Republican lawmakers in Ohio are seeking to undo major aspects of a voter-approved marijuana-legalization measure—by introducing restrictions that could increase criminalization, and gutting social equity provisions.
In November 2023, Ohio voters decisively approved a ballot measure, Issue 2, by a 14-point margin. It took effect weeks later, legalizing personal possession of marijuana by adults over 21, as well as home cultivation of cannabis plants.
Issue 2 also provided for legal marijuana sales, through businesses regulated and licensed by a newly created Division of Cannabis Control. Legal adult-use sales at pre-existing medical marijuana dispensaries began in August 2024; as of January, according to the Ohio Capital Journal, there were 124 such “dual use” outlets statewide.
However, over 120 cities and towns passed local laws banning adult-use cannabis sales. And more than 18 months after the legalization vote, social-equity business licenses are not yet operational; the state Department of Development quietly put the program on hold, citing lack of funding, according to the Columbus Dispatch. Issue 2 requires that an initial 50 new dispensary licenses be given to eligible social equity applicants.
Almost immediately after voters approved Issue 2, Republican legislators began discussing ways to restrict and slow down implementation of its reforms. No legislation has been passed to overturn any aspects of Issue 2, but that could soon change.
In the Republican-dominated Ohio General Assembly, lawmakers are considering a bill that would make significant changes to marijuana legalization: House Bill 160, sponsored by Representative Brian Stewart (R).
HB 160 is still in committee, and hasn’t reached a full House vote yet. It would make sharing or gifting cannabis, or buying it from out of state, illegal. Only purchases from licensed Ohio dispensaries, or home cultivation for individual use, would be allowed. Among other restrictions, it would also limit smoking or vaping marijuana to residential or agricultural spaces, and allow landlords to penalize renters who vape indoors (Issue 2 already prohibits renters from smoking indoors).
“You could potentially see more people being arrested for cannabis if this passes then there were pre-legalization.”
On May 7, the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the bill from 40 individuals and organizations. Nearly all who testified were opposed—including the ACLU of Ohio, the Drug Policy Alliance, and other interest groups like the Ohio Grocers Association and Council of Retail Merchants.
Meanwhile, similar legislation, Senate Bill 56, sponsored by Senator Steve Huffman (R), has already passed a vote in that chamber and is also now in House committee, fueling concerns that lawmakers will reach a consensus to overhaul Issue 2.
HB 160 would set a legal limit of 350 dispensaries selling adult-use products statewide. Further restrictions would include capping THC levels in cannabis products.
Karen O’Keefe, director of state policies at the Marijuana Policy Project, was one of those testifying in opposition to HB 160, and said that the legislation would “gut” the voter-approved measure.
“My biggest concern is it would essentially re-criminalize innocuous conduct,” she told Filter. “You could potentially see more people being arrested for cannabis if this passes then there were pre-legalization.”
“Ohio decriminalized cannabis back in the 1970s, and the whole point of this initiative was to regulate cannabis like alcohol,” she continued. “Imagine if the legislature said you can’t share alcohol or a bottle of wine. [HB 160] wouldn’t allow any cannabis sharing, or cannabis purchased in other states. It would prohibit any open containers in the car, even though a container of cannabis isn’t something readily consumable—in the case of raw cannabis, it’s often a week or more of supply.”
“The social equity program is designed to have those people most impacted by the War on Drugs have ownership. Gutting that program would eliminate those opportunities.”
While Issue 2 would set aside dispensary and cultivation licenses for “social equity” applicants who qualify, HB 160 would eliminate that provision. And instead of Issue 2’s plan to use cannabis tax revenue to fund local governments, social equity programs, substance use disorder treatment and cannabis regulation, HB 160 would divert a larger portion of the money to the state’s general fund. Programs that would miss out include criminal record expungement, legal aid, violence prevention and arts.
“The social equity program is designed to have those people most impacted by the War on Drugs have ownership in that space,” O’Keefe said. “Gutting that program and stopping language which requires their prioritization in licensure would eliminate those opportunities. There’s also a small grow license which would be eliminated.”
City and town governments would receive a smaller portion of cannabis sales taxes collected, compared to Issue 2. That money, a “host community fee” for a city agreeing to have cannabis businesses in its jurisdiction, would support the city’s general fund.
Other provisions, such as the cap on total dispensaries, also disadvantage municipalities, O’Keefe said. “Say a city is currently opted out, but in five years decides they want to have stores. If you’ve met the statewide cap, they wouldn’t be allowed to have even one store, if the bill as drafted passes. That would reduce consumer choice.”
It’s unclear if Ohio Governor Mike DeWine (R) supports these particular bills, but he has himself proposed changing marijuana laws in ways that diverge from the voter-approved measure. According to Marijuana Moment, his proposed budget would double the state cannabis tax rate to 20 percent. He has also stated that he wants cannabis tax revenue to fund police training and local jails, as well as the 9-8-8 behavioral crisis phone line.
O’Keefe cautioned that the bills, if they become law, would negatively affect Ohio’s nascent legal industry, and consumers would simply find easier and unregulated ways to get their marijuana.
Ohio’s first year of legal sales saw over $242 million of product sold, which will likely continue to grow. But the changes “would shrink the market,” O’Keefe said. “Right now, a lot of cannabis consumers are going across the border to Michigan which has lower prices and more selection. This would drive more business across the border. People would continue to break the law if they find there’s better prices.”
The legislation has also pitted state lawmakers against municipal governments; a representative for Anderson Township spoke out against HB 160, and a survey of 38 local governments found they were “unequivocally opposed” to the Republican plans to reduce their share of cannabis tax dollars.
Photograph by Terrance Barksdale via Pexels
The Influence Foundation, which operates Filter, previously received a restricted grant from the Drug Policy Alliance. Filter‘s Editorial Independence Policy applies.
Republican lawmakers in Ohio are seeking to undo major aspects of a voter-approved marijuana-legalization measure—by introducing restrictions that could increase … Read More
