Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hemp Products Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Experts tell committee: intoxicating hemp products functionally mirror marijuana; bill must target synthesis and safety
Summary
Witnesses at a third hearing on House Bill 198 told the House Judiciary Committee that many intoxicating 'hemp' products are chemically equivalent to marijuana or engineered synthetics and argued for stricter testing, labeling and enforcement. Industry witnesses backed a separate, more restrictive beverage framework under Senate Bill 86.
House Bill 198 — a measure to regulate intoxicating products derived from hemp — drew technical testimony from trade groups, public‑health advocates and industry operators who told the House Judiciary Committee the bill must clearly distinguish agricultural hemp from chemically altered intoxicants.
Corey Harris, a principal at Washington lobby firm The Vogel Group and representative of the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp (ATTACH), told the committee the 2018 federal Farm Bill created an unintended loophole. "Hemp intoxicants are functionally equivalent to marijuana," Harris said. "Simply put, hemp intoxicants are marijuana." Harris explained that the Farm Bill definition — hemp with less than 0.3% delta‑9 THC on a dry‑weight basis — did not anticipate modern extraction, conversion and synthesis techniques, or edible and beverage formats that concentrate intoxicating compounds into consumer products.
Harris outlined four assumptions embedded in the Farm Bill that regulatory drafters should not rely on: that delta‑9 THC is the only intoxicant; that cannabis is consumed primarily by smoking; that a 0.3% limit on dry plant weight is an effective control for finished products; and that USDA field inspections would prevent intoxicating products from reaching consumers. He gave numerical examples to show the problem: a heavy candy bar or a large beverage can remain under 0.3% delta‑9 by plant‑weight math while still delivering hundreds of milligrams of intoxicant.
Industry witnesses described alternatives. John Lynch, a beverage manufacturer with a hemp processor license, told the committee he supports a low‑dose beverage pathway similar to alcohol distribution and urged the committee to consider Senate Bill 86’s beverage language; he said most hemp beverages he produces are in the 2–2.5 mg per serving range and that SB 86’s 5 mg per serving cap (as discussed in the hearing) is workable for retail distribution under age‑restricted controls.
Licensed cannabis operators and the Ohio Cannabis Coalition warned that HB 198, as introduced, would create a parallel, lightly regulated market that could destabilize Ohio’s regulated marijuana program. David Bowling, testifying for licensed operators, said HB 198 would "legitimize and expand the dangerous and unregulated market of intoxicating hemp products" if it gave a safe harbor for chemically produced cannabinoids without rigorous testing, tracking and age gating.
Speakers also presented data on the agricultural scale of U.S. hemp production: Harris noted that U.S. hemp acreage has fallen sharply since 2019 (from roughly 160,000 acres in 2019 to about 22,000 acres in 2023) and that Ohio planted about 170 acres of hemp in 2023 and harvested roughly 120 acres. He used those numbers to argue intoxicating hemp in retail outlets is not primarily from large Ohio farms but often from imported material and lab conversions.
The committee asked witnesses to provide draft regulatory language and testing standards. Several industry witnesses favored preserving a regulated retail channel for low‑dose, tested hemp beverages (SB 86-style), while urging the General Assembly to close the synthetic conversion and spray‑on product loopholes that have flooded convenience stores and gas stations.
No vote was taken; the committee requested additional technical language from stakeholders.
