Ohio House Republicans introduce their own proposal to rewrite state's recreational marijuana law
Stock photo of a marijuana dispensary from Getty Images.
A week after Ohio Senate Republicans passed a bill that would overhaul the state's marijuana law, Ohio House Republicans introduced their own proposal. Their version would keep home grow and tax levels the same, but reduce THC levels and redirect most of the tax revenue.
State Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, introduced Ohio House Bill 160 during a press conference Thursday. Similar to the Senate's bill, the House's bill would reduce the THC levels in marijuana extracts from a maximum of 90% down to a maximum of 70% and caps the number of marijuana dispensaries to 350. The bill, however, would keep the 10% tax on marijuana and keep Ohio's home grow at 12 plants.
'Our bill preserves the core of Issue Two, while also adding important protections for Ohio's minors and addressing the issue of intoxicating hemp,' Stewart said, noting his goal is to pass a marijuana bill before the lawmakers go on summer break.
Ohioans passed a citizen-initiated law to legalize recreational marijuana in 2023 with 57% of the vote, and sales started in August 2024. Ohio lawmakers can change the law since it passed as a citizen initiative. The state's total recreational marijuana sales were $361,994,872 as of Saturday, according to the Ohio Department of Commerce Division of Cannabis Control.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
'Every product that is legal today will remain legal under this bill,' Stewart said. 'I think we are making very, very few changes here. … We're not touching any of the core parts of Issue Two.'
The bill deals directly with intoxicating hemp by requiring every THC product to be treated like marijuana and only be sold at the state's regulated marijuana dispensaries.
'Simply put, if it gets you high, it goes through a dispensary,' Stewart said. 'I don't think Ohioans are excited about the fact that you get essentially the same thing that's less safe from a local gas station. I don't want my kids to go walk into your local gas station chain and buy marijuana.'
The bill would change how the marijuana tax revenue is directed, sending a 'bulk of tax revenue to Ohio's general fund,' Stewart said, mentioning he worked closely with House Speaker Matt Huffman, R-Lima, on drafting the bill.
Even though legal weed sales started last year, Ohioans could start legally growing marijuana at home shortly after Issue Two passed in 2023.
'I think the longer you wait, the harder it is to make substitute changes,' Stewart said. 'I think in the real world, folks who are growing 12 plants today are not likely to grow less than 12 plants just because we passed a law at the Statehouse.'
H.B. 160 prohibits using marijuana in public spaces, but allows for smoking inside a privately owned property, including outside on a residential front porch.
'It's legal to use these products at your home,' Stewart said.
The bill would also offer expungement for prior convictions for marijuana related offenses.
'As the views of Ohioans have shifted on the issue of marijuana, our laws should reflect that, and allowing people to remove these offenses from their criminal record is good policy,' Stewart said.
Even though the Senate recently passed their own bill, Stewart doesn't think his bill will create a possible standstill where nothing gets passed.
'I'm going to leave it to the two gentlemen that hold the gavel as to which bill is moving, but it's one or the other,' Stewart said.
The Ohio Cannabis Coalition (OHCANN) is still digesting this latest piece of legislation, but Deputy Executive Director Adrienne Robbins seemed optimistic about H.B 160.
'We do think this is a really positive step forward,' she said. 'When you look at the Senate bill and the different iterations of it that came out, I think this is another step forward, and it does make us feel like lawmakers are one, listening to us, but then, maybe more importantly, listening to consumers' concerns as well.'
Senate Bill 56 would significantly change Ohio's weed laws.
The bill would limit Ohio's home grow from 12 plants down to six, reduce the THC levels from a maximum of 90% to a maximum of 70%, and mandates that marijuana can only be used in a private residence.
S.B. 56 allows someone to apply to the sentencing court to have their record expunged if they were convicted or plead guilty to possessing 2.5 ounces of marijuana before the state law went into effect. Under the bill, the applicant must pay a $50 filing fee.
The bill would combine the state's medical and recreational marijuana programs under the Division of Cannabis Control, require marijuana be transported in the trunk of a car when traveling, and would limit the number of active dispensaries to 350.
It would also ban Ohioans from using marijuana that is not either from a licensed Ohio dispensary or cultivated at a consumer's home. This would make it illegal for Ohioans to drive up to Michigan to purchase marijuana and bring it back over state lines.
The bill originally dealt with taxes and how funds were distributed, but those provisions were removed during committee.
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine's proposed budget, which is currently being heard in the Ohio House, increases the tax on marijuana from 10% to 20%. The budget is due July 1.
This is not the first time both chambers have tried to pass their own legislation in attempts to change the state's marijuana law.
Shortly after Ohioans voted to legalize marijuana, the Ohio Senate quickly passed a bill that would have made major changes to the law that would have affected taxes and home grow, but the Ohio House never brought the bill to the floor.
Instead, state Rep. Jamie Callender, R-Concord, introduced a bill that would have clarified some of Issue 2's language, but it never made it out of committee.
Follow Capital Journal Reporter Megan Henry on Bluesky.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's $1,000-per-baby investment accounts: What to know
President Trump has lauded the House-approved spending bill for the 'pro-family initiative' tucked inside the legislation, which creates investment accounts for newborn babies. 'They'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economy,' Trump said at a Monday event at the White House that touted the accounts. The 'Big, Beautiful Bill' lays out rules for the Trump accounts. To qualify, a child must be a U.S. citizen, born within the next four years to at least one parent with a Social Security number. The money could be withdrawn starting at age 18. Here's what you need to know about the proposed federal program: Under the current bill text, the program would be available to families of all income levels, with babies born after Dec. 31, 2024, and before Jan. 1, 2029. A one-time $1,000 contribution would be provided by the Treasury Department and deposited into a diversified U.S. stock index fund or its equivalent. Families, guardians and private entities will be able to contribute no more than $5,000 per year to the account. An estimated 7 percent return on the $1,000 would compound to roughly $3,570 over 18 years, according to the Associated Press. The legislation does not provide a limit on the amount of money a nonprofit or company can donate to a child's investment account within the $5,000 annual contribution limit. Several businesses, including Uber, Dell, Goldman Sachs and Altimeter have committed to setting aside billions to invest in the accounts of company employees who become new parents. 'It's not just an account; it's a launchpad. It puts the unstoppable engine of compounding to work for our kids, building a future for them from day one,' Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said about the initiative during a White House roundtable. Children enrolled in the investment program are eligible to withdraw half of the cash value amount between their 18th and 25th birthdays, according to CNN. Families and beneficiaries would pay a penalty for early withdrawal as there is no allowance for emergency use of the funds, the outlet reported. Funds withdrawn for anything other than 'qualified expenses,' including paying for higher education, buying a residence or starting a business, will be taxed. Researchers have said the investment accounts could widen America's wealth gap. 'Under the current proposal, every child starts with the same amount, and families can contribute up to $5,000 annually,' the Urban Institute, a think-tank focused on social policy, wrote in a late May report. 'But relatively few households hold substantial liquid wealth in the United States, meaning higher-income households are far more likely than their lower-income counterparts to have the means to contribute additional funds,' it continued. The study noted that Trump accounts are likely to only benefit those who have already maxed out existing tax-preferred savings opportunities, like 529 accounts. Instead, they suggested low income families with job insecurity are more likely to gravitate towards investing in traditional accounts that offer flexible guidelines. Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' still needs approval from the upper chamber. Senators considering potential changes or cuts to the legislation, hoping to pass the bill before July 4.
Fox News
24 minutes ago
- Fox News
Washington Post editorial admits colleges must take 'strenuous action' to restore free exchange of ideas
Harvard may win its legal battle against the Trump administration, but the fight to restore confidence in higher education as defenders of the "free exchange of ideas" would still be far from over, The Washington Post editorial board wrote on Tuesday. "In the past decade, trust in higher education has dropped precipitously. Ten years ago, a robust majority of Americans told Gallup they had a 'great deal' or 'quite a lot' of confidence in higher education; today, only one-third of Americans say the same," the editorial stated, highlighting similar concerns over an uptick in those who say they have "very little" or "no" confidence in higher education. That percentage rose to 32% from 10% a decade ago. Such discontent with higher education has created opportunities for Republicans to seize on the trend and "attack the foundations of academic independence," the board argued. A cocktail of problems, ranging from free speech concerns to rising costs and lower returns on investment, was said to have fed into the growing distrust. In one corner, conservative faculty members have reported self-censoring due to fear of how others might respond to their opinions. The Post argued this isn't isolated to one group, however, and that left-wing voices are also choosing to stay quiet when controversial topics are discussed. "In an academic community in which 'diversity statements' are required of new hires (and professors can be denied jobs merely for criticizing them), university administrations and disciplines issue official statements embracing social justice causes, journal editors apologize for or withdraw papers that offend the left, and conservative professors are becoming an increasingly endangered species, even moderates or those on the center-left can reasonably wonder what they're allowed to say, and universities can seem drastically out of step with mainstream society," the editorial said. The editorial board went on to say that institutions of higher education lack a solid foundation to demand that the government respect their "academic freedom" unless they demand the same from their own teachers and leaders. "The worst of this political fever might be behind us, but academia will have to take strenuous action to restore its reputation as defenders of the free exchange of ideas…" "Renaming the diversity, equity and inclusion office will not suffice; they need to foster a campus environment in which the frank discussion of ideas is the core value. If they do not, they will find the public yawning as conservative attacks intensify and courts struggle to contain the damage," the Post's editorial board continued.
Politico
28 minutes ago
- Politico
Energy powerhouse to Republicans: Don't ‘take renewables off the table'
The head of the one of the nation's largest power providers said he agrees with Republicans on the need for the United States to bring back domestic manufacturing and to win the AI race. But the GOP bid to repeal clean energy tax credits, attack China using trade rules and boost the nuclear and coal industry will make their goal to dominate in energy impossible. NextEra Energy Chair and CEO John Ketchum told the POLITICO Energy Summit on Tuesday that the anticipated surge in power demand over the next 20 years could make the country vulnerable to energy shortages and reliability problems if 'we take renewables off the table.' 'We cannot afford to do that. If we do that, we will lose the AI race, and we will bring this economic expansion in the United States to a screeching halt,' said Ketchum, whose FPL utility subsidiary is the power provider for President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home in Palm Beach, Florida. High costs and long timelines to build new natural gas and nuclear plants — both of which GOP members have championed — mean neither source will be able to meet the growth in demand until 2032 or later, Ketchum said, so policy needs to companies like his can tap into a variety of energy sources. 'Our job at NextEra is to get electrons on the grid, I don't care what flavor they are,' he added. 'I don't care if it's renewables, gas or nuclear, I have to get electrons on the grid to accommodate all of the demand that we see in this country and do it at a reasonable cost.' NextEra is the nation's biggest owner of natural gas-fired power plants and the world's leading generator of electricity from wind and solar power. On the House Republicans' megabill, he said that the 'foreign entity of concern' provisions that disqualify projects from receiving any tax credits if they have ties to China are 'unworkable' and impossible to comply with. When it comes to meeting America's needs, Ketchum said Republicans need to focus on equipment at a 'component level' and design a policy that is feasible for manufacturing companies to abide by. Relying on coal is not the answer either, Ketchum said. Trump has signed sweeping executive orders to try to boost coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, including drawing on emergency powers to reinvigorate a coal industry that has been struggling for decades because of tightening environmental regulations and competition from less-expensive natural gas and renewables. For Ketchum, Trump's bid to revive coal is 'not going to make a dent.' He pointed out how many coal facilities have already been retired and how costly it is for consumers and utility companies to depend on coal for energy. 'The train has already left the station on coal,' he said.
