Editor’s note – This article has been updated. Since it was originally written, the Ohio Department of Agriculture has issued draft rules. Notably, they define “intoxicating hemp”, one of the primary issues originally discussed in this article. The revised article, updated on October 9, 2025, takes into account these draft rules. – Rod Kight
The Ohio governor, Mike Dewine, issued a highly anticipated executive order today banning “intoxicating hemp”. The governor declared “an adulterated consumer product emergency for consumer products containing intoxicating hemp.” Based on this declaration he ordered:
1. All consumer products containing intoxicating hemp must be removed from public display by all retailers,
2. No consumer products containing intoxicating hemp may be sold or offered for sale during the pendency of this emergency, and
3. Any retailer who possesses consumer products containing intoxicating hemp must segregate these units from other merchandise and dispossess them in a lawful manner, which includes but is not limited to returning them to the manufacturer or supplier, or holding them for disposition by law enforcement officers, officials of the Department of Agriculture, or officials of local health departments.
Enforcement of the order starts on October 14, 2025, at 12:01 a.m., and it will remain in place for ninety (90) days.
Reading the order, I’m reminded of the old adage that something not well-defined is as “clear as mud.” To non-lawyers and even to people outside the hemp industry, this order has a glaring problem – with one exception, discussed below, the order never defines what constitutes an “intoxicating hemp product”. While “intoxication” might seem to be a simple concept, it’s actually very difficult to define and enforcing it is nearly impossible. I’ve previously written here and here about why legislating hemp based on “intoxication” is a “fool’s errand”.
In other words, while the governor’s order may seem to be a broad and aggressive ban on a wide array of hemp products, the reality is much different. There is simply no objective standard to which law enforcement and regulators can use in determining what constitutes an “intoxicating hemp” product. This will make their jobs exceedingly difficult and should be a welcome relief to the anxious Ohio hemp industry that is currently feeling steamrolled.
To the extent that the order defines “intoxicating hemp”, it can only mean products containing delta-8 THC. Despite using the term “intoxicating hemp” numerous times, the only place it is actually defined is midway through the second page: “[A]ccording to data from Ohio Poison Control Centers, there have been hundreds of reports of intoxicating hemp (delta-8-THC) poisoning in Ohio over the last several years[.]” The parenthesis appear to define “intoxicating hemp” solely as “delta-8 THC”.
So what does this new Ohio “intoxicating hemp” executive order really mean? Regardless of the governor’s intentions, the only portion of the executive order that appears enforceable is that products containing delta-8 THC are banned as of October 14. Otherwise, and despite the appearance of being a comprehensive ban, things are pretty much status quo in Ohio right now.
NEW INFORMATION: Notwithstanding the above, a day after writing this blog the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) issued draft rules that define “intoxicating hemp” as: “a product that would be a hemp or a hemp product except it contains more than five-tenths of a milligram of tetrahydrocannabinol per serving or more than two milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol per package.” This is aggressive, unwarranted, and possibly illegal. A copy of the draft rules is below. A group of Ohio hemp companies have filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction. A copy of their complaint is below.
I should note that in both his press conference and his executive order the governor addresses “knock-off” products that use branding from popular non-hemp products, such as “Nerds” and “Gushers” to sell hemp products. This type of IP theft is a blight on the legitimate hemp industry, not to mention a lazy and dangerous practice. No one reading this blog is likely involved in that activity, but it needs to stop. Additionally, I always strongly encourage my clients to utilize consistent age-verification processes when selling hemp products at retail. Even in states that do not have no age requirements for hemp products, the best practice is to always limit sales to adults.
Read the executive order: at
What Does the Ohio Executive Order Banning “Intoxicating Hemp” Really Mean? [UPDATED]