With just over a week until Ohio’s voter-approved marijuana legalization law takes effect, a lawmaker has introduced a bill that would allow individual municipalities to locally ban the use and home cultivation of cannabis in their jurisdictions.
The legislation aims to modify the distribution of state marijuana tax revenue, specifically by decreasing funding allotted to social equity and jobs programs and redirecting it towards law enforcement training.
While Issue 2, approved by voters, specifically banned localities from prohibiting marijuana use, home cultivation, or scientific research, as well as imposing extra local taxes on cannabis products, the current bill aims to eliminate these crucial provisions, which could potentially result in a fragmented set of policies statewide.
Issue 2 currently grants municipalities the option to exclude new recreational cannabis companies from establishing themselves in their area. However, municipalities are unable to prevent existing medical marijuana enterprises from incorporating adult-use operations on-site, even if they express a desire to do so.
The bill as introduced would change how the state would need to appropriate cannabis tax revenue by adding two new funds: one for substance misuse and recovery services and another for law enforcement training.
You can follow the progress of the bill here.
Posts
Michigan medical marijuana law does not protect liars court of appeals says
LANSING, MI -- Michigan courts and police continue to work within a gray created by state marijuana legalization that contradicts federal law. Not only are lines blurred by conflicting jurisdictional laws, and complicated by the division of the state’s medical and...
Case Dismissed-Case Closed
Overcharged As it goes, my clients were overcharged with crimes involving drugs, guns, bombs and money. We litigated this case for over three years including 5 days of preliminary exam testimony, and several motions litigated at the District Court and the Circuit...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Threat of Terrorism
Case Summary In People v Kvasnicka, the defendant sent a message to a young girl stating she “would not be laughing” when he came to her school to “shoot it up or blow it up like Columbine.” Charged under Michigan’s threat‑of‑terrorism statute, he argued the law was...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Prisoner in Possession
Prisoner in Possession of a Controlled SubstanceCase Summary In People v Tadgerson, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed a critical question: does the crime of a prisoner possessing a controlled substance under MCL 800.281(4) require proof of intent, or is it a...
Motion in Limine vs Motion to Suppress
Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineOverview Although both a motion in limine and a motion to suppress deal with evidence, they serve very different purposes in Michigan criminal cases. Understanding the distinction is critical because each motion affects...
A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?
Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineA motion in limine is a pretrial request asking the judge to exclude (or sometimes allow) specific evidence before the jury ever hears it. It’s one of the most important evidentiary tools in both criminal and civil...
DISCLAIMER
This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet debauchery. Therefore… before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything and everything – do your research on verified Official Government and State Sites, Call the State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – and then check it again.
