have seen so many fly-by-night places selling hemp—’safe hemp’—and the THC levels are higher than the medical marijuana that you can get in a dispensary.”
The Beverage Restrictions (Where Things Get Controversial)
Here’s where the bill gets interesting and contentious: THC-infused beverages could only be sold at locations with liquor licenses, and they’d have to be distributed through the existing three-tier alcohol distribution system.
That means no more THC drinks at your local convenience store or smoke shop. They’d be restricted to bars, restaurants, and liquor stores.
The stated rationale? Control access, ensure age verification, and treat intoxicating beverages consistently regardless of whether the intoxicant is alcohol or THC.
My honest opinion? This is simultaneously sensible and possibly overreaching.
Sensible because: THC beverages are intoxicating, and restricting them to licensed alcohol establishments ensures better age verification and responsible retail practices.
Potentially overreaching because: This essentially hands the THC beverage market to the alcohol industry and cuts out the hemp entrepreneurs who pioneered this product category. That’s great for alcohol distributors and liquor stores, but questionable for free market principles and small business owners who invested in hemp beverages in good faith.
The Kid Protection Provisions
Florida already banned marketing THC-hemp products in ways that attract children. SB 438 expands that to include:
- Containers displaying toys or features targeting children
- Products manufactured or packaged to resemble branded food products (especially in ways children might mistake them for regular food)
- Placement requirements: all hemp products must be kept out of customer reach, either in employee-only controlled areas or locked display cases (beverages excluded)
These provisions are hard to argue with. Nobody—and I mean nobody—should be marketing intoxicating products to kids. Period.
The bill also prohibits hemp businesses from being located within 500 feet of schools or daycares, and bans advertising “in a manner” visible from streets, sidewalks, parks, or other public places.
That last part feels a bit broad to me. “In a manner visible to the public” could be interpreted pretty expansively. Does that mean no storefront signs? No window displays? The vagueness concerns me because it creates enforcement uncertainty.
The DeSantis Veto (And Why This Time Is Different)
Here’s the fascinating political backstory: A similar bill passed unanimously in the Florida Senate last year. Unanimously. That’s bipartisan support in a deeply divided legislature.
And then Governor Ron DeSantis vetoed it following heavy lobbying from the hemp industry.
The hemp entrepreneurs who benefited from that veto were so grateful that several of them helped fund DeSantis’s campaign to defeat Amendment 3, the ballot initiative that would have legalized recreational cannabis for adults 21 and over.
Think about the irony here: Hemp business owners, selling intoxicating THC products at gas stations with zero regulation, helped defeat adult-use cannabis legalization that would have created a regulated market. They wanted to keep their unregulated advantage.
Senator Tracie Davis (D-Jacksonville), who co-sponsored this year’s bill, acknowledged the elephant in the room: “This was a bill that was vetoed. There’s not that much that’s different from last year’s bill that was vetoed.”
So why might it pass this time? A few reasons:
1. The political landscape changed. Amendment 3 failed, so the hemp industry doesn’t have the same leverage with DeSantis. They already got what they wanted (no recreational legalization), and now they’re out of bargaining chips.
2. The problems got worse. More hospitalization reports. More contaminated products found in testing. More news stories about deaths potentially linked to these products. The political pressure to do something increased.
3. Federal changes are coming. A new federal law limits THC in hemp to 0.4 milligrams per container starting November 2026. Florida knows they need to get ahead of this or their market will be in chaos.
4. Public opinion shifted. Even hemp-friendly constituencies are getting concerned about unregulated Delta-8 products being sold to unsuspecting consumers.
My prediction? DeSantis signs it this time. The political calculation has changed, and there’s genuine public health data backing up the need for regulation.
The Testing Lab Bombshell
Let me come back to that testing lab testimony because it’s genuinely shocking and deserves more attention.
A lab that contracts with the Florida Department of Agriculture to test cannabis and hemp products tested 50 out of 53 flower hemp samples from various smoke and hemp shops across Florida.
The results:
- 94% were over the legal 0.3% Delta-9 THC limit
- Many contained contaminants
These aren’t just technical violations. These are products being sold to consumers who think they’re buying legal, safe hemp when they’re actually buying illegal, contaminated cannabis that hasn’t gone through any quality control.
And here’s the kicker: many of these products had THC levels higher than what you’d find in regulated medical marijuana dispensaries. So consumers who might not want strong intoxication are unknowingly consuming more potent products than medical marijuana patients use.
This is exactly why cannabis product testing matters. When you have a regulated system with mandatory testing, consumers know what they’re getting. When you have an unregulated system, it’s chaos.
The potential health implications go beyond just THC content. Contaminants can include:
- Pesticides
- Heavy metals
- Mold and mycotoxins
- Residual solvents from extraction
- Bacteria
People consuming these products for pain relief or anxiety management are potentially exposing themselves to serious health risks without even knowing it.
The Free Market vs. Public Safety Debate
Here’s where I need to wrestle with some competing values, because this issue isn’t as simple as “regulation good” or “freedom good.”
On one hand, I generally support free markets and letting adults make their own choices. If someone wants to consume Delta-8 gummies, who am I to stop them? Personal freedom matters.
On the other hand, free markets require informed consumers making rational choices with good information. When 94% of tested products are mislabeled or contaminated, consumers aren’t making informed choices. They’re being misled.
There’s also the externality problem: when people end up in hospitals because they consumed contaminated or mislabeled hemp products, society bears those costs. Emergency room visits aren’t free. The healthcare system, insurance companies, and ultimately taxpayers foot that bill.
So where’s the balance?
I think mandatory testing and accurate labeling are non-negotiable. Consumers have a right to know what they’re consuming. If a product says “5mg THC,” it should contain 5mg of THC, not 15mg or 50mg. If it claims to be contaminant-free, it should actually be contaminant-free.
The outright ban on synthetic cannabinoids like Delta-8? I’m more conflicted on this. On one hand, these compounds haven’t been adequately studied and we don’t know their long-term effects. On the other hand, adults should be able to take calculated risks with novel substances if they choose.
But here’s my resolution to that conflict: in the absence of adequate safety data, and given the documented problems with contamination and mislabeling, a ban on synthetic cannabinoids is probably justified until we have better research and regulatory frameworks.
If Delta-8 manufacturers want to operate in Florida, they should be advocating for proper clinical trials and safety studies, not fighting against all regulation while selling untested products at gas stations.
The Beverage Industry Angle (Follow the Money)
Let’s be cynical for a moment and look at who benefits from the THC beverage restrictions.
Requiring THC drinks to be sold only at liquor-licensed establishments and distributed through the alcohol three-tier system doesn’t just help with regulation. It also benefits:
- Alcohol distributors (who get a new product category to distribute)
- Liquor stores (who get exclusive retail access to THC beverages)
- Bars and restaurants (who can offer THC drinks alongside or instead of alcohol)
Who loses?
- Hemp beverage manufacturers who built their businesses on unrestricted retail
- Convenience stores and gas stations (who lose a profitable product category)
- Small independent retailers
Now, maybe this is the right policy for public health reasons. Treating intoxicating beverages consistently regardless of whether they contain alcohol or THC has some logical appeal.
But let’s not pretend there isn’t an economic winner-picking element here. The alcohol industry has serious political clout in Florida, and they’re not unhappy about controlling the THC beverage distribution channel.
I’m not saying the policy is wrong because it benefits alcohol interests. I’m saying we should be clear-eyed about who’s pushing for what and why. Good policy can align with industry interests, but we should acknowledge when it does.
What This Means for Consumers
If SB 438 becomes law (and the companion House bill HB 7027 passes), here’s what Florida consumers should expect:
Products that will disappear:
- All Delta-8 products
- Delta-10, HHC, THC-O, THCP, THCV products
- Any synthetic or semi-synthetic cannabinoids
Products that will change:
- Hemp edibles will be limited to 5mg per serving, 50mg per container
- THC beverages capped at 5mg per container
- All products must be tested in certified labs
- Packaging will change to avoid child appeal
Where you can buy:
- THC beverages: only at liquor-licensed establishments
- Other hemp products: not within 500 feet of schools/daycares
- Not at gas stations or convenience stores (for most products)
- Products will be behind counters or in locked cases
What you’ll know:
- Accurate lab testing results
- Real THC/CBD content
- Contaminant screening results
- Clearer labeling
Honestly? For responsible consumers who use hemp-derived products for legitimate wellness purposes, this is mostly good news. You’ll have more confidence that what’s on the label is actually in the product.
For people who were using high-dose Delta-8 products for strong intoxication? You’re going to need to either adjust to lower-potency products or explore other options.
The Bigger Picture: Federal vs. State Regulation
What’s happening in Florida is part of a larger national conversation about how to regulate hemp-derived cannabinoids.
The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp at the federal level, defining it as cannabis with less than 0.3% Delta-9 THC. This was intended to support the agricultural hemp industry (textiles, CBD products, industrial uses).
What nobody anticipated was that chemists would figure out how to convert legal CBD from hemp into intoxicating cannabinoids like Delta-8, creating a massive loophole in federal drug law.
States have responded in wildly different ways:
- Some banned all intoxicating hemp products
- Some heavily regulated them (like Florida is trying to do)
- Some largely ignored the issue
- Some embraced it as a way to provide legal access to THC
Now federal law is changing again. Starting November 2026, hemp products can’t contain more than 0.4mg of total THC per container. That’s going to fundamentally reshape the entire market.
Florida’s SB 438 is actually trying to get ahead of this federal change and create a state regulatory framework before the federal hammer drops.
My Take on All of This
Alright, opinion time. Here’s what I actually think should happen:
On testing and labeling: This is non-negotiable and should have been required from day one. Every consumable hemp product should be tested for potency and contaminants. Accurate labeling is a consumer right, not a privilege.
On synthetic cannabinoids: Given the lack of safety data and the documented problems with contamination, I support the ban on Delta-8 and similar compounds until proper clinical trials establish their safety profile. This isn’t about being anti-cannabis; it’s about being pro-consumer-protection.
On potency caps: The 5mg/50mg limits are probably appropriate for unrestricted retail environments. If Florida eventually legalizes adult-use cannabis with proper regulation, those limits could be revisited for licensed dispensaries with age verification and consumer education.
On beverage restrictions: This is where I’m most conflicted. The policy makes sense from a regulatory consistency standpoint (treating all intoxicating beverages similarly). But it also feels like unnecessary industry favoritism toward alcohol distributors. I’d prefer to see THC beverages allowed in dedicated hemp retail stores with proper age verification, not just liquor-licensed establishments.
On location restrictions: The 500-foot buffer from schools and daycares is reasonable. The advertising restrictions feel overly broad and could use more specific language.
On the broader principle: Florida needs to stop treating hemp-derived cannabinoids as somehow fundamentally different from cannabis. They’re not. If something is intoxicating and contains THC, it should be regulated like cannabis, not like industrial hemp. The legal fiction that Delta-8 gummies are somehow just “hemp” while being more intoxicating than actual cannabis is absurd.
What Happens Next
The Senate passed SB 438 unanimously. The companion House bill (HB 7027) is moving through committees.
If both chambers pass their versions and reconcile any differences, it goes to Governor DeSantis’s desk.
Last year he vetoed similar legislation. This year, I think he signs it. The political dynamics have changed, there’s more public health data supporting regulation, and the hemp industry doesn’t have the same leverage they had when they were actively helping him defeat Amendment 3.
If the bill becomes law, the implementation timeline will be important. Hemp businesses will need time to reformulate products, adjust supply chains, and comply with new testing requirements.
Expect legal challenges from hemp industry groups. Anytime you’re banning entire product categories, there will be litigation over:
- Whether the ban exceeds state authority
- Whether it’s preempted by federal hemp law
- Whether it violates due process or takings clauses
Those challenges will probably lose (states have broad police powers to regulate intoxicating substances), but they’ll create uncertainty and delay full implementation.
For consumers, the practical reality is:
- Delta-8 and similar products will start disappearing from shelves pretty quickly once the law takes effect
- Compliant Delta-9 products will remain available but with lower potencies
- THC beverages will migrate to liquor stores and bars
- Testing requirements will take time to fully implement as labs build capacity
The Bottom Line
Florida’s hemp market has been the wild west for too long. Products with unknown potencies, potential contamination, and misleading labels have been sold to unsuspecting consumers, sometimes with serious health consequences.
SB 438 isn’t a perfect bill. It probably overreaches in some areas (beverage distribution restrictions) and could be more precisely written in others (advertising bans). But it addresses real, documented problems with the current unregulated system.
The testing and labeling requirements alone are worth supporting. Consumers deserve to know what they’re putting in their bodies, whether it’s cannabis products for pain management or anything else.
The ban on synthetic cannabinoids is probably the right call given current safety data (or lack thereof). If manufacturers want these products to remain legal, they should invest in clinical trials and safety studies, not fight against all regulation.
The beverage restrictions are the most controversial part, and I understand arguments on both sides. But treating intoxicating beverages with some regulatory consistency isn’t inherently unreasonable.
Most importantly: Florida needs to stop pretending that chemically altered hemp derivatives sold at gas stations are fundamentally different from cannabis. If it gets you high, it should be regulated with appropriate safety standards, regardless of whether it started as hemp or marijuana.
This bill isn’t about being anti-cannabis. It’s about bringing order to chaos, protecting consumers from contaminated and mislabeled products, and acknowledging that intoxicating substances require appropriate regulation.
Does it go too far in some areas? Maybe. But after years of going not far enough and watching 94% of tested products fail basic legal standards, erring on the side of over-regulation is probably the right call until Florida figures out a more nuanced approach.
If Florida eventually legalizes adult-use cannabis (which polling suggests most Floridians want), there will be opportunities to create more sophisticated regulatory frameworks that balance safety, freedom, and market access.
Until then, bringing some basic standards to the hemp market is a net positive for consumer safety and public health.
For more information on Florida’s hemp regulations, visit the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services or check the Florida Senate bill tracking page.
