Ohio's S.B. 56: A Controversial Rollback
Ohio’s S.B. 56: A Controversial Rollback on Cannabis Progress
- Restrictive changes in cannabis regulations, including THC limits and public consumption bans.
- Increased power for local governments to restrict dispensaries, hurting small businesses.
- Penalties for public use and violations, undermining voter-approved legalization.
Introduction to the Bill
Ohio voters embraced cannabis legalization overwhelmingly. In 2023, Issue 2 passed with 57% support. This victory promised regulated adult-use marijuana. However, Senate Bill 56, passed recently, introduces restrictive changes.
For instance, it tightens rules on THC products and public consumption. Consequently, many see this as a step backward toward criminalization. Moreover, it raises questions about lawmakers’ true allegiances.
Key Changes in Cannabis Regulations
S.B. 56 merges medical and adult-use oversight under one division. Additionally, it reduces THC limits in adult-use extracts to 70%. Therefore, consumers face fewer high-potency options. The bill also bans intoxicating hemp products outright after 2026. In contrast, it allows low-THC beverages temporarily. Furthermore, home growing remains capped at six plants per adult. Thus, these adjustments limit access despite voter demands.
Local governments gain more power to restrict dispensaries. For example, setbacks from schools increase to 500 feet. However, existing licenses receive grandfathering protections. Overall, the bill caps dispensaries at 400 statewide. As a result, small businesses struggle against oversaturation fears.
Taxes play a central role too. A 10% gross receipts tax hits hemp sales hard. Moreover, excise taxes apply to drinkable cannabinoid products. Consequently, revenue funnels toward state funds, not broad relief.
Penalties for Public Use and Violations
Public consumption draws sharp penalties under S.B. 56. Specifically, smoking or vaporizing marijuana in public becomes a minor misdemeanor for first offenses. However, vehicle use escalates risks. For instance, passengers face third-degree misdemeanor charges. Additionally, repeated violations lead to felonies.
Selling to minors triggers severe consequences. A first offense counts as a first-degree misdemeanor. Therefore, subsequent acts become fifth-degree felonies. In addition, unlicensed hemp sales carry similar escalating penalties. Thus, enforcement emphasizes compliance over leniency.
These rules extend to employment. Discharged workers for marijuana use lose unemployment benefits. For example, anti-discrimination protections vanish for lawful users. As such, the bill revives old stigmas.
A Step Back from Voter Will
Despite 57% approval for Issue 2, S.B. 56 feels regressive. Voters sought freedom and regulation, not tighter chains. However, lawmakers prioritize restrictions on public use and potency. Consequently, expungement for past convictions offers minor solace. Yet, it requires court petitions and fees.
Critics argue this undermines progress. For instance, banning high-THC items ignores medical needs. Moreover, hemp crackdowns hurt small farmers. Therefore, the bill favors big players over everyday Ohioans.
Who Do These Lawmakers Really Serve?
Overwhelming public support clashes with S.B. 56’s tone. So, who benefits most? Perhaps alcohol lobbies fear competition. Alternatively, pharmaceutical interests guard their turf. In fact, conservative donors may push criminalization echoes.
However, voters spoke clearly in 2023. Thus, this bill ignores that mandate. Additionally, it burdens low-income users with fines. For example, minor misdemeanors add court costs. Consequently, equity suffers.
Lawmakers must explain their choices. Do they serve constituents or special interests? Moreover, future elections will test this disconnect. Ultimately, Ohio deserves policies matching its progressive vote.
In summary, S.B. 56 mixes clarifications with crackdowns. Yet, its penalties and limits signal retreat. Therefore, advocates urge veto or repeal. Only then can legalization thrive as intended.
Ohio’s S.B. 56: A Controversial Rollback on Cannabis Progress was originally published on wiznation.com
