{"id":81142,"date":"2025-05-07T12:09:52","date_gmt":"2025-05-07T20:09:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2025\/05\/07\/ohio-lawmakers-hear-testimony-against-marijuana-bill-that-critics-say-would-undermine-voter-approved-legalization-law\/"},"modified":"2025-05-07T19:46:28","modified_gmt":"2025-05-08T03:46:28","slug":"ohio-lawmakers-hear-testimony-against-marijuana-bill-that-critics-say-would-undermine-voter-approved-legalization-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2025\/05\/07\/ohio-lawmakers-hear-testimony-against-marijuana-bill-that-critics-say-would-undermine-voter-approved-legalization-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Ohio Lawmakers Hear Testimony Against Marijuana Bill That Critics Say Would Undermine Voter-Approved Legalization Law"},"content":{"rendered":"<\/p>\n

Lawmakers in Ohio heard testimony on Wednesday in opposition to a bill that would make major changes to the state\u2019s marijuana legalization law<\/a> that was passed by voters in 2023. Among other adjustments, it would create new criminal penalties, eliminate equity programs and set additional limits on legal products.<\/p>\n

At a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, members heard comments from advocacy groups, local governments, businesses and individuals who spoke out against the proposal, HB 160, from Rep. Brian Stewart (R).<\/p>\n

Stewart said at a separate panel hearing last month that he\u2019d like to see the bill passed by June.<\/p>\n

HB 160 is one of several pieces of legislation so far that could amend Ohio\u2019s voter-approved marijuana law. A bill already passed by the Senate\u2014SB 56, from Sen. Steve Huffman (R)\u2014contains provisions that are even more restrictive.<\/p>\n

Reform advocates have said the efforts represent an attempt to undermine the will of voters<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Among other provisions, the House bill would limit THC in cannabis products to 70 percent and prevent state regulators from adjusting or eliminating THC limits. Regulators also could not approve any new forms of adult-use marijuana under the bill.<\/p>\n

It would further cap the number of active dispensaries statewide at 350.<\/p>\n

The measure would also outlaw the use and possession of cannabis not purchased from a licensed retailer or grown at home in accordance with state law. And it would prohibit the sharing of homegrown cannabis as well as cultivation on behalf of another person.<\/p>\n

Advocates have said the restrictions could put consumers at risk if they don\u2019t have receipts, original packaging or other ways to prove that they obtained their marijuana legally\u2014or if they simply hand a joint to another adult friend at home.<\/p>\n

At Wednesday\u2019s hearing, Gary Daniels, chief lobbyist for ACLU of Ohio, said voters \u201ccan be forgiven if they assumed any changes by the legislature would be minimal and complementary to the overall goals of Issue 2,\u201d the 2023 ballot measure that legalized marijuana in the state.<\/p>\n

\u201cHB 160 imposes a litany of negative changes on cannabis users, consumers, growers and professionals to dismantle key parts of current Ohio law enacted by your constituents,\u201d Daniels said.<\/p>\n

\u201cAt worst, these changes can be interpreted as purposeful, designed to kneecap Issue 2,\u201d he added. \u201cAt the least, these changes fundamentally handicap the purchase, use, transportation and sale of cannabis in the state.\u201d<\/p>\n

Daniels\u2019s comments centered mostly on increased criminal penalties and what he called the bill\u2019s \u201ccynical scrapping of the social equity and jobs program.\u201d<\/p>\n

For example, the measure \u201cmakes a criminal out of someone who shares a joint with another or gives a small amount of cannabis as a birthday or Christmas or other type of gift,\u201d he noted. \u201cOf course, no such restrictions exist for alcohol.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another provision, meant to reduce impaired driving, is \u201cso radically broad, it applies even to a passenger in the back seat of a non-moving car on private property,\u201d Daniels said. Repeat offenses for violations of that restriction would carry a mandatory minimum jail sentence of between 10 days and five years.<\/p>\n

Daniels pointed out that lawmakers could have acted ahead of the ballot measure to pass their own legalization law but didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

\u201cI realize the ship has sailed,\u201d he said, \u201cbut again, I have to mention: There were four months to do this before Issue 2. There were no bills, no hearings, no nothing with regard to tackling Issue 2 before it got on the ballot\u2014or even saying, \u2018Hey, legislators in that campaign, let\u2019s work together.’\u201d<\/p>\n

Karen O\u2019Keefe, director of state policies for Marijuana Policy Project, told lawmakers that HB 160 \u201chas so many exceptions that they swallow the rule\u201d of legalization.<\/p>\n

The bill, for example \u201cremoves Issue 2\u2019s language that legalizes the use of cannabis,\u201d O\u2019Keefe\u00a0pointed out. \u201cThat needs to be restored.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cHB 160 also removes Issue 2\u2019s language that legalizes adult transfer of cannabis. That would be as ridiculous as prohibiting sharing Tylenol, a bottle of wine or homebrewed beer,\u201d she continued. \u201cThat also needs to be restored, whether it\u2019s homegrown or otherwise.\u201d<\/p>\n

MPP also strongly objects to the bill\u2019s prohibition on marijuana that came from a neighboring state or another source.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis provision would would result in intrusive interrogations as to where people obtain their cannabis, demands for receipts and an overall air of suspicion,\u201d O\u2019Keefe said. \u201cThere is no similar prohibition for any other legal product, including alcohol.\u201d<\/p>\n

Other complaints raised by MPP are the bill\u2019s prohibition on smoking or vaping marijuana only in residential or agricultural spaces and its allowance for landlords to penalize tenants who vape marijuana products indoors.<\/p>\n

\u201cIssue 2 already prohibits smoking in a rental home if the landlord prohibits it,\u201d O\u2019Keefe noted. \u201cThis goes too far.\u201d<\/p>\n

ACLU, MPP and other advocates also urged lawmakers to restore funding for equity and jobs programs.<\/p>\n

The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), for example, pointed out that HB 160 eliminates certain cultivation and dispensary licenses that were to be set aside for equity applicants.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese licenses were designed to lower barriers to entry for small entrepreneurs and ensure that communities harmed by criminalization had a stake in the legal market,\u201d Cat Packer, DPA\u2019s director of drug markets and legal regulation, wrote in submitted testimony. \u201cBy removing them, HB 160 would shutting out exactly the Ohioans who most deserve a chance to benefit from legalization.\u201d<\/p>\n

Packer also noted that instead of putting money toward social equity and jobs funds, local governments, substance abuse treatment and program administration\u2014as Issue 2 had established\u2014\u201dHB 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cHouse Bill 160 is not a minor adjustment,\u201d she wrote. \u201cIt is a betrayal of public trust, a rollback of social justice reforms supported by Ohioans, and a re-weaponization of cannabis laws against communities that voters intended to uplift.\u201d<\/p>\n

As for local governments, Lexi Lausten, chair of the Anderson Township Board of Township Trustees requested in submitted testimony that lawmakers \u201censure that funding for host communities as was originally approved by voters is included\u201d in the bill.<\/p>\n

\u201cThose who voted in favor of Issue 2 and local government officials who choose to allow dispensaries in their communities did so with the understanding that they would receive 36 percent of the 10 percent tax levied on the sale of adult use cannabis,\u201d Lausten wrote. \u201cThis funding was slated to support communities who have adult use dispensaries in their jurisdictions.\u201d<\/p>\n

Anderson Township, for example, had expected to receive $1.5 million annually in marijuana host community fees. \u201cThat revenue would be used to support our diminished General Fund,\u201d the municipality said, \u201cwhich has experienced significant reductions since 2011 and allow us to stretch our existing property tax levies thereby reducing the burden on our taxpayers.\u201d<\/p>\n

A survey in March of 38 municipalities across the state found that localities are \u201cunequivocally opposed\u201d to the proposed changes<\/a>\u00a0to tax revenue allocation.<\/p>\n

Though Wednesday\u2019s hearing<\/a> consisted mostly of opposition testimony, the panel also heard from commenters identified as \u201cinterested parties,\u201d such as the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association and the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (OACDL).<\/p>\n

Louis Tobin, executive director of the prosecutors association, said the bill \u201clargely addresses what our association believes to be some of the priority issues with adult-use marijuana.\u201d The group supports limits on advertising and strict penalties for open containers in vehicles, he said, but would also like to see the current 12-plant homegrow limit reduced and penalties stiffened for growing more than the allowed limit.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe fear is that his creates the environment and the opportunity for the black market to grow in Ohio,\u201d he warned.<\/p>\n

The defense attorneys group, meanwhile, said that while it understands lawmakers\u2019 interest in preventing marijuana consumption in a vehicle, the bill as written is \u201cvastly overbroad and unduly punitive, especially as compared to alcohol.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is a vastly different degree of culpability between a person who is operating a vehicle while impaired, and a person sitting in a backseat of a car parked in a private driveway,\u201d wrote Blaise Katter, OACDL\u2019s president and public policy chair.<\/p>\n

\u201cI would suggest that homegrown marijuana, upon harvest, be required to be placed in a clearly marked container that specifies it is homegrown,\u201d Katter wrote, \u201cand that the yield and any harvested marijuana from the homegrown section be specifically authorized to be possessed.\u201d<\/p>\n

While the House bill<\/a> would in general take a more restrictive approach to legalization than the voter-approved law, it also includes a few provisions that reformers might find welcome.<\/p>\n

For example, it would establish a program allowing individuals to request the expungement of criminal records for past marijuana possession cases\u2014a request that would cost applicants $50. It would also remove a prohibition on marijuana retailers providing products samples to customers.<\/p>\n

Tobin, from the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, told lawmakers that provision is redundant, however, arguing that current law \u201callows a person convicted of a misdemeanor to apply for final record expungement six months after the offender\u2019s final discharge.\u201d<\/p>\n

As for the separate Senate proposal to amend Ohio\u2019s marijuana law, SB 56 cleared a Senate floor vote in February on a 23\u20139 vote<\/a>. In addition to many of the same restrictions in the House bill, that measure would also pare down the allowed homegrow limit from 12 plants to six.<\/p>\n

A separate budget measure from Gov. Mike DeWine (R) is also a potential vehicle for changes to the state\u2019s marijuana law. As proposed, it would remove local tax allocations of medical marijuana revenue and double the state cannabis tax rate to 20 percent<\/a>\u2014though legislative leaders have said they will be removing the tax increases.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, DeWine in March announced his desire to reallocate marijuana tax revenue to support police training, local jails and behavioral health services<\/a>. He said funding police training was a top priority, even if that wasn\u2019t included in what voters passed in 2023.<\/p>\n

\u201cFirst of all, we respect the voters. With a pretty big margin, they said that marijuana should be legal in the state of Ohio,\u201d he said. But he added a word of \u201ccaution\u201d to parents that THC potency is \u201cmuch higher\u201d in today\u2019s products, which he called a \u201cbig issue.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ohio\u2019s Senate president has also pushed back against criticism of the Senate bill, claiming the legislation does not disrespect the will of the electorate<\/a>\u00a0and would have little impact on products available in stores.<\/p>\n

Separately in the legislature this month, Huffman and Sen. Shane Wilkin (R) introduced\u00a0legislation that would impose a 15 percent tax on intoxicating hemp products and limit their sales to adult-use dispensaries<\/a>\u2014not convenience stores, smoke shops or gas stations<\/p>\n

DeWine has repeatedly asked\u00a0lawmakers to regulate or ban intoxicating hemp products such as delta-8 THC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

Researchers Announce They\u2019ve Discovered A New Cannabinoid In Marijuana<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

The post Ohio Lawmakers Hear Testimony Against Marijuana Bill That Critics Say Would Undermine Voter-Approved Legalization Law<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n


\n
\nRead More: Ohio Lawmakers Hear Testimony Against Marijuana Bill That Critics Say Would Undermine Voter-Approved Legalization Law<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Lawmakers in Ohio heard testimony on Wednesday in opposition to a bill that would make major changes to the state\u2019s marijuana legalization law that was passed by voters in 2023. Among other adjustments, it would create new criminal penalties, eliminate equity programs and set additional limits on legal products. AtContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18,81],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81142"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=81142"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81142\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":81143,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81142\/revisions\/81143"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81142"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81142"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81142"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}