House bill would merge marijuana and intoxicating hemp rules, redirect taxes to general fund and create expungement pathway

Representative Stewart presented House Bill 160 to the House Judiciary Committee and moved an amendment (amendment number 0273) that the committee adopted by voice with no objections. Stewart described HB 160 as a compromise intended to preserve core elements of Issue 2 — home grow allowances and a 10% tax — while bringing intoxicating hemp products (Delta-8/Delta-9/THC beverages) under the same dispensary regime and restricting sales to dispensaries rather than gas stations or similar outlets.

Stewart said the amendment narrows the local revenue carve-out so that only political subdivisions that had approved a dispensary as of the selected cutoff (June 30 of the referenced year) would receive a 20 percent share of marijuana tax revenue for five years; the change aimed to target revenue to localities that had actually authorized and planned for dispensaries rather than to every locality that had not banned them. Stewart said the bill retains the Issue 2 home-grow limit — 12 plants per adult in a household — and preserves a 10% state tax rate while directing a majority of revenue to the Ohio General Fund so the legislature could appropriate funds in the biennial budget.

Committee members asked detailed drafting and policy questions about licensing (whether licenses would be dual-use for medical and adult-use), whether local carve-outs should be backdated or have a longer look-forward period for jurisdictions in process, penalties and criminal provisions (including restrictions on public use, open container analogues and transportation), potency caps (a 70% cap was discussed as compared with other drafts), and expungement and social-equity measures. Representative Stewart said licensing details were intentionally deferred in the bill to avoid bogging the measure down in “scope-of-practice” licensing fights and to keep the bill’s text relatively clean, with licensing matters handled in separate legislation.

Representative Callender, Representative Isaacson and other members pressed on local revenue expectations and the bill’s treatment of municipal forecasts: members said some municipalities had anticipated 36% local shares under prior drafts or expectations and asked whether the 20% five-year carve-out and its lack of guaranteed perpetual allocation would be sufficient. Stewart said the five-year carve-out was intended to help communities recoup up-front costs and that the bulk of revenue flowing to the general fund would let elected leaders decide on allocations in the budget process. Members also raised enforcement and product-tracking questions tied to home-grow transfers and black-market products; Stewart said he was open to further drafting changes focusing on clarity and enforceability.

The committee adopted Representative Stewart’s amendment (amendment 0273) by voice and then heard sponsor testimony; the bill remains in committee for more hearings and drafting.