Speaker 1: Do you want to be an amernicanity.
Speaker 2: Here we go, it's a Scott's Low Show Monday more
Speaker 2: seven hundred w Here we go from the Big Bengals
Speaker 2: win yesterday, enjoying life.
Speaker 1: What is not to love about this time of the year.
Speaker 2: I got something for you because it's all not you know,
Speaker 2: happy holidays, even though that's most of the show today.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you caught this, but seven on Friday,
Speaker 2: Ohio Governor Mike DeWine shockingly line item vetoed a provision
Speaker 2: of the state CB law which will now effectively ban
Speaker 2: the sale of something a lot of o'himands enjoy, and
Speaker 2: that would be the HEMP derived THC beverages that you
Speaker 2: can get in bars and restaurants and other similar products
Speaker 2: from general retellers in state, not necessarily carry outs and
Speaker 2: Lifebo're talking about bars, and we're talking about bars that
Speaker 2: have spent a fortune to try and stay alive because
Speaker 2: the craft industry is fading and THC and fused beverages
Speaker 2: are the future, and they've been embraced by millions of Ohios.
Speaker 2: And with one stroke with pen, the Governor overrode that
Speaker 2: and the band means these beverages that millions and enjoy
Speaker 2: can no longer be sold in locations like convenience stores, bars, breweries,
Speaker 2: or general stores, and these restrictions will take effect in
Speaker 2: mid March. I cannot believe that it's come to this.
Speaker 2: Ohio State Senator Steve Hopman from Just the Tipsity, joining
Speaker 2: the show this morning on seven hundred WW Steve, I
Speaker 2: wish I wish you a good morning. It doesn't feel
Speaker 2: like a good morning based on what feels like a
Speaker 2: good part of your life's work here.
Speaker 1: I mean, you've spent so much time on Senate.
Speaker 2: Bill fifty six being the author of it, and this
Speaker 2: is like the fifteenth time we've had this conversation about
Speaker 2: stuff getting changed.
Speaker 3: Well, you're right now, we're done with it. There's a
Speaker 3: couple of House members that have already introduced some other
Speaker 3: things that they'd like to see change. But overall it
Speaker 3: was a good bill. But unfortunately the governor saw differently
Speaker 3: on this one subject.
Speaker 2: Did he explain his reasoning why and please just don't
Speaker 2: tell me because it's about the children.
Speaker 3: Yes, So whenever he line item vetos, he has a
Speaker 3: you know the reason for doing it, And basically he
Speaker 3: said that there would be confusion because you know, in
Speaker 3: the bill, you know, we got rid of gummies, different
Speaker 3: things like that, especially for children. So we got rid
Speaker 3: of that, but then we carved out the beverages until
Speaker 3: November because we're following the federal law. And he said
Speaker 3: there would be too much confusion with the beverages being
Speaker 3: outlawed before the you know, after the other one. So
Speaker 3: we're just going to outlaw everything all at once in
Speaker 3: ninety days.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, if it's the federal legislation is the root
Speaker 2: cause of these problems, and giving this Congress just banned
Speaker 2: certain THT products when you know, they reopened the government,
Speaker 2: why did we need Why would the governor have to
Speaker 2: act more aggressively than federal rock requires rather than just
Speaker 2: simply mirroring federal standards.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean in the bill we did because we
Speaker 3: in Ohio wanted to get rid of the gummies and
Speaker 3: stuff that underage kids were getting. And we were doing
Speaker 3: that in ninety days. I'm not sure that there would
Speaker 3: be confusion among the consumers, at least for the you know,
Speaker 3: over the next year. It would give people to finish
Speaker 3: their you know, whatever allotment that they currently have. But
Speaker 3: also in the bill, it would allow them to continue
Speaker 3: to process. We were at five milligrams, so that was
Speaker 3: you know, your six percent, like a six percent beer,
Speaker 3: but would allow was going to allow Ryan Geist and
Speaker 3: fifty West to process at ten or twenty so that
Speaker 3: they could sell out a state, make money, keep people
Speaker 3: employed that has gone away in ninety days. Also, does the.
Speaker 2: Governor realize how many millions of Ohioans not only enjoy this,
Speaker 2: but but how many thousands of people of employees? Does
Speaker 2: he understand the business dynamic here?
Speaker 3: I you know that that would have to be a
Speaker 3: question for him. I understanding in the state of Ohio
Speaker 3: this year it is a seventy five million dollar business,
Speaker 3: mostly in the craft industries. You know, recently Cores and
Speaker 3: Anheuser Busch is starting to get into the industry. But
Speaker 3: basically it's a something that you find in the craft.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and as I talked to purveyors of craft beer,
Speaker 2: the taste for craft beer has ebbed.
Speaker 1: I mean, we hit a peak.
Speaker 2: Everything has a business cyclist, you know, Steve Hoffman, and
Speaker 2: now we're starting to be like the post you know,
Speaker 2: select beer kind of thing. A lot of people still enjoy.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's going to go away. But it's
Speaker 2: pretty clear that people are switching to other beverages. Seltzers
Speaker 2: are big, and certainly THC beverages are big too. So
Speaker 2: my concern is you don't get people that option. Do
Speaker 2: they go back to drinking craft beer? Probably not, They'll
Speaker 2: find something else. I would imagine that these breweries aren't selling.
Speaker 2: Doesn't that mean jobs and some of these breweries close?
Speaker 3: Huh? I would think so. You know, you know, the
Speaker 3: statistics I see is that people under thirty drink more
Speaker 3: of the THHC drinks than they do than they do beer.
Speaker 3: And you know, seventy five million dollar industry in the
Speaker 3: state of Ohio, that seems to be a good number
Speaker 3: of jobs that ultimately would be lost. And do they
Speaker 3: go to beer or something else or do they just
Speaker 3: they want the THCHC effect and do they just start
Speaker 3: smoking it? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Right and kind of cut the middle man out entirely.
Speaker 2: And you know what, I cringe every time. And you know,
Speaker 2: Mike the Wine is a Republican, and I hear about
Speaker 2: how Republicans are pro business, pro small business, pro growth,
Speaker 2: proll is and they do things like this that completely
Speaker 2: even lead me scratching my head. Is Mike the Wine,
Speaker 2: turning his back on what used to be conservative values.
Speaker 2: There has always been this way.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I again, you need to talk to
Speaker 3: him about it, but I think he is more concerned
Speaker 3: about safety of people and health of people, and I
Speaker 3: believe that's in conflict of of what other people are
Speaker 3: thinking that these things do for him.
Speaker 2: Mike the Wine is a lawyer. He's not a physician. You,
Speaker 2: Steve Hoffman, are a physician. What's your physician's take on
Speaker 2: this stuff? Are people killing themselves when they sip THHD
Speaker 2: and fuse beverages?
Speaker 3: You know? I think, like any other intoxicating substance, it's
Speaker 3: within reason. So if you're within reason and you're not
Speaker 3: going out and driving after taking large quantities of them. No,
Speaker 3: I don't think we know the long term health effects
Speaker 3: of these things, but you know, the early science says,
Speaker 3: you know, it's not that bad. You know, maybe beer
Speaker 3: and whiskey in the long term might be even worse
Speaker 3: for you, but you know, no real big negative effects
Speaker 3: currently known.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that we currently know.
Speaker 2: The future is always, you know, always changes, science always improves,
Speaker 2: and we listen to that science. But at the same time,
Speaker 2: I have a definitive right by God to put whatever
Speaker 2: it is on why my body.
Speaker 1: Plenty of people.
Speaker 2: Abuse substances, food, whatever it might be. I mean, you
Speaker 2: name me something in the world and I'll find somebody
Speaker 2: who abuses it. You see that all the time in
Speaker 2: your practice, Steve, and have to deal with those kinds
Speaker 2: of things, for sure, And you see the effects of
Speaker 2: people not taking care of their bodies and neglecting their
Speaker 2: health and focusing on too many vices. And when we
Speaker 2: say that declined. But again, we all.
Speaker 1: Know that today.
Speaker 2: We know that cigarettes are carcinogen, we know that smoking
Speaker 2: is not good for you. We know about popcorn lung
Speaker 2: now with vaping and things like that. But again, you
Speaker 2: could do things in moderation, and it's fine to me.
Speaker 2: It just seems to not only be left to the
Speaker 2: adults to make a decision. Not kids, of course, but adults.
Speaker 2: And we know what we put in our bodies. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's not I don't think an exaggeration and think, okay,
Speaker 2: should there be a I don't know the size. Remember
Speaker 2: when more liberal states we're talking about banning the size
Speaker 2: of sodas, We're going to talk about regulating the fast
Speaker 2: food industry and only being allowed to get McDonald's once
Speaker 2: a month, As I mean, how far does the government go?
Speaker 2: I hear these things, and you know, damnit, I'm a
Speaker 2: grown person. I can make an informed decision is what
Speaker 2: I want to consume and put in my own body.
Speaker 2: It should not be up to the governor with the
Speaker 2: stroke of a pen to undermine that. Because I think,
Speaker 2: in your opinion on this, Steve, does this at some
Speaker 2: level go against the will of the voters. Let's not
Speaker 2: forget almost six and ten people supported recreational marijuana and
Speaker 2: Ohio we generated over seven hundred million in the first year.
Speaker 2: At what point does the legislative modification of a voter
Speaker 2: approved citizen and they should have crossed the line from
Speaker 2: reasonable regulation and define the clear will of what people want.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't disagree with that a lot of that,
Speaker 3: But the beverages had nothing to do with the ballot
Speaker 3: initiative because we're talking hemp and the ballot initiative was
Speaker 3: strictly concerning marijuana. Yeah, but you should, within reason have
Speaker 3: the right to you know, in the same for however
Speaker 3: you feel about tradum. You know, his pharmacy board last
Speaker 3: week is going to outlaw that, and many people feel
Speaker 3: that is of benefit for their own health.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's say.
Speaker 2: I mean I don't go the weave in that, but
Speaker 2: I think it's an excellent point. Stain Hoffman is creative.
Speaker 2: A lot of people know what that is. I mean
Speaker 2: I I personally don't use it. I don't really know
Speaker 2: anyone that does. It's been around from what's the substance
Speaker 2: what's a concern with cretum.
Speaker 3: Creative is something kind of like a t from East
Speaker 3: Asia that that many that that people use and they
Speaker 3: feel that it helps with anxiety and sleep and a
Speaker 3: lot of things that that that the hamp people do.
Speaker 3: But in that end, there there's a substance. The intoxicating
Speaker 3: substance is known as seven O H and it is
Speaker 3: at a very very low level, so it's really not
Speaker 3: thought to be intoxicating. But just like camp, they manufacturers
Speaker 3: will concentrate seven O H and put a large amount
Speaker 3: in there and then makes it dangerous, makes it makes
Speaker 3: it intoxicating, and and so that's uh, you know, we're
Speaker 3: you know, the pharmacy board is gonna band all of it.
Speaker 2: So but at the same time, we live in a
Speaker 2: country where you could get you know, an intoxicating marshroom
Speaker 2: tea or so some of those lines where you know,
Speaker 2: I'm a tribal ancestors been using it for for eons, right,
Speaker 2: and seemingly I don't know if there's all effects to
Speaker 2: that or not, but for some people they feel that
Speaker 2: it's therapeutic.
Speaker 3: I agree. I just you know, it's a scheduled Uh,
Speaker 3: it's not scheduled one. But he wants to make the
Speaker 3: scheduled one drugs so we can get rid of it.
Speaker 3: But there's no real scientific research, you know, a high
Speaker 3: state and you see and other highly academic places aren't
Speaker 3: really doing the research or haven't done the research to
Speaker 3: tell us this is good for you. This is what
Speaker 3: it's it's you know, this is why it's mad.
Speaker 2: The cat's catch twenty two. It's a schedule one, so
Speaker 2: they can't research it. And then they people who made
Speaker 2: us schedule one say, well there's not research. Yeah, because
Speaker 2: you made a schedule one. We can't do research on
Speaker 2: something that's that's that controlled.
Speaker 1: It's simple.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, how how about the great news from
Speaker 3: Donald Trump last week on marijuana?
Speaker 1: Really good? This is an odd game, isn't it.
Speaker 2: I mean you mentioned okay, yeah, the sistanis at initiative
Speaker 2: and sixty percent of people wanting recreacial THC marijuana. You got, Well,
Speaker 2: that doesn't this this THHC, the CBD THHG derivative liquids
Speaker 2: and the alcohol, well not alcohols, but the beverages. It's
Speaker 2: not really what the vote. But I get that argument
Speaker 2: the same time, it's I think the spirit of it
Speaker 2: is going, hey, you know what, if I can smoke THC,
Speaker 2: what is it that far reach to think that would
Speaker 2: include CBD derived beverages like this? And now that Trump
Speaker 2: is doing what he's doing, I think that's even more
Speaker 2: against what what Mike Dwaine thinks with this veto.
Speaker 3: No, I don't, I don't disagree. You know, when when
Speaker 3: Trump said that, you know, I'm going to speed up
Speaker 3: the process of making the marijuana THHC a Scheduled three
Speaker 3: drug and Schedule one. It will be great for the
Speaker 3: banking industry. We can't you know, can't bank. It's all
Speaker 3: cash business and the dispensaries and in everything. Uh. And
Speaker 3: it'll provide the ability to do scientific research and I
Speaker 3: am I'm hoping that, uh the academic institutes in the
Speaker 3: state of Ohio will jump on it and be able
Speaker 3: to go out and get federal funding to say marijuana
Speaker 3: is good for you or it's bad for you, and
Speaker 3: let's settle this for you know, what type and how
Speaker 3: and what what conditions.
Speaker 2: Steve another, by the way, that's the Ohio State Senator
Speaker 2: Steve Huffman on the show on seven hundred W LW.
Speaker 2: I'm sure you heard Mike the line shockingly line item
Speaker 2: vetoed a provision in our state CBD law. You know,
Speaker 2: the the CBD slash THHD infused beverages that a lot
Speaker 2: of people enjoy. That's spurn an entire industr that's rapidly
Speaker 2: growing as big as a craft bret beer industry. And
Speaker 2: it was I think in a few years of clips
Speaker 2: that because so many people want this stuff, might the
Speaker 2: wine ban that in Ohio. So all these companies that
Speaker 2: leaned in and invested the small brewers, the rhymegeis the
Speaker 2: fifty west of the world and others are no longer
Speaker 2: in ninety days going to be able to sell and
Speaker 2: produce that stuff. And so six thousand plus people and
Speaker 2: so six thousand small businesses alone, by the way, businesses,
Speaker 2: not people, but six thousand businesses are no longer going
Speaker 2: to be able to compete in the sphere despite the
Speaker 2: massive demand by millions of adult Ohioans that want this stuff.
Speaker 2: The other element here too, we had talked about, I
Speaker 2: think last time around Steve, about protections for housing, employment,
Speaker 2: organ donation, stuff like that.
Speaker 1: Is that been removed by the governors. That's still in there.
Speaker 3: It's still in there. Basically, those things are things that
Speaker 3: mere previous laws. I don't believe there was anything really
Speaker 3: new in there. I mean, if you're a smoker, you
Speaker 3: can be banned from an organ transplant because of scientific
Speaker 3: studies that show that you and so that's why it
Speaker 3: was the you know, the organ band is still has
Speaker 3: been included in there.
Speaker 2: Is there a connection medically, Steve, between organ donation and marijuana,
Speaker 2: Why would you be excluded from that?
Speaker 3: If I remember right, the law doesn't say that you
Speaker 3: are excluded. It says if there's a scientific basis, you
Speaker 3: can be excluded if if if they feel, hey, look
Speaker 3: if if if science shows that if you smoke marijuana
Speaker 3: and you get a liver transplant plant, your likelihood of
Speaker 3: rejection as higher. If the science is there, then we
Speaker 3: should should stick by it. But we shouldn't just totally
Speaker 3: get rid of that not based on science.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, if it's science says that you have
Speaker 2: a higher rate of not being able to get the organ,
Speaker 2: so it's kind of a waste of that pressure tree.
Speaker 1: So I kind of get that element.
Speaker 2: One of the thing I saw too was allowing police
Speaker 2: to establish probable cause during traffic stops because someone is
Speaker 2: a known user of marijuana.
Speaker 1: Is that still part of.
Speaker 3: This I can't remember, but again I think that was
Speaker 3: you know, restated from previously that you know, you know,
Speaker 3: when we initially did the medical marijuana law back in
Speaker 3: twenty sixteen, most of the drug dogs in the state
Speaker 3: were it became obsolete because when they smelled marijuana, they
Speaker 3: would have hit and they you couldn't tell if it
Speaker 3: was a llegal substance or an illegal substance, or where
Speaker 3: they derived it from. So that caused a lot of
Speaker 3: a lot of trouble. But you know, they if they
Speaker 3: still have probable cause not because you're smoking, because they
Speaker 3: feel you're impaired, they would be able to do a
Speaker 3: field sobriety test.
Speaker 2: Yeah, a lot of contradictions here. It just leads one
Speaker 2: scratching there is there any remedy here for the manufacturers
Speaker 2: and I'll try to get somebody on maybe from Ryan
Speaker 2: Guister fifty West to talk about this later on.
Speaker 1: Is this fight completely over? Could this thing the overturned?
Speaker 3: Well, in the original bill a house in the Senate
Speaker 3: and had an agreement that we would you know, the
Speaker 3: Feds are going to get rid of it in a
Speaker 3: year in November twenty six if they change things, that
Speaker 3: we would look at that and see because we didn't
Speaker 3: have time to put taxes on as regulations in the
Speaker 3: whole scheme of things, so we kept the plan was
Speaker 3: to keep it till November, so we can re look
Speaker 3: at it from that, but from that aspect and see
Speaker 3: if Governor Dwine has a different view of it. We
Speaker 3: could look at a veto override it would take two
Speaker 3: thirds of each each body. So there are some things
Speaker 3: we could reintroduce this, you know when there's a new governor.
Speaker 2: Well that won't be long, that won't be much either year,
Speaker 2: but still wrapping down production and ramping it back up.
Speaker 2: I don't know what to tell the six thousand small
Speaker 2: businesses out that have invested in this stuff when it
Speaker 2: was illegal yesterday, now it's illegal today or ninety days.
Speaker 1: I should say, Steve my head is scratching.
Speaker 2: You're you're scratching your head, I'm sure, but we'll leave
Speaker 2: it at that, and you have a merry Christmas. Thanks
Speaker 2: again for a joining the show and keep us updated
Speaker 2: and what the future holds for this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Merry Christmas to you and your family and all
Speaker 3: your listeners. You take care of Scott. Thanks against Steve.
Speaker 2: That's Ohio State Senator Steve Hoffman from just the Tips
Speaker 2: city just north of Dayton and Mike to wine again
Speaker 2: allegedly pro business. I don't know how this is pro
Speaker 2: business pro consumer because it goes against the face of
Speaker 2: the hottest growing beverage. I guess niche in the state
Speaker 2: right now, if not the country. For that manner, we
Speaker 2: don't want any part of it. Why it's about the children.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, stop seven hundred WLW