They’re at it again. Despite a year and a half. Despite a half billion dollars. Despite record opposition to a similar bill, the Ohio General Assembly is once again pushing forward with its wet dream of legislatively killing last year’s Issue 2 that legalized adult use marijuana. So, what’s a seasoned activist to do? How about submitting written testimony to the Judiciary Committee, followed by reworking that same testimony into an article for the Columbus Free Press. Then, everyone can to see, hear, read, digest, and abhor the legislature’s total lack of understanding of what mandatory minimum sentencing means to sick, dying, and disabled patients.

You see, both S.B. 56 (that the Ohio Senate passed in February) and H.B 160 (that, if passed by the House, may be its companion bill) contain the same identical Section 3796.99 verbiage. Both have the same five escalating clauses of mandatory minimum jail terms for simple possession by passengers, who may or may not be consuming in a vehicle that may or may not be running. The punishments range from three mandatory days in jail to a felony conviction of up to five years of mandatory incarnation. Monetary fines range from $525 to $10,500.

Both bills make clear in Section 3796.06 that they pertain to both medical cannabis patients and adult use consumers. This means that mandatory incarceration applies equally to both customer classes. In other words, patients are at equal risk of jail time as recreational users. Still, patients represent a special class.

Being a medical cannabis patient in Ohio requires having a qualifying medical condition diagnosed by a physician who is certified by the state to recommend. Qualifying conditions range from cancer, to PTSD, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, ALS, Tourette's syndrome, chronic pain, Parkinson’s, and seventeen others. Each of these involve some form of physical and/or mental disability. Since inception of the program, 432,289 unique patients have purchased medical marijuana in Ohio.  

I posit that a good chunk of these sick patients along with their many disabilities will find themselves subject to incarceration penalties under Section 3796.99.

The key question becomes, can those patients be properly cared for when incarcerated? Did the authors of the two bills anticipate that those most affected would be sick, dying, and disabled patients with all of their illnesses and medical conditions?

Here’s a few other questions posed in my testimony:

• Is the mere possession of a vape pen or joint by a passenger with no control of the vehicle so dangerous that it must command “mandatory jail term of ten consecutive days”? As defined by the Sentencing Project, mandatory minimums “require a specific minimum prison term for certain crimes, regardless of individual circumstances.” Judges cannot intervene.
• Do such mandatory jail terms match the severity of the crime?
• Where in the RMLA’s original ballot language are there any such named offenses or penalties?
• Do these 20 offenses and their mandatory penalties “‘facilitate’ the initiative without in any way limiting or restricting it?”
• Can the General Assembly assure the public that sick patients will be well cared for in a prison environment? Their prescription regimens, wheelchairs, and walkers will be accommodated?
• Can SB 56 Sponsor Senator Huffman and HB 160 sponsor Brian Stewart confirm that they have not received input or gratuities from the private prison industry while crafting Sec. 3796.99?
• From the LSC Fiscal Note & Impact Statement, “Felony offenses under the bill with mandatory prison terms of up to five years with up to one additional year could result in additional costs from $29,496 (marginal cost) to up to $231,594 (institutional cost) per offender.” Are these mandatory costs worth an unlit vape pen or joint in the back seat of a car?
• What other non-jail options were considered? And why were they dismissed?

Activists like me have worked for 30+ years to take the sick, dying, and disabled off the battlefield of the drug war. We were successful in doing so with passage of HB 523 in 2016. The Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol (RMLA) initiated statute added another layer with its adoption by voters in 2023. Neither mentioned jail time.

What did the General Assembly do? Tried to rip RMLA (Issue 2) apart – on the downlow. They crowed about reducing THC levels to 70 percent from 90 percent. They touted about permitting pre-rolled products. They applauded the purge of the social equity and jobs fund. They praised protecting children from false or misleading advertising. Did they mention the biggest elephant in the room? Not a peep. The addition of mandatory minimum jail sentences to them remains to them a well-kept secret.

Maybe they wanted to fly under the radar. But as an activist, I won’t let them. I take patient advocacy seriously. As stated in the meme:                   

No one, repeat no one – especially sick, dying, and disabled patients – should have their life ruined by incarceration for any marijuana violation. Period.

I stand by that.

P.S. If you’re upset with the Ohio General Assembly’s treatment of the RMLA (Issue 2 in November 2023), make your concerns known by contacting:

Ohio House Judiciary Committee: Jim Thomas (Chair) and Adam Mathews (Vice Chair) at ohrjudiciarycommittee@ohiohouse.gov and rep49@ohiohouse.gov.  

Also, Speaker of the House Brian Stewart, Republican, District 12:  www.ohiohouse.gov/brian-stewart - (614) 466-1464

--------------

Testimony by Mary Jane Borden for H.B.160 on May 7, 2025, before the Ohio House Judiciary Committee

--------------

Chairman Thomas, Vice Chairman Mathews, Ranking Member Isaacshon, and members of the Ohio House Judiciary committee, my name is Mary Jane Borden. I am a long time Ohio cannabis activist who has worked zealously to legalize the plant over the past 30+ years.

I am offering opponent testimony on both HB 160 and SB 56 since they seem conjoined. The Ohio Senate passed SB 56 on 2/26/2025, by a partisan 23-9 vote. HB 160’s introduction into the Ohio House followed on 3/6/2025. As illustrated by this graphic, both are close enough to be considered companion bills. If HB 160 receives a favorable House vote, the two will likely merge into a single, final version to be signed into law by Governor DeWine. If Sec. 3796.99 – identically common both - remains intact, sick, dying, and disabled patients could be subjected to jail time, a consequence to which I strongly object.

But first, there is an old adage that proclaims, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Thanks to a tireless three-year campaign, beginning post pandemic, Ohio voters passed the “Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol” (RMLA) initiated statute by the healthy margin of 57 percent-43 percent. The measure went into effect in December 2023, where it remains in the Ohio Revised Code unchanged.

Since that effective date, the original ballot language in Ohio’s adult use initiative has accrued almost a half billion in sales. (That’s a Billion with a “B”!!) The only problem with the new law appears to be the legislature’s zeal to restrict it, hence HB 160 and SB 56.

It should be noted that the recent essay, “Constitutional Limits On Legislative Overrides Of Statutory Initiatives In Ohio,” suggests that “Ohio's constitutional text, structure, and history is one that significantly limits—but does not entirely prohibit—legislative overrides of initiated laws. More specifically, it argues that the constitution allows lawmakers to amend voter-approved initiated statutes only if their changes ‘facilitate’ the initiative without in any way limiting or restricting it.”

Personally, I can’t think of anything more out of step with the RMLA than Sec. 3796.99 in both HB160 and SB 56.

Motor vehicle storage. Both proposed bills mandate that “The adult-use marijuana or medical marijuana is stored in the trunk of the motor vehicle or, if the motor vehicle does not have a trunk, behind the last upright seat of the motor vehicle or in an area not normally occupied by the driver.” (3796.062)

The suggestion to store cannabis a car trunk could be considered bad advice, especially for women. Accessing goods – and cannabis – from the trunk of a car distracts the driver and can make them vulnerable to crime. The Internet is rife with stories about robberies at gun point, attacks, muggings, kidnappings, rapes, and stabbings of people accessing the trunks in the back of their cars. Storage behind an upright seat may be better. However, as most women will agree, the safest place to store personal belongings is a purse, and that storage space should be lawful.

While in-vehicle storage may be a problem that both HB 160 and SB 56 address, the so-called “solution” is worse, much worse. Sec. 3796.99 creates twenty new criminal offenses, complete with penalties, some of them felonies. Questions become:

• When crafting Sec. 3796.99, did the authors consider that they are regulating a medical program for sick patients?
• Is the mere possession of a vape pen or joint by a passenger with no control of the vehicle so dangerous that it must command “mandatory jail term of ten consecutive days”? As defined by the Sentencing Project, mandatory minimums “require a specific minimum prison term for certain crimes, regardless of individual circumstances.” Judges cannot intervene.
• Do such mandatory jail terms match the severity of the crime?
• Where in the RMLA’s original ballot language are there any such named offenses or penalties?
• Do these 20 offenses and their mandatory penalties “‘facilitate’ the initiative without in any way limiting or restricting it?”
• Can the General Assembly assure the public that sick patients will be well cared for in a prison environment? Their prescription regimens, wheelchairs, and walkers will be accommodated?
• Can SB 56 Sponsor Senator Huffman and HB 160 sponsor Brian Stewart confirm that they have not received input or gratuities from the private prison industry while crafting Sec. 3796.99?
• From the LSC Fiscal Note & Impact Statement, “Felony offenses under the bill with mandatory prison terms of up to five years with up to one additional year could result in additional costs from $29,496 (marginal cost) to up to $231,594 (institutional cost) per offender.” Are these mandatory costs worth an unlit vape pen or joint in the back seat of a car?
• What other non-jail options were considered? And why were they dismissed?

Hypothetically, let’s use one young man as an example. He looks like your typical warm-up wearing thirty something. But looks can be deceiving. An Army veteran, he has served two tours of duty in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. His military experience made him hypersensitive and left him with PTSD. Loud noises shock him, sleep evades him, and suicide haunts him. His only saving grace is a vape pen that he uses to assuage his angst and make him more functional. Sitting in the back seat of a friend’s car, he grabs his pen. The next thing he knows, a police officer pulls up, exits his cruiser, and cites the young man with a violation of 3796.99 (A)(2)(b). He now faces a “mandatory” ten days in jail, $1,000 fine, and six-month suspension of his driver’s license. This misdemeanor in the first degree leaves him with a criminal record, barring him housing, loans, and more. Without a driver’s license, he can’t find a job. The worst part, no one – not even judges – can intervene. Suicide becomes even more alluring.

Remember, there are 432,389 unique patients who have purchased medical marijuana from Ohio’s program.  Is incarceration what the General Assembly envisioned for them?

This graphic shows the five clauses in Section 3796.99 of HB 160 (“a” to “e”) that embody the mandatory minimum sentences and their penalties. Many only apply if the individual is a passenger. Pretty stiff penalties for petty violations.

For over 30 years, Ohio’s cannabis activists have worked diligently with one goal in mind: removing the sick, dying, and disabled from the battlefield of the drug war. We were successful in doing so with passage of HB 523 in 2016. The RMLA added another layer with its adoption by voters in 2023. Neither mentioned jail time. Passing HB 160 and then conjoining it with SB 56 moves both bills one step closer to the governor’s signature and enactment. Unless legislators address Section 3796.99, hundreds of thousands of patients will face arrest and incarceration.

Sec 3796.99 must be removed in whole, or all clauses proposing jail time must be stripped prior to any bill’s final arrival on the governor’s desk. To do anything else shows a profound disregard for sound public policy, Ohio’s sick patients, and the will of the voters.

-----------------------

Mary Jane Borden is a best-selling author, skilled graphic artist, insightful analyst, and award-winning cannabis activist from Westerville, Ohio. During her 40-year career in drug policy, she co-founded seven cannabis-oriented groups, co-authored four proposed constitutional amendments, lobbied for six medical marijuana bills, penned over 100 Columbus Free Press articles, and has given hundreds of media interviews. She is one of the Courage in Cannabis authors, with articles in both editions. Her artwork can be viewed at CannabinArt.com and she can be reached at maryjaneborden@gmail.com.