[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6105695,"mediaKeyId","2785912-234ff3f11ae20a1eec2fcaf2217d1b94","parentId",2785912,"title","Heated testimony on Senate Bill 86: hemp businesses warn THC caps, dispensary carve-out would shutter small retailers","audioSeconds",3183,"startMs",643000,"endMs",3826000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2785912-234ff3f11ae20a1eec2fcaf2217d1b94&start=643&end=3826","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2785912-234ff3f11ae20a1eec2fcaf2217d1b94/thumbnail_643000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6105695/Ohio/Heated-testimony-on-Senate-Bill-86-hemp-businesses-warn-THC-caps-dispensary-carve-out-would-shutter-small-retailers","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6105695-6294fdd883e1a07df9a67ae168142cb7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168701&Signature=agm6ye8LgsZBGVg0Hsp1R5r-F~NqH3-CgDsPqTJdyE27Cr-JzilcHuaXUVVoAep0YZVrEDghxDTdf0V0bzIS6zPiC9kQhFiKOkO6AkLftup2L~l2b-0iDiwczSIhWCVGKvCE3AyDyx1ZCjtrlrbRWDtbjIedZWiZdRugb7T2SOysUTt09-MwLABQvVjhhK0TJLQPmayH8CqrhF7E6FNeUstNAQRsx3S7N~CZT2nucMBx8oujY2vsn11zE2hVUs6Sgz8BAc4t4hoMqtpgclh12slRE4vNiuxan9qFOB7eHYEiW-3ty~FYmFpmuQ8gKQB0OwvZSAqkvLxWZgHeqF3W3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Ohio Legislature","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 86 — a bill that would limit intoxicating hemp products and, in some versions discussed at the March 18 hearing, move higher‑THC hemp products into the state’s marijuana dispensary system — drew lengthy, divided testimony from business owners, manufacturers, medical professionals and industry trade groups.

Proponents of strict limits were not prominently represented in the in‑person testimony at this hearing; most of the people who spoke in person urged the committee to avoid an outright ban or a wholesale transfer of hemp products into the dispensary system and instead favored a regulatory framework that distinguishes product types, requires testing, and protects youth access.

Small-business owners who sell full‑spectrum hemp testified that the bill’s proposed caps — which several witnesses cited as 0.5 milligrams of delta‑9 THC per serving and 2 milligrams per package — would eliminate the majority of their inventory and force many local retailers out of business. Robert McClure, owner of SunMed Your CBD Store in Centerville, said his top‑selling 3,000‑mg full‑spectrum tincture contains about 2.5 mg of THC per serving in a 30‑day supply and relies on a roughly 40:1 CBD:THC ratio that he said reduces psychotropic effects. “Most of our customers are not looking to get high; they are looking for relief,” McClure said.

Manufacturers and industry groups warned of economic harm and possible legal vulnerability. James Higdon of Cornbread Hemp, a Kentucky manufacturer that sells into Ohio, said moving most hemp products into dispensaries would block out‑of‑state manufacturers from Ohio retail and could invite dormant‑commerce‑clause litigation. Dr. JJ Coombs, a pharmaceutical scientist and CEO of several hemp companies, urged “sensible, targeted regulation” that protects consumers and legitimate businesses without fueling the illicit market.

Other witnesses, including Kristen Mullins of the Ohio Grocers Association, urged regulatory controls rather than a ban. Mullins said retailers have “rigid protocols” for age‑restricted sales and supported requirements such as age‑verification, child‑resistant packaging, labeling and testing. Several witnesses urged the committee to exempt topicals and some oils — and staff later confirmed to the room that oils and creams are carved out of the bill as drafted.

Some testifiers urged the committee to focus enforcement on synthetic or lab‑created cannabinoids and other bad actors rather than broadly restricting naturally derived hemp products. Don Wirtschafter, a lawyer with industry experience, argued many synthetic additives already violate existing law and that enforcement resources for the Department of Health and Agriculture are the proper remedy rather than new tolerance limits.

Manufacturers and processors also raised technical concerns about \"work‑in‑progress\" materials used during manufacturing that can temporarily exceed federal 0.3% THC thresholds during processing; witnesses said the bill should not criminalize or disrupt lawful manufacturing practices and asked for safe‑harbor language and clear definitions of \"intoxicating.\"

Committee members asked several witnesses detailed questions about product formats, testing, consumer behavior and whether stricter limits would simply push consumers to unregulated online markets or to dispensaries. Senator Mora asked staff to clarify whether oils and creams were affected; House staff confirmed the bill as drafted did not regulate oils and topicals.

No final action or vote on SB 86 was taken at the hearing. Several witnesses said they expect a regulatory compromise and asked to work with legislators on an alternative that would preserve consumer access, public safety protections and a pathway for legitimate hemp licensees to operate in Ohio.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Ohio Senate General Government Committee - 2-18-2025","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 86 drew extensive testimony from hemp retailers, manufacturers and medical professionals who warned that proposed per‑serving and per‑container delta‑9 THC limits and proposals to move products into marijuana dispensaries would close many small hemp stores and drive consumers to unregulated channels.","taxTitle","General Government, Senate, Committees, Legislative, Ohio","taxId",37387,"location","Ohio","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6105700,"Senate committee adopts substitute to bar certain ‘foreign adversaries’ from buying protected Ohio property",532,110000,642000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2785912-234ff3f11ae20a1eec2fcaf2217d1b94&start=110&end=642","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2785912-234ff3f11ae20a1eec2fcaf2217d1b94/thumbnail_110000.jpg","/articles/6105700/Ohio/Senate-committee-adopts-substitute-to-bar-certain-foreign-adversaries-from-buying-protected-Ohio-property","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6105700-adf51d62299882c2d3b78ccf25607434/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168701&Signature=n8KYYUw78fTGuNlg-f5mfyRDMVXnJ1M20sGk48tkCwK3JVcUDUg6mWkEq0s5hjcFPZjS7901ZH4FC7iEmpTW5eSy4CCIDzJiWLZ64TpbVPrXuMjsLPPH-iAs9NqELmeb4G6Z3Rt2uO7Z-f1YTBeXkP-lkuoAjTr7CR-~1qojJHpyWtbaR44PklVMiVcmuvFlZVsAHOiXFhSDVMXyRBvdXvuZaZ9~-p5Y1qPdJ-HmBqHUbUZl37Mf1giR0UjPk2eA9WyQs81wnKEFsELk1ovriApup13rccltX347TdKzHngTuzUjwP09IJ0yyX8-N5Y5Y4sKzzXu7PhJxnufUCySzw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate General Government Committee on March 18 adopted a substitute to Senate Bill 88, the Ohio Property Protection Act, adding a prohibition and a disclosure about purchases of certain \"protected property\" by persons or organizations tied to countries the secretary of state deems a threat to agricultural production, critical infrastructure, security or the military defense of Ohio or the United States.

The substitute, moved and adopted without objection, would also state that a brokerage has no duty to determine whether a purchaser or seller is subject to that prohibition. Committee members then heard proponent testimony focused on protecting Ohio farmland from foreign ownership.

Proponents told the committee foreign ownership is an emerging concern for Ohio agriculture. Evan Coates of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation said Ohio has lost nearly 300,000 acres of farmland in the past five years and that land taken out of production is unlikely to return to productive cropland after development. “Without real time data it is impossible to understand the true threat,” Coates said, and he urged the General Assembly to consider rural planning and stronger federal reporting on foreign ownership.

Harrison Siders of State Armor Action also testified in favor of the bill, describing it as a state-level countermeasure to what his organization characterized as an expanding national security and food-security risk from certain foreign-linked purchasers. Siders referred to public reporting about land purchases near military installations and cited the 2017 Chinese national intelligence law in arguing that some Chinese commercial actors could be compelled to act at Beijing’s direction.

Committee members asked for additional data during questioning. Senator DeMora asked Coates how much of the recent farmland loss was due to foreign nationals; Coates said he did not have a precise breakdown but offered to provide numbers to the chair. Coates and other witnesses repeatedly cited the 2018 U.S. Department of Agriculture ag census and federal reporting as relevant context.

No opponent testimony was received in person at this hearing. The committee concluded the second hearing of SB 88 after the in-person testimony, having adopted the substitute earlier in the session.

What’s next: The committee took no final vote on the underlying bill beyond adopting the substitute; proponents said they would provide additional data requested by senators. The committee did not announce a floor date or reported vote on the underlying measure at the close of the hearing.","The Senate General Government Committee adopted a substitute to Senate Bill 88, the Ohio Property Protection Act, adding a disclosure and a prohibition that would bar purchases of certain protected property by persons or entities connected to countries the secretary of state designates as threats.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6105690,"Ranked choice ban draws wide public debate; elections officials warn of technical hurdles",6306,3833000,10139000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2785912-234ff3f11ae20a1eec2fcaf2217d1b94&start=3833&end=10139","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2785912-234ff3f11ae20a1eec2fcaf2217d1b94/thumbnail_3833000.jpg","/articles/6105690/Ohio/Ranked-choice-ban-draws-wide-public-debate-elections-officials-warn-of-technical-hurdles","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6105690-c96b0e09e5cb694cf69fbff18168cb78/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168701&Signature=EwUmF-KzDIiEvvEHtWv4~o-8bAt7k0GebZcnTziuSFuj0j-o3VZ~y46~RtBxpyhkyZNM4GwbbAUc5ChFhurKOwFl~IRexvjYkTcztYcfl6uHUhyNKlz~KfkRIQwou-GQ6pi22LPbe4BrsfVtrXBhb7w3rEQFmqmxUTwzC7WLNU1FpYMJW7IzHSoSIkI3OXjn3jPSPwu5tgrLo0YyvjpmEg7oOvPwFxSYn5hKqY-GgrUy2WJPzZZNBCbhWp9Yoc4u0Yrt3496b6yRxS5Ka0qOHhemkhC9luFQPh53fZTaDBUhL-o30z163f45IkfqDy6MIFF6-fHIZBfYzN0eRe-gJA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee’s third hearing on Senate Bill 63 — legislation that would prohibit or restrict ranked choice voting (RCV) in Ohio — drew dozens of proponents and opponents, a long panel of municipal leaders and election experts, and sharp disagreement over technical feasibility and local control.

Anthony Perlotti, director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, testified that the county is neutral on whether RCV should be adopted but raised technical and statutory concerns about conducting ranked elections with Ohio’s currently certified voting systems. “To the best of my knowledge, none of the five voting systems currently certified in Ohio are able to execute a ranked choice voting election,” Perlotti said, adding that counties would need software and equipment changes and that questions about certification, tabulation, recounts and the certification timeline would have to be resolved well in advance of any election.

Proponents of RCV said the system increases voter choice, reduces polarization by encouraging broader campaigning and can be implemented without prohibitive cost. Several witnesses described jurisdictions where RCV was adopted successfully and pointed to studies showing increased turnout and voter satisfaction. Supporters urged that home‑rule municipalities be allowed to experiment with RCV and cautioned against a statewide prohibition.

Opponents, including organized groups from outside the state and some local residents, argued RCV is complex, can lead to ballot exhaustion (where ballots no longer count in later rounds), and may delay final results. Witnesses cited recent ballot‑counting issues in other jurisdictions and warned of potential litigation and administrative confusion if RCV were implemented without uniform statewide planning.

The hearing featured a mix of local elected officials, longtime poll workers and national advocates. Proponent speakers included local council members and charter review commissioners who said their communities carefully considered RCV at the local level and wished to retain the option. Opponents included policy groups that urged the General Assembly to bar RCV statewide; one witness recommended placing a ban in statute or on the statewide ballot.

Committee members repeatedly asked how implementation would work in practice. Perlotti and other elections officials said implementing RCV statewide could require moving to a single certified statewide voting system or a coordinated upgrade process; they estimated substantial costs and warned that reporting ranked rounds may not be available on election night under current infrastructure. Supporters pointed to recent software advances and examples from other states where vendors supported RCV through existing certified equipment or routine upgrades.

No vote on the bill was taken at the hearing. Testimony demonstrated a sharp policy choice between safeguarding uniform election administration and preserving local control as a laboratory for democratic reforms.","Senate Bill 63, which would ban or restrict ranked choice voting (RCV) in Ohio and penalize localities that adopt it, generated broad public testimony both for and against. County election officials cautioned that existing certified voting systems and Ohio law would make implementing RCV without a substantial equipment and software upgrade","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Heated testimony on Senate Bill 86: hemp businesses warn THC caps, dispensary carve-out would shutter small retailers

Senate committee adopts substitute to bar certain ‘foreign adversaries’ from buying protected Ohio property

Ranked choice ban draws wide public debate; elections officials warn of technical hurdles