Ohio Lawmakers Hear Testimony Against Marijuana Bill That Critics Say Would Undermine Voter-Approved Legalization Law

Lawmakers in Ohio heard testimony on Wednesday in opposition to a bill that would make major changes to the state’s 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.

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).

Stewart said at a separate panel hearing last month that he’d like to see the bill passed by June.

HB 160 is one of several pieces of legislation so far that could amend Ohio’s voter-approved marijuana law. A bill already passed by the Senate—SB 56, from Sen. Steve Huffman (R)—contains provisions that are even more restrictive.

Reform advocates have said the efforts represent an attempt to undermine the will of voters.

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.

It would further cap the number of active dispensaries statewide at 350.

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.

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.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Gary Daniels, chief lobbyist for ACLU of Ohio, said voters “can be forgiven if they assumed any changes by the legislature would be minimal and complementary to the overall goals of Issue 2,” the 2023 ballot measure that legalized marijuana in the state.

“HB 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,” Daniels said.

“At worst, these changes can be interpreted as purposeful, designed to kneecap Issue 2,” he added. “At the least, these changes fundamentally handicap the purchase, use, transportation and sale of cannabis in the state.”

Daniels’s comments centered mostly on increased criminal penalties and what he called the bill’s “cynical scrapping of the social equity and jobs program.”

For example, the measure “makes 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,” he noted. “Of course, no such restrictions exist for alcohol.”

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

Daniels pointed out that lawmakers could have acted ahead of the ballot measure to pass their own legalization law but didn’t.

“I realize the ship has sailed,” he said, “but 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—or even saying, ‘Hey, legislators in that campaign, let’s work together.’”

Karen O’Keefe, director of state policies for Marijuana Policy Project, told lawmakers that HB 160 “has so many exceptions that they swallow the rule” of legalization.

The bill, for example “removes Issue 2’s language that legalizes the use of cannabis,” O’Keefe pointed out. “That needs to be restored.”

“HB 160 also removes Issue 2’s language that legalizes adult transfer of cannabis. That would be as ridiculous as prohibiting sharing Tylenol, a bottle of wine or homebrewed beer,” she continued. “That also needs to be restored, whether it’s homegrown or otherwise.”

MPP also strongly objects to the bill’s prohibition on marijuana that came from a neighboring state or another source.

“This provision would would result in intrusive interrogations as to where people obtain their cannabis, demands for receipts and an overall air of suspicion,” O’Keefe said. “There is no similar prohibition for any other legal product, including alcohol.”

Other complaints raised by MPP are the bill’s 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.

“Issue 2 already prohibits smoking in a rental home if the landlord prohibits it,” O’Keefe noted. “This goes too far.”

ACLU, MPP and other advocates also urged lawmakers to restore funding for equity and jobs programs.

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.

“These 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,” Cat Packer, DPA’s director of drug markets and legal regulation, wrote in submitted testimony. “By removing them, HB 160 would shutting out exactly the Ohioans who most deserve a chance to benefit from 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 minor adjustment,” she wrote. “It 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.”

As for local governments, Lexi Lausten, chair of the Anderson Township Board of Township Trustees requested in submitted testimony that lawmakers “ensure that funding for host communities as was originally approved by voters is included” in the bill.

“Those 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,” Lausten wrote. “This funding was slated to support communities who have adult use dispensaries in their jurisdictions.”

Anderson Township, for example, had expected to receive $1.5 million annually in marijuana host community fees. “That revenue would be used to support our diminished General Fund,” the municipality said, “which has experienced significant reductions since 2011 and allow us to stretch our existing property tax levies thereby reducing the burden on our 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.

Though Wednesday’s hearing consisted mostly of opposition testimony, the panel also heard from commenters identified as “interested parties,” such as the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association and the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (OACDL).

Louis Tobin, executive director of the prosecutors association, said the bill “largely addresses what our association believes to be some of the priority issues with adult-use marijuana.” 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.

“The fear is that his creates the environment and the opportunity for the black market to grow in Ohio,” he warned.

The defense attorneys group, meanwhile, said that while it understands lawmakers’ interest in preventing marijuana consumption in a vehicle, the bill as written is “vastly overbroad and unduly punitive, especially as compared to alcohol.”

“There 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,” wrote Blaise Katter, OACDL’s president and public policy chair.

“I would suggest that homegrown marijuana, upon harvest, be required to be placed in a clearly marked container that specifies it is homegrown,” Katter wrote, “and that the yield and any harvested marijuana from the homegrown section be specifically authorized to be possessed.”

While the House bill 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.

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. It would also remove a prohibition on marijuana retailers providing products samples to customers.

Tobin, from the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, told lawmakers that provision is redundant, however, arguing that current law “allows a person convicted of a misdemeanor to apply for final record expungement six months after the offender’s 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. 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.

A separate 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.

“First of all, we respect the voters. With a pretty big margin, they said that marijuana should be legal in the state of Ohio,” he said. But he added a word of “caution” to parents that THC potency is “much higher” in today’s products, which he called a “big issue.”

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 In Marijuana

The post Ohio Lawmakers Hear Testimony Against Marijuana Bill That Critics Say Would Undermine Voter-Approved Legalization Law appeared first on Marijuana Moment.