Ohio’s new law is already in effect. South Carolina’s Senate went with a narrow regulate-it-don’t-ban-it model. Texas is about to wipe smokable hemp off shelves while squeezing the rest with tougher rules and steeper fees. Same plant, same loophole, three very different state responses.
The hemp fight did not move in one direction this month. It split three ways.
In Ohio, lawmakers let a ban on intoxicating hemp take hold after opponents failed to qualify a referendum for the ballot. In South Carolina, senators decided not to ban hemp THC outright, but to shove it into a much tighter retail box. And in Texas, regulators are about to take aim at one of the market’s hottest categories (smokable hemp and THCA flower) while leaving edibles standing under heavier restrictions and much higher costs.
That distinction matters. Too often, these stories get flattened into one generic “hemp crackdown” narrative, as if every state is doing the same thing with slightly different branding. They’re not. What’s happening instead is more revealing: states are choosing their own model for how much hemp they can tolerate, where they want it sold and which version of the market they’re willing to let survive.
Ohio chose the blunt instrument. South Carolina chose containment. Texas chose to go after smokables first.
Ohio
Ohio is the clearest example of a state deciding the intoxicating hemp experiment has gone far enough.
As reported by the Statehouse News Bureau, the campaign to block Senate Bill 56 fell short of the signatures needed to put the law before voters. That cleared the way for the measure to take effect on March 20, and outlets including the Ohio Capital Journal reported that the new law bans intoxicating hemp products, including THC and CBD beverages.
That is not …
Read More
Author: Javier Hasse / High Times
