Politics
Ohio Cannabis Activists Try Again, Resubmitting Referendum Petition After AG Calls First Version Misleading
Published
on January 21, 2026
Ohio activists have resubmitted a revised The petition aims to prevent key provisions of a restrictive marijuana and hemp law from taking effect following the attorney general’s rejection of the original version. general had rejected an initial version he said was “misleading.”
Ohio cannabis advocates have resubmitted a revised referendum petition after the state attorney general rejected their initial proposal, calling its summary “misleading.”
“Upon review of the summary, we identified omissions and misstatements that, as a whole, would mislead a potential signer as to the scope and effect of S.B. 56,” Attorney General Dave Yost (R) wrote in a letter to petitioners last week, explaining his decision to block the first version from moving forward.
The referendum effort, led by the advocacy group Ohioans for Cannabis Choice, aims to repeal key provisions of Senate Bill 56—a measure recently signed by the governor that rolls back portions of Ohio’s voter-approved marijuana legalization law. The bill also bans the sale of consumable hemp products outside of state-licensed cannabis dispensaries, a move critics say would devastate thousands of small businesses.
Activists initially submitted signatures last month to begin the referendum process. Following the attorney general’s rejection, the group revised the petition language and submitted a new batch of signatures this week.
“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,” said Dennis Willard, a spokesperson for Ohioans for Cannabis Choice.
“We are determined to give voters the chance to say no to SB 56 in November—no to government overreach, no to shuttering 6,000 small businesses in Ohio, and no to lawmakers who delivered a slap in the face to Ohioans who overwhelmingly voted to legalize cannabis in 2023,” Willard added.
Attorney General Dave Yost said multiple elements of the original petition summary were misleading and could confuse voters about the substance of Senate Bill 56.
In his letter to organizers, Yost pointed to what he described as “two very similar descriptions” of how the petition defined hemp, arguing that the redundancy could mislead potential signers about the true scope and meaning of the definition.
The attorney general also said the summary incorrectly claimed that SB 56 allows the delivery of adult-use cannabis. “Nowhere in the bill is the division of cannabis control authorized to adopt rules on the delivery of adult-use cannabis,” Yost wrote.
Additionally, the summary was faulted for stating that felony offenses automatically disqualify applicants from receiving cannabis-related licenses. Yost noted that Gov. Mike DeWine (R) vetoed that provision, meaning it is not part of the law as enacted.
Yost further objected to language suggesting that SB 56 repealed a prohibition on license holders offering free or discounted marijuana products. “This is false,” he wrote, explaining that no such prohibition existed prior to the bill. Instead, SB 56 directs the Division of Cannabis Control to establish standards barring gifts, samples, or discounted goods and services used to induce or reward business or referrals.
The petition summary also, according to Yost, misrepresented the authority granted to local governments. He said it incorrectly suggested that SB 56 allows municipalities to pass ordinances that restrict license holders’ rights or prohibit activities otherwise permitted under statewide cannabis laws.
Finally, Yost said the summary wrongly claimed that the bill authorizes local governments to impose excise taxes on recreational cannabis sales.
“These instances are just a few examples of the summary’s omissions and misstatements,” Yost wrote, adding that further review would be conducted if a revised petition were resubmitted.
The updated petition will now undergo a similar review by the attorney general’s office before organizers can begin collecting roughly 250,000 signatures required to place the referendum on the ballot.
Both Gov. DeWine’s office and the state senator who spearheaded SB 56 have publicly criticized the cannabis referendum effort.
In general, the proposed referendum would repeal the first three core sections of SB 56, a controversial bill that DeWine signed into law last month that he says is intended to crack down on the unregulated intoxicating hemp market. But the legislation would do more than restrict the sale of cannabinoid products to dispensaries.
The law would recriminalize some marijuana activity that voters legalized through a 2023 ballot initiative and would also strip away consumer anti-discrimination protections established under that law.
The governor also used his line-item veto authority to strike a provision that would have delayed implementation of the ban on hemp beverages.
Advocates and stakeholders strongly protested the now-enacted legislation, arguing that it undermines the will of voters who approved cannabis legalization and would effectively eradicate the state’s hemp industry, as there are low expectations that adults will opt for hemp-based products over marijuana when they visit a dispensary.
The pushback against SB 56 inspired the newly filed referendum, though the path to successfully blocking the law remains narrow.
If activists meet the required signature threshold by the deadline—which coincides with the day the restrictive law is set to take effect—the implementation of SB 56 would be paused until voters have a chance to decide on the measure at the ballot box.
According to the summary of the submitted referendum, “Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Am. Sub. S. B. No. 56 enact new provisions and amend and repeal existing provisions of the Ohio Revised Code that relate to the regulation, criminalization, and taxation of cannabis products, such as the sale, use, possession, cultivation, licensing, classification, transport, and manufacture of marijuana and certain hemp products.”
The summary adds: “If a majority of voters vote to not approve Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Act, then the enacted changes will not take effect, and the prior version of the affected laws will remain in place.”
Advocates have raised multiple concerns about the law, noting that it would remove statutory language that provides anti-discrimination protections for lawful cannabis users. These protections currently prevent adverse actions in areas such as child custody, eligibility for organ transplants, and professional licensing.
The law would also recriminalize possession of marijuana obtained from any source other than a state-licensed Ohio dispensary or a legally authorized homegrow. This means individuals could face criminal charges for carrying cannabis legally purchased in neighboring Michigan.
In addition, SB 56 would ban smoking cannabis at outdoor public spaces, including bar patios, and would grant landlords the authority to prohibit marijuana vaping in rental properties. Violating this latter provision—even by vaping in one’s own backyard at a rental home—could result in misdemeanor charges.
The legislation also replaces a previously approved House framework for regulating intoxicating hemp with a broad ban on sales outside licensed marijuana dispensaries, following a recent federal move to recriminalize certain hemp products.
Under SB 56, hemp products containing more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container—or products containing synthetic cannabinoids—could no longer be sold outside state-licensed dispensaries. The measure aligns with a federal hemp law enacted as part of an appropriations package signed by President Donald Trump.
However, the federal law includes a one-year implementation period, while the Ohio legislation appears set to take effect sooner. Originally, the legislature had allowed a temporary regulatory program for hemp beverages to remain in place in Ohio until December 31, 2026, but that provision was later removed through a line-item veto by the governor.
The law also includes language stating that if the federal government moves to legalize hemp with higher THC levels, it is the intent of the Ohio legislature to review that policy change and consider potential state-level regulatory reforms.
The bill signing comes months after Gov. DeWine issued emergency rules temporarily banning the sale of intoxicating hemp products for 90 days, directing the legislature to consider permanent regulations. A county judge has since blocked the state from enforcing that policy in response to a legal challenge.
Meanwhile, in September, the Ohio Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) filed proposed rules to expand upon the state’s marijuana legalization framework, including updated requirements for labeling and packaging.
Ohio retailers sold more than $1 billion worth of legal marijuana products in 2025, according to data from the state Department of Commerce. A March survey of 38 municipalities conducted by Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law found that local leaders were “unequivocally opposed” to earlier proposals that would have redirected planned funding.
As of June, adult consumers in Ohio can purchase more than twice the amount of marijuana previously allowed, with state officials asserting that the market can sustainably supply both medical patients and adult users.
Separately, in March, the governor announced plans to reallocate marijuana tax revenue to support police training, local jails, and behavioral health services, emphasizing police training as a top priority—even though that allocation was not included in the 2023 voter-approved initiative.
