The Ohio legislature heard on Wednesday testimony against a proposed bill to make significant changes to the legalization of marijuana in Ohio, which was approved by voters back in 2023. The bill would, among other things, create new penalties for criminal offenses, remove equity programs and add additional limitations to legal products.
At a House Judiciary Committee meeting, representatives of advocacy groups and businesses, as well as local governments spoke against Rep. Brian Stewart’s proposal, HB 16 (Republican).
Stewart stated at an independent panel hearing held last month, that he would like the bill to be passed by June.
HB 160, one of the many bills that have been introduced to date in Ohio which could change voter approved marijuana laws. A bill already passed by the Senate—SB 56, from Sen. Steve Huffman (R)—contains provisions that are even more restrictive.
Reformers have said that the reform efforts are an attempt to subvert the will of the voters.
The House bill, among other things, would restrict THC to 70% in cannabis products and prohibit state regulators from changing or removing THC limitations. Under the House bill, regulators could also not approve new forms of marijuana for adult use.
The number of dispensaries in the state would be limited to 350.
It would also be illegal to possess or use cannabis which has not been purchased through a state-licensed retailer, nor grown in accordance with the law of that particular state. It would also prohibit sharing homegrown cannabis and cultivation for another person.
Advocates have said the restrictions could put consumers at risk if they don’t have receipts, original packaging or other ways to prove that they obtained their marijuana legally—or if they simply hand a joint to another adult friend at home.
Gary Daniels is the chief lobbyist of the ACLU of Ohio. He said at Wednesday’s hearing that voters can be “forgiven” if they assume any changes made by the legislators will be minimal, and only complement Issue 2, which was the ballot initiative in 2023 to legalize marijuana.
Daniels explained that “HB160 imposes a number of detrimental changes for cannabis consumers, professionals, growers, and users to undermine key aspects of Ohio’s current law enacted in your constituency.”
At worst, these modifications can be perceived as intentional, designed to kill Issue 2, he said. At the very least, the changes will make it difficult to purchase, transport, or sell cannabis in California.
Daniels focused his comments on criminal penalties, and what he described as the bill’s cynical elimination of social equity and job programs.
The measure, he said, “would make a criminal of anyone who shared a joint and gave a little cannabis to someone else for Christmas or their birthday or any other occasion.” Alcohol is not subject to the same restrictions.
Daniels noted that Daniels’s second provision to combat impaired driving was “so broad” it applied even to passengers in the rear seat of an immobile car on private property. Violations of this restriction that are repeated will result in a minimum prison sentence between 10 and 5 years.
Daniels said that the lawmakers had an opportunity to pass a legalization bill before the vote, but did not.
“I understand the ship has already sailed,” said he, “but I also have to point out: there was four months for this to be done before Issue 2. There were no bills, no hearings, no nothing with regard to tackling Issue 2 before it got on the ballot—or even saying, ‘Hey, legislators in that campaign, let’s work together.'”
Karen O’Keefe is the director of Marijuana Policy Project’s state policy. She told members of Congress that HB 160 has “so many exceptions, that they have swallowed up” legalization.
The bill, for example “removes Issue 2’s language that legalizes the use of cannabis,” O’Keefe pointed out. This needs to be reinstated.
“HB 160” also eliminates the Issue 2 language which legalizes transfer to adults of cannabis. This would be absurd, just as if you were to prohibit sharing Tylenol or a homebrewed bottle of beer. It’s important to restore this, no matter if it is homegrown or not.
The MPP is also opposed to the prohibition of marijuana from neighboring states or other sources.
O’Keefe stated that “this provision would lead to intrusive questions about where cannabis is purchased, requests for receipts and a general air of suspicion.” The same prohibition does not apply to alcohol or any other legally produced product.
The bill also allows landlords to punish tenants for vaping cannabis products inside.
O’Keefe said that Issue 2 prohibits the smoking of cigarettes in rental homes if they are prohibited by their landlord. “This is going too far.”
ACLU and MPP as well as other advocates urged legislators to restore funds for programs that promote equity and employment.
Drug Policy Alliance, for instance, has pointed out how HB 160 removes some cultivation and dispensary licences which were reserved for equity applicants.
In a submitted statement, Cat Packer wrote that “these licenses were intended to lower the barriers of entry for small businesses and to ensure communities affected by criminalization have a stake on the legal market.” By removing the licenses, HB160 will exclude Ohioans most deserving of legalization.
Packer also noted that instead of putting money toward social equity and jobs funds, local governments, substance abuse treatment and program administration—as Issue 2 had established—”HB 160 would sweep these funds into the general fund, effectively stealing millions from local governments, community health programs, and initiatives including bail, parole, sentencing reform, expungement and sealing of records, legal aid, and community policing related to marijuana and education, entrepreneurism, legal aid, youth development, violence prevention, and the arts.”
House Bill 160 “is not a small adjustment,” wrote she. The bill is “a betrayal to the public, a rollback in social justice reforms Ohioans have supported and a redistribution of cannabis laws that was intended by voters.”
Lexi Lausten of the Anderson Township Board of Township Trustees, in a submitted statement, requested that legislators “ensure funding for host community as originally approved by the voters” is included in the bill.
Lausten wrote: “Those who supported Issue 2 or local government officials that chose to approve dispensaries for adult use in their communities, did so in the knowledge they’d receive 36 percent from the 10 percent tax on cannabis sales.” This funding was intended to help communities that have legal adult-use dispensaries within their jurisdiction.
Anderson Township was expecting to receive $1,500,000 in host community fees annually. This revenue is used to supplement the General Fund of the township, the municipality said. “The General Fund has been significantly reduced since 2011, and allows us to stretch out our property tax levies to reduce our burden to taxpayers.”
A survey in March of 38 municipalities across the state found that localities are “unequivocally opposed” to the proposed changes to tax revenue allocation.
The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and other “interested” parties were also represented at the hearing on Wednesday.
Louis Tobin said, “The bill largely addresses some of our association’s priority issues related to adult-use marijuana.” He said the group supported stricter penalties on open containers of marijuana in cars and limits to advertising. However, they would like the 12-plant limit for home-grown cannabis reduced.
He warned that the bill would create an environment in Ohio for the growth of the black market.
According to the defense lawyers group, although it understood lawmakers’ interests in prohibiting marijuana use while driving, they said that as it is written, “the bill was vastly overbroad, and excessively punitive in comparison with alcohol.”
Blaise Kathter, OACDL President and Public Policy Chair, said:
Katter wrote: “I suggest that all homegrown marijuana be stored in containers that clearly state that it was grown at home. The yield, and any marijuana harvested from this section, should also be allowed to be owned.”
The House Bill would generally take a stricter approach to legalization compared with the law approved by voters, but it does include a few provisions which reformers may find useful.
For example, it would establish a program allowing individuals to request the expungement of criminal records for past marijuana possession cases—a request that would cost applicants $50. This would allow marijuana stores to give customers free product samples.
Tobin from the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association told legislators that this provision was redundant. He argued that the current law allows a person who has been convicted of misdemeanors to request a final expungement 6 months after their final discharge.
As for the separate Senate proposal to amend Ohio’s marijuana law, SB 56 cleared a Senate floor vote in February on a 23–9 vote. The House Bill also contains many restrictions similar to those in SB 56, but it would reduce the home-grown limit to 6 plants from 12.
Separate budget measures from the Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican candidate for governor, is another possible vehicle to change the marijuana laws in Ohio. As proposed, it would remove local tax allocations of medical marijuana revenue and double the state cannabis tax rate to 20 percent—though legislative leaders have said they will be removing the tax increases.
DeWine, meanwhile, announced his intention to redistribute marijuana tax proceeds to local jails to help fund training for police officers, behavioral health and mental healthcare services. DeWine said that funding police training would be a priority even if it wasn’t part of what the voters approved in 2023.
First of all, respect for the voters. He said, “With a fairly large margin of support they said marijuana should be made legal in Ohio.” However, he warned that THC levels are “much higher”, in the products of today. He called this a “big problem.”
Ohio’s Senate president has also pushed back against criticism of the Senate bill, claiming the legislation does not disrespect the will of the electorate and would have little impact on products available in stores.
Separately in the legislature this month, Huffman and Sen. Shane Wilkin (R) introduced legislation that would impose a 15 percent tax on intoxicating hemp products and limit their sales to adult-use dispensaries—not convenience stores, smoke shops or gas stations
DeWine has repeatedly asked lawmakers to regulate or ban intoxicating hemp products such as delta-8 THC.
Researchers announce they’ve discovered a new cannabinoid found in marijuana