Senate committee opens debate on broad revisions to Ohio marijuana law, including tax, homegrow and public‑use limits

The Ohio Senate General Government Committee on Oct. 12 held the first hearing on Senate Bill 56, sponsored by Senator Steve Huffman, a broad revision of the statute enacted by voter initiative (Issue 2) that governs adult‑use and medical marijuana in Ohio. The sponsor and multiple proponents described the bill as aimed at public safety, regulatory consistency and clearer employer and private‑property protections.

Senator Steve Huffman, the bill’s sponsor, said Senate Bill 56 would merge Ohio’s medical and adult‑use programs under the Division of Cannabis Control established after Issue 2, streamline licensing and testing standards, and update packaging and advertising rules to better protect children. "In short, this bill is about government efficiency, consumer and child safety, and maintaining access to voter approval, adult use marijuana," Huffman said.

The bill would, as introduced, increase the excise tax on adult‑use marijuana from 10% to 15% and direct revenue to the state’s General Revenue Fund rather than the distribution set out in Issue 2. Huffman said one reason to route revenue to the General Revenue Fund is to allow the General Assembly to decide allocations for items such as jail costs, law enforcement training and poison control rather than guaranteeing a set distribution that could constrain future budgets. He cited an approximate revenue figure of about $300 million annually that the legislature would determine how to allocate.

Proponents who testified included Steve Barnett, Carroll County Prosecuting Attorney and officer of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association; Rick Carfagna, senior vice president of government affairs at the Ohio Chamber of Commerce; and Dr. Rob Crane of the Preventing Tobacco Addiction Foundation (weedfreekids.org). Written testimony was submitted by Hannah Hayes of the Ohio Poison Control Centers.

Steve Barnett told the committee prosecutors supported measures intended to protect children and public safety, and emphasized provisions in the bill that would prohibit marketing or packaging that appeals to children, regulate transportation and storage of marijuana in motor vehicles, limit homegrown cultivation to six plants per household and prohibit transfer of homegrown product. "These are issues of community safety in a larger sense," Barnett said, arguing that higher home‑grow limits could fuel a black market and tainted products.

Rick Carfagna of the Ohio Chamber said the business community supports clearer workplace protections and private property rights in the bill. He praised changes that would allow employers with written drug‑free workplace or zero‑tolerance policies to enforce those rules against marijuana use, and the bill’s language that would enable property owners to prohibit use on their premises. Carfagna also urged stronger funding for behavioral health and recovery programs if revenue allocations are revised.

Dr. Rob Crane, a family physician who leads the Preventing Tobacco Addiction Foundation, urged stricter limits to protect young people, including smaller per‑package dose caps and tighter limits on home growth and high‑potency concentrates. "About 30 percent of folks who regularly use marijuana, THC, become addicted," Crane said, urging a public‑health approach to marketing and education and surveillance of youth use.

Committee members asked about several elements: where tax revenue would flow and the rationale for routing it to the General Revenue Fund; whether expungement of past convictions would be included (members said the current version does not contain a blanket expungement provision); whether the bill addresses hemp‑derived products such as delta‑8; and how enforcement would vary across urban and rural counties. Senator Huffman said some items — including hemp‑derivative rules — would be handled separately and that the committee process could consider expungement amendments.

The bill also contains enforcement provisions mirroring OVI‑style penalties for unlawful transportation of marijuana, and criminalizes providing false identification for adult‑use purchases. Proponents and the sponsor said the measure is intended to balance voter approval of adult‑use cannabis with targeted statutory adjustments to limit youth exposure, address public safety concerns and give employers and property owners clearer authority.

No vote was taken; the hearing collected sponsor remarks and proponent testimony. Committee members signaled plans for further consideration and potential amendments in future committee work.