Ohio Lawmakers Advance Bill That Could Undo Key Elements of Voter-Approved Cannabis Legalization

Despite the public’s clear support for adult-use cannabis in the 2023 election, the Ohio House Judiciary Committee is considering legislation that would significantly alter the structure, access, and equity provisions of the state’s new cannabis law.

Passed by voters with a 57% majority, Issue 2 authorized cannabis possession, home cultivation, and retail sales for adults aged 21 and over. However, Senate Bill 56 (S.B. 56), already passed by the Ohio Senate in February, proposes sweeping changes that critics argue would reverse or undermine many of the law’s core provisions.

Legislation Would Criminalize Personal Sharing, Restrict Use, and Limit Home Grows

Under S.B. 56 as passed by the Senate, Ohioans 21 and older could face criminal penalties for common, non-commercial cannabis-related activities. These include sharing cannabis with other adults, possessing cannabis from out-of-state sources, or consuming cannabis in nonmoving vehicles or outdoor private spaces such as backyards.

The bill would also cap home grows at six plants per household—half of what was permitted under Issue 2—and criminalize gifting, even between consenting adults. Though these penalties would mark a stark departure from what voters approved, the House Judiciary Committee is now considering a substitute version that would reintroduce some of the voter-sanctioned freedoms, such as personal sharing at a private residence and restoring the 12-plant household limit.

Lawmakers Seek to Strip Social Equity Programs and Redirect Cannabis Tax Revenue

One of the most contentious elements of S.B. 56 is the removal of the social equity and jobs program. Issue 2 earmarked 36% of cannabis tax revenue to support communities disproportionately affected by cannabis prohibition. The House substitute plan would instead divert nearly all cannabis tax revenue into the state’s general fund—reserving only a temporary 25% share for municipalities hosting dispensaries.

Eliminating dedicated equity funding would mark a sharp policy pivot, reducing state-level support for restorative justice and reinvestment in historically marginalized communities. The proposal has drawn criticism from cannabis advocates who argue the shift would erase one of the few reparative justice mechanisms embedded in Ohio’s adult-use framework.

Revised Bill Would Shrink Opportunities for Small Growers and Eliminate Equity Licensing

Both the Senate-passed and House substitute versions of the bill eliminate Level III cultivation licenses, which were specifically created to help 40 social equity applicants enter the market with up to 5,000 square feet of growing space. This provision was designed to address long-standing disparities in cannabis business ownership.

In the Senate version, cultivation limits for existing businesses would also be drastically reduced. Level I cultivators, originally allowed up to 100,000 square feet of canopy, would be restricted to 25,000 square feet, while Level II licenses would shrink from 15,000 to just 3,000 square feet. However, the House substitute version restores the original canopy sizes under Issue 2, citing concerns from small and mid-size businesses about viability and competitive pressure.

Despite this adjustment, critics note that the elimination of equity licenses and the disruption of cultivation scaling pose serious risks to Ohio’s emerging cannabis industry.

Potency Limits, Advertising Rules, and Use Restrictions Tighten Under Proposed Legislation

The House committee version of S.B. 56 retains many of the Senate’s stricter regulations on product potency and consumption. Extracts would be limited to 70% THC, down from the 90% permitted under Issue 2. Whole flower limits remain unchanged at 35% THC.

Cannabis use would be prohibited in all public spaces, nonmoving vehicles, and private outdoor areas—permitting use only inside personal residences or at approved outdoor concert venues. Additionally, new advertising restrictions and packaging rules aim to further limit market accessibility, especially to youth.

These measures appear aimed at aligning cannabis regulation more closely with alcohol and tobacco, though advocates argue they create unnecessary criminal penalties and widen the enforcement burden on state agencies and law enforcement.

Changes Could Benefit Larger Players and Reduce Market Competition

Both versions of S.B. 56 would impose an eight-dispensary ownership cap per company, a change intended to limit monopolization. At the same time, the House version increases the total number of allowed dispensaries from 350 to 400—a move that would provide more opportunities for expansion, but also intensify competition.

Critics contend that many of the proposed amendments—especially the elimination of equity licenses and small grower provisions—favor existing medical cannabis operators and well-capitalized businesses over new or underrepresented entrepreneurs.

These adjustments risk consolidating market control among a small number of large players, dampening Ohio’s potential for a diverse and inclusive cannabis economy.

Voter Mandate Collides with Legislative Resistance as Calls Grow for Public Reconsideration

While state lawmakers claim their proposals are aimed at improving regulatory clarity and safety, many voters and industry stakeholders view the effort as a legislative override of public will.

Calls have intensified for legislators to return any significant amendments to the ballot for voter approval rather than making unilateral changes. Advocacy organizations such as NORML Ohio argue that changes to Issue 2 should require direct consent from the electorate that enacted it.

With the House Judiciary Committee expected to review the substitute version on June 4, the debate over who ultimately controls cannabis policy in Ohio—lawmakers or voters—continues to escalate.