House Speaker Jason Stephens is respecting the voters in refusing to change the recreational marijuana law: Today in Ohio
Editor Chris Quinn hosts our daily half-hour news podcast, with editorial board member Lisa Garvin and reporter Courtney Astolfi. Ohio House Speaker Jason Stephens has stood by the voters' wishes regarding the state's new recreational marijuana law, stating that lawmakers are unlikely to take action to change it before the state begins sending out licensing applications to dispensaries in June. This comes as speculation increases about a potential battle between Stephens and Senate President Matt Huffman for the speakership, which appears to have moved from a potential conflict to a guarantee. In other topics, the Ohio Supreme Court's acceptance of a gun restrictions case from Columbus could impact abortion issues in the state. The Browns owners' proposed domed stadium in Brook Park near the airport could prevent any attempt by the Federal Aviation Administration to stop them. The Today in Ohio podcast is hosted by Chris Quinn and Lisa Garvin with reporter Courtney Astolfi.
Published : 4 weeks ago by Courtney Astolfi | [email protected], Courtney Astolfi, castolfi in Politics
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Ohio House Speaker Jason says lawmakers are unlikely to take any action to change Ohio’s new recreational marijuana law, at least before the state starts sending out licensing applications to dispensaries in June.
We’re talking about how Stephens is the one standing up for the will of the voters who passed marijuana legalization in November’s election.
Editor Chris Quinn hosts our daily half-hour news podcast, with editorial board member Lisa Garvin and reporter Courtney Astolfi.
You’ve been sending Chris lots of thoughts and suggestions on our from-the-newsroom text account, in which he shares what we’re thinking about at cleveland.com. You can sign up here: https://joinsubtext.com/chrisquinn.
You can now join the conversation. Call 833-648-6329 (833-OHTODAY) if you’d like to leave a message we can play on the podcast.
Here’s what else we’re asking about today:
Ohio House speaker Jason Stephens has been the guy standing in the way of quickly altering Ohio’s marijuana laws and getting recreational marijuana into the hands of people. Did he offer any hope that this will change?
Speaking of Stephens, we’ve talked for months about a potential looming battle between he and Senate President Matt Huffman for the speakership next year. That appears to have moved from a potential battle to a guarantee. Why?
Huffman and Stephens agree on one thing – that term limits for lawmakers have hurt government. But the guy over in the executive branch has some other thoughts. What’s the Mike DeWine view?
We’ve talked pot and castle intrigue. It seems a natural leap to next turn to porn. What is the thinking behind forcing people to prove they are adults before they can access online porn in Ohio?
How might the Ohio Supreme Court’s acceptance of a gun restrictions case from Columbus have implications for abortion issues in the state?
Even though this is very likely a negotiating ploy with no chance of happening, if the Browns owners actually wanted to build a domed stadium in Brook Park near the airport, could the Federal Aviation Administration stop them?
This is not a story we wrote, as it is a national story, but it has huge local implications anda serious local news tie. What big change to railroad operations was locked in this week to make them safer?
If you live in Northeast Ohio, you can watch the eclipse next Monday from your backyard. You need only don the protective glasses and look up. But if you want to enjoy it communally, what are some of the highlights of what’s available in the region?
We have an Apple podcasts channel exclusively for this podcast. Subscribe here.
Do you get your podcasts on Spotify? Find us here.
RadioPublic is another popular podcast vehicle, and we are here.
On Google Podcasts, we are here.
On PodParadise, find us here.
And on PlayerFM, we are here.
Read the automated transcript below. Because it’s a computer-generated transcript, it contains many errors and misspellings.
We took a rare and unexpected day off yesterday. We considered it our spring break. Part of the reason was the news was kind of boring on Tuesday and we didn’t want to bore you. And the other reason is I’m still being overwhelmed by all the good thoughts people are sending me about a column I wrote on Saturday. I just cannot believe the thanks and love that’s been shown my way. I’ve never seen anything like it. Grateful beyond belief and it’s going to take me a while to really come to terms with it all. But.
It is Today in Ohio, the place where we have a news discussion each day, except for when we take a day off. I’m Chris Quinn. I’m here today with Lisa Garvin and Courtney Astolfi. Tomorrow, Layla will return and next week, Laura Johnston will be back. She did take the hike in the Narrows in Zion Park, even though it’s cold and wet there. So she looked like she had a good time.
Let’s go Ohio House Speaker Jason Stevens has been the guy standing in the way of quickly altering Ohio’s marijuana laws and getting recreational marijuana into the hands of the people as they voted last November. Lisa, did he offer any hope this would change when he was asked about it this week?
He pretty much dashed everybody’s hopes. He says the House is unlikely to take action on recreational marijuana before sending out dispensary license applications this June. He says there’s really no consensus in the House despite lots of discussion on the matter. And he sees no rush to quickly pass changes that have been suggested by Governor Mike DeWine and Senate President Matt Huffman. These include raising the 10% tax, lowering maximum THC limits,
allowing immediate sales at medical dispensaries, and also banning advertising and banning sales to minors. He says that we understand that the people of Ohio voted and that’s how we’ll implement it. He says there will probably be some tweaking as time progresses. So this has been predicted by Jamie Callender, who’s the Republican from Lake County, and he’s been championing recreational marijuana. He says most changes, as we’ve reported before, will be made by administrative rules issued in September, but lawmakers
do have to change the tax rate. That can’t be done by administrative rule, and they also have to decide where the revenue will go. So the Division of Cannabis Control has a September 7th deadline to issue provisional licenses. So we’re not gonna see a whole lot of action between now and then, I think.
I’ve got to say I respect Stevens for respecting what the voters did. Yes, it’s not the perfect law. There are things that could be fixed that would not change the intent of the people. But the people did vote in large numbers for a specific law and the immediate knee jerk reaction that we should change it did rub a lot of people the wrong way. The people spoke, this is the law. And even though Stevens is in his little spat with Matt Huffman,
He’s respecting us. I gotta give him points for that, right? I mean, if the voters speak and you say, I’m going with what the voters did, not a bad thing necessarily.
No, you’re absolutely right. And some of the things that, you know, remember, like you said, there was the knee-jerk reaction after the amendment passed, or the statute rather. And, you know, I think that they realized the error of their ways and they’re just gonna kind of let it roll out as intended.
The people are the ones with the power in this state, even though Frank LaRose tried to take it away from us last year. And the people have spoken, so that’s a good thing. We’ll eventually have it. I think by this time next year, we’ll be rolling in it. Ha ha ha, pun. And we’ll see how it goes. You’re listening to Today in Ohio. Speaking of Stevens.
We’ve talked for months about a potential looming battle between he and Senate President Matt Huffman for the speakership next year. That appears to have moved from a potential battle to pretty much a guaranteed battle. Courtney, what happened this week to make clear they’re going at it?
Yeah, Senate President Hoffman’s like starting to publicly discuss and indicate his interest in unseating Stevens from his House speakership role. So, you know, as we know, Steven secured that position last year with the help of House Democrats, and Hoffman is now looking in that direction. Hoffman’s term limited in the Senate. He’s running unopposed for a House seat, which opens up this possibility for him. And he went on a Columbus talk radio show last weekend.
and said straight up that he thinks there needs to be a change in the House. Now, Huffman’s comments about Stevens have so far been, you know, pretty mild compared to comments from some of his GOP colleagues in the House. But Huffman did tell a reporter recently that it’s quote, very, very difficult to lead and legislate, legislate when he was elected in the manner that he was. And that’s a reference of course, to Stevens securing the position with support from Democrats.
And we also this week got some comments from Stevens throwing a bit of shade back in Hoffman’s direction. When asked about Hoffman’s potential challenge, Stevens told us that, frankly, it would be better if the Senate president would pay attention to running the Senate instead of trying to run the House. So we’re getting this out in the public view now.
I am, I remain amazed at the presumption that Matt Huffman, as soon as he’s elected to the House, would become the King of the House. I just can’t believe that all those other House members are such sheep that they wouldn’t stand up and say, wait a minute, I’ve been here for two or four or six years. I’m going to be House Speaker. I know what’s going on over here. You don’t. And yet there’s just this presumption that he’s going to waltz in there and be the serious threat. I wish it does the House really work that way?
that it’s just a bunch of sheep that go wherever they’re told by a couple of people in charge?
Well, our state house reporters tell us that, you know, Huffman’s provenance and his current position and just name being out there the way it has been in Ohio politics could pull some potential, you know, Republican support for him, but we’re going to really have to see how that plays out. It’s a game of numbers here. The speaker is chosen by all 99 house members. So whoever wins is likely going to need 50 votes overall. Stevens secured the post last year with 54 votes.
The majority of those were Democratic, but it also included 22 GOP votes. So he’s got a couple votes wiggle room, but what could throw a wrench in things here is, you know, nine of the Republicans who backed Stevens last year, they’re leaving the house this year and at least six of those folks who are running to replace them are perceived to be Huffman allies. So there are some question marks on the Democratic side, but we’re going to see how we’re going to have to see how the Republicans split.
if a name like Hoffman is up for the speakership.
What I don’t get is why the House members who are there now would want to bring in the corrosive presence of Huffman as their leader. I mean, look, let’s face it, Huffman and LaRose were the chief architects of issue one last August, which really would have destroyed our ability to reign in government. They wanted the voters to voluntarily give up their ability to change the constitution, but voters slammed it. There was a
beyond a landslide, no, no. And this is the guy who with Frank LaRose were the faces of it. So if you’re in the house, why do you want this guy to represent you? He’s about as corrosive a presence in state government as we’ve seen.
Well, you know, Huffman has taken the House in the Senate in a different direction than we’ve seen in the House. And I don’t know if we know if it’ll have spillover effects, if that’s the direction Ohio’s going, if Stevens was a one-off because he was able to get that democratic support. It sure seems like the GOP side of this equation is in flux and there are question marks there.
But Hoffman’s also the guy that stands in the way of making childcare easier, which affects lots of employers and lots of women in the state. I just look, if it happens, it happens. I’m just surprised that all those elected people would go along with something that will be so controversial. You’re listening to Today in Ohio. Lisa, Hoffman and Stevens do agree on one thing that term limits for lawmakers have hurt government.
But the guy over in the executive branch has some other thoughts about that. What’s the Mike DeWine view?
He actually thinks that Ohioans aren’t very interested in abolishing term limits, and he says there’s really no appetite for change from where he sits. This was an answer to reporters’ questions at a meeting at the Department of Public Safety to discuss a mental health hospital system. Now, there are only two ways we can abolish term limit. It would have to pass through the legislature with a 60% supermajority or a citizen petition drive. So...
Term limits were approved by Ohio voters in 1992 to discourage entrenchment and make the legislature more responsive to voters. So basically you can serve no more than eight consecutive years in either chamber, but you can jump back and forth between chambers. Lest we forget.
Back in 2020, there was a proposal by former speaker of the House, Larry Householder, to set a 16-year lifetime limit, but to reset the clock to zero for current lawmakers, which would have meant he would have sat in the House for another 16 years, had he not ended up in jail.
This is a power grab by these guys. They want to be around a long time. And as we’ve said, we don’t really have term limits. What we have is people spend their time in the house, and then when they’re term limited, they leave. I had a note from our friend Bill Seitz yesterday, because we talked about his support for HB6, and he continues to defend it. But I had made a comment in our last term limit discussion about the longevity of him, and he’s been there for a quarter century plus, right? So...
Clearly term limits don’t push these guys out. He’s defending that. He keeps defending HB6 by the way. And I keep telling him, if there are elements of HB6 you like, abolish the rotten stinky corrupt law that is a symbol for everything that’s wrong in the state house, pass the parts you do. You got super majorities, but the people of Ohio resent having a law forged in corruption on the books. I don’t know why they don’t get that, but you know, he’s been there a long time.
Maybe if he were term limited, we’d get some people in there that would say, yeah, we can’t have corrupt laws on the books. Go ahead.
Go ahead. No, I was just going to say polls have shown that like an overwhelming majority of voters don’t really, you know, they don’t want to abolish term limits. This is actually the subject of our editorial board roundtable, which will appear in the paper on Saturday. So it’ll be interesting to see how my colleagues and I weigh in on this.
Well, I think most politics watchers and most people involved in government make a pretty good argument that they’re a bad idea because you keep res- you keep bringing in neophytes and the lobbyists, like the first energy guys run the state house because they have all the institutional knowledge. Again, the way they move back and forth debunks part of that, but that’s the argument. But I think what you said about the polls is what’s key and that’s what Mike DeWine’s looking at. Never.
Has it even been close? I think it’s always been 70% or above. We’re gonna do a news story where we look at all the polls over the years about this issue. That doesn’t mean it can’t be overcome. Let’s face it, when issue one was first put on the ballot for last August, I think that would have headed to passage were it not for us trumpeting what it would have been about and building that momentum. So if it’s a good idea to get rid of term limits, then maybe you can convince people.
We should point out Jason Stevens is not saying abolish them. He’s saying change them, which maybe that would be more palatable. Cause I don’t think pollsters have asked about different models. You’re listening to Today in Ohio. All right. We’ve talked pot. We’ve talked castle intrigue. Seems like a natural leap. Now we’ll talk about porn. Courtney, what’s the thinking behind forcing people to prove they are adults before they can access online porn in Ohio?
Well, the goal is to protect kids, but there’s a lot of question marks about this proposal. House Republican representative Steve Demetrio, excuse me if I mispronounce that he’s from Bainbridge township, and he’s pushing legislation that would require websites that include content that’s quote obscene or harmful to juveniles to verify that their viewers are legal adults. And this is a trend we’re seeing grow in popularity across the U S and Republican dominated states. But
It’s often criticized as a free speech infringement along with other concerns that come with this. So we’re assuming that these restrictions, if eventually passed in Ohio would likely apply to porn websites, but the text of the bill just relies on that language of obscene or harmful to juveniles, and that phrase isn’t really defined further in there, so that seems like a pretty gray legal area if it moves forward with this kind of language.
At the same time, this bill would also be an attempt to target creators of deep fakes, which is, you know, that problematic practice when you put real people’s faces on maybe porn images and then it looks like that person has participated in that video. So what this bill would do, you know, legally, it would make it a first degree misdemeanor for websites that fail to verify users are over 18. It would make it a fourth degree misdemeanor for kids who falsify age information to access
so-called obscene content, and it would make it a third degree felony to create deep fakes using a person’s face without their consent. Like I said, this is a trend, it’s growing, I wonder if it does come to Ohio eventually. At least eight other places, Texas, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Utah and Virginia have enacted these age verification laws in just the last couple years, and the result, at least in Virginia and Texas, is that Pornhub, like a big pornography website,
has ceased operations in those states in response to these laws.
Well, what I find fascinating about this is the numbers show that porn is incredibly popular. Porn has driven a lot of the innovations on the web, like streaming, because so many people partake of it, but they’re not going to be public about it. Nobody’s going to step up and go to the legislature and hearings and say, I want to be anonymous when I’m watching my porn. So it’s hard to tell how this will affect.
things because the numerous people who view porn are not going to be public about it, especially if they’re trying to hide their identities. So I imagine a lot of people care about this, but you just don’t hear from them. And the only ones you hear from are the people profiting hugely on it. It’s a fascinating case to see how it will develop. It seems like though, the people behind the porn industry always figure out a way to get around whatever the rule changes are because there’s just so much money to be made on it.
You know, it’s worth noting that in some of these other states where this has gone forward, privacy concerns have become like the big talking point here, or adults going to want to enter their driver’s license information into a website where there can be data leaks. I mean, we know how our data can spread all across the web to verify that they’re an adult. I don’t know, like, Demetrio, the bill sponsor doesn’t really see that as too big of an issue.
He says, sure, if they’re adults, they’ll willingly put that information in. But he also, he also said that like, if this law leads to porn sites to stop operating in Ohio, so be it. This just seems so, so puritan and odd.
Yeah, they’re not going to put the driver’s license. I mean, look what happened to just AT&T. AT&T leaked everything about us, everything. Every piece of detail they have on you has been leaked to the world. I’ve been getting, I mentioned before that even got out, I got a phony letter from somebody purporting to be AT&T. They had the exact amount of my most recent bill. They knew the due date, they had it all. I was stunned because I had already paid it and they were trying to get me to a site to pay them the money.
So no, you’re not going to and nobody’s going to put their driver’s license into a porn site and figure it’s safe But I but I suspect what they’ll do is they’ll figure out another way. It’s just they always do That’s the thing about the porn industry There’s such demand for it. They’ll figure it out no matter what the law is You’re listening to today in Ohio How might the Ohio Supreme Court’s acceptance of a gun restrictions case from Columbus?
have implications for abortion issues in the state, Lisa?
Yeah, this kind of revolves around the question of whether a preliminary injunction is appealable. As we know, a preliminary injunction is kind of a pause or a hold that a judge orders on implementing a law so they can figure things out, but they can last for a couple of years. So Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy has agreed to consider a challenge of a Columbus City ordinance that restricts certain gun rights in the city.
For background, last year, a Republican judge in Delaware County issued a preliminary injunction to pause the ordinance that would ban high capacity gun magazines in the city of Columbus. So Columbus city attorney, Zach Klein filed an appeal, but the fifth appeals court sided with the judge saying that preliminary injunctions are not a final ruling and thus not appealable. Klein says he should be allowed to appeal. So this kind of...
revolved around a lawsuit by the Buckeye Institute that says the ban violates a state law that bar cities from passing gun laws more restrictive than state law. The Republican justices on our court agreed to review this case. The Democrats say they shouldn’t have even taken it up. The Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on appealing preliminary injunctions, so this could set a precedent. The ruling has the potential to make it easier to take up challenges to state laws.
including expected challenges to abortion restrictions in the wake of our election to enshrine abortion rights in the constitution. And this specifically might affect the heartbeat law. That’s been paused since 2022, although attorney general Dave Yost asked the court to undo that preliminary injunction. The court said, well, it’s moot now because the election has passed, but this case gives them another crack at it.
On the one side, you know that these cases all ultimately get decided by the Supreme Court. So why waste time playing around in the lower courts? Why not just go straight to the people who make the decision? On the other hand, the whole reason for the appellate process is to very much hash out all of the rules and precedents so that when it gets to the Supreme Court, there’s a pretty serious record for the justices to work with before they make their call.
if they take it up, if they begin to take stuff up earlier in the process, a lot of those machinations will have to take place before them instead of the appellate judges.
Well, and it’s a troubling trend is that we’re having to go to the Supreme Court of the state to decide these things. Like you said, it should never have risen above the appeals court level.
Right. I mean, it would be a dramatic change. It would very quickly change the way things are done in this state. And I’m not sure you’d really want to look into the Constitution, the separation of powers, all the things that we’ve done to set up our government. Is it really okay for the Supreme Court to just arbitrarily said we’re changing the rules henceforth? This is the way it’ll work. I mean, this could be a hallmark of the Sharon Kennedy Supreme Court.
You’re listening to Today in Ohio. Even though this is very likely a negotiating ploy with no chance of happening, if the Browns owners actually wanted to build the dome stadium in Brook Park near the airport, could the federal aviation administration stop them? Courtney.
kind of maybe, but not necessarily directly is what we learned here. So the Federal Aviation Administration doesn’t have like standalone authority on its own to stand in the way of a potential Brown Stadium near Hopkins Airport. That’s what an FAA spokesperson told our reporters this week. We reached out to them to see what their possible role would be in this kind of scenario. And while they didn’t wanna weigh in specifically on this potential Cleveland situation by the airport,
You know, they did tell us broadly that developers must give the FAA an opportunity to evaluate proposed structures that would be located near airports. And then the FAA would determine whether they could pose a hazard to aircraft or interfere with navigation systems. So the FAA’s determination on this kind of thing, it is not binding. It’s a recommendation, but the intersection here is that
The choice to issue a building permit is up to the local government, in this case, Brook Park. But the FAA said many local and state governments have laws that prohibit permits to go out if the FAA’s recommendation is against that structure. So we’d have to get a better understanding of what Ohio’s laws and what the local regulations are, especially because when we reached out to Brook Park Building Commissioner, Jason Monaco, he didn’t really have any info yet or didn’t really weigh in on our questions. He said.
know, potential sports stadiums are not projects that pop up every day and he didn’t really have any information to share.
Several readers have pointed out that one of the arguments against putting a dome on the current stadium is what it would do to Burke. Planes are landing off and landing and taking off there. And it’s the same issue here. I guess it’s further away a little bit further away. But there’s a lot more traffic out at Hopkins. And so it’s an interesting one. But in both options we’re talking about a stadium very close to active airports.
You know, it would be nice to hear from Hopkins itself, how this might impact their operations, but obviously they fall under the authority of Mayor Justin Bibb and he’s not saying anything as they negotiate the stadium deal. So we’re not gonna hear a peep from Hopkins. And when Sabrina, our reporter, reached out to the airlines to see if they could offer kind of a different perspective on this question, they just told us to talk to the FAA. So there’s still question marks here and we’ll have to see as this plays out.
Yeah, the city has been kind of impressive, I think, in refusing to take the bait. They will not negotiate this in public. They got a deal on the table. It’s been on the table for months and Haslam’s clearly don’t like it and want more. And so we’re in all these shenanigans, but the city has stood firm because they’re not going to have that debate publicly. You are listening to Today in Ohio.
This is not a story we wrote as it is a national story, but it has a huge local implications and a serious local news tie. Lisa, what big change to railroad operations was locked in this week to make them safer?
The Federal Railroad Administration finalized a rule that began back in the Obama Administration that requires two-person crews on freight trains on most routes. Now, 11 states already have their own rules and major railroads do have two-person crews. And the rail unions are very happy about this. They approve, they say as trains get longer and carrying more hazardous materials, crews shouldn’t be getting smaller.
The president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Train Men, Eddie Hall, says two people in the cab is very crucial to safety. Now, railroads on the other hand, say that crew size should be determined by contract talks and not the railroad administration or lawmakers. They say this is an unnecessary regulation that has no proven effect on rail safety. And that’s according to the Association of American Railroads Trade Group.
They have a history of challenging new regulations in court and resisting them. They want the discretion to have one person on a train and a ground-based conductor where auto braking systems exist. Now, this is not the rail safety act. Senator Sherrod Brown says we still have to pass the rail safety act to avoid any future changes.
The idea that you have a single person on a vehicle that is basically a mile long, buckles of the mind. I just don’t understand how anybody can argue that’s a good idea. But having two up in the front, I’m not sure that does much either for safety. If you had one in the front and one in the back and you could actually kind of look and see what was happening along these long things, maybe you’d spot the wheel that is heating up or something.
But it’s just interesting to me that they want one person to be running a vehicle that is that gigantic.
And the railroads, you know, they’re obviously not considering the safety of their trains or the one person who’s running it. You know, if they’re trying to resist these kind of laws. I can remember back when I was a kid, all trains had a caboose and there was somebody in the caboose, but you don’t see that anymore.
To only have one person, if somebody, you have one person on the train, you have the danger that something happens to their health and then you have nobody running the train. I mean, it seems like it ought to be an automatic, you have redundancy there. So at least you’d have a backup system if something went wrong, but they’re fighting it. Amazing.
Actually, there was, and it was years ago, I can’t remember where it was, where the train conductor had a heart attack and the train kept going and somebody had to jump on the train, some brave guy jumped on the train to stop it.
Right, they made a movie out of that. You’re listening to Today in Ohio. If you live in Northeast Ohio, you can watch the eclipse next Monday from your backyard. You know, we need only don those protective glasses and look up. But if you want to enjoy it in a communal kind of setting, Courtney, what are some of the highlights of what’s available in the region come Monday? And let’s count on the clouds breaking free.
They better break free, right? We all want to enjoy the show. Events galore in northern Ohio for the solar eclipse. There is stuff everywhere, all around Northeast and North Central and everywhere in the state where you’re going to be in the path of totality. You know, some of these events are proven super popular, and they’ve already like sold out or filled up. And that includes events at the Akron Zoo, Cedar Point and the Holden Arboretum.
The zoo is an interesting one to me because, you know, folks are talking about how animals might react. So I bet folks there will get a different kind of, you know, eclipse experience. But there’s a long list of places that are still free and open and you should consider checking them out if you do want to be around other folks when this happens. You know, first of all, many suburbs and small towns all across the state are hosting their own city municipal events. So check those websites and Facebook pages and things.
get a beat on what the local offerings are. But then there’s bars and restaurants that are hosting events, Great Lakes Brewing, Lago East Bank, Music Box Supper Clubs, and the flats are among some of the big names around Cleveland that are hosting events. And then there are just like broader events put on by different groups here. So the Great Lakes Science Center is doing its total eclipse fest, and that’s gonna feature special performances from the Cleveland Orchestra and a little food truck.
you know, kind of grouping down there by the water in downtown Cleveland. Right next door, there’s going to be Solar Fest at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. And among other things, they’re going to feature some of their celestial themed rock and roll artifacts, which I think is pretty cute trivia contests. And the night before on Sunday night, Grandmaster Flash is going to headline their celestial blast live music event. So that’s pretty neat. You know, if you’re a baseball person, the Guardian’s home opener is pretty cool way.
to experience this. The game doesn’t start until five, but ticket holders can get into the ballpark three hours early, so they can be in there when the eclipse is happening and watch it from there. And then, you know, just look, and any organization you can think of, the Museum of Natural History is doing a total on the Oval Event in University Circle, the Cuyahoga County Fairgrounds, Crocker Park, take your pick and somebody’s probably doing something cool.
And again, if you live in Northeast Ohio, you can just go outside and look up. You’re listening to Today in Ohio. That’s it for the Thursday episode. Thanks, Lisa. Thanks, Courtney. Thanks everybody who listens. We’ll be back Friday to wrap up the week of news.
Topics: Cannabis, Voters, Drug Trafficking