This Nov 3rd, join us for the third edition of Business of Cannabis: New York at The Williamsburg Hotel. A day long leadership summit focused on retail, investment & policy across New York and North America. Tickets on-sale now – www.cannabisnewyork.live
Ohio residents began early in-person voting on the state’s adult-use cannabis legalisation initiative last week.
Ahead of the statewide election on November 07, voters have had the chance to vote on the landmark legislation, listed as ‘Issue 2’, since October 11.
The proposed ballot would make Ohio the 24th US state to legalise adult-use cannabis, enabling anyone over 21 to possess up to 2.5 ounces of cannabis and cultivate up to six cannabis plants per person per home.
A new Division of Cannabis Control would also be established to licence and regulate the industry, with a 10% tax imposed on cannabis products to cover administrative costs and fund social equity programmes.
As Business of Cannabis reported in August, the bill seems to have strong bipartisan support, and nearly 60% of voters said they were in favour of legalisation.
Despite the strong support, a group of Republican state senators have threatened to throw a spanner in the works.
Last week the group passed a resolution urging voters to reject the bill, claiming it would bring ‘unacceptable threats and risks to the health of all Ohioans’.
The group added that legalisation would: “Create dangers in the workplace and unacceptable challenges and costs to employers, will make Ohio’s roads more dangerous, will impose significant new, unfunded costs to Ohio’s public social services, and serves only to advance the financial interests of the commercial marijuana industry and its investors.”
While the bills proponents have dismissed the resolution as pure misinformation and have called upon television stations to stop running it, lawmakers could also look to derail the bill if it passes.
Republican Senate President Matt Huffman warned during a speech in the Senate last week that if the bill is approved he would attempt to bring that statute ‘right back before this body’, later clarifying that he intended to advocate for ‘reviewing and repealing things or changing things that are in it’.
