Client Alerts & Insights
Ohio Cannabis Activity Update: Legislation, Ballot Initiative and Hemp Program Summarized
May 27, 2020
Authored By:
Legislation
Three separate marijuana-related proposals were announced by Ohio legislators in May. House Bill 634 would allow the cultivation of up to 12 marijuana plants and possession of up to 100 grams of marijuana or 10 grams of hashish. Reps. Terrence Upchurch (D-Cleveland) and Sedrick Denson (D-Cincinnati) introduced the bill, which was referred to the House Criminal Justice Committee.
Separately, Rep. Juanita Brent (D-Cleveland) announced that she would be introducing two cannabis-related bills. One would decriminalize marijuana in Ohio for individuals over 21 years of age and include an ability to vacate current and past criminal sentences. The second proposed bill would authorize the use of medical cannabis for autism spectrum disorder.
The Ohio Marijuana Legalization Initiative
Proponents of the anticipated “Ohio Marijuana Legalization Initiative” hope that it will be on the ballot in November of 2020. However, COVID19 may have disrupted those plans due to the difficulty of collecting the required 440,000 valid signatures during a quarantine. A federal judge recently provided additional time until July 1, 2020 to collect the signatures and permitted the signatures to be made electronically. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose appealed that decision and the Sixth Circuit entered an order blocking electronic signatures while it reviews the case.
The initiative, if passed, would amend the Ohio Constitution to make the following changes:
- allow individuals 21 years of age or older to possess, consume, purchase, or transfer one ounce of marijuana;
- allow individuals 21 years of age or older to grow, manufacture, transport, or store six marijuana plants per household; and
- authorize marijuana retail stores.
Ohio Hemp Program
Legislation creating the Ohio Hemp Program, House Bill 57, became effective July 30, 2019. The Ohio Department of Agriculture has issued 195 cultivator licenses under the new law. The application fee is $100 plus an annual license fee of $500 per growing location.
Also, Attorney General Dave Yost announced that the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation can now perform quantitative analyses of cannabis in order to help law enforcement differentiate between marijuana and hemp by determining THC content.
For more information, contact a member of Benesch’s Cannabis Industry Group.
Rachel Winder at rwinder@beneschlaw.com or 614.223.9316.
Bryna Dahlin at bdahlin@beneschlaw.com or 312.624.6340.
Robert A. Zimmerman at rzimmerman@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4437.
Latest News
Customs Duty Assists: Regulatory Compliance Overview and FAQ
Customs compliance and enforcement defense are high-profile exercises within U.S.-based importers due to the higher-risk regulatory enforcement environment. One of the more complex hot topics facing compliance and legal professionals within importers of record (IORs) is the degree to which “assists” impact dutiable value, and therefore duty burden, in the eyes of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
TSA Authorized Representatives—Emerging Practice of Engaging Freight Brokers and Its Practical Implications
Air transportation safety has long been of critical supply chain importance and geopolitical significance, and that role is growing. Supply chain constraints over this decade have driven a need for adaptation, modal diversification and cost containment. To do so, authorized air cargo providers have increasingly explored new ways to add capacity for regulated surface transportation.
Chameleon Carriers—FMCSA’s “Reincarnated” Rule and Enforcement
As the U.S. DOT and its FMCSA ramp up certain elements of domestic enforcement, regulators are utilizing existing laws and regulations that previously were not often invoked. Enforcement of the English language proficiency requirement is one great example.
What’s Old Is New Again: Broker Liability Insulation from the Case Law in the Post-Montgomery Era
The Supreme Court has spoken in its Montgomery v. Caribe Transport decision, and the brokerage sector, and even shipper and motor carriers, are working toward adapting to this “new liability regime.”