The Ohio House Judiciary Committee heard dozens of in‑person and written witnesses during the third hearing on substitute Senate Bill 56, the bill that would implement the voter‑approved Issue 2 framework for adult‑use cannabis.

The testimony focused on five recurring issues: tax and host‑community revenue distribution; social equity and small‑business access; treatment of hemp and hemp‑derived products; patient protections and medical access; and public safety questions such as testing, impaired driving and search standards.

Why it matters: Issue 2, approved by Ohio voters in November 2023, set a statutory structure for adult use, taxes and local revenue. Witnesses told the committee the substitute bill, in its current form, risks reversing key voter promises, excluding small or community‑based operators, and creating public‑safety and legal uncertainties if hemp products are reclassified or if funding is redirected.

What witnesses said

- Anthony Riley, Ohio Cannabis Live: “Medical patients should not be taxed…Medical patients should be allowed to smoke cannabis,” and he urged protections for seniors, veterans and people with serious health conditions. Riley also proposed event‑ and venue‑based permits for designated consumption spaces.

- Daniel Delsignore Jr., Ohio Cannabis Consumer Coalition, said SB 56 “fails to honor the will of the people” and warned the bill would undercut Issue 2’s promised allocations to communities, citing the 36 percent local allocation called for under the voter measure.

- Rodney Hennessy (also known as Rodney Hash), Ohio Cannabis Consumer Coalition, and multiple consumer‑coalition witnesses urged wider market access, smaller license classes and more dispensaries so legal supply can displace the illicit market.

- Kat Packer, Drug Policy Alliance, urged the committee to remove newly proposed criminal penalties and to preserve the social‑equity and jobs program — or at least rename it if the term “equity” troubles legislators — because the fund and program were central to Issue 2’s purpose to reinvest tax revenue into communities.

- Bevin Schneck, Ohio Municipal League, supported creation of a host community cannabis fund but asked that the committee ensure previously collected excise‑tax revenues be included in distributions, that the local share remain at 36 percent of the 10 percent excise‑tax rate from Issue 2, and that any funding not be temporary.

Business and hemp industry witnesses emphasized economic consequences if hemp and hemp‑derived THC products are moved exclusively into the closed dispensary system. Multiple small business owners and processors said the substitute bill would “effectively ban” their current sales channels and eliminate existing business models that serve older and medically driven customers.

Legal and regulatory concerns

- Several witnesses asked the committee to tighten definitions of “intoxicating” versus federally lawful hemp products, to ban synthetic conversions of federally lawful cannabinoids, and to preserve access for existing hemp retailers and manufacturers.

- Witnesses also raised testing, labeling and child‑resistant packaging as problems that can be addressed by regulation rather than by moving products into the dispensary system alone.

Committee process and next steps

Representative Callender told witnesses that a substitute had been circulated last week and that negotiators were still working on amendments to address many of the concerns raised; she said specific outstanding issues remain under negotiation. The committee concluded the third hearing with no formal vote on the substitute bill.

Ending

The substitute bill remains under discussion. Witnesses urged additional hearings and local outreach; the committee kept the record open to written testimony posted to the Judiciary Committee website. The committee did not adopt or reject the substitute bill during the session.