By Tripp Liles
House Bill 328 did not receive a vote in the North Carolina House, and lawmakers are not expected to consider additional hemp legislation for at least several months—possibly not until next year. The bill is not officially dead. In Raleigh, legislation has a habit of lingering in committee like an uninvited guest who refuses to take the hint. But in practical terms, the version of HB 328 that threatened most of North Carolina’s hemp industry has reached the end of its immediate road.
The Senate had already adopted the conference report, and House leaders had previously indicated that they expected to do the same. That changed after business owners, employees, consumers and advocates raised serious questions about the bill’s consequences. Hundreds traveled to Raleigh, packed the Legislative Building and asked lawmakers to reconsider.
After consulting with members of his caucus, House Speaker Destin Hall pulled the bill from consideration. He has since announced plans to appoint a small group of House lawmakers to study the issue and develop new proposals. The General Assembly is not expected to hold additional votes until after the November election, and any future hemp legislation will likely look substantially different from the current conference report.
That is the news. But it is not the end of the story.
A False Choice North Carolina Never Had to Make
The most frustrating aspect of HB 328 was the suggestion that North Carolina had to choose between protecting children and preserving its hemp industry.
That choice was never real.
An earlier version of the legislation—developed with substantial input from responsible members of the industry—would have established a genuine regulatory system. It included:
A minimum purchase age of 21;
Licensing for manufacturers, distributors and retailers;
Independent laboratory testing;
Packaging and labeling standards;
Online age verification;
Restrictions on products designed to appeal to children;
Meaningful civil and criminal penalties for violations.
Those provisions addressed legitimate concerns surrounding an underregulated market. They would have protected young people, given law enforcement clear authority to act against irresponsible operators and created uniform standards for businesses selling hemp-derived products in North Carolina.
The final conference report took a far different approach. Rather than regulating the market, it would have eliminated most of it.
We understand the concerns raised by legislators, prosecutors and law enforcement officials. Products should not be sold to minors. Packaging should not imitate children’s candy. Labels should be accurate. Products should be tested, retailers should be accountable and bad actors should face real consequences. On those points, there is far more agreement than the recent political debate might suggest. The disagreement is over whether the answer should be regulation or prohibition.
The Industry Showed Up
When HB 328 became an existential threat, North Carolina’s hemp community responded.
Business owners closed stores and traveled to Raleigh. Employees left their regular routines behind and walked into the Legislative Building. Consumers called and emailed their representatives. Veterans, retirees, advocates and families explained what these products—and the businesses providing them—mean in their lives and communities.
House members reported receiving an extraordinary volume of constituent communication. The halls in Raleigh filled with people who were serious, respectful and determined to be heard.
This was not some counterculture carnival crashing the Capitol. It was an industry standing up for its employees, customers and future. It was democracy in its most basic form: citizens showing up, presenting their case and asking elected officials to listen.
And they did.
The decision not to vote on HB 328 demonstrates that organized, informed and respectful advocacy can change the course of legislation. It also gives lawmakers and the industry a chance to lower the temperature and return to the hard but necessary work of developing responsible policy.
To everyone who called, emailed, visited legislators, attended rallies, shared information or explained how HB 328 would affect North Carolina businesses, workers and families: thank you.
We also owe a special thank-you to the customers and supporters who contributed through our round-up program. Those donations help make education, outreach and advocacy possible. The work is not finished, but your support helped carry it through a critical moment.
The Federal Clock Is Still Ticking
North Carolina’s debate is unfolding beneath an even larger federal threat.
A provision included in a federal spending law enacted in November 2025 is scheduled to dramatically redefine legal hemp beginning November 12, 2026. Unless Congress intervenes, the new definition could remove most currently available hemp-derived products from the lawful market.
There are, however, signs that Washington may be reconsidering that approach. In June, the Trump administration urged Congress to replace the looming prohibition with a regulatory framework—or at minimum delay its implementation. Bipartisan federal legislation has also been introduced to preserve lawful hemp commerce while establishing age restrictions, testing requirements, packaging standards and other consumer protections.
None of this guarantees an outcome. It does mean that neither the state nor federal debate is settled.
What Comes Next
HB 328 remains in the House Rules Committee and could theoretically return. More importantly, North Carolina still needs meaningful hemp legislation.
The absence of a statewide minimum purchase age and uniform product standards is neither desirable nor sustainable. Responsible businesses should not be asked to defend a regulatory vacuum. We have been asking for clear rules, strong enforcement and real accountability for years.
The path forward is not mysterious:
Establish a minimum age of 21. License manufacturers, distributors and retailers. Require independent testing, responsible packaging and accurate labels. Give regulators the authority to inspect products and trace them through the supply chain. Remove dangerous or deceptively marketed products. Punish businesses that sell to minors or knowingly violate the law.
Do all of that without criminalizing an entire lawful industry or forcing adult consumers into an illegal market.
HB 328 did not pass. The industry showed up. Lawmakers listened. Regulation remains possible, and prohibition is not inevitable.
That is worth recognizing—but not celebrating as though the larger fight has been won. What North Carolina has received is something more valuable than a victory lap: a second chance.
Now we must use it well.