Summary#

SB-164, the Regulation of Lawful Tetrahydrocannabinol Beverages bill, would have created a new state regulatory system and amended several existing Colorado laws, including laws on hemp products, alcohol licensing and marijuana businesses. Its stated goal was to regulate the manufacture, sale and consumption of certain hemp-derived THC drinks. The bill failed, so it did not change the law.

• Registered hemp-product manufacturers could make qualifying nonalcoholic drinks with no more than 10 milligrams of THC per serving, using approved hemp sources and following testing, labeling, packaging and production rules.
• Manufacturers could sell only through permitted wholesalers, not directly to retailers or consumers. Certain retailers and marijuana businesses could sell or distribute drinks only with a new state permit.
• Sales would be limited to people 21 and older. Licensees could not sell to visibly intoxicated people, mix THC and alcohol in the same container, or allow drinks sold for on-site use to leave the premises.
• The bill set container and potency limits, required consumer notices, and directed state agencies to create rules for sales, transport, tracking, recalls and enforcement. The state licensing authority could seize or destroy non-compliant drinks.
• Local governments could prohibit sales, but generally could not add product, labeling or service rules beyond state rules. They could still regulate the time, place or manner of sales.
• If a federal law restricted or prohibited hemp products in interstate commerce, the bill would have limited qualifying drinks to Colorado-made products sold only at permitted Colorado stores, with no offer for sale or delivery outside the state.

What it means for you#

• Customers: If the bill had become law, people under 21 could not buy or be served these drinks. Customers would have to be told the drink’s cannabinoid content and concentration. The bill did not guarantee that a permitted drink would be available at any particular store.
• Retailers and marijuana businesses: Eligible alcohol licensees, marijuana hospitality businesses and marijuana transporters could apply for a permit. Retail liquor stores could sell drinks with more than 3 and up to 10 milligrams of THC per serving. Convenience and grocery stores would be limited to single-serving drinks with no more than 3 milligrams per serving.
• Manufacturers and wholesalers: Manufacturers would need hemp-product registration, approved ingredients, testing and compliant labels and packaging. They could not sell directly to a retailer or consumer. Wholesalers would need the relevant state licence and THC-beverage permit.
• Local governments: They could ban local sales. The bill would otherwise restrict extra local product, labeling and service rules, while allowing local rules about when, where and how sales occur.
• State agencies: The Department of Public Health and Environment and the state licensing authority would have to adopt rules. The licensing authority would also enforce the rules and could seize or destroy drinks in violation.
• General public: The bill would not have legalized synthetic or semi-synthetic cannabinoid drinks. It also would not have changed the rules for regulated marijuana drinks.

Money#

No publicly available information.

• The bill would have allowed permit and application fees, capped at the state’s direct and indirect costs to administer and enforce the new rules. Fees would go to the Liquor Enforcement Division and State Licensing Authority Cash Fund.
• The bill required state agencies to make rules and assigned them regulatory and enforcement work, but the supplied material gives no cost or staffing estimate.

What is unclear#

• The supplied materials do not include the full current versions of the laws being amended, so the exact changes from current law could not be verified.
• The bill leaves many operating details to future state rules, including permit decisions, transport and tracking standards, recalls, and enforcement procedures.
• The materials do not say how many businesses might apply, what the final fees would be, or how much agency staffing and enforcement would cost.
• The bill’s special limits after a federal “conformity trigger” would depend on the terms and effective date of a future federal law.
• The bill failed, so its proposed start dates and rules never took effect.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to set safety and sales rules for hemp-derived THC drinks, including testing, accurate potency labels, consumer notices and recall procedures.
• A possible argument for the permit system is that it would limit sales to businesses already regulated under alcohol or marijuana laws, while barring sales to people under 21 and to visibly intoxicated people.
• Statewide rules could give manufacturers and sellers one main set of requirements, while still allowing local governments to prohibit sales.

Case against#

• The bill would assign agencies significant rulemaking and enforcement work without providing a cost estimate or staffing plan in the supplied materials.
• A possible trade-off is that statewide limits on local product, labeling and service rules could reduce local governments’ ability to set stricter safeguards, even though they could ban sales.
• The bill leaves important details to future rules, so businesses and customers would not know the full permit, tracking, recall and enforcement system from the bill alone.
• The permitted products could contain up to 10 milligrams of THC per serving, while convenience and grocery stores would face a lower limit; the bill does not explain why those sales channels have different limits.