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
DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division Issues Corporate Enforcement Directive, Signaling Heightened Scrutiny of Corporate Fraud
DOJ’s new enforcement framework reinforces that corporate fraud investigations will remain a significant enforcement priority, particularly in healthcare, government contracting, tax and international trade.
Lessons from Kai Spears v. The New York Times Co.: A Historic Defamation Verdict
The first defamation verdict against The New York Times in more than 50 years highlights the significant litigation risks that can arise when reporting relies on inadequately vetted anonymous sources and critical editorial safeguards are not followed.
Back To Wright Line: NLRB Resets Standards for Workplace Misconduct
Employers have regained greater flexibility to address offensive or abusive employee conduct that occurs during union activity or other activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act. On September 23, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued a significant decision in Lion Elastomers LLC, 375 NLRB No. 41, restoring the prior standard for evaluating discipline when employee misconduct occurs during protected concerted activity from General Motors LLC, 369 NLRB No. 127.
Can an Algorithm Commit a Tort? The Circuit Split Over Section 230
A growing circuit split is reshaping the scope of Section 230 immunity. While the Fourth and Ninth Circuits continue to view algorithmic recommendations as protected publisher conduct, the Third Circuit has taken a narrower approach, holding that certain algorithm-driven content recommendations may constitute a platform’s own conduct and therefore fall outside Section 230’s protections.