Columbus, Ohio – Months after Ohio voters approved the legalization of recreational marijuana, the state legislature remains locked in a debate over implementing the new law, potentially altering key provisions backed by the electorate.
In November 2023, Ohioans passed Issue 2, a ballot initiative that legalized adult-use cannabis, permitted home cultivation, and established a framework for commercial sales and taxation. However, state lawmakers, particularly in the Senate, have expressed concerns about certain aspects of the measure and have moved to impose stricter regulations.
Senate Proposes Significant Amendments
In February, the Ohio Senate passed proposed changes to Issue 2 encapsulated within Senate Bill 56 (SB 56). This legislation seeks to significantly modify the framework approved by voters. Among the key proposed amendments are provisions that would:
* Reduce the number of marijuana plants individuals are permitted to cultivate at home, decreasing the limit from the voter-approved 12 plants (six flowering and six non-flowering) to just six plants per household.
* Lower the maximum allowable THC level in cannabis extracts from the 90% stipulated in Issue 2 to 70%, a change proponents argue is necessary for public health and safety.
* Institute a ban on the sharing of marijuana between adults, even in small amounts, a practice currently permitted under the voter-approved law.
* Mandate that marijuana and related paraphernalia must be transported exclusively in the back seat or trunk of a vehicle, adding a specific requirement for transportation safety.
* Make individuals terminated from their employment due to marijuana use ineligible for unemployment benefits, strengthening employer rights in the workplace.
These proposed changes reflect a legislative effort to assert greater control over the rollout and parameters of the recreational cannabis program than was initially outlined in the ballot measure.
House Delays and Growing Opposition
The fate of SB 56 currently rests in the Ohio House of Representatives, where its progress has stalled. The House Judiciary Committee, which has been reviewing the Republican-led bill, recently postponed a scheduled vote, effectively delaying further movement on the legislation until the fall legislative session.
The bill has encountered considerable opposition during the three hearings held before the House Judiciary Committee. This opposition has come from a coalition of groups, including those within the emerging cannabis industry and civil liberties advocates. The American Civil Liberties Union-Ohio (ACLU-Ohio) has been a vocal critic of the proposed changes.
Patrick Higgins, senior policy counsel for ACLU-Ohio, has characterized Sub. SB56 as an example of “intrusive government oversight.” He argues that the legislative modifications are fundamentally “at odds with this endorsement” clearly articulated by Ohio voters through their approval of Issue 2.
Support Cites Employer Rights and Ambiguity
Conversely, the proposed amendments have garnered support from other key stakeholders in the state. The Ohio Chamber of Commerce (OCC) has publicly endorsed SB 56. Their support centers on the importance of bolstering employer protections, an area they contend Issue 2 left ambiguous. The OCC has highlighted concerns regarding private property owners’ rights to prohibit marijuana use on their premises, arguing that the legislative clarifications provided in SB 56 are necessary to address these potential conflicts.
Tax Revenue Hangs in the Balance
Adding another layer of complexity to the debate is the financial aspect of the new law. Issue 2 included a 10% excise tax levied on recreational cannabis sales. A significant portion of these tax revenues – specifically 36% – was earmarked to be distributed to local communities that host cannabis dispensaries, providing them with direct financial benefits from the legal market.
However, reports indicate that state lawmakers are currently withholding the disbursement of these tax revenues. According to sources, these funds are being held back pending the formal enactment of their proposed amendments to Issue 2. This move has created uncertainty for local governments anticipating these revenues and is seen by some as leverage in the ongoing legislative negotiations.
As the debate continues and the House vote is pushed back until the fall, the final shape of Ohio’s recreational marijuana program remains uncertain, highlighting the tension between voter mandates and legislative control in the implementation of significant policy changes.
