Ohio hemp-industry witnesses tell Senate committee SB 86 would shut out small businesses and push consumers to unregulated markets

Industry owners, medical professionals and trade groups told the Senate General Government Committee that Senate Bill 86, which proposes limits and new handling of potentially intoxicating hemp products, would devastate many legitimate Ohio hemp businesses and reduce consumer access to tested products.

The bill’s sponsors — Sen. Mark Huffman and Sen. Wilkin — brought the measure to a third hearing. Testimony turned heavily to how the proposed THC-per-serving and per-package limits would interact with commonly sold “full spectrum” hemp products and whether the bill’s approach would move many products into the regulated recreational dispensary system.

Why it matters: Witnesses representing manufacturers, retailers and grocers said SB 86’s numeric caps and the plan to shift sales into the marijuana dispensary framework would cut out out-of-state manufacturers and local small businesses that rely on retail channels, while doing little to stop bad actors who produce synthetic cannabinoids or illicit products.

Business owners described the effect in concrete terms. Robert McClure, owner of SunMed Your CBD Store in Centerville and a U.S. Marine veteran, said his 3,000-milligram full-spectrum tincture contains “approximately 2.5 milligrams of THC per serving” and is a 30-day supply. “Senate Bill 86 … would put myself and many others who are doing it right out of business,” McClure said. He and other retail owners emphasized in-store education, third-party testing and age-check protocols as consumer-safety tools.

James Higdon, co-founder of Cornbread Hemp, told the committee he sells into more than 30 Ohio stores and that the bill’s proposed restrictions could prompt a dormant commerce clause challenge if out-of-state products were effectively excluded. “Hemp products are legal under federal law,” Higdon said, and forcing hemp into dispensaries “would prevent out-of-state manufacturers like Cornbread from doing business in Ohio.”

Science, regulation and enforcement: Dr. JJ Coombs, who identified himself as a doctoral-trained pharmaceutical scientist and CEO of analytical testing companies, urged “clear and sensible regulation” that protects consumers without destroying the legitimate market. He and other witnesses described robust manufacturer practices — batch testing, chain-of-custody procedures and traceability from farm to sale — and asked the committee to craft targeted rules to remove unapproved synthetic compounds rather than broadly shifting products into the dispensary system.

Opposition and alternative proposals: The Ohio Grocers Association, represented by President Kristen Mullins, asked the committee to favor age restrictions, labeling rules and testing requirements and expressed concern that classifying many hemp products as dispensary-only would drive them into the illicit market. Multiple testifiers urged the committee to focus on banning synthetic cannabinoids and to adopt a registration, testing and childproof-packaging regime for hemp-derived products.

Legal and operational issues: Attorney Don Wirtschafter, who described decades of experience in legal cannabis, said many novel cannabinoid products are already illegal and that enforcement — resourcing state agencies to remove adulterated or misbranded items — could address the problem without eliminating legitimate hemp commerce. MAG Industries counsel Mari Martin described regulatory approaches used in other states (West Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina) and warned that California-style dispensary-only regimes can produce high prices and sustain black markets.

Consumer-format concerns and carve-outs: Several witnesses stressed the difference between topicals and ingestibles. Senator Mora asked for clarification about oils and creams; committee staff clarified on the record that the bill as drafted would not regulate some noningestible oils and topicals, and the chair affirmed that carve-out during testimony.

Committee process: The hearing included dozens of in-person proponent, opponent and interested-party testimonies; the committee did not record a vote on SB 86 at this hearing. Witnesses requested a measured regulatory approach — age restrictions, testing, product registration, and a focus on synthetic adulterants — rather than wholesale reassignment of products to the marijuana dispensary system.