COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio Senate Republicans have voted to change the recreational marijuana policy that the voters enshrined into law in 2023. Amidst protests from cannabis enthusiasts, GOP leaders continue to argue that voters didn't actually know what they were voting on during the election.
From discovering medicinal cannabis while dealing with polycystic ovarian syndrome to helping collect signatures to legalize recreational marijuana, Tasha Rountree has been fighting on the front lines for the product.
"Just having something to help get me up, get me moving," Rountree said, noting other benefits of cannabis, like how it eases her anxiety.
This is why she is extremely disappointed in state lawmakers. Since Ohioans overwhelmingly voted to allow for adult-use cannabis in 2023, legislators have been trying to change the law.
"We feel lied to, we feel bamboozled, we feel infiltrated in our community," she said.
Republicans in the Senate have now passed Senate Bill 56, which would decrease the THC content allowed in products and limit home growing from 12 plants to six. The vote was along party lines, with all nine Democrats voting no.
THC, the psychoactive cannabinoid, would be capped at 100 milligrams per package. It also primarily reduces the allowable THC levels in adult-use extracts from a max of 90% to 70%.
To learn more about the bill, click to read this article by News 5 media partner, the Ohio Capital Journal.
State Sen. Kristina Roegner (R-Hudson) believes that these changes are common sense for public safety.
"We want to make sure it's done responsibly, respectfully and protects the children in Ohio," she said.
The lawmaker noted that the bill has a series of advertising restrictions so that it doesn't target youth.
The packaging of products can't use any cartoon or character that would appeal to children. Advertisers are not allowed to promote within 500 feet of a slew of places, such as a school, church and public library. They aren't allowed to claim that marijuana has "any positive health or therapeutic effects."
It also cracks down even more on public smoking.
"I don't think we want our children to be exposed to these types of materials or chemicals," Roegner added. "It's just not healthy."
It's easier to say where you can smoke under current law: private property that allows it.
As I have previously reported, the law is relatively unclear, according to legal experts and politicians. Part of the anti-smoking law states that the act is banned from public indoor spaces; however, there are some exceptions: some outdoor patios, individual rooms in nursing homes or hotels and motels that designate rooms for "smoking."
This seemed to address a very niche aspect of private residence prohibition, meaning if that residence is a childcare home or a location where the lease agreement states no one can smoke, a user could get a minor misdemeanor.
The bill would change the tax structure. Instead of a portion of the funds going to a social equity fund, which would help marginalized communities get dispensary licenses, that money would be held until lawmakers decide where it should go, according to an analysis by the Legislative Services Commission.
Rountree feels that the Black community deserves to have a stake in the industry since extensive data and research have shown that they have been disproportionately impacted by marijuana-related laws.
"We don't have the cultivation sites, we don't have the processing and now we don't have the dispensary — and now we don't even have the opportunity," she said. "So it's like, what do we do all that for? We've been lied to, we've [had] a stolen opportunity."
Somehow, it seems the social equity and jobs program has already been removed from the state website despite S.B. 56 not being in effect.
A page on the Department of Development website used to detail what the program would do and was previously found here. It is no longer available as of Wednesday evening. I reached out to the department; however, it was after the close of business, so I am awaiting a response.
The bill would also cap the number of dispensaries in the state to 350. Rountree feared this would eliminate competition, but Roegner disagreed.
"I don't think this will stifle the industry," she said. "I mean, this is certainly a booming industry.
Something that marijuana supporters did like was a provision that was taken out that would have made marijuana more expensive.
However, the tax policy is currently being debated in the state operating budget.
RELATED: Ohio weed costs double Michigan's, but lawmakers want to make it even more expensive
Will of the voters
Bill sponsor Steve Huffman (R-Tipp City) said that the voters knew they wanted legal weed — but didn't know everything they were voting on.
"I'm not sure why people voted for the initiative — it could have been home grow, public smoking, increase in dispensaries; it could have been anything," Huffman said. "We'll never know."
I questioned why this rhetoric persists.
"[You and other lawmakers have said] voters knew that they were choosing marijuana, but they didn't know exactly what they were voting. Why do you think that?" I asked Senate President Rob McColley (R-Napoleon).
"Well, I wouldn't say they didn't know what they're voting on," he said, contradicting what he and his colleagues have said for years. "I think what the comment [that] was made today was that everybody may have had a different reason for getting to yes and, just like with any other large piece of legislation, that is voluminous and dealing with a variety of changes."
He said that since voters chose to vote on it as an initiated statute instead of a constitutional amendment, they should have known the risk that lawmakers would get involved.
For context, there are two main ways citizens can get something on the statewide ballot: an initiated statute and a constitutional amendment. The recreational marijuana proposal was an initiated statute, which means it goes into the Ohio Revised Code. An initiated statute, or a law, has an easier process of making it to the ballot than a constitutional amendment. Initiated statutes can be easily changed, while amendments cannot.
When pressed further by another reporter, McColley frustratedly answered that there are "a variety of reasons" why people voted for the bill — and some people voted for one thing and possibly not another.
"Do you think that the changes that he's proposed go against the will of the voters?" I asked Rountree.
"Absolutely, absolutely," she responded. "How can you say I'm smart enough to vote for you in office, but I'm not smart enough to know what I voted for? Either I'm incompetent or I'm not."
The bill will be sent over to the House for review.
Speaker Huffman, who in Dec. said he wanted to drastically change the state's marijuana law, had seemingly had a change of heart in January. He has backtracked on at least some of his proposed restrictions after having meetings with the Statehouse's resident marijuana enthusiast.
State Rep. Jamie Callender (R-Concord), who blocked Huffman's dramatic changes from passing last General Assembly, said he has been meeting with the speaker to help teach him about the drug and the current policy.
He has been helping many other Republicans deal with the legalization of cannabis, Callender said.
RELATED: Ohio GOP backtracks on restricting recreational marijuana
