Two reported serious health events, a closed dispensary and unanswered questions about Ohio cannabis vapes
This article reflects information publicly available as of September 11, 2026. The investigation is ongoing, and later findings may change what is known. MedicateOH has reached out to DCC about this matter but they have not yet responded.
Two serious adverse health events are under investigation involving products Ohio cannabis regulators believe may have been purchased from Herbal Wellness Center, a cannabis dispensary in Jackson. MedicateOH reported about it on Monday.
While there is plenty of speculation, as of September 11, the public still does not know exactly what was purchased, when it was purchased or whether a cannabis product contributed to what happened.
Before this becomes another argument about the safety of cannabis, it is a story about people. My first concern is for those involved and the people close to them. I am sorry they are going through something serious enough to prompt a state investigation. They deserve care, privacy and honest answers.
Ohio consumers deserve answers too. A legal dispensary has closed temporarily, certain product lines have been quarantined and samples have been submitted for additional testing. According to the company that operates the dispensary, the products had already passed Ohio’s required laboratory testing.[1]
So what happened, and what does “passed testing” actually tell us?
What happened in Jackson?
The initial public account came from Vext Science, the company that owns and operates Herbal Wellness Center. On September 4, Vext announced that the Ohio Division of Cannabis Control was investigating two serious adverse health events involving people who may have purchased products from the Jackson dispensary.[1]
According to the public statement released by Vext, the Division of Cannabis Control contacted the company about the investigation and asked it to close the Jackson store temporarily. Vext agreed to the closure, provided product samples for independent testing and voluntarily quarantined certain product lines across its Ohio retail and manufacturing operations.[1]
Vext said it had not received enough information about the people, purchases, products or circumstances involved to independently determine whether either event was connected to one of its products. The company also said the quarantined inventory had previously passed mandated testing by state-licensed laboratories.[1]
On September 10, Signal Statewide reported that VAPEN-branded cartridge products were on what Vext described as a precautionary hold while the laboratory review continued. A Division of Cannabis Control spokesperson told Signal that follow-up testing on a sample from the same product lot as one purchased by a patient had not detected harmful contaminants. Additional testing was continuing.[2]
That result provides information about the sample and the tests performed. It does not, by itself, determine what caused either medical event.
Signal also reported that a person died at a nearby emergency room during the same general period. An investigator with the Jackson County Coroner’s Office said an autopsy was pending and that the office did not know whether the death was related to the product investigation. As of September 11, I had not found a public autopsy result or an official statement connecting that death to a cannabis product.[2]
Online discussion has pointed to a VAPEN cartridge described as Strawberry Kiwi. I am naming it because consumers are already discussing it and because I am trying to locate people who purchased it. As of September 11, no official statement has come from the Division of Cannabis Control identifying that cartridge, the flavor or any particular batch as the cause of either adverse event.
A product discussed online and a product officially connected to an event by investigators are not the same thing. The information circulating may eventually prove accurate, partly accurate or inaccurate. Right now, it remains unverified.
What still needs to be answered?
More information is needed before anyone outside the investigation can responsibly explain what happened. Questions include:
- Which products are investigators examining?
- Which batches or lots are involved?
- When and where were the products purchased?
- Which laboratory originally tested them?
- What tests were performed?
- What kind of independent testing is being conducted now?
- Are investigators retesting the oil or examining unopened cartridges from the same batch?
- Are they reviewing manufacturing and sourcing records?
- Are they inspecting the cartridge hardware?
- Are they studying what the completed device produces when it is heated?
- Have regulators received similar reports involving the same product or lot?
- If a substance is found during medical testing or an autopsy, what evidence would connect it to the exact product involved?
- What medical history, other substances, timing or alternative explanations must investigators consider?
If a vape cartridge is involved, investigators could be looking at several parts of the product. These include the cannabis material, extraction and formulation process, oil, added ingredients, cartridge materials, heating element, power source and the aerosol produced when the device is used.
Connecting a medical event to one specific product may require more than finding THC or another chemical in the body. Investigators may also need the cartridge, packaging, batch information, purchase records, medical findings, witness accounts and comparison testing from the same product lot.
The public does not know which of those records or samples investigators have.
There may be legitimate reasons some information cannot be released while an investigation is active, including medical privacy. Consumers still need timely and accurate product information when it can responsibly be shared. They should not have to sort through unverified online claims to understand whether a product they purchased is affected.
What does “passed testing” mean?
Ohio law requires licensed laboratories to test medical and adult-use cannabis for potency, homogeneity and contamination and to prepare reports of their findings.[3]
The Division of Cannabis Control publishes limits for specified pesticides, residual solvents, heavy metals, mycotoxins and microbial contaminants.[4] Ohio also requires a Certificate of Analysis for each batch or lot submitted for state-required testing.[5]
That certificate must identify the testing laboratory, originating licensee, product, batch or lot number, testing dates and required tests. It must show whether the sample passed or failed each test and include cannabinoid potency and a photograph of the sample received by the laboratory.[5]
These testing requirements matter. Laboratory testing can identify specified contaminants, confirm potency and help prevent noncompliant batches or lots from reaching dispensary shelves. However, “passed testing” is not a promise that every possible safety question has been answered. It means a sample was analyzed using particular methods for particular substances or characteristics and met the applicable requirements.
A result can tell us what was examined. It does not necessarily answer questions that were outside the scope of the testing.
Ohio also requires processors to document all ingredients used in each product lot. For vaporization products, processors must record the vendor name, part number and lot identifier for the vaporization units used with each lot of vaporization solution.[10]
This distinction matters. A company is not permitted to hide an ingredient simply because it may not be included in routine testing. But a routine testing panel cannot automatically identify every possible chemical.
An undeclared or misidentified ingredient, a contaminated supply, a substance outside the required testing panel or a compound produced during heating could theoretically leave questions that the original laboratory result does not answer. That does not mean any of those things happened in Jackson. It explains why investigators need to examine more than just the original Certificate of Analysis.
A vape is more than cannabis oil
A cannabis vape is not just cannabis. It is a manufactured consumer product that combines cannabis material, processing, formulation, hardware, electricity and heat.
Cannabis must be grown, harvested, dried and stored. Plant material may then be extracted and concentrated. The extract can be formulated into vape oil, combined with other ingredients, placed inside manufactured hardware and stored until it reaches a consumer. When the consumer activates the heating element, the device produces an aerosol that is inhaled.
Testing the oil can answer important questions about it. It does not automatically answer every question about the ingredients, cartridge materials, heating element or resulting aerosol.
A 2024 study published in the Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry examined liquids from unused legal and illicit cannabis vaping devices. Researchers reported finding metal-bearing particles in some samples, including particles containing lead, nickel, zinc and copper. They also reported differences among samples, including products from the same production lot.[6]
That study did not examine VAPEN cartridges or anything connected to Jackson. It does not tell us whether metals played any role in the events under investigation. The study included products from legal and illicit sources, and its findings should not be used to judge either market as a whole.
It shows why a completed cartridge can present different testing questions from the cannabis extract by itself.
A 2021 study published in RSC Advances examined aerosols produced from THC and terpene mixtures under laboratory conditions. Researchers measured volatile organic compounds and reported that terpene content and operating conditions affected the resulting emissions.[7]
That study also has no direct connection to Jackson. It provides another example of why testing the contents of a cartridge and examining what comes out of a heated device are not necessarily the same thing.
Botanical terpenes and other formulation ingredients raise additional questions about source, purity, concentration and intended use. Something considered acceptable for one route of exposure may require different evidence when it is heated and inhaled.
That does not mean botanical terpenes caused the events in Jackson. Public information has not established that the products under investigation contained an unusual ingredient or that any ingredient caused either medical event.
The narrower question remains:
How much of the finished vape and its aerosol does Ohio’s current testing evaluate?
Before the recent events in Jackson
My interest in vape testing began before I knew about the Herbal Wellness investigation.
I am studying Cannabis Laboratory Sciences at Hocking College, and earlier this year I visited a cannabis testing facility and spoke with one of its laboratory directors. We discussed the difference between analyzing the material inside a product and examining what happens when somebody uses it.
I left with a question:
Should testing include what consumers actually inhale?
A consumer does not inhale a Certificate of Analysis. They do not inhale a sample of untouched oil sitting in laboratory glassware. They inhale the aerosol produced by a heated device.
I am not suggesting that aerosol testing would have prevented the events under investigation. We do not know whether a product contributed to either event or whether the medical events were connected to cannabis at all.
I want to know whether finished-device and aerosol testing could answer questions that existing tests do not, and whether that testing would be reliable, practical and useful.
Analytical chemists, toxicologists, laboratories, manufacturers, regulators and organizations developing cannabis standards should all be part of that conversation.
The plant is not the whole product
Cannabis has been cultivated and selectively bred for generations, but the modern cannabis industry does much more than grow the plant. People decide how cannabis is cultivated, which agricultural inputs are used, how it is harvested and stored, how it is extracted, what goes into a formulation and which materials are used to contain and deliver it.
Ohio’s good manufacturing process rule addresses raw materials, equipment, cannabis-contact surfaces, manufacturing conditions, packaging and storage. It also requires measures intended to protect cannabis from chemicals, foreign substances and other possible sources of contamination.[8]
Those controls are part of making a safer product. So are laboratory testing, traceability, responsible retail practices and clear communication with consumers.
These regulations do not mean cannabis is inherently dangerous. A cannabis vape should still be treated as the manufactured product it is.
The plant did not select the cartridge materials. It did not design the heating element, choose outside suppliers, establish the manufacturing process or write Ohio’s testing requirements. People made those decisions.
That observation does not clear cannabis or implicate the hardware, formulation or supply chain in Jackson. It gives investigators a more complete set of questions to consider.
A possible problem could theoretically enter during cultivation, extraction, formulation, cartridge manufacturing, packaging, storage or use. It could also be unrelated to the product entirely.
That is why investigators have to follow the evidence through the entire process.
What should happen when something goes wrong?
When adverse health events happen, the first priority is the health of the people involved. After that, a regulated cannabis system should be able to preserve evidence, identify products and batches, trace where they were sold, examine manufacturing and supplier records, review original laboratory results, conduct additional testing and tell consumers what they need to know.
Some of these processes appear to be underway. The store closed temporarily, products were quarantined and samples were provided for independent testing.[1] Follow-up testing had also been reported as of September 10.[2]
Now the public needs accurate updates.
If investigators determine that a cannabis product was not involved, that finding should receive the same attention as the original concern. If they identify a problem involving a contaminant, formulation, ingredient, cartridge component, manufacturing process, storage condition or testing requirement, Ohio should explain what the evidence shows and what response is appropriate.
The investigation may also end without establishing a clear connection between the health events and any product. Medical causation can be difficult to determine, and finding evidence of cannabis use does not necessarily identify the exact product or prove that it caused the medical outcome.
It is also possible for investigators to have a serious concern without being able to establish every part of the connection publicly or conclusively.
Whatever investigators find, the public explanation should separate what the evidence supports from what remains unknown.
What consumers can do
No cannabis consumer should have to become a forensic investigator every time they purchase cannabis. However, a bit of due diligence can go a long way. Packaging, receipts and batch numbers become especially important when a product is recalled or when something appears wrong.
When possible, keep the product, packaging and receipt. Photograph the label and batch information, especially if the product may not be safe to retain. Keep track of where and when it was purchased and how it was used.
If a cannabis product produces an unusual or concerning reaction, stop using it. Serious symptoms may require medical attention.
The Division of Cannabis Control maintains a product-safety page where consumers can review recalls and other safety information.[9]
Although none of these steps proves that a product caused a medical problem, they can preserve important information that may help healthcare providers, regulators, laboratories and manufacturers understand what happened.
A better response
The incident involving the Herbal Wellness Center dispensary in Jackson could easily become another all-or-nothing cannabis argument. Some people could point to two serious health events and declare cannabis dangerous. Others could point to prior laboratory testing and insist that a legal product could not possibly be involved.
As of September 11, neither conclusion was supported by the information available to the public.
Believing in the power of the plant does not mean we cannot be objective. We can investigate these issues honestly without pretending that every legal product is beyond investigation. We can also ask questions without assuming that a product or company caused an event before the evidence establishes a connection.
Legalization does not guarantee that nothing will ever go wrong. It gives us an opportunity and a responsibility to respond when something does. This means caring about the people affected while following the evidence, separating the plant from the manufacturing, formulation, hardware and testing decisions surrounding a finished product and addressing preventable problems when they are identified.
Safety questions are not limited to one part of the cannabis market. A product’s source affects what testing, labeling and traceability may be available, but the words “legal,” “traditional” or “illicit” do not answer every question about an individual product.
Whether someone purchases cannabis from a regulated dispensary or obtains it elsewhere, product quality, reliable information and careful use still matter.
Cannabis can be cultivated, processed, manufactured, tested and used responsibly. Problems can also occur at any of those stages. The outcome depends in part on the choices people and institutions make around the plant.
The incident involving Herbal Wellness Center should not become a reason to fear cannabis before the facts are known. Support for cannabis should not be a reason to dismiss reasonable safety questions either.
A passing test deserves to be understood for what it confirms. It should not be stretched into a promise that every possible substance, ingredient, hardware problem or medical outcome has been ruled out.
At the same time, an unanswered question is not proof of contamination. A theory about pesticides, botanical terpenes, cartridge hardware or an outside supplier remains a theory until evidence connects it to the product and the medical events.
The useful response is to find out what happened, communicate what the evidence supports and use reliable findings to make future products and systems safer.
Does this investigation change whether you would purchase a vape cartridge? Does it change what you look for when shopping at an Ohio dispensary?
Those are the questions I want Ohio cannabis consumers to help answer.
How you can help
Did you purchase a VAPEN cartridge described online as Strawberry Kiwi or another VAPEN cartridge from Herbal Wellness Center in Jackson?
If you still have the cartridge, receipt or original packaging, I am looking for photographs showing:
- The product name
- Batch or lot numbers
- Production, packaging or expiration dates
- Purchase date
- Laboratory or testing information
- Other identifying information printed on the label
Personal information will be removed before anything is shared.
Having one of these products does not mean it is unsafe or connected to the Jackson investigation. I am trying to document what consumers purchased and what information was provided with it.
Sources and reporting notes
[1] Vext Science, “Vext Provides Operational Update on Jackson, Ohio Dispensary,” September 4, 2026
[2] Signal Statewide, “Ohio Dispensary Closes After Reports of ‘Serious Adverse Health Effects’ From Vape,” September 10, 2026
[3] Ohio Revised Code Section 3796.21, Laboratory Testing Requirements
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-3796.21/3-20-2026
[4] Ohio Division of Cannabis Control, Contaminant Thresholds
[5] Ohio Administrative Code Rule 1301:18-4-16, Certificates of Analysis
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/rule-1301%3A18-4-16
[6] “Single Particle Analysis of Polydisperse Metal-Bearing Particles in Cannabis Vape Liquids,” Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry, 2024
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2024/ja/d4ja00045e
[7] “The Influence of Terpenes on the Release of Volatile Organic Compounds and Active Ingredients to Cannabis Vaping Aerosols,” RSC Advances, 2021
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/ra/d1ra00934f
[8] Ohio Administrative Code Rule 1301:18-4-01, Cultivator and Processor Good Manufacturing Processes
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/rule-1301%3A18-4-01
[9] Ohio Division of Cannabis Control, Product Safety
https://com.ohio.gov/divisions-and-programs/cannabis-control/product-safety/product-safety
[10] Ohio Administrative Code Rule 1301:18-6-03, Processor Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/rule-1301%3A18-6-03
