To amend sections 928.01, 928.06, and 3719.01 and to enact sections 930.01, 930.02, 930.03, 930.04, 930.05, 930.06, 930.07, 930.08, 930.09, 930.10, 930.11, 930.12, 930.13, 930.14, 930.15, 930.16, 930.17, and 930.99 of the Revised Code to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and sale of inhalable and ingestible hemp products.
HB 198 would create a new regulatory framework in Ohio for hemp-derived consumable products intended for human ingestion or inhalation, including products containing hemp-derived cannabinoids such as CBD, delta-8 THC, delta-10 THC, THCA, and HHC. The bill declares an intent to establish uniform statewide rules for manufacturing, distribution, and retail sales, and directs the Department of Agriculture to administer and enforce the new chapter. It requires licenses for manufacturers, distributors, and retailers; annual product registration; product testing by independent laboratories; detailed labeling; and child-resistant packaging standards for most products. It also sets age-21 sales restrictions, bans sales near schools, limits certain marketing practices, and prohibits direct shipment of hemp-derived consumable beverages to consumers.
The bill would amend existing hemp and controlled-substance definitions to distinguish hemp, hemp products, and hemp-derived consumable products from marihuana under Ohio law. It creates a dedicated hemp program fund to receive fees, fines, and other money associated with hemp regulation, and authorizes the Department of Agriculture to inspect facilities, sample products, seize noncompliant items, and report violations annually to the General Assembly. The bill also includes franchise protections for manufacturers and distributors, workplace carve-outs preserving employer drug policies, and a limited exemption for certain small beverage manufacturers.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is regulatory and public-safety oriented rather than permissive. Even though no committee transcript or recorded votes are available, the structure of the proposal suggests an effort to bring order to a market that is already operating in Ohio, while emphasizing consumer protection, youth access prevention, product testing, and labeling transparency. The bill’s detailed compliance requirements indicate a strong preference for state oversight and standardization.
The main points of contention likely involve the scope of regulation, especially for businesses that currently sell hemp-derived intoxicating products, and the practical effect of licensing, testing, and packaging rules on manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and food service operations. Restrictions on products near schools, limits on marketing that could appeal to minors, and the prohibition on direct-to-consumer beverage shipping may also be disputed by industry stakeholders. The bill’s treatment of hemp-derived cannabinoids that can produce intoxicating effects, while still remaining outside the marihuana definition, is another likely area of debate.
HB 198 would add a new Chapter 930 to the Revised Code and amend Chapters 928 and 3719 to create a separate legal regime for hemp-derived consumable products. It would impose licensing, testing, labeling, registration, inspection, and enforcement requirements on manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and certain food service operations, while also changing statutory definitions so these products are treated differently from marihuana and other controlled substances. The bill would directly affect hemp businesses, testing laboratories, schools, employers, and the Department of Agriculture, and would establish civil and criminal penalties for violations.
No committee testimony or votes are provided, so there is no recorded public debate to summarize. Based on the bill’s text, the measure appears to be driven by concern over product safety, youth access, and inconsistent market practices, with a clear preference for tighter state regulation. The proposal is likely to be viewed favorably by regulators and public-safety advocates, while industry participants may view it as burdensome or restrictive.
Likely points of contention include whether the Department of Agriculture should regulate intoxicating hemp products at all, how strict the testing and labeling rules should be, and whether the bill’s age-21, school-zone, and marketing restrictions are too broad. Manufacturers and retailers may object to licensing fees, annual registration, child-resistant packaging, and limitations on direct sales, while food service operators may object to restrictions on adding hemp products to food or alcoholic beverages. The franchise provisions and the small-beverage-manufacturer exception may also draw scrutiny from different segments of the hemp industry.