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.”

“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.

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.

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.

“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.”

“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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.