{"id":81625,"date":"2025-06-11T09:07:08","date_gmt":"2025-06-11T17:07:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2025\/06\/11\/ohio-legislature-can-make-only-limited-changes-to-marijuana-law-approved-by-voters-legal-scholar-argues\/"},"modified":"2025-06-11T19:48:35","modified_gmt":"2025-06-12T03:48:35","slug":"ohio-legislature-can-make-only-limited-changes-to-marijuana-law-approved-by-voters-legal-scholar-argues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2025\/06\/11\/ohio-legislature-can-make-only-limited-changes-to-marijuana-law-approved-by-voters-legal-scholar-argues\/","title":{"rendered":"Ohio Legislature Can Make Only Limited Changes To Marijuana Law Approved By Voters, Legal Scholar Argues"},"content":{"rendered":"<\/p>\n

As Ohio lawmakers face public pushback over legislation that would make sweeping changes to the state marijuana law approved by voters in 2023<\/a>, one legal scholar says the state Constitution could ultimately limit how drastic those adjustments could be.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen you look closely at the text, the structure and the history of the Ohio Constitution\u2019s statutory initiative provision, it strongly suggests that the Constitution places real limits on the General Assembly\u2019s power to alter initiated laws,\u201d Derek Clinger, a staff attorney at the University of Wisconsin Law School\u2019s State Democracy Research Initiative, said at a webinar Tuesday.<\/p>\n

\u201cNow, to be clear, I don\u2019t think the Constitution completely prohibits the legislature from making changes,\u201d Clinger added, \u201cthough I actually think there\u2019s a better argument for that position than for the one that says the lawmakers have complete discretion to change initiatives.\u201d<\/p>\n

Clinger\u2019s comments were part of an online talk hosted by Ohio State University law school\u2019s Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, titled (Un)Checked Power of the Ohio General Assembly: Can Legislators Override Voters\u2019 Will on Marijuana Reform? In it, speakers described how legislative efforts this session have sought to undercut many of the provisions passed by voters in the state\u2019s 2023 legalization law, Issue 2<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Advocates have criticized the legislation\u2014SB 56 and its House counterpart, HB 160\u2014as restrictive measures that would undermine the will of voters<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s been an assumption that the General Assembly has the complete discretion to change or even fully repeal the initiative,\u201d Clinger said. But the state Constitution \u201cdoes not address this scenario in explicit terms,\u201d and state courts \u201chave never actually weighed in on this issue.\u201d<\/p>\n

The state Constitution\u2019s section on initiative power is \u201ca reservation of legislative power by the people of Ohio to the people of Ohio,\u201d he asserted. \u201cIt did not come from the General Assembly. And the effect is that the General Assembly is in, really, a power-sharing arrangement with the people of Ohio when it comes to lawmaking.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Constitution doesn\u2019t say specifically whether lawmakers can amend voter-approved initiatives, though it does spell out a process for the legislature to adopt or offer alternatives to public proposals before<\/em> a matter goes to voters. It also sets limits, such as around the scope of a proposal\u2014the so-called \u201csingle subject\u201d rule\u2014and on certain tax issues.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat this shows to me is that the framers of the provision knew how to write clear limits on the power,\u201d Clinger explained, \u201cyet they didn\u2019t expressly say that the General Assembly would be free to change or even repeal initiated law after an election.\u201d<\/p>\n

In further language about initiatives, the Constitution says that laws \u201cmay be passed to facilitate their operation but in no way limiting or restricting either such provisions or the powers herein reserved,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis anti-subversion clause seems to most directly address the scenario of whether legislators can amend or repeal voter approved initiatives,\u201d Clinger said. \u201cThey can, but only if the change facilitates the initiative without in any way limiting or restricting it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Clinger\u2019s interpretation is the subject of a forthcoming Case Western Reserve Law Review article<\/a> about the constitutional limits on legislative changes to initiatives in Ohio, a version of which was posted online in April.<\/p>\n

Another speaker at the webinar, Patrick Higgins, policy council at ACLU of Ohio, said that even some lawmakers have raised concerns that certain pieces of the legislation \u201cmight be unconstitutional or unimplementable.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cBut the common refrain in the Statehouse is, \u2018It\u2019s called the revised code for a reason. We can make tweaks to it,’\u201d Higgins said.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think the message has been resoundingly clear,\u201d he continued: \u201cThis is not what voters wanted.\u201d<\/p>\n

Already the House Judiciary Committee has taken steps to soften the restrictive bill, SB 56, in response to public pushback. Changes approved at a hearing late last month, for example\u00a0rolled back some of the strict limits included in a verson of the measure passed by the Senate in February<\/a>, including a criminal prohibition on sharing marijuana between adults on private property.<\/p>\n

Members said at the time that further amendments to the plan were forthcoming.<\/p>\n

Karen O\u2019Keefe, director of state policies for the advocacy group Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), said at Tuesday\u2019s webinar<\/a> that the bill \u201cstill has a lot of alarming provisions but is not quite as terrible as the initial proposal.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe proposal started out way more extreme in terms of recriminalization, hiking up taxes and removing all the allocations that were included in issue two,\u201d she noted, such as for local governments, social equity and jobs training.<\/p>\n

The amended version of the bill, O\u2019Keefe added, has \u201cless recriminalization,\u201d though it would still outlaw marijuana that wasn\u2019t purchased from an Ohio retailer or grown at home, and it would prohibit the sharing of homegrown cannabis between adults.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you just couldn\u2019t prove where your cannabis came from, it would open the door to those kind of interrogations,\u201d she said. \u201cYou could also only share cannabis that was purchased\u2026 People that are helping their neighbors with serious illnesses couldn\u2019t do that anymore, and if they shared more than 20 grams, they\u2019d face a felony for doing so.\u201d<\/p>\n

The revised bill also earmarks 25 percent of revenue for local governments\u2014higher than the legislation\u2019s initial 20 percent but lower than the 36 percent allocation approved by voters. And it does away entirely with a voter-approved social equity and jobs program.<\/p>\n

As for Clinger\u2019s argument that the changes could be unconstitutional, O\u2019Keefe said she understood that matters such as recriminalization of cannabis conduct or removal of voter-passed funding allocations \u201care both vulnerable under such an analysis,\u201d but she added that she has \u201cbecome cynical of some courts in the last decade, few years, so I think it\u2019s important to fight it out with the legislature first.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rep. Jamie Callender (R), a longtime supporter of cannabis reform, reassured speakers at a follow-up hearing last week that their concerns were being heard and that further amendments are on the way.<\/p>\n

\u201cThank you all for your participation,\u201d he said. \u201cAs a result of that, there was a substitute bill put in last week that addressed a couple of the issues you talk about. And one of the reasons that it is not up for a vote today is we are still negotiating and working on some amendments to address several of the other issues.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe very specific issues you addressed have been being worked on or will be addressed in the next week or two,\u201d he continued. \u201cSo for all of you that are here testifying, I want to thank you. You\u2019ve made a difference. And it\u2019s going to make a much better product. And I\u2019m optimistic that you may not be perfectly happy, but you\u2019re going to say, \u2018You know, this is OK,\u2019 when it comes up.\u201d<\/p>\n

New changes already adopted would remove the legislation\u2019s earlier criminal penalty for sharing marijuana or intoxicating hemp products among adults, provided that the sharing takes place on private property. Certain outdoor concert venues would also be exempt from laws against open consumption provided they have separate smoking and vaping areas.<\/p>\n

The committee amendment also removed a provision that would have created a mandatory minimum sentence for someone caught consuming marijuana in the passenger seat of a vehicle.<\/p>\n

Notably under the amended bill, THC-infused beverages containing up to five milligrams of THC could be carried in stores statewide rather than just in dispensaries. A $3.50 per gallon tax would be levied on THC beverages.<\/p>\n

A separate 10 percent tax on marijuana products in the bill would also apply to intoxicating hemp products.<\/p>\n

While especially high-potency products would still be forbidden under the amended bill, regulators at the Division of Marijuana Control could by rule increase the allowable potency above the initial 70-percent THC cap.<\/p>\n

Licensed dispensaries would also be able to\u00a0sell and transfer marijuana to other license holders.<\/p>\n

Other changes increased the amount of tax revenue going to municipalities that host cannabis businesses, upping it to 25 percent of state cannabis revenue for a period of seven years. That\u2019s a higher amount than was contemplated in any other marijuana bill this session.<\/p>\n

In March, a survey of 38 municipalities by the Ohio State University\u2019s (OSU) Moritz College of Law found that\u00a0local leaders were \u201cunequivocally opposed\u201d to earlier proposals that would have stripped the planned funding<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Rep. Brian Stewart (R) noted at the previous committee hearing that the latest provision around host community funding was the most generous lawmakers had offered all session.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Senate\u2019s version of the bill was zero percent. The governor\u2019s introduced version of the bill was zero percent,\u201d he said, adding that HB 160 itself initially set a 20-percent allocation for five years. \u201cWe have increased that to 25 percent over seven years.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ohio\u2019s Senate president has pushed back against public criticism of the Senate bill, claiming the legislation does not disrespect the will of the electorate<\/a>\u00a0and would have little impact on products available in stores.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile in Ohio,\u00a0adults are now able to buy more than double the amount of marijuana<\/a>\u00a0than they were under previous limits, with state officials determining that the market can sustainably supply both medical cannabis patients and adult consumers.<\/p>\n

Effective earlier this month, adults can purchase up to 2.5 ounces of flower cannabis per day\u2014a significant increase compared to the prior daily transaction limit of one ounce. The change will make it so consumers could buy marijuana in an amount that matches the 2.5 ounce possession limit under state statute.<\/p>\n

A Department of Commerce spokesperson told Marijuana Moment that \u201cback when the non-medical program came online, there were lower limits on non-medical sales, which was primarily to help ensure there was an adequate supply for medical patients.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cA subsequent review of the available inventory data supports this increase adjustment up to the statutory limits identified in the statute,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, Gov. Mike DeWine (R) in March announced his desire to reallocate marijuana tax revenue to support police training, local jails and behavioral health services<\/a> in a state budget bill. He said funding police training was a top priority, even if that wasn\u2019t included in what voters passed in 2023.<\/p>\n

Separately in the legislature this month, Sens. Steve Huffman (R) and Shane Wilkin (R) introduced\u00a0legislation that would impose a 15 percent tax on intoxicating hemp products and limit their sales to adult-use dispensaries<\/a>\u2014not convenience stores, smoke shops or gas stations<\/p>\n

DeWine has repeatedly asked\u00a0lawmakers to regulate or ban intoxicating hemp products such as delta-8 THC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

GOP-Led Congressional Panel Demands Investigation On Biden\u2019s Marijuana Rescheduling Process, Citing \u2018Deviations\u2019 And \u2018Mental Health Hazards\u2019<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis \/\/ Side Pocket Images.<\/em><\/p>\n

The post Ohio Legislature Can Make Only Limited Changes To Marijuana Law Approved By Voters, Legal Scholar Argues<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n


\n
\nRead More: Ohio Legislature Can Make Only Limited Changes To Marijuana Law Approved By Voters, Legal Scholar Argues<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As Ohio lawmakers face public pushback over legislation that would make sweeping changes to the state marijuana law approved by voters in 2023, one legal scholar says the state Constitution could ultimately limit how drastic those adjustments could be. \u201cWhen you look closely at the text, the structure and theContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18,81],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81625"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=81625"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81625\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":81626,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81625\/revisions\/81626"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81625"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81625"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81625"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}