COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio’s prohibition on intoxicating hemp products remains blocked by temporary court orders, extending a legal and political dispute that has pitted hemp businesses against the state’s licensed marijuana industry. The conflict was the focus of a Monday press conference at the Ohio Statehouse organized by Ohioans for Cannabis Choice. Wesley Bryant, whose company 420 Craft Beverages sells hemp-derived drinks, said Senate Bill 56 unfairly targets businesses that were operating before the law took effect. “Every regulated business in Ohio should be able to expect the same basic thing from its government: tell us what the rules are, follow those rules yourself, and apply them consistently,” Bryant said. He added that legal costs are diverting money that could otherwise support employees. Senate Bill 56 prohibits intoxicating hemp products, including beverages and other items containing compounds that can produce a high. But state regulators have allowed licensed marijuana dispensaries to sell products with THC concentrations above the limit established by the law. The Division of Cannabis Control says that difference reflects Ohio’s voter-approved marijuana framework. Jamie Crawford, speaking for the division, said voters established a 90% potency standard in a 2023 ballot initiative and that processors had already made, and dispensaries had already been selling, products at that level. The division allowed those products to remain available while new rules were being developed because they had already gone through the agency’s product reviews and testing requirements. The state is scheduled to formally raise the THC limit to 90% in October, but dispensaries have been permitted to sell qualifying products at that potency during the rulemaking process. The Ohio Cannabis Coalition, which represents marijuana businesses, rejects the claim that the state is treating the industries unfairly. David Bowling, the group’s executive director, said licensed marijuana businesses must follow potency limits, testing requirements, product standards and supply-chain oversight. “The only double standard happening in Ohio is intoxicating hemp products being sold outside Ohio’s regulated system with no testing, licensing, taxation, age restrictions or enforcement to keep Ohioans safe,” Bowling said. Peter Nischt, chair of the coalition’s policy committee, said hemp companies are seeking access to a market that Ohio lawmakers have placed inside a tightly controlled marijuana program. He described intoxicating hemp, at its most benign, as “just unregulated marijuana” and said businesses that want to sell marijuana can pursue licenses under the state’s existing rules. Hemp operators remain in business under temporary court orders while the lawsuits proceed. Bryant also pointed to a recent federal decision to delay implementation of a nationwide ban on intoxicating hemp by one month, saying the delay could give Congress time to create a regulatory system rather than eliminate the industry outright. Bryant said the federal shift may signal bipartisan interest in protecting hemp businesses. Nischt disputed that interpretation, saying the proposals being discussed would amount to legalizing marijuana under another name and that he sees little evidence Congress intends to do so. For Ohio consumers and businesses, the legal uncertainty leaves two competing systems operating side by side: licensed dispensaries subject to state testing and oversight, and hemp businesses arguing that their products should be regulated rather than prohibited. The courts’ temporary orders mean that dispute will continue while lawmakers, regulators and federal officials consider what rules should govern intoxicating hemp products.