Ohio’s cannabis distribution system employs a dual-lane model separating in-house transport from third‑party transporters, and this structure leads to variability across providers rather than uniformity.

Integrated Distributors vs Licensed Transporters

1. Integrated Distribution (In‑House):

Cultivators and processors in Ohio typically use their own vehicles and employees—registered in the state’s Metrc tracking system—to transfer product to their affiliated dispensaries or other licensees. These transfers are considered “licensed entity transfers.” Vehicles must meet strict requirements: locked compartments, no branding, GPS, and manifests identifying drivers, routes, and weight.

2. Third‑Party Licensed Transporters:

Unlike many states, Ohio does not issue a standalone “secure transporter” license for cannabis. Instead, cannabis processors inherently hold distribution rights and are the only entities legally permitted to transport cannabis products outside their own operations. This means a processor may both manufacture and distribute its own product, but there is no license class equivalent to California’s Type 11/13 models.

Facility Requirements & Metrc Era

All cannabis transporters, whether used in-house or contracted, must fully integrate with Metrc. This includes detailed digital manifests listing:

• Driver ID and vehicle info
• Origin/destination and routes
• Package descriptions, weights, wholesale costs

Vehicles require secure compartments, lack visible markings, maintain communication access, and be insured—mirroring stringent regulations for labs transporting samples.

Comparing to Other States

Ohio’s model differs from states with dedicated transporter categories (e.g., CA Type 11/13, CO transporter license). In those states, independent logistics operators can service multiple licensees. Ohio, however, mandates that only processors move product—eliminating the possibility of external logistic competition.

Variation Across Businesses

Although the regulation is uniform in structure, practical approaches vary:

• Large-scale processors (multi-county operators) run robust in-house fleets, multi-vehicle routing, and comprehensive Metrc tracking.
• Smaller processors might opt for single-vehicle operation, focusing on nearby dispensaries.
• Cooperative logistics occur when affiliated processors pool vehicles or share resources—still tightly regulated under one processor’s license.

This leads to variation in scale and routing, even though the legal model remains the same.

Strategic Implications for Ohio Distributors

• Operational efficiency depends on fleet size, routing frequency, and manpower.
• Scale matters: Larger processors might build depot-style operations, while small ones may take a lean, local delivery model.
• Compliance focus: Metrc-driven recordkeeping is universal, but internal processes vary—e.g., manifest creation, auditing frequency, staff training.

Summary

In sum, Ohio uses a processor‑centric distribution model:

• No standalone transporter license—processors transport their own cannabis.
• Unified legal framework, yet practical diversity based on company size, geography, and strategy.
• Ohio’s approach maintains tight regulatory control while allowing flexibility in operational execution.

Learn More: Staying Compliant in Ohio’s New Cannabis Distribution Landscape