Ohio legislature closing in on tweaks to voter-approved recreational marijuana laws
That gap has existed since Ohio voters approved recreational marijuana at the ballot box in 2023, with the Ohio Senate broadly pushing for more restrictions than the House was willing to tolerate.
The House adopted a plan to try to find the middle: Amend Senate Bill 56 to include large portions of House Bill 160 and Senate Bill 86.
Here's the broad overview of the hodgepodge piece of legislation, as things stand: — There would be no ban on the sharing of recreational marijuana between of-age adults. — The state's current flat 10% tax would be maintained on recreational sales and expanded onto intoxicating hemp products. Previous plans have sought to raise the tax to 15% or 20%. — Intoxicating hemp products would be banned from retail sales and only be purchasable at dispensaries. That's except for low-dose THC-infused beverages, which could still be sold retail. — The state's current host community financial kickback would be phased out seven years after the bill's effective date. Previous plans have considered cutting out that funding immediately. — The limit of Ohio dispensaries would rise from 350 to 400. — The minimum distance between dispensaries would be one mile. Previous plans have looked at a half-mile limit. — Public use would be allowed in permitting concert venues. Bars and restaurants still would not have the authority to permit marijuana consumption on their patios or outdoor areas. — THC concentration in certain products would be capped at 70%, with Ohio's Division of Cannabis Control having the regulatory power to bump it higher.
The bill is likely to see further amendments in the House Judiciary Committee over the coming weeks.
Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, who has headed the House's legislative efforts on intoxicating hemp and recreational marijuana, said that he hopes the compromise will be enough to get the Senate on board.
The Senate's go-to expert on the subject, Sen. Steve Huffman, R-Tipp City, did not respond before publication when this news outlet asked if he approved of the House's changes.
------
For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It's free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening.
Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Whole Hog Politics: Discontentment, democracy and the promise of Independence Day
On the menu: Concern over ICE tactics; Tillis blows up N.C. Senate race; SupCo may throw parties a lifeline; Greene with envy; Hacking into the job market It should surprise no one that democracy isn't very popular these days. Watching Congress cough up a budget bill like an asthmatic house cat with a hairball doesn't exactly fill one with confidence. A recent Pew Research survey looked at how satisfied residents of nations around the globe were with 'the way democracy is working in their country.' Notably, among the residents of 12 mostly wealthy, mostly stable nations — Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States — 64 percent of adults said they were dissatisfied, compared to 35 percent who were satisfied. On the one hand, so what? As Winston Churchill said, 'democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried.' People don't like the way democratic government works, but they're not really supposed to. Democracy is like a lot of good things in life: more valuable for what it prevents rather than what it delivers. If the alternative to self-government is tyranny, then imperfect democracy is a gift to be cherished. That's why Americans should feel more than a little superior on this, the 249th birthday of our democracy — the oldest unbroken one in the world. And yet, compared with the residents of other wealthy nations, Americans are feeling pretty lousy about government by 'We the people.' The same survey found that 64 percent of Americans were dissatisfied, dramatically worse than the countries with which we share the most in common: 23 points worse than Canada, 11 points worse than the United Kingdom, 23 points worse than Germany and 23 points worse than Australia. The trend in the U.S. and among other wealthy nations generally, though, has been downward. In 2017, the average for America's cohort was 49 percent satisfied, 49 percent dissatisfied. Eight years later, it's a spread of almost 30 points. Every country has its own reasons for its frustrations with democracy, including those places like Hungary and South Korea, which of late have been struggling mightily to maintain some kind system that is both functional and democratic. But in the United States, the richest, freest, safest nation in the history of the world, it doesn't seem right. Why does the apex nation feel so crummy about its system of government? Part of it is no doubt a version of affluenza in which Americans have come to see self-government in a Madisonian democracy based on equal rights and equal protections as the default. While we may be the stark exception to the great powers of history, it is normal to us. Like all good things in great supply, we take liberty for granted. But it may also be a misunderstanding of cause and effect. The temptation for Americans for more than a century has been to think that we have freedom and self-government because we are rich and powerful. The truth is that we are rich and powerful because we have freedom and self-government. America is now in its 250th year. One year from today in Philadelphia, we will celebrate that grand achievement: truly the envy of the world. And when we do, one suspects Americans will still be unhappy with their system of government. And again, how could you blame them? Our politics are rotten and our government can barely perform its basic duties. National elections have turned into battles royale in which winners get to spend two or four years trying to punish the other side only for the other side to then get its turn with the shillelagh. Back and forth we go, each time a little meaner and a little more dysfunctional. It should be remembered that this is a perversion of our system, not the system itself. Unlike the residents of other nations that built their systems out of local custom grafted with American-style democracy, this is our own birthright. The declaration made in Philadelphia 249 years ago today that all men are created equal is the inheritance of every American citizen, wherever she or he was born. When we are dissatisfied with our democracy, we don't need a different sort of government, we have to go back to what made us great in the first place. We have the source code if we are willing to reclaim it. To that end, I'd ask that you take a moment in today's celebration to remember the gift that we have been given. What President Calvin Coolidge said in speech celebrating the 150th anniversary of the founding is just as true today: 'No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.' Amen, amen. Happy Independence Day. May your barbecues, like this newsletter, be whole hog. [Make sure to watch a special episode of 'The Hill Sunday with Chris Stirewalt' this Sunday at 10 a.m. ET on NewsNation and local CW stations as guests including Adm. William McRaven and professor Robert P. George explore practical patriotism for America's 250th year.] Holy croakano! We welcome your feedback, so please email us with your tips, corrections, reactions, amplifications, etc. at WHOLEHOGPOLITICS@ . If you'd like to be considered for publication, please include your real name and hometown. If you don't want your comments to be made public, please specify. NUTRITIONAL INFORMATION Trump Job Performance Average Approval: 42 percent Average Disapproval: 53.2 percent Net Score: –11.2 Change from one week ago: ↑ 1.2 points Change from one month ago: ↓ 3.4 points [Average includes: Marist College 43 percent approve – 52 percent disapprove; Emerson College 45 percent approve – 46 percent disapprove; Quinnipiac University 41 percent approve – 54 percent disapprove Ipsos/Reuters 41 percent approve – 57 percent disapprove Gallup 40 percent approve – 57 percent disapprove] Majority concerned about ICE raids How would you describe the actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in enforcing immigration laws? Do you think they have: Gone too far: 54 percent About right: 26 percent Not gone far enough: 18 percent [Marist College poll of 1,381 adults nationally, June 23-25] ON THE SIDE: LAST DAYS OF THE RAJ IN MAGAZINELAND NYT: 'As the longtime editor in chief of Vanity Fair, Graydon Carter was accustomed to big expenses … But in early 2001, he wondered if he had gone too far. Annie Leibovitz, the magazine's chief photographer, had run up a $475,000 bill on a cover shoot involving 10 world-famous actresses — Nicole Kidman, Penélope Cruz, Sophia Loren — and an elaborate stage set, complete with a mantelpiece and a genuine John Singer Sargent painting, which was flown from Los Angeles to New York to London. ('It was like Vietnam, the expenses,' Mr. Carter recalled.) Now, he needed to tell his boss, S.I. Newhouse Jr., the billionaire owner and patron of Condé Nast, about the latest line item on his tab. … 'Well, I think we just shot the most expensive cover in magazine history.' A pause. 'What's the good news?' 'It looks like a $475,000 cover.' It was the equivalent of roughly $850,000 today. Mr. Newhouse was fine with it.' PRIME CUTS Tillis's exit supercharges N.C. Senate race: The Hill: 'Sen. Thom Tillis's (R-N.C.) decision to not seek reelection to another term has scrambled the field for what will be one of the most competitive Senate races in the country next year. The North Carolina Senate race was already going to be one of the most-discussed contests of the 2026 midterms as one of the two main targets for Democrats hoping to at least narrow the Republican majority in the body. But with Tillis out, the race appears set to become even more hotly contested as big names on both sides of the aisle are floated as potential candidates, including Lara Trump and former Gov. Roy Cooper (D). … 'I think it's changed the calculus tremendously because … Tillis was going to be not impossible but difficult to beat,' said North Carolina Democratic strategist Doug Wilson. … Democrats previously acknowledged the challenge they would face in defeating Tillis for a third term but expressed hope, especially if the popular former two-term Gov. Cooper enters the race. Cooper has been considering a bid, but the North Carolina-based NBC affiliate WRAL reported that he won't decide for at least a few more weeks.' Sherrill opens big lead in New Jersey as Trump influence looms large: New Jersey Globe: 'Democrat Mikie Sherrill has a 20-point lead over Republican Jack Ciattarelli in the New Jersey governor's race, with President Donald Trump figuring prominently in voters' decisions, according to a Rutgers-Eagleton Poll released this morning. Sherrill leads Ciattarelli, 51%-31%, with 13% undecided. When leaners are included, Sherrill's lead grows to 56%-35%. … More than half of New Jersey (52%) say Trump's presidency is a major factor in who they'll support for governor, while 18% call it a minor factor and 30% say it won't affect them at all. 'Trump's influence appears to be more of a benefit to Sherrill right now, given key groups more likely to support her are also more likely to claim the president is a factor in their vote choice, while those more supportive of Ciattarelli do not.' … 'While Trump's endorsement may have helped in the primaries, these numbers are an early sign that the endorsement may play differently when it comes to the general.'' Super PACs beware: SupCo could restore flow of campaign cash to parties: Washington Post: 'The Supreme Court will hear a significant campaign finance case next term that will examine whether it violates the Constitution to restrict the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with individual candidates on advertising and other communications. The case has the potential to reshape election spending in a major way. The restrictions being challenged were established in the early 1970s during the Nixon era to try to prevent donors from contributing to parties as a way to skirt limits on direct giving to candidates. Richard H. Pildes, a New York University law professor, said ending the limits could shift the balance of financial might from outside groups that have come to dominate campaign spending to political parties that were once the major players. 'It would at a minimum open up more opportunities for political parties to work with their campaigns,' Pildes said. 'More expansively, it could lead to political parties regaining some of the ground they lost to the Super PACs over the last 20 years.'' SHORT ORDER Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan to run as an independent in attempt to succeed Whitmer — NBC News Stampede starts to replace longtime Rep. Dwight Evans in deep-blue Philly district — Pennsylvania Capital-Star Dems take the safe bet in Virginia, picking former Connolly aide to succeed late congressman — Associated Press New poll finds Adams trailing behind Silwa — The Hill Republican overperforms in San Diego special election — Newsweek TABLE TALK Narrator: It was actually over 'There's no way that [Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)] has the votes in the House for this [reconciliation bill]. I think it's far from over.' — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) in an interview hours before the House voted to advance the legislation. MAILBAG 'I've seen various headlines about various political folks wanting to arrest New York City wunderkind [Zohran Mamdani]. But on what legitimate legal basis? Is there a whiff that he's done anything wrong on his immigration paperwork? An article on that might be helpful as New York City voters make up their minds on the three top current candidates. As well it might be integrated with a deep dive into the various criminal allegations against [Mayor Eric Adams] and ex-Governor [Andrew Cuomo].' — David Tomsovic, San Diego Mr. Tomsovic, In the ledger of moral bankruptcy that describes Woodrow Wilson's time as president, there are many contenders for what might be the very worst thing he did: Jailing the women protesting for suffrage, screening a pro-Klan movie at the White House, pumping out fake news through a propaganda newspaper, etc. But the worst is probably jailing his political opponents and using the Justice Department to harass and intimidate dissenters. Wilson's government imprisoned Eugene Debs, the Socialist candidate for president along with many other opponents of World War I. The argument from President Trump and some in his party is that Mamdani's opinions and policies are sufficient to merit denaturalizing the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City. Revoking a political opponent's citizenship from a country where he has lived since age 7 is tantamount to exile, a very czarist kind of thing to do. Those in power argue that only immigrants with desirable views should be allowed to stay, even those who have earned and maintained their citizenship. On one hand, we can assume that this is mostly trolling. Trump loves nothing more than saying what is supposed to be forbidden. And if it lets him leverage up another politician's social media heat, so much the better. But we must always remember the continuum of Trump rhetoric by which strange things become serious policy: It's a joke to own the libs; it's meant to be taken seriously but not literally; promises made, promises kept. So far, it's surely helping Mamdani in a city where, by some estimates, 40 percent of residents are immigrant. Trump is little loved in his hometown, so Mamdani being able to say that he is standing up to Trump and drawing Trump's ire is probably a very helpful thing politically. But we should keep an eye on this one. Republicans who complained about 'lawfare' targeting the former and future president after his 2020 defeat should be the most opposed to any such interventions, and yet, here we are. All best, c 'Have you read any Ross Thomas? His brand of wit and cynicism is, to me, unmatched in most of the political thrillers (the works of Charles McCarry notably excepted) from the 1960s to today. 'The Seersucker Whipsaw' (1967), about an American southerner sent to run (read: rig) an electoral campaign in Africa is my favorite, but the best title goes to 1970's 'The Fools in Town Are On Our Side,' which comes from a delightful Mark Twain quote in which he declares that that constituency 'is a big enough majority in any town.' Reading an old Ross Thomas paperback makes me feel weirdly comforted in our own wild political times.' — Drew Beardslee, Grand Ledge, Mich. Mr. Beardslee, I have not, but you can bet that as soon as I read your favorable comparison to McCarry it went right into my shopping cart! My love of what I still think of as 'detective stories' probably had deeper roots in my childhood, but I will never forget the summer in college that I discovered and devoured everything by James Ellroy. McCarry came later, but once I had finished 'Shelley's Heart,' I was off to the races. My quibble, though, is about the use of the word 'cynicism.' I don't see McCarry's Paul Christopher or McCarry's other 'good guys' as cynical, certainly not about themselves. These stories, like Ellroy's, are about people who are willing to do the right thing even when the rest of the world has gone wrong. They have codes and they live by them, even at great costs. If you want cynics, read John le Carré. Thanks much for the recommendation. I will report back! All best, c You should email us! Write to WHOLEHOGPOLITICS@ with your tips, kudos, criticisms, insights, rediscovered words, wonderful names, recipes, and, always, good jokes. Please include your real name — at least first and last — and hometown. Make sure to let us know in the email if you want to keep your submission private. My colleague, the star-spangled Meera Sehgal, and I will look for your emails and then share the most interesting ones and my responses here. Clickety clack! FOR DESSERT: HE APPLIED ONLINE TechRadar: 'A man has pleaded guilty to hacking multiple organizations only to promote his own cybersecurity services. Nicholas Michael Kloster, a 32-year-old from Kansas City, was indicted in 2024 for breaching three organizations, including a health club and a Missouri nonprofit organization. During the incident, Kloster emailed business owners claiming responsibility for the attacks, and offering consulting services to prevent future cyberattacks, and his fate will soon be determined. In one case, Kloster accessed a gym's systems by breaching a restricted area. He manipulated the system to remove his own photo from the member database before reducing his monthly membership fee to $1. He then explained to the business owner that he had bypassed login credentials for security cameras and accessed router settings.' Chris Stirewalt is the politics editor for The Hill and NewsNation, the host of 'The Hill Sunday' on NewsNation and The CW, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of books on politics and the media. MeeraSehgalcontributed to this report.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
In Today's GOP, There Is No Choice at All
The so-called Big Beautiful Bill was always destined to pass, and it's instructive to realize why: for Republican lawmakers, this was an up-or-down vote on President Donald Trump. The sprawling measure — which at its core was really one big, beautiful tax extender — was never about those tax rates or Medicaid or the deficit. The underlying legislation was no bill at all, but a referendum on Trump. And that left congressional Republicans a binary choice that also had nothing to do with the policy therein: They could salute the president and vote yes and or vote no and risk their careers in a primary. It doesn't take a political science PhD to realize where today's GOP would land. Don't believe me, just ask the senior senator from North Carolina, Thom Tillis. Yes — to be sure alert! — there was much juggling between the two chambers of Congress. House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate GOP Leader John Thune and their lieutenants deserve credit for the creativity and flexibility they demonstrated by pacifying lawmakers uneasy about state and local tax deductions, rural hospitals and even the fate of Alaska Native whaling captains (somewhere, Don Young and Ted Stevens are smiling). But, folks, the alternative was no alternative at all. Without acting, Republican lawmakers would have risked breaching the debt ceiling this summer, tempted an across-the-board tax hike when the 2017 rates expired at the end of the year and torpedoed their president's sole legislative initiative. The last of these merits more attention. Perhaps the most remarkable story sitting in plain view in today's Washington is the gap between Trump's political and media dominance and the paucity of his legislative agenda. The president has been happy to spend the first six months of his second term signing executive orders, wielding tariffs as economic weapons and rampaging through news cycles with all manner of provocations, outbursts and threats. He's less a traditional president than the old Kool-Aid man bursting through walls. Which works quite well for somebody who measures success by attention and is mainly interested in the perception of winning than an LBJ-style collection of pens and parchment from bills signed. The second-term, free-range Trump has not even pretended to be interested in the details of lawmaking and is even less interested in forging bipartisan coalitions with people he sees criticizing him on the television shows he consumes by the hours. Also, he's mostly animated by immigration crackdowns and playing department store owner or price- fixer-in-chief, which he can mostly do on his own and battle out in the courts without consulting Congress. Recognizing as much, and that their narrow margins in both chambers would limit their ambitions, a group of GOP lawmakers wisely decided to stuff every measure they could into one reconciliation bill they could ram through the House and Senate with bare majorities. Yes, there was more money for immigration and defense, but the most significant policy changes, except for Medicaid, were modest changes to deductions on tips, overtime and auto purchases that helped Trump fulfill campaign trail promises. Those sweeteners helped keep Trump's attention, relatively speaking, and let him portray the bill in which-side-are-you-on terms that rendered the language less relevant than the stakes. The hard truth for small-government conservatives in Congress to swallow is that their primary voters care more about fidelity to Trump than reducing the size of the federal government. Any overly loud critiques by lawmakers — no matter if rooted in principle or sound politics — were angrily dismissed by Trump as so much 'grandstanding' by malcontents. He had scant interest in bill language because signing a bill is the point. Victory is in the action not the particulars. Plus, there's only room for one grandstander in today's Republican Party, as Tillis, Rep. Thomas Massie and Elon Musk (twice) have now learned. Every other actor is merely toiling in the engine room of the USS MAGA. It's fitting that this Trump-era fact of political life is most difficult for Republicans on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum to grasp. What unites Senators Rand Paul and Susan Collins, a goldbug curious libertarian and old-school New England moderate? Neither is willing to accept a purely tribal politics in which substance is secondary to a cult of personality. In fairness to Trump, he's matured enough politically to recognize the difference between hectoring Massie, Paul and Tillis and haranguing Collins. The first cohort represents states the president carried three times and, with the important exception of Tillis, can easily be replaced by another Republican. But the Mainer is the GOP version of Joe Manchin: Once she's gone, the replacement will be a conventional Democrat, not a more loyal Republican. Speaking of Manchin, he and other Democratic veterans of the last administration's legislative wars are all too familiar with the hangover that may await today's jubilant Republicans after the beautiful black ink on the bill is dry and the fireworks have all gone off. Joe Biden hardly commanded a cult of personality, but the tug of tribalism was almost as strong on congressional Democrats like Manchin, who were told to fall in line and back Biden's pricey agenda. The West Virginian eventually did so, the main legislation did little to alleviate inflation despite its name and most voters at the polls last year pointed a finger at Democrats and not global supply chains for higher costs. So Trump may not care about the details, but Democratic ad-makers in next year's midterm will — and they'll bet that the Medicaid cuts the president swore he'd never enact will do more to move voters than their tax bracket remaining the same.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
The House just did our patriotic duty to deliver tax relief and uphold our values
This July 4, as Americans gather with friends and family to celebrate our independence, House Republicans are celebrating something in addition: progress. Real, tangible, patriotic progress. The passage of President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a return to American values, and it couldn't come at a better time. This legislation is about putting the American people and freedom first — freedom from high taxes, from bloated bureaucracy, and from a government that has stopped working for the people. It's about restoring the American Dream and giving every family the chance to build a better future. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a declaration that we still believe in the values that founded this country: self-reliance, personal responsibility, and limited government. We're putting the American worker first. We're saying loud and clear that the dignity of work still matters. It expands the Child Tax Credit, giving parents more flexibility and freedom to provide for their children. It extends the 2017 tax cuts, preventing what would be the largest tax hike in a generation. No American should be saddled with higher taxes, and the 'one big beautiful bill' gets it done. As families light fireworks and honor our independence, they will know that their government is finally on their side. Republicans are not just standing on the sidelines; we're leading with purpose. While Democrats focus on fringe agendas, Republicans are focused on kitchen table issues: taxes, work, and affordable living. Every provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is built to help families thrive. That's not just good policy, it's the right thing to do. It's a celebration of American resilience, entrepreneurship, and the spirit of self-determination. Every House Democrat voted against this bill. They rejected relief for working families. They rejected work requirements. They voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive taxpayer funded healthcare. They rejected common sense. And we will make sure each one of them has to answer for it. This bill is a reflection of our highest ideals. This is patriotism in action: standing up for families, fighting for opportunity, and refusing to let the American Dream die. We are proud of what we've accomplished, and we're not done yet. This July 4, House Republicans celebrate more than our history. We celebrate our future — a future built on freedom, responsibility, and prosperity for all. Richard Hudson represents North Carolina's 9th Congressional District and serves as the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
