If you were hoping the South Carolina governor’s race might crack open the door for a state medical marijuana program — or settle the state’s running fight over intoxicating hemp — last week’s primary results are worth a close read. On June 9, Republican voters narrowed a crowded field to two: Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette and Attorney General Alan Wilson, who advanced to a June 23 runoff after neither cleared the 50% threshold needed to win outright. Evette finished first with roughly 29% of the vote to Wilson’s 26%, and the two are scheduled to debate today, June 16, ahead of the runoff.
The eventual GOP nominee will be heavily favored in November against Democrat Jermaine Johnson to succeed term-limited Gov. Henry McMaster. In a state this red, the runoff is, for practical purposes, the contest that will determine who occupies the governor’s mansion — and that makes both candidates’ postures on cannabis policy worth examining, both on medical marijuana and on the increasingly contentious question of intoxicating hemp. South Carolina has spent years watching its medical marijuana effort stall and, more recently, wrestling with how to handle hemp-derived THC products — and the governor’s office matters for both.
The Backdrop: A Decade of “Compassionate Care” and No Law to Show for It
South Carolina remains one of a shrinking number of states without a comprehensive medical marijuana program. State Sen. Tom Davis, a Beaufort Republican, has pushed the Compassionate Care Act for more than a decade — a deliberately conservative bill that would allow patients with qualifying conditions to access products on a physician’s recommendation, while barring smoking, home cultivation, and raw consumption. The Senate has passed versions of it before, but the measure has repeatedly stalled in the House and never become law.
Public support, at least in polling, has been strong: A Mason-Dixon survey cited in 2024 reporting found a large majority of South Carolina voters favored a medical cannabis bill. The obstacle has consistently been in Columbia, not with the electorate. Which is exactly why the governor’s office matters — a supportive governor could help push a bill across the finish line, while a skeptical or hostile one could just as easily keep the door shut.
Alan Wilson: A Documented Opponent
Wilson’s position is the easier of the two to pin down, because he has stated it publicly and repeatedly. As attorney general, he has been one of the most prominent opponents of the Compassionate Care Act. Standing alongside SLED Chief Mark Keel, Wilson framed his opposition around public safety and the rule of law, arguing the state should think “long and hard” before joining the ranks of states that have legalized. Keel, for his part, characterized the bill as opening the door to large quantities of high-potency THC products and questioned why state legislation was needed for something that, in his view, should run through the normal FDA process.
That is a long track record of resistance, and there is no public indication Wilson’s view has softened as he campaigns for governor. A voter looking for a candidate likely to sign a medical marijuana bill would have a hard time reading Wilson’s record as encouraging.
Pamela Evette: A Skeptic, Though a Less-Defined One
Evette’s position is harder to characterize with precision, and I want to be candid about that rather than overstate it. In a February 2026 campaign interview, she expressed concerns about medical cannabis legislation, pointing to what she described as negative consequences other states have experienced after legalizing. That signals skepticism — but it is a softer, less categorical posture than Wilson’s years of active opposition, and I haven’t seen Evette commit to a firm yes or no on a bill like the Compassionate Care Act.
It’s also worth noting what the primary did and didn’t tell us. Reporting indicated that hemp-THC regulation and medical marijuana were among the sharpest dividing lines at the June 1 SCETV debate — but Evette and Wilson were not the candidates trading those blows on stage, so I’d caution against reading the primary as a clean referendum between the two on this issue. What we can say is that both of the remaining candidates range from skeptical to opposed. Neither is campaigning as a champion of medical marijuana.
Hemp: A Parallel — and Equally Telling — Divide
Medical marijuana isn’t the only cannabis-adjacent issue on the table. Intoxicating hemp — the delta-8 and other hemp-derived THC products that proliferated in the gray area left by the 2018 federal Farm Bill — has been one of the most active fights in Columbia, and it sheds further light on at least one of the candidates.
Here again, Wilson’s record is the clearer one, and it points in the same direction. As attorney general, he made hemp-derived THC enforcement a signature effort. In December 2025, his office announced “Operation Ganjapreneur,” a joint investigation with SLED, the DEA, and federal partners that resulted in the seizure of roughly 30,000 pounds — about 15 tons — of allegedly illegal THC and hemp products in the Midlands alone, later followed by state grand jury indictments. Beyond enforcement, Wilson publicly pressed lawmakers to tighten the law, urging the House Judiciary Committee to advance legislation closing the regulatory gray area on intoxicating hemp beverages. “No more games,” he wrote, framing the issue around keeping intoxicating products out of the hands of children. In short, Wilson’s posture on hemp is restriction and aggressive enforcement — consistent with his stance on marijuana.
Evette’s position on hemp is where I have to be straight with you: I could not find a clear, on-the-record statement from her specifically addressing intoxicating hemp or the slate of THC bills the legislature wrestled with this session. The candidates who clashed most sharply on hemp regulation during the primary debates — Ralph Norman, Nancy Mace, and Josh Kimbrell — did so on stages Evette declined to attend. So, while we know she has voiced general concern about medical cannabis, I’m not going to manufacture a hemp position for her that the public record doesn’t support. It’s a genuine open question heading into the runoff, and a fair one to put to her at today’s debate.
For context on how hard this issue has been even for a legislature that wants to act, South Carolina’s 2026 session saw competing bills — some seeking a near-total ban on intoxicating hemp, others a regulated, alcohol-style framework limiting sales to adults over age 21 with per-serving THC caps. The Senate ultimately moved toward the regulate-rather-than-prohibit approach after a messy, multi-vote fight. It echoes the path Texas took when it chose to regulate rather than prohibit consumable hemp, and it’s a reminder that “hemp policy” in South Carolina isn’t one question but several. The next governor’s signature — or veto — could shape where the lines finally land.
What It Means for Legalization — and Regulation — Prospects
The honest takeaway: Regardless of who wins the June 23 runoff, the next governor of South Carolina is unlikely to be a driving force for a state medical marijuana program. With Wilson, advocates would face a documented opponent on medical marijuana and an aggressive restrictionist on hemp. With Evette, they’d face a skeptic on medical marijuana whose hemp position is, as of now, undefined — which leaves more uncertainty but, on the marijuana side at least, not much basis for optimism.
That doesn’t mean the issue is dead. The Compassionate Care Act has always lived or died in the legislature, and a governor’s skepticism doesn’t foreclose legislative action — it just removes a potential ally and raises the prospect of a veto fight. Sen. Davis has signaled he intends to keep pressing. But the path looks like the same uphill climb it has been, and the governor’s race doesn’t appear to change that math in advocates’ favor.
This also lands against a shifting federal backdrop. We’ve written extensively about the rescheduling picture — including the late-2025 development in which the administration moved to reschedule marijuana, and our look at why rescheduling has remained so complicated. To be precise about what that federal action reached, it concerned DEA-approved medications and state-licensed medical marijuana — it did not broadly legalize marijuana, and it does not create a South Carolina program where state law provides none. For South Carolina patients, the relevant action is still in Columbia, not Washington.
For a sense of how the Southeast as a region has become such an active arena for these fights, our piece on the Southeast as the current hotbed of cannabis activity remains a useful overview. South Carolina has been one of the conspicuous holdouts — and this race suggests it may stay that way for a while longer.
We’ll be watching the June 16 debate and the June 23 runoff, and we’ll keep tracking what the outcome means for medical marijuana in the Palmetto State here on Budding Trends.
Thanks for stopping by.