Intoxicating hemp products in Ohio need regulation, not prohibition  

Ohio voters made a landmark decision to legalize recreational marijuana in 2023 with the promise that legalizing marijuana sales would help the state generate tax revenue, ensure public safety, and create a regulated alternative to the illicit market. Like voters in other states, Ohioans recognized the futility of trying to prevent cannabis use and saw regulation as a more effective and beneficial approach than criminalization. This historic step reflects the public’s growing desire to bring cannabis use into a legal framework where it can be controlled, taxed, and quality tested.     

Yet, only a year after this progress, State Sen. Steve Huffman (R-Tipp City) has proposed a bill that would outlaw “intoxicating hemp” products in Ohio that, if enacted, would prohibit most hemp products in the state. Relying on prohibition to address issues surrounding hemp, rather than sensible regulation, risks undermining the goals underlying Ohio’s legalization of recreational cannabis, likely creating similar problems that led voters to end marijuana prohibition in the first place. As with marijuana, there are far better solutions to intoxicating hemp products than prohibition.  

Both hemp and marijuana are derived from cannabis plants. They contain many of the same compounds, including various forms of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). THC is the class of chemicals, like delta-9 THC, responsible for the intoxicating and psychoactive effects of marijuana. While hemp typically has a low THC content that is non-intoxicating, hemp plant material can be processed to extract and concentrate other forms of THC, like delta-8 THC, to create intoxicating hemp edibles and beverages, smokable hemp flower, and vape cartridges. How much THC a hemp product must contain in order to be considered “intoxicating hemp” is a subject of current debate, but experts generally believe that the risk of intoxication begins when THC concentration is above 1%.     

However, unlike marijuana, hemp and its derivatives were federally legalized in 2018. Freed from both federal prohibition and onerous state laws governing marijuana, hemp products could be sold at a wider variety of outlets, often at lower prices than marijuana. Consequently, the market for hemp products and those derived from hemp, including both non-intoxicating cannabidiol (CBD) and intoxicating delta-8 THC, has boomed. This rise in popularity has provoked concern among lawmakers worried about the safety and youth access to these products.  

Huffman’s legislation (Senate Bill 326) would outlaw sales of intoxicating hemp products throughout the state, which the bill defines as those with more than 0.5 milligrams of THC per package. Supporters of the approach argue that a ban is necessary to protect the public, especially youth. But, a blanket prohibition will more likely backfire, increasing illicit activity and undermining public safety as consumers seek alternative sources for the products they want.    

Arguably, the popularity of hemp-based products is a direct result of overly stringent marijuana regulations. High excise taxes, regulatory costs, and a dearth of legal retailers make marijuana hard to access at reasonable prices for many consumers. For example, 55 local governments in Ohio have enacted local moratoriums on legal marijuana sales, leaving at least 10 percent of the state’s population without legal dispensaries nearby. This lack of access most likely fuels the demand for intoxicating hemp products. A ban will only push consumers further toward unregulated products and illicit markets, where regulators have no oversight and little control over product safety.    

Huffman’s bill has received four hearings in the Senate General Government Committee so far, with the majority of those testifying in opposition to the measure. Hemp producers and retailers expressed concerns that the bill would devastate their businesses and cost thousands of jobs for the state. Many non-industry members also testified against the measure, with both consumers and health providers arguing the bill would unnecessarily strip their access to therapeutic hemp products.  

Jasmine Trowbridge, a licensed nurse in Cleveland, told the committee that the federal legalization of hemp had “opened up a world of possibilities for those struggling with chronic conditions” and argued outlawing these products or limiting their sales to dispensaries would be especially harmful to elderly patients uncomfortable or unable to shop at marijuana dispensaries. Trowbridge argued that older patients, in particular, benefit from hemp products being available at a broad range of traditional retail outlets due to closer proximity to where patients live and more accessible hours of operation.  

As it stands, the measure is unlikely to pass before the current session ends at the end of December and would need to be re-introduced when the next session begins in January. Despite an effort to amend the bill to limit hemp sales to marijuana dispensaries rather than outlawing them entirely, House members rejected the dispensary-only idea.  

However, Huffman’s bill is not the only measure seeking to regulate hemp products in Ohio. The legislature is considering three additional bills related to intoxicating hemp. House Bill 86, which began as a proposal to update state liquor laws, was heavily revised by the Senate and now includes significant changes to voter-approved recreational marijuana rules, including a ban on hemp products with any amount of non-delta-9 THC. Such strict limits would effectively outlaw all intoxicating hemp products, as well as many non-intoxicating ones. The House is unlikely to pass this version due to its extensive alteration of the state’s marijuana laws, which the bill’s original sponsor, State Rep. Jeff LaRe (R-Violet Township), criticized as a “slap in the face to Ohio voters.”  

Senate Bill 278, introduced by state Sens. Huffman and Kirk Schuring (R-Canton), would similarly alter voter-approved recreational marijuana rules, as well as regulate intoxicating hemp. The bill would define “adult-use hemp products” as those with 2.5 milligrams or more of THC per serving, more than four servings per package, and a ratio of CBD-to-THC that is not more than 15-to-1. The measure would prohibit sales of adult-use hemp products to minors, require retailers to keep them behind counters, and outlaw internet sales.    

Finally, House Bill 642 (HB 642), introduced by State Rep. Sara Carruthers (R-Hamilton) in July 2024, would require the director of agriculture to study the issue of intoxicating hemp and provide recommendations for how such products should be regulated, delaying any immediate action.   

Though each of these measures addresses certain concerns surrounding intoxicating hemp products, all fall short of creating the comprehensive regulatory framework necessary to ensure consumers have access to hemp products that are safe, accurately labeled, and responsibly marketed. Aside from barring sales to minors, none of the bills sufficiently address issues like product contamination, unsafe manufacturing practices, or misleading labeling. These issues are essential to address if Ohio hopes to create a thriving hemp market with compliant businesses rather than one driven by illicit, unregulated activity.  

Reason Foundation’s recently published recommendations for state regulation of hemp cannabinoids offers suggestions for how states could create a balanced and comprehensive framework for regulating hemp products, including minimum requirements for safe manufacturing practices, product testing, and clear labeling rules to ensure consumer safety and inform choices. It also recommends distinguishing intoxicating from non-intoxicating hemp products based not only on total THC concentration but also the ratio of CBD to THC.  

This approach, echoed in SB 278, would ensure continued access to high-CBD therapeutic products for patients with conditions like seizure disorders because higher CBD content mitigates THC’s psychoactive effects, keeping these products non-intoxicating. However, we do not recommend that this threshold be used to determine the legality of products; instead, we suggest that products defined as adult-use or intoxicating merely be subject to additional rules and controls, such as a minimum purchasing age.  

A blanket prohibition on intoxicating hemp would be a step backward for Ohio, pushing demand underground and exposing consumers, young and old, to unnecessary risk and uncertainty.  Instead, a framework like that proposed by Reason would align Ohio’s hemp policy with the goals of its recent cannabis legalization, ensuring consumers have access to safe products made by accountable producers and keeping intoxicating products away from youth.  

The post Intoxicating hemp products in Ohio need regulation, not prohibition   appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Source: https://reason.org/commentary/intoxicating-hemp-products-in-ohio-need-regulation-not-prohibition/