Cannabis industry stakeholders say Ohio's marijuana bill defies voters' will
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — As Ohio legislators look to crack down on voter-approved recreational marijuana laws, cannabis industry leaders are asking them to reconsider.
Senate Bill 56 would make dozens of changes to Ohio's recreational marijuana program, a citizen-led statute that passed in November 2023 with 57% of voters in favor. The bill passed in the Ohio Senate and now heads to the House as cannabis industry stakeholders speak out against the legislation. See previous coverage of the bill in the video player above.
S.B. 56 is a 147-page bill that would repeal most of Ohio's current Cannabis Control Law, replacing it with new and more restrictive legislation. It is a sweeping bill with many aspects that would strengthen regulations against home growing, adult use, dispensary licensing, cannabis farmers, employment, taxation and product options.
Vivek Ramaswamy's nonprofit is barely known but it makes big claims
In the Senate committee, the legislation saw four testimonies in favor of S.B. 56 and 40 testimonies against it. The ACLU of Ohio was one of the 40, and said many Ohioans likely would have wanted to provide testimony opposing S.B. 56 but were unable to with the speed it moved through the Senate.
Karen O'Keefe also shared opponent's testimony. O'Keefe is an attorney and director of state policies for the largest cannabis policy reform organization in the U.S., a nonprofit called Marijuana Policy Project. O'Keefe condemned the bill's restrictions, saying it would 'recriminalize' many aspects of cannabis use that voters approved.
O'Keefe said many of the regulations unfairly limit adult use. She called portions of S.B. 56 that would enforce mandatory jail time for anyone who smokes or vapes cannabis on a boat 'outrageous.' O'Keefe also pointed to restrictions in the bill barring sharing cannabis among a household, including if the homeowners grew the plant themselves.
'Spouses would have to have 'his and her' cannabis,' she said. 'Imagine being prohibited from sharing a bottle of wine with friends and family. This prohibition is nonsensical.'
Ohio transportation budget includes air travel, passenger rail
Cannabis Safety First founder Tim Johnson said the bill's concerns about public safety are redundant at best. Johnson, a veteran and retired law enforcement officer, said the state should support cannabis as a sustainable new industry rather than adding new criminal penalties for cannabis use.
If passed, Ohioans would only be permitted to grow six plants, halving the current 12-plant policy, which many opponents disagreed with. Larger marijuana cultivators also spoke out against the bill's restrictions toward growing cannabis.
'As a farmer, I'm asking you to remove the clause that prohibits hemp farmers from growing high THC cannabis outside,' Joey Ellwood with Appalachian Girls Cannabis Company said. 'I'm one of seven hemp farmers left in Ohio and our family has endured many challenges with this market.'
Chad Thompson, founder and organizer of the outdoor cannabis festival Stargazer Fest, said he felt the cultivating changes were largely lawmakers overregulating.
Ohio Intel plant construction delayed into next decade
'If you can grow six, why can't you grow 12? I mean, this is just an infringement on personal freedoms and rights that the Ohio citizens voted for,' Thompson said.
The bill would also cap the number of total active dispensaries at 350. Currently, Ohio has issued 128 certificates of operation.
Since recreational dispensaries first opened in the state last August, business has boomed for cannabis sales. Ohio currently averages between 200,000 and 300,000 individual cannabis sales each week, and non-medical sales have brought in more than $333 million in just seven months.
Nicole Stark, CEO of Bloom dispensary, said they are carefully reviewing S.B. 56 and will continue to ensure safe and effective access for patients and customers.
'Ohio voters made their voices heard in the recent election, and we hope any legislative changes will continue to reflect the will of the people while supporting a responsible and well-regulated cannabis program,' Stark said.
S.B. 56 passed the Senate on Feb. 26, and is expected to be referred to the House this week.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
42 minutes ago
- Politico
How Defunding Planned Parenthood Impacts Health Care
Happy June! Thanks for spending another Friday with us. Reach out: ecordover@ and klong@ And a very special thanks to Politico Journalism Institute Fellow Laney Crawley for her help with this edition. The GOP-led spending bill that passed the House on May 22 vows to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider and a health care resource that is used by one in three women (and one in 10 men) across the U.S. The organization has been on the chopping block since President Donald Trump took office. In March, the new administration cut funding to several Title X providers, including Planned Parenthood, shorting the organization tens of millions of dollars. If the bill succeeds to pass the Senate, Planned Parenthood patients would not be able to get care through Medicaid. At least 20 Planned Parenthood clinics have already had to close down this year across Iowa, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Utah and Vermont, due to what they say is financial and political strain. 'We are in a fight for survival, not just for Planned Parenthood health centers, but for everybody's ability to get high quality, affordable health care,' President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund Alexis McGill Johnson tells Women Rule. 'We can't overstate how it will disrupt the entire fabric of the health care system,' Ruth Richardson, CEO of the Planned Parenthood North Central States affiliate, tells Women Rule. The fight against Planned Parenthood is multifold and long-standing. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) introduced her own bill in 2023 titled the Defund Planned Parenthood Act, saying 'the nation's largest abortion provider has no business receiving taxpayer dollars.' Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced a similar bill — the End Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Providers Act — in the Senate in January. (The Congressional Budget Office found that defunding the organization would cost the government more than it saved.) And when the Supreme Court first announced it would hear arguments in a South Carolina lawsuit over whether Medicaid can be stripped from Planned Parenthood, nearly 100 Republican members of Congress wrote to the high court urging the justices to side against the health provider. (The court heard arguments in April and the case is ongoing.) Without Medicaid reimbursements, McGill Johnson and Richardson explain, the clinics cannot stay financially afloat and up to 200 of the 600 Planned Parenthood clinics across the country may have to close. Shutting down these clinics may leave millions of Americans without health care they've relied on for years, forcing many of them to travel for care or to forgo lifesaving preventative measures such as wellness exams and cancer screenings. 'You're certainly not stopping the need for care. You're putting the burden on people to get that care. It means that people are going to delay treatment until they're able to get there,' McGill Johnson says. Excluding Planned Parenthood from Medicaid 'does not just impact patients on Medicaid,' McGill Johnson adds, 'It actually impacts all of us who rely on those clinics and hospitals, particularly in rural areas in order to get that basic access to care.' The services these clinics and centers provide go beyond just abortion or even reproductive health services. '$2.8 million of our funding, right now, is frozen,' Richardson says. And the people who will be most affected by the defunding are already the most vulnerable in the community, McGill Johnson and Richardson add. 'The majority of our health centers are in rural or medically underserved communities. We see patients regardless of their ability to pay. We believe that they deserve access to high quality care. This is our literal reason for existing.' Since many of the physical clinics are closing, Richardson says the organization has expanded other operations like online care. 'Virtual care is critically important now, especially thinking in terms of just the increasing health care deserts we're already seeing within our rural communities,' Richardson says. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood and its affiliates are lobbying lawmakers on the Hill. 'We are hoping that reason will prevail in the Senate,' McGill Johnson says. POLITICO Special Report Elise Stefanik, a Potential Candidate for Governor, Focuses on New York's Local Races by Nick Reisman for POLITICO: 'ALBANY, New York — Republican Elise Stefanik, who's considering a run for governor next year, is turning to races close to home. The House Republican on Wednesday will announce the creation of a political action committee to raise cash on behalf of local Republican candidates in New York. She's expected to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to start.' Karine Jean-Pierre Is Leaving the Democratic Party. Her Former White House Colleagues Have Some Thoughts by Eli Stokols for POLITICO: 'Karine Jean-Pierre's announcement that she's leaving the Democratic Party — timed with the rollout of a new book — has detonated long-simmering grievances among her former White House colleagues about Jean-Pierre's pursuit of celebrity and personal media exposure while serving as then-President Joe Biden's press secretary. The attention-grabbing ploy lit up Democratic and Biden alumni texting groups and reignited frustrations that burned for years about Jean-Pierre, according to seven former Biden administration officials granted anonymity to describe private conversations.' AOC Backs Zohran Mamdani for NYC Mayor by Emily Ngo for POLITICO: 'Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has endorsed fellow Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani as her first choice for New York City mayor, putting her high-profile mark on a primary where he has surged among progressives. The lefty firebrand unveiled her preferred slate in the June 24 primary in an interview Thursday with The New York Times. She said she will rank Adrienne Adams, Brad Lander, Scott Stringer and Zellnor Myrie in that order after Mamdani. Adams, the City Council speaker, was also endorsed Thursday by Rep. Yvette Clarke as her No. 1 choice, POLITICO reports exclusively.' Number of the Week Read the full story here. MUST READS US Customs and Border Protection Quietly Revokes Protections for Pregnant Women and Infants by Dhruv Mehrotra for WIRED: 'US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has quietly rescinded several internal policies that were designed to protect some of the most vulnerable people in its custody — including pregnant women, infants, the elderly and people with serious medical conditions. The decision, outlined in a memo dated May 5 and signed by acting commissioner Pete Flores, eliminates four Biden-era policies enacted over the last three years. These policies were intended to address CBP's long-standing failures to provide adequate care for detainees who are most at risk — failures that have, in some cases, proved fatal.' Hundreds of 'DEI' Books Are Back at the Naval Academy. An Alum and a Bookshop Fought Their Removal by Nadra Nittle and Mariel Padilla for The 19th: 'When the U.S. Naval Academy stripped 381 books tied to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) from its library, retired Commander William Marks saw more than censorship — he saw a threat to the Navy's future. But last week, after immense public outcry, most of those books returned to Nimitz Library shelves. All the books the academy removed in early April had one thing in common: Officials flagged them for DEI themes. They include Maya Angelou's 'I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,' Harper Lee's 'To Kill a Mockingbird' and Elizabeth Reis' 'Bodies in Doubt: An American History of Intersex.' The purge followed directives from Trump-appointed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has called DEI initiatives 'divisive.'' Supreme Court Rules for Straight Woman in Job Discrimination Suit by Adam Liptak for The New York Times: 'The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled in favor of a straight woman who twice lost positions to gay workers, saying an appeals court had been wrong to require her to meet a heightened burden in seeking to prove workplace discrimination because she was a member of a majority group. The decision came two years after the Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions programs in higher education and amid the Trump administration's fierce efforts to root out programs that promote diversity and could make it easier for white people, men and other members of majority groups to pursue claims of employment discrimination. The standards for proving workplace discrimination under a federal civil rights law, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court, 'does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group. Quote of the Week Read more here. on the move Sophia Kim is now director of media relations and comms strategy for the Council on Foreign Relations. She is an Obama White House and Small Business Administration alum. (h/t POLITICO Playbook) Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the former Energy and Commerce chair, is launching a nonprofit aimed at inspiring a new generation of leaders. The Cathy McMorris Rodgers Leadership Institute will be led by her former district director Kristina Sabestinas, with longtime campaign official Dawn Sugasa serving as senior adviser. (h/t POLITICO Influence) Mary Thomas is now CEO of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. She previously was chief strategic growth officer of the Job Creators Network. (h/t POLITICO Playbook)
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump and Musk feud explodes in public view
WASHINGTON (NEXSTAR) – President Donald Trump and his former adviser Elon Musk are now in a very public feud. The dustup erupted on social media Thursday after days of Musk criticizing the president's signature tax and spending bill. The world's richest man and the president of the United States didn't hold back on how they now feel about each other on social media. They were once allies, now Elon Musk is calling for President Trump to be impeached. Just one week ago, President Trump praised Elon Musk. Now, he's taking a very different tone. 'I am very disappointed in Elon,' said Trump. The president's comments follow days of intensifying criticism from Musk, who blasted the president's massive budget bill, especially cuts to electric vehicle mandates. 'Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody,' said Trump. Musk unloaded on X, his own platform, slamming Trump's bill, his trade policies, and even accusing the president of ties to Jeffrey Epstein, claims the White House strongly denies. Trump fired back on Truth Social, threatening to cancel federal contracts worth billions for Musk's companies. 'If you want to go after Elon Musk's contracts, like, we are here for the fight, bro,' said Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M). Democrats see an opening while Republicans are caught in the middle. 'This isn't personal, policy differences should not be personal,' said House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). On social media Musk said Republicans would not have won the House in November without him. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Golden Dome dangers: An arms control expert explains how Trump's missile defense threatens to make the US less safe
President Donald Trump's idea of a 'Golden Dome' missile defense system carries a range of potential strategic dangers for the United States. Golden Dome is meant to protect the U.S. from ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles, and missiles launched from space. Trump has called for the missile defense to be fully operational before the end of his term in three years. Trump's goals for Golden Dome are likely beyond reach. A wide range of studies makes clear that even defenses far more limited than what Trump envisions would be far more expensive and less effective than Trump expects, especially against enemy missiles equipped with modern countermeasures. Countermeasures include multiple warheads per missile, decoy warheads and warheads that can maneuver or are difficult to track, among others. Regardless of Golden Dome's feasibility, there is a long history of scholarship about strategic missile defenses, and the weight of evidence points to the defenses making their host country less safe from nuclear attack. I'm a national security and foreign policy professor at Harvard University, where I lead 'Managing the Atom,' the university's main research group on nuclear weapons and nuclear energy policies. For decades, I've been participating in dialogues with Russian and Chinese nuclear experts – and their fears about U.S. missile defenses have been a consistent theme throughout. Russian President Vladmir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping have already warned that Golden Dome is destabilizing. Along with U.S. offensive capabilities, Golden Dome poses a threat of 'directly undermining global strategic stability, spurring an arms race and increasing conflict potential both among nuclear-weapon states and in the international arena as a whole,' a joint statement from China and Russia said. While that is a propaganda statement, it reflects real concerns broadly held in both countries. Experience going back half a century makes clear that if the administration pursues Golden Dome, it is likely to provoke even larger arms buildups, derail already-dim prospects for any negotiated nuclear arms restraint, and perhaps even increase the chances of nuclear war. My first book, 35 years ago, made the case that it would be in the U.S. national security interest to remain within the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which strictly limited U.S. and Soviet – and later Russian – missile defenses. The United States and the Soviet Union negotiated the ABM Treaty as part of SALT I, the first agreements limiting the nuclear arms race. It was approved in the Senate 98-2. The ABM Treaty experience is instructive for the implications of Golden Dome today. Why did the two countries agree to limit defenses? First and foremost, because they understood that unless each side's defenses were limited, they would not be able to stop an offensive nuclear arms race. If each side wants to maintain the ability to retaliate if the other attacks – 'don't nuke me, or I'll nuke you' – then an obvious answer to one side building up more defenses is for the other to build up more nuclear warheads. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviets installed 100 interceptors to defend Moscow – so the United States targeted still more warheads on Moscow to overwhelm the defense. Had it ever come to a nuclear war, Moscow would have been even more thoroughly obliterated than if there had been no defense at all. Both sides came to realize that unlimited missile defenses would just mean more offense on both sides, leaving both less secure than before. In addition, nations viewed an adversary's shield as going hand in hand with a nuclear sword. A nuclear first strike might destroy a major part of a country's nuclear forces. Missile defenses would inevitably be more effective against the reduced, disorganized retaliation that they knew would be coming than they would be against a massive, well-planned surprise attack. That potential advantage to whoever struck first could make nuclear crises even more dangerous. Unfortunately, President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of the ABM Treaty in 2002, seeking to free U.S. development of defenses against potential missile attacks from small states such as North Korea. But even now, decades later, the U.S. has fewer missile interceptors deployed (44) than the treaty permitted (100). The U.S. pullout did not lead to an immediate arms buildup or the end of nuclear arms control. But Putin has complained bitterly about U.S. missile defenses and the U.S. refusal to accept any limitation at all on them. He views the U.S. stance as an effort to achieve military superiority by negating Russia's nuclear deterrent. Russia is investing heavily in new types of strategic nuclear weapons intended to avoid U.S. missile defenses, from an intercontinental nuclear torpedo to a missile that can go around the world and attack from the south, while U.S. defenses are mainly pointed north toward Russia. Similarly, much of China's nuclear buildup appears to be driven by wanting a reliable nuclear deterrent in the face of the United States' capability to strike its nuclear forces and use missile defenses to mop up the remainder. Indeed, China was so angered by South Korea's deployment of U.S.-provided regional defenses – which they saw as aiding the U.S. ability to intercept their missiles – that they imposed stiff sanctions on South Korea. Now, Trump wants to go much further, with a defense 'forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland,' with a success rate 'very close to 100%.' I believe that this effort is highly likely to lead to still larger nuclear buildups in Russia and China. The Putin-Xi joint statement pledges to 'counter' defenses 'aimed at achieving military superiority.' Given the ease of developing countermeasures that are extraordinarily difficult for defenses to overcome, odds are the resulting offense-defense competition will leave the United States worse off than before – and a good bit poorer. Putin and Xi made clear that they are particularly concerned about the thousands of space-based interceptors Trump envisions. These interceptors are designed to hit missiles while their rockets are still burning during launch. Most countries are likely to oppose the idea of deploying huge numbers of weapons in space – and these interceptors would be both expensive and vulnerable. China and Russia could focus on further developing anti-satellite weapons to blow a hole in the defense, increasing the risk of space war. Already, there is a real danger that the whole effort of negotiated limits to temper nuclear arms racing may be coming to an end. The last remaining treaty limiting U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, the New START Treaty, expires in February 2026. China's rapid nuclear buildup is making many defense officials and experts in Washington call for a U.S. buildup in response. Intense hostility all around means that for now, neither Russia nor China is even willing to sit down to discuss nuclear restraints, in treaty form or otherwise. In my view, adding Golden Dome to this combustible mix would likely end any prospect of avoiding a future of unrestrained and unpredictable nuclear arms competition. But paths away from these dangers are available. It would be quite plausible to design defenses that would provide some protection against attacks from a handful of missiles from North Korea or others that would not seriously threaten Russian or Chinese deterrent forces – and design restraints that would allow all parties to plan their offensive forces knowing what missile defenses they would be facing in the years to come. I believe that Trump should temper his Golden Dome ambitions to achieve his other dream – of negotiating a deal to reduce nuclear dangers. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Matthew Bunn, Harvard Kennedy School Read more: Golden Dome: An aerospace engineer explains the proposed US-wide missile defense system Is Russia looking to put nukes in space? Doing so would undermine global stability and ignite an anti-satellite arms race H-bomb creator Richard Garwin was a giant in science, technology and policy Matthew Bunn is a member of the National Academies Committee on International Security and Arms Control and a board member of the Arms Control Association. He is a member of the Academic Alliance of the United States Strategic Command and a consultant to Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
