Ohio Cannabis Activists Resubmit Referendum Petition After Attorney General Rejects Initial ‘Misleading’ Version
Ohio cannabis referendum, redux: the petition is back on the table—rewritten, sharpened, and aimed squarely at S.B. 56 like a chef’s knife at a gristly cut. After Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost swatted down the first summary as “misleading,” organizers hustled back into the kitchen, recrafted their language, and resubmitted the paperwork to try to stall a restrictive marijuana and hemp law before it hits the plate. They’re pushing for a November vote to let Ohioans decide whether the legislature overreached—rolling back parts of the voter-approved 2023 legalization, tightening cannabis regulation, and corralling hemp into dispensaries only. It’s a familiar American story: voters say yes, lawmakers say not so fast, and the market—the real lives and small shops in between—hangs in the balance.
The activist group Ohioans for Cannabis Choice says it scrubbed every comma that Yost flagged. Their confidence reads like something you say stepping out of the rain and into a crowded bar, soaked but smiling, ready to try again. “We have addressed each and every issue raised by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, and we are confident our new petition summary language will be approved,” spokesperson Dennis Willard said, urging supporters to help restart signature-gathering after the initial rejection. You can follow the campaign’s updates at Ohioans for Cannabis Choice and see local coverage of the filing push via Cleveland 19. The revised summary now awaits another vetting by the attorney general’s office; if it passes, organizers will need roughly a quarter-million signatures to land on the ballot, according to the state’s official petition docket.
What the AG flagged
- Redundant and confusing language around how “hemp” is defined, which the AG said could mislead signers.
- A claim that S.B. 56 authorizes adult-use cannabis delivery—authority the statute doesn’t actually grant.
- An assertion that certain felony offenses would automatically disqualify applicants from cannabis licensure—even though the governor vetoed that section.
- A misstatement about gifts or samples: S.B. 56 didn’t repeal a prohibition; it directs regulators to set standards restricting kickbacks and freebies.
- Language implying local governments could broadly curtail rights granted under statewide cannabis law—beyond what S.B. 56 allows.
- A suggestion that cities and counties could levy their own cannabis excise taxes—something the bill does not authorize.
Strip away the procedural squabbling and you get to the meat: what S.B. 56 actually does. The bill clamps down on intoxicating hemp by banning most sales outside licensed dispensaries—sweeping in any product with more than 0.4 mg total THC per container or anything made with synthetic cannabinoids. It’s calibrated to match a recent federal move that recriminalizes many consumable hemp products for a year, and Ohio’s timeline might bite sooner because the governor used a line-item veto to nix a temporary hemp beverage program that would have run into late 2026. The law also brings back criminal risk for carrying cannabis sourced anywhere but an Ohio dispensary or a legal homegrow—meaning that jar you legally bought in Michigan could suddenly be contraband once you cross I-75. Protections against discrimination for lawful cannabis users—think child custody, organ transplant eligibility, professional licensing—get stripped. Add prohibitions on smoking at bar patios and landlord power to ban marijuana vaping at rentals (backyard included), and even a quiet evening can turn into a misdemeanor. If the referendum qualifies before the law’s start date, S.B. 56 pauses—and the question goes to voters.
Meanwhile, Ohio’s cannabis industry impact is anything but theoretical. The Ohio cannabis market notched more than $1 billion in legal cannabis revenue in 2025. Regulators boosted adult-use purchase limits in June, betting supply can cover both patients and newcomers, and they’ve floated new labeling and packaging rules to keep pace with the shelf space. On the money trail, cannabis taxation remains a political tug-of-war: the governor has pitched redirecting marijuana tax revenue toward police training, local jails, and behavioral health, while many local officials have bristled at seeing community funding shifted away from what voters expected. This isn’t happening in a vacuum; statehouses everywhere are rewriting the playbook on hemp and cannabis. Some want smarter statewide guardrails that steer consumers away from gray-market chaos—see South Carolina Lawmakers Should Pass Hemp Legislation That Smartly Regulates Products (Op-Ed). Others are expanding the frontier altogether, like the Garden State’s therapeutic experiment detailed in New Jersey Governor Signs Bill Creating Psilocybin Therapy Pilot Program And Allocating $6 Million To Psychedelic Treatment Effort. Different kitchens, different recipes—same national appetite for clarity.
Zoom out and the crosswinds get stronger. Washington is weighing big-picture changes to marijuana policy reform even as it tightens hemp. Rescheduling cannabis at the federal level would reshape banking, research, and maybe even insurance math—political capital the White House has bragged about, as chronicled in White House Touts Trump’s Marijuana Rescheduling Order As A Top ‘Win’ During His First Year Back In Office. Gun ownership rules are edging toward reality-based nuance too, with regulators signaling changes for consumers who admit past use—context in ATF Moves To Loosen Gun Ban For People Who’ve Used Marijuana Or Other Illegal Drugs. Against that backdrop, Ohio’s S.B. 56 feels like a countercurrent—part caution, part crackdown. The referendum asks a simple question dressed in complicated clothes: Who gets to draw the line between safety, freedom, and commerce? November will tell; until then, keep your paperwork tidy, your labels honest, and your options open—if you’re exploring compliant, high-quality THCA products, step into our shop here: https://thcaorder.com/shop/.
