Ohio AG Rejects Citizen-Led Petition Language to Roll Back Cannabis and Hemp Reforms 

Ohio’s attorney general has rejected the proposed ballot summary for a citizen-led
referendum to roll back the sweeping cannabis and hemp reforms recently
signed into law by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine. In a letter to the
campaign’s attorney, dated January 13, Attorney General Dave Yost said he
was “unable to certify the summary as a fair and truthful representation of
the measure.”

In the letter, Yost contends that the proposal’s summary includes “two
descriptions attempt to outline what is excluded under the definition of
‘hemp’ and that those definitions could lead potential petition signers to
be “misled as to the character and import” of the definition of hemp.

The attorney general also pointed to language in the summary concerning the
delivery of adult-use cannabis, noting that the summary “inaccurately
states” that the bill signed by the governor permits the delivery of adult
use cannabis.

“But the bill requires the division of cannabis control to ‘establish
standards and procedures for both of the following: (a) Online and mobile
ordering of adult-use and medical marijuana by a licensed dispensary; (b)
Delivery of medical marijuana by a licensed dispensary or an agent of a
licensed dispensary to a registered medical marijuana patient or
caregiver.’ Nowhere in the bill is the division of cannabis control
authorized to adopt rules on the delivery of adult-use cannabis. Thus, the
summary is inaccurate and misleading in this regard.” — Yost in the letter

Further, Yost contends the summary “inaccurately states that felony
offenses are disqualifying for cannabis-related licensure” and that DeWine
had vetoed that provision in the bill, making the statement inaccurate. The
letter claims that the summary inaccurately states that the bill targeted
by the petition repealed a prohibition of license holders offering gifts,
samples, or other free or discounted adult-use marijuana products, which
Yost contends “is false.”

“First, no such prohibition was repealed by S.B. 56,” Yost wrote. “Instead,
the bill directs the division of cannabis control to ‘establish standards
prohibiting the use of gifts, samples, or other free or discounted goods or
services to induce or reward a license holder for business or referrals.’”

The attorney general also takes aim at statements regarding local
government control of cannabis operations, noting that the
summary “misleads the reader into believing that S.B. 56 gives local
governments the authority to pass ordinances that prohibit or limit the
rights of license holders and/or prohibit other activities that are
permitted under statewide cannabis control laws.” Yost argues the bill does
the opposite, and actually “forbids local governments from prohibiting or
limiting the rights of a license holder and prohibiting or limiting any
other activity otherwise authorized by state law through ordinance or
resolution.” Additionally, Yost argues that the summary “misleads the
reader” about local government taxing powers, saying it allows
municipalities “to levy an excise tax on the retail sale of adult-use
marijuana and develops rules and limitations related to the same” but the
bill actually does the opposite.