AG Wilson vs Solicitor General Cook on Hemp — Conflicting Official Opinions

Last verified: May 2026

The September 16, 2024 Cook Opinion

South Carolina Solicitor General Robert D. Cook — the senior career attorney in the AG’s Office responsible for legal opinions to state agencies and officeholders — issued a formal opinion dated September 16, 2024 concluding:

"Nonalcoholic beverages containing hemp-derived delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9 THC) in compliance with the federal Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 [the 2018 Farm Bill] are not unlawful under South Carolina law."

The Cook opinion drew on the federal 2018 Farm Bill’s definition of "hemp" as cannabis sativa containing 0.3% or less delta-9 THC by dry weight, and on the South Carolina Hemp Farming Act of 2017 (Act 37) and 2019 amendments (Act 14) at S.C. Code Title 46, Chapter 55, which mirror the federal definition. The opinion found no SC statute clearly prohibiting hemp-derived delta-9 THC beverages compliant with the federal definition. See Hemp Farming Act page.

The Wilson Position

AG Wilson has been publicly skeptical of hemp-derived intoxicants since the 2022-23 sessions and has characterized delta-8 and delta-10 THC products as illegal in South Carolina. Wilson’s position rests on a different statutory reading: that hemp-derived products containing measurable psychoactive cannabinoids have been chemically processed in ways that fall outside the federal Farm Bill’s "naturally occurring" hemp framework, that delta-8 in particular is typically synthesized from CBD via acidic conversion and is therefore not "hemp," and that products marketed for psychoactive effect (rather than as industrial hemp) do not fit within the SC Hemp Farming Act’s regulatory frame.

The DPH January 22, 2024 Letter

Adding a third voice to the official record: the South Carolina Department of Health (formerly DHEC) sent a letter dated January 22, 2024 advising that delta-8 and delta-9 are not approved as ingredients in food or drinks and that any health claims would render the product non-compliant. The DPH letter stopped short of declaring the products outright illegal but signaled that the public-health regulator viewed them as outside the standard food / beverage compliance framework.

How Three Conflicting Opinions Coexist

South Carolina has thus operated for the 2024-26 period with three simultaneous official postures:

• SG Cook (Sept 16, 2024 opinion): hemp-derived delta-9 beverages compliant with the 2018 Farm Bill are legal.
• AG Wilson (public statements + Operation Ganjapreneur indictments): delta-8 / delta-10 products are illegal; many "hemp" products test above the 0.3% delta-9 threshold and are therefore Schedule I marijuana.
• DPH (January 22, 2024 letter): delta-8 / delta-9 are not approved food ingredients; products with health claims are non-compliant.

The Cook opinion is technically the office’s formal legal opinion. The Wilson statements are the AG’s policy posture. The DPH letter is a public-health regulatory communication. They have not been reconciled by any court ruling, executive order, or statutory enactment.

What Operation Ganjapreneur Resolved — and Did Not

The December 9, 2025 Operation Ganjapreneur indictments operationalized the Wilson position: 12 defendants charged with trafficking marijuana 10-100 lbs based on SLED lab tests showing seized product exceeded the 0.3% delta-9 threshold. The legal theory bypasses the SG opinion by arguing that the seized products were not compliant with the federal Farm Bill in the first place. The 261-of-270-brands "hot" testing rate from the March 27, 2026 announcement, if accurate, would mean that virtually no SC retail hemp inventory falls within the SG’s legal-products opinion. See Operation Ganjapreneur page.

What Operation Ganjapreneur did not resolve: whether SC retail hemp products that do test below 0.3% delta-9 are lawful. The Cook opinion remains in force; SG Cook has not withdrawn it; no court has ruled on it. A retailer carefully sourcing only product that tests below 0.3% delta-9 has, in formal-opinion terms, the SG’s opinion as a defense.

How Retailers Have Responded

SC retailers have responded to the conflicting posture in several ways:

• Doubling down on testing. Some retailers maintain Certificates of Analysis (COAs) from third-party labs showing each SKU below 0.3% delta-9. These COAs do not insulate against SLED’s independent testing producing different results, but they support a good-faith defense.
• Switching channels. Some delta-9 beverage producers have moved to liquor-store-only distribution, banking on the SG opinion + Senate-amended H.3924’s liquor-store restriction.
• Reducing visible inventory. Smoke shops in Operation Ganjapreneur counties have reduced flower / cart inventory pending trial outcomes.
• Pivoting to compliant CBD. Some retailers have shifted to non-intoxicating CBD products that clearly fall within the 2018 Farm Bill.
• Continuing business. Others continue selling delta-8 / THCA products on the theory that, absent a court ruling and given SG Cook’s opinion, the law is unsettled.

The 2025-26 Legislative Resolution Effort

The General Assembly has been attempting to resolve the conflicting opinions by statute in the 2025-26 session, with four competing bills: H.3924 (Wooten, regulate-not-ban with age 21 + packaging + retail license, House-passed but Senate-amended; House declined to accept the Senate version April 22, 2026); H.3935 (Gatch, "Consumable Hemp Licensing and Regulation Act"); H.4758 (Newton, total ban under §§ 44-53-190 + 44-53-370); H.4759 (companion intoxicating beverages). House Judiciary Chair Rep. Weston Newton (R-Bluffton) has said publicly he proposed two options because "a total ban may fail, leaving the intoxicating products available to children." See 2025-26 hemp bills page.

The Federal Cliff Resolves Most of the Question

⚠️ PL 119-37 § 781 — effective November 12, 2026 — redefines hemp at the federal level using a total THC threshold (including THCA) of 0.3%, caps THC in consumer hemp products at 0.4 mg per package, and bans synthetic / non-naturally-occurring cannabinoids. Most of the products at issue in the Cook-Wilson conflict will be federally illegal as of that date regardless of any SC action. The remaining state-law question is whether SC will (a) align with the new federal cap; (b) impose stricter requirements; or (c) try to preserve a narrower "hemp beverages compliant with 2018 standard" exception that has already been preempted federally. See federal hemp cliff page.