St. Louis County hearing on Bill 15 spotlights safety, taxation and whether intoxicating hemp should be regulated like marijuana

Chairwoman Days opened a Committee of the Whole hearing Sept. 9 to take public testimony on Bill 15, an ordinance that would add chapter 6.31 to the Saint Louis County code to treat intoxicating cannabinoid products derived from hemp the same as marijuana and require they be sold only in licensed dispensaries.

Sponsor Councilwoman Clancy said the measure responds to a two-tier market created by the 2018 Farm Bill that allows intoxicating hemp products to be sold in gas stations, vape shops and unlicensed stores without child-safe packaging, independent testing or enforced age checks. "If it comes from hemp and it intoxicates, it should be regulated like marijuana," she said, outlining enforcement by the County Department of Public Health modeled on the Tobacco 21 program and administrative penalties (she cited $500 for a first violation and $1,000 for subsequent violations).

Public testimony and expert witnesses emphasized competing concerns. Dr. Stephanie Sernicek, a chemist who operates a licensed manufacturing facility, told the council that chemical conversion of hemp/CBD into intoxicating cannabinoids can leave residual acids or solvents and that federal surveillance has recorded higher adverse-event rates in some hemp-derived isomers. Third‑party lab owner Christopher Ware described ISO-accredited full‑panel testing protocols his firm uses and said testing practices in the market vary widely when products are not covered by mandatory state standards.

Retail and industry representatives said many companies already test and use QR-linked certificates of analysis (COAs). Mindy Baker of Total Wine described strict in-store ID checks and a company policy of selling only low-dose beverages (10 mg per serving) in Missouri stores; beverage founders said 4–10 mg per serving is a common safety standard in their sector. Manufacturers and small-business advocates warned that a ban or a regulatory approach that mirrors dispensary licensing could put small hemp producers out of business and push sales to neighboring counties or the black market.

Speakers raised fiscal and practical implementation questions. Councilmembers asked how many additional public-health staff would be needed to enforce a local regulatory regime; the sponsor said enforcement could largely piggyback on existing Tobacco 21 staffing but acknowledged uncertainty. Industry witnesses and a licensed cannabis operator contrasted the cost and capital required to open a state-licensed dispensary (testimony cited multi-million-dollar startup costs) with the much lower capital required for unregulated storefronts.

Advocates for the regulated cannabis industry argued unlicensed sellers avoid state cannabis taxes and create an uneven playing field for licensed operators. Supporters of broader regulation, including public-safety and veterans' groups, urged local action in the absence of a state-level framework; others said statewide legislation is the preferable, uniform solution.

The chair ended the hearing at 5:30 p.m. with roughly eight invited speakers and public comment still to be heard; council members agreed to schedule an additional Committee of the Whole to complete testimony. A motion to adjourn carried by voice vote.

Next steps: the council did not vote on Bill 15; the hearing will be continued at a later Committee of the Whole for the remaining invited witnesses and public comment.