Connect with us

Ohio

Facing Public Pushback, Ohio House Committee Says More Changes Are Coming To State’s Marijuana Overhaul Bill

Published

on

Facing Public Pushback, Ohio House Committee Says More Changes Are Coming To State’s Marijuana Overhaul Bill


An Ohio House committee took hours of public testimony on Wednesday about a bill that would make sweeping adjustments to the state’s adult-use marijuana legalization law, which was approved by voters in 2023. Amid overwhelming opposition from commenters and advocacy organizations, members said further amendments to the plan are forthcoming.

Already the House Judiciary Committee has taken steps to soften the restrictive bill, SB 56, in response to public pushback. Changes approved at a hearing late last month, for example rolled back some of the strict limits included in a verson of the measure passed by the Senate in February, including a criminal prohibition on sharing marijuana between adults on private property.

At the latest hearing, Rep. Jamie Callender (R), a longtime supporter of cannabis reform, reassured speakers that their concerns are being heard and further amendments are forthcoming.

“Thank you all for your participation,” Callender said. “As a result of that, there was a substitute bill put in last week that addressed a couple of the issues you talk about. And one of the reasons that it is not up for a vote today is we are still negotiating and working on some amendments to address several of the other issues.”

Advertisement

“The very specific issues you addressed have been being worked on or will be addressed in the next week or two,” he continued. “So for all of you that are here testifying, I want to thank you. You’ve made a difference. And it’s going to make a much better product. And I’m optimistic that you may not be perfectly happy, but you’re going to say, ‘You know, this is OK,’ when it comes up.”

Drug reform advocates have criticized both SB 56 and its House counterpart, HB 160, as restrictive measures that would undermine the will of voters who passed the state’s legalization law, Issue 2.

New changes already adopted, according to comments made at last week’s hearing on the bill, would remove the legislation’s earlier criminal penalty for sharing marijuana or intoxicating hemp products among adults, provided that the sharing takes place on private property.

Certain outdoor concert venues would also be exempt from laws against open consumption provided they have separate smoking and vaping areas.

The committee amendment also removed a provision that would have created a mandatory minimum sentence for someone caught consuming marijuana in the passenger seat of a vehicle.

Advertisement

Notably under the amended bill, THC-infused beverages containing up to five milligrams of THC could be carried in stores statewide rather than just in dispensaries. A $3.50 per gallon tax would be levied on THC beverages.

A separate 10 percent tax on marijuana products in the bill would also apply to intoxicating hemp products.

While especially high-potency products would still be forbidden under the amended bill, regulators at the Division of Marijuana Control could by rule increase the allowable potency above the initial 70-percent THC cap.

Licensed dispensaries would also be able to sell and transfer marijuana to other license holders.

Other changes increased the amount of tax revenue going to municipalities that host cannabis businesses, upping it to 25 percent of state cannabis revenue for a period of seven years. That’s a higher amount than was contemplated in any other marijuana bill this session.

Advertisement

Despite the recent changes, opponents nevertheless lined up at Wednesday’s hearing to call for further adjustments.

The advocacy group Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), which has been critical of the bill since its introduction, said in written testimony that it continues “to strongly opposed the bill as currently drafted,” asserting that the proposal would “punish adults for innocuous conduct that is legal for alcohol.”

For example, MPP says the bill in its current form would still prohibit adults from sharing homegrown marijuana, with sharing only allowed of products purchased from a state-licensed storefront.

Sharing would also be permitted only at a person’s primary residence, MPP noted, meaning that “people visiting friends couldn’t share cannabis at their friends’ house,” people camping couldn’t share an edible and “people visiting from out-of-state and homeless individuals could not share cannabis anywhere.”

It could also put drivers at risk of misdemeanor charges for carrying lotions, edibles or other infused products unless those products are stored in the trunk or similarly inaccessible location, the group said.

Advertisement

“This is nonsensical for lotions and tinctures,” MPP said in its written testimony. “It also doesn’t make much sense for edibles, which don’t even take effect for an hour and which would in no way impair a driver if a passenger used them.”

The group’s testimony also noted that SB 56 in its current form still eliminates elements of legalization that voters themselves approved, such as support for social equity and jobs programs.

“It also removes product types and opportunities for new businesses, eliminates the social equity and jobs program, strips away funding for expungement and legal aid, sunsets and reduces host communities’ revenue share, and eliminates the ability of cities who may opt in late to have local dispensaries,” MPP said of the bill.

Cat Packer, director of drug markets and legal regulation for the group Drug Policy Alliance and a practitioner in residence at Ohio State University’s drug enforcement and policy center, told the panel on Wednesday that “it seems as if the legislature is intent on disregarding the will of Ohio voters.”

First, she recommended lawmakers “eliminate any new criminal penalties that have been established by these bills.”

Advertisement

“Every single new criminal penalty needs to be struck out, otherwise we don’t actually understand what legalization means,” Packer said.

She also called out legislators for gutting the voter-approved social equity and jobs program.

“If it’s the word ‘equity’ that concerns you, please, by all means, rename the program,” Packer urged. “But please do not abandon Ohioans and Ohio communities, because that is what will happen if we abandon abandon this program.”

“We should be creating opportunities for small and minority businesses,” she added. “It’s not just minority businesses that were to be provided a pathway towards inclusion through this program, but veterans and persons with disabilities. You all would be disregarding those folks as well.”


Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Advertisement

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.

Packer also said host communities should get a share of revenue not just for a seven-year period, as the latest version of the bill dictates, but “into perpetuity.”

“Where is the money? Where is it?” she said. “It’s ours. It belongs to Ohio communities.”

In March, a survey of 38 municipalities by the Ohio State University’s (OSU) Moritz College of Law found that local leaders were “unequivocally opposed” to earlier proposals that would have stripped the planned funding.

Rep. Brian Stewart (R) noted at the previous committee hearing that the latest provision around host community funding was the most generous lawmakers had offered all session.

Advertisement

“The Senate’s version of the bill was zero percent. The governor’s introduced version of the bill was zero percent,” he said, adding that HB 160 itself initially set a 20-percent allocation for five years. “We have increased that to 25 percent over seven years.”

Stewart said he hoped the Senate would either concur with the changes or that lawmakers could “maybe have a short conference committee” to hammer out any remaining details.

Callender at the time said he hoped to see more amendments made. Following Wednesday’s hearing, those appear to be in the works.

Meanwhile in Ohio, adults are now able to buy more than double the amount of marijuana than they were under previous limits, with state officials determining that the market can sustainably supply both medical cannabis patients and adult consumers.

Effective Wednesday, adults can purchase up to 2.5 ounces of flower cannabis per day—a significant increase compared to the prior daily transaction limit of one ounce. The change will make it so consumers could buy marijuana in an amount that matches the 2.5 ounce possession limit under state statute.

Advertisement

A Department of Commerce spokesperson told Marijuana Moment on Tuesday that “back when the non-medical program came online, there were lower limits on non-medical sales, which was primarily to help ensure there was an adequate supply for medical patients.”

“A subsequent review of the available inventory data supports this increase adjustment up to the statutory limits identified in the statute,” they said.

A budget measure from Gov. Mike DeWine (R) is also a potential vehicle for changes to the state’s marijuana law. 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.

Meanwhile, DeWine in March announced his desire to reallocate marijuana tax revenue to support police training, local jails and behavioral health services. He said funding police training was a top priority, even if that wasn’t included in what voters passed in 2023.

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.

Advertisement

Separately in the legislature this month, Sens. Steve Huffman (R) and 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.

GOP Congressional Committee Proposes Ban On Hemp Products With THC That Advocates Say Would Have ‘Devastating’ Impact On Industry

Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.

Advertisement

Become a patron at Patreon!





Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Ohio

New bill seeks to make Loveland Frogman Ohio’s state cryptid

Published

on

New bill seeks to make Loveland Frogman Ohio’s state cryptid


COLUMBUS, Ohio — Step aside, Bigfoot.

A new bill introduced to the Ohio House on April 13 wants to make the Loveland Frogman Ohio’s official state cryptid.

This very real bill is being sponsored by Ohio Representative Tristan Rader, who represents district 13 in Cleveland, and Representative Jean Schmidt, who represents district 62 in Loveland.

“This bill is about showcasing our communities,” said Rader in a press release. “The Loveland Frog is uniquely Ohio. It reflects the stories we tell, the places we’re proud of and the creativity that makes our state worth celebrating.”

Advertisement

The bill makes note that Loveland’s beloved legend has inspired books, documentaries, local festivals, artwork, merchandise and local tourism — all contributing to the local economy.

The Loveland Frogman is, as described by House Bill 821, “a frog-like, bipedal creature standing approximately four feet fall.”

The legend also inspired a found footage horror movie released in 2023.

But what is the Loveland Frogman?

The legend of the Loveland Frogman started with the story that, on two different nights in March of 1972, two different police officers spotted the Frogman.

The creature went unseen for decades, until in 2016, when a couple playing Pokemon Go said they spotted something weird between Loveland Madeira Road and Lake Isabella.

Advertisement

“We saw a huge frog near the water,” Sam Jacobs wrote in an email. “Not in the game, this was an actual giant frog.”

Jacobs said he stopped playing Pokemon Go so he could document what he was seeing, snapping some photos and shooting a short video.

“Then the thing stood up and walked on its hind legs. I realize this sounds crazy, but I swear on my grandmother’s grave this is the truth,” he wrote. “The frog stood about 4 feet tall.”

When they returned to Jacobs’ girlfriend’s home, her parents told them about the legend of the Frogman.

So was it the legendary Frogman? Or just a big frog? Jacobs wasn’t sure.

Advertisement

Around a day after WCPO’s story about Jacobs was published, we got a phone call from a man who claimed to be one of the original police officers who first saw the cryptid.

Mark Mathews told us the creature was not a frog at all.

Mathews explained that the first officer to encounter the purported Frogman, Ray Shockey, called him one night in the March of 1972 after spotting something strange on Riverside Drive/Kemper Road near the Totes boot factory and the Little Miami River.

“Naturally, I didn’t believe him … but I could somehow tell from his demeanor that he did see something,” Mathews said.

Later that month, Mathews was driving on Kemper Road near the boot factory when he saw something run across the road. However, it wasn’t walking upright and didn’t climb over the guardrail as the urban legend of the Frogman goes. The creature crawled under the guardrail. Matthews said he “had no clue what it was.”

Advertisement

“I know no one would believe me, so I shot it,” he said.

Mathews recovered the creature’s body and put it in his trunk to show Shockey. He said Shockey said it was the creature he had seen, too.

It was a large iguana about 3 or 3.5 feet long, Mathews said. The animal was missing its tail, which is why he didn’t immediately recognize it.

Mathews said he figured the iguana had been someone’s pet and then either got loose or was released when it grew too large. He also theorized that the cold-blooded animal had been living near the pipes that released water that was used for cooling the ovens in the boot factory as a way to stay warm in the cold March weather.

“It’s a big hoax,” he said. “There’s a logical explanation for everything.”

Advertisement

Replay: WCPO 9 News at Noon





Source link

Continue Reading

Ohio

Ohio Secretary of State Democratic primary pits outsider vs. insider – Signal Ohio

Published

on

Ohio Secretary of State Democratic primary pits outsider vs. insider – Signal Ohio


Ohio Democrats had a tough time recruiting candidates for the 2026 midterms after years of election losses. 

But they’ve still ended up with a primary contest for Ohio Secretary of State that bears the hallmarks of a competitive race, pitting a first-time candidate against one of the state’s more accomplished Democrats. 

After launching his campaign early, Cincinnati cancer doctor Hambley has gained traction with state party insiders. He’s done so through a mix of active campaigning and strong fundraising – visiting 78 counties and, according to him, raising nearly $1 million, a figure that includes a nearly $200,000 personal loan. Former Gov. Ted Celeste endorsed Hambley last week, becoming the latest current or former elected Democrat to do so, and the state party opted last month to remain neutral in the race.

“Everyone here knows that we need a change,” Hambley said at a voter forum packed with liberal activists in Columbus earlier this month.

Advertisement

State Rep. Allison Russo, an Upper Arlington Democrat who previously led the Ohio House Democrats, meanwhile, says she’s made up for lost time after entering the race eight months after Hambley.

She’s racked up organized labor endorsements and is touting her experience fighting with Republicans in Columbus. 

“We are not at a moment in time for an office of this significance in the statewide ticket where we can afford to have someone who’s on a learning curve,” Russo said in an interview. 

The contest has become a test of competing arguments within the party: whether Democrats are better served by a political outsider or an experienced officeholder. Voters will decide in the May 5 primary.

A similar insider-outsider dynamic also exists in the Republican primary between state Treasurer Robert Sprague and Marcell Strbich, a retired U.S. Army intelligence officer, although the Ohio Republican Party has backed Sprague in that race, greatly increasing his chances of winning. 

Advertisement

The Ohio Secretary of State is a key battleground for both parties, since it serves as the state’s chief elections officer. The role has become more politicized in recent years as President Donald Trump has sought to impose new restrictions on mail voting, which he claims is susceptible to fraud, even though documented cases of voter fraud are exceedingly rare.

The office’s duties include overseeing election administration, issuing guidance to county boards and writing ballot language for statewide issues, an increasingly important political battleground in Ohio, and serving on the Ohio Redistricting Commission.

The office also manages the state’s campaign finance system and business filings.

Hambley builds grassroots campaign

Hambley launched his campaign in January 2025, just months after Democrats were left decimated and demoralized by the November presidential election. A cancer doctor who works for the University of Cincinnati health system, he attracted little attention outside of Cincinnati. In his campaign launch statement, he cited in part the redistricting reform amendment that voters rejected in the November 2024 election as inspiring him to run.

Hambley was involved with that political fight, running a network of Southwest Ohio health workers who promoted the amendment. He got his first introduction to politics a decade before that, organizing opposition in Cleveland to Trump’s “Muslim ban” ahead of the city’s hosting of the 2016 Republican National Convention.

Advertisement

As other Democrats deliberated over whether to run, Hambley developed his campaign by working off the list of hundreds of thousands of voters who signed the petitions for the 2024 amendment. He’s also amassed support by holding hundreds of small events around the state – 360, by his count. Hambley’s message includes emphasizing his background growing up on a small farm and the trusted role doctors play in society. He’s campaigned around the state in a Jeep, like another Democratic physician seeking statewide office, Dr. Amy Acton, the party’s presumptive nominee for governor. 

“I absolutely believe, with a caregiver background running on care and empathy, especially this year, especially against these opponents, is the right way,” Hambley said during an April 11 voter forum in Columbus.

Russo makes a case for experience

Russo, who also works as a health care researcher, launched her campaign in August after being privately linked to a possible run for lieutenant governor. 

Advertisement

She won her current seat in November 2018 in her first run for elected office, and was one of several women candidates to flip previously Republican-held suburban seats. Since then, she’s built relationships with Democrats around the state, in part through an unsuccessful special election campaign in 2021. At a November 2024 election night event that otherwise was extraordinarily bleak for state Democrats, she touted how Democrats flipped two additional Republican-held seats in Franklin County, ending Republicans’ ability to pass referendum-proof legislation. 

From the beginning, Russo has emphasized her experience dealing with Republicans in Columbus. 

“Having been in the arena, having been in some of the toughest fights in terms of attacks on direct democracy, attacks on voting, attacks on our redistricting process and navigating through a very broken redistricting process, that experience I think is critical,” Russo said in an interview.

Russo’s experience should give her an advantage in fundraising, given the opportunity she’s had to network as a Democratic legislative leader and a former candidate in a 2021 congressional race.

But in a state disclosure filed in January, Hambley said he had $546,000 in cash on hand, more than double what Russo reported at the time. He’s started putting his campaign cash to work – launching TV ads that subtly criticize Russo for accepting corporate political action committee money as a Democratic legislative leader. 

Advertisement

“We’re going to be ramping up in the next couple weeks,” he said in an interview.

Russo declined to share her fundraising numbers, saying she’ll do so when she files her disclosure later this month. Even though Hambley got an eight-month head start on the race, Russo said she’s visited 76 counties, just under Hambley’s 78.

She said her advertising plan involves leaning on social media, and likened buying TV ads during a primary election to “lighting money on fire.” She dismissed the idea that the race is competitive, saying her internal polling shows her with a significant lead. She said it also shows there are many undecided voters, but she thinks they’ll gravitate toward the more experienced candidate.

“I think all of this leads me right into the general election. And that is where my eye is focused. It is winning this general election in November,” Russo said.

Few policy differences 

The two candidates don’t have much difference on policy. Both say they want to expand voting rights while opposing Donald Trump’s attempts to restrict mail voting. Their main points of difference largely come down to their professional backgrounds.

Advertisement

But Hambley has leaned into two lines of attack, which both reflect Russo’s practical experience in politics. 

First, Hambley has attacked Russo over her 2023 vote with Republicans to approve the current state legislative maps. The vote, which followed a lengthy court battle that Republicans ultimately won, locked in maps for the rest of the decade that will favor the GOP to win between three-fifths and two-thirds of Ohio’s House seats, to the disappointment of activists who view the maps as gerrymandered in favor of Republicans. 

“Voting for gerrymandered maps is disqualified if you want to be Secretary of State,” Hambley said at the Columbus voter forum.

Second, Hambley has attacked Russo for accepting money from corporate PACs during her tenure as state House minority leader. He also attacked her for getting endorsed by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, which Hambley called a “MAGA group” in a social media video. 

In response, Russo said she supports campaign-finance reform. But, she said her job as a Democratic legislative leader was to help elect Democrats.

Advertisement

“I want real solutions. Not a bumper-sticker slogan that makes us all feel good,” Russo said.

In an interview, Russo also said some of Hambley’s stances could hurt him in a general election. 

Hambley has pledged to campaign in 2027 for a new redistricting reform amendment – which would continue the politicization of the office by current Secretary of State Frank LaRose. In 2024, he endorsed and campaigned for President Donald Trump, after previously arguing that secretaries of state should avoid political campaigning to prevent a perception of bias.

“My primary opponent misunderstands what the job actually is and misunderstands what the role of [secretary of state] should be,” Russo said.

For his part, Hambley has argued Democrats need to confront difficult truths. 

Advertisement

“People don’t like us. People don’t like the average Democrat in Ohio,” Hambley said during a March 5 candidate forum in Erie County. “It is a huge problem for us.





Source link

Continue Reading

Ohio

Ranked choice voting ban silences Ohio voters | Opinion

Published

on

Ranked choice voting ban silences Ohio voters | Opinion



By banning ranked choice voting and penalizing communities that consider it, Ohio leaders have limited local control and signaled a lack of trust in voters to shape their own elections.

When Gov. Mike DeWine signed Senate Bill 63 into law, he didn’t just ban ranked choice voting in Ohio. He sent a clear message: Ohio voters cannot be trusted to make decisions about our own elections.

Advertisement

That should concern everyone, regardless of where you stand on ranked choice voting.

This is not really about a specific voting system. It is about whether communities have the right to explore new ideas, debate them openly, and decide for themselves what works. Senate Bill 63 shuts that door completely. It tells cities and counties across Ohio that even considering a different approach is off-limits.

Worse, it punishes them for trying.

When policy becomes coercion

Advertisement

The law threatens to withhold Local Government Fund dollars from any community that adopts ranked choice voting. That is not guidance. It is coercion. It forces local leaders to choose between representing their voters and protecting their budgets.

In a state that has long valued local control, that should raise serious red flags.

Here in Greater Cincinnati, we pride ourselves on collaboration, innovation, and civic pride. We bring people together across industries, neighborhoods, and perspectives to solve problems and build something stronger. That spirit does not come from the top down. It comes from people who are trusted to show up and participate.

Senate Bill 63 undermines that spirit.

Ranked choice voting is already used in cities and states across the country. Some have embraced it. Others have rejected it. That is exactly how democracy is supposed to work. You try something. You evaluate it. You adjust.

Advertisement

Ohio does not even get that chance.

Who gets to decide our elections?

Instead of trusting voters to decide, state leaders decided for them. Instead of allowing debate, they ended it. Instead of encouraging participation, they shut it down.

If we believe in democracy, we have to believe in the people who make it work.

Advertisement

We have to trust Ohioans to think critically, to weigh options, and to choose how our elections should function. Taking that choice away does not protect democracy. It weakens it.

Gov. DeWine had an opportunity to stand up for that principle. He chose not to.

Now it is up to Ohio voters to decide what kind of voice we want to have moving forward and whether we are willing to accept it being taken away.

Advertisement

Tyler Minton is a Cincinnati resident and Ohio native who works in the meetings and events industry.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending