Ohio Issue 3, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2015)

Ohio Issue 3
Election date November 3, 2015
Topic Marijuana
Status d Defeated
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

The Ohio Marijuana Legalization Initiative was on the ballot in Ohio as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 3, 2015. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported legalizing the limited sale and use of marijuana and creating 10 facilities with exclusive commercial rights to grow marijuana.

A "no" vote opposed legalizing the limited sale and use of marijuana and creating 10 facilities with exclusive commercial rights to grow marijuana.

In response to the marijuana legalization initiative, the Ohio State Legislature placed Issue 2 on the 2015 ballot, which was designed to prevent Issue 3 from taking effect if it had been approved by voters. Issue 2, which was approved by voters, allowed the Ohio Ballot Board to regulate future ballot measures dealing with monopolies.

Election results

Ohio Issue 3
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,166,692	36.35%
No		2,042,902	63.65%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Measure design

The measure would have legalized the use, cultivation and sale of marijuana in Ohio. Anyone 21 years or older with a license purchased from the Ohio Marijuana Control Commission would have been able to use, possess, grow, cultivate and share up to eight ounces of homegrown marijuana and four flowering marijuana plants.

Anyone 21 years or older (with or without a license) would have been able to purchase, possess, transport, use and share up to one ounce of marijuana. Anyone with a certified debilitating medical condition would have been able to use medicinal marijuana.

Marijuana Growth, Cultivation and Extraction (MGCE) facilities

The amendment would have created 10 Marijuana Growth, Cultivation and Extraction (MGCE) facilities. These 10 facilities would have had exclusive rights to commercial production. The MGCE facilities that cultivated the plants could not also sell directly to the public. Ian James, the head of the ResponsibleOhio campaign in support of the amendment, required each investor to give $2 million to the campaign to get Issue 3 on the ballot. He also hired real estate agents to find 10 properties capable of industrial indoor marijuana production. Cincinnati financier James Gould played a large role in investor recruiting.

The following table displays the MGCE facilities' official LLC names, common names, owners, locations and property sizes in acres. Nine of the 10 facilities' LLC names begin with 768, which spells out P-O-T on a telephone dial.

LLC	AKA	Owner(s)	County	Acres
76826771	Abhang Co. LLC	Dr. Suresh Gupta, Alan Mooney	Licking	35.03 acres
76826772	WF Green Investments LLC	William Foster, Frostee Rucker, Oscar Robertson	Hamilton	24.47 acres
76826773	Grow 2015-768 LLC	Bobby George	Lorain	76.83 acres
76826774	DGF LLC	Frank Wood	Clermont	13.43 acres
76826775	Bridge Property Group LLC	David Bastos	Lucas	28.46 acres
76826776	Ohioven LLC	Jennifer Doering	Delaware	24.95 acres
76826777	Verdure GCE LLC	William "Cheney" Pruett, John Humphreys, Nick Lachey	Summit	29.01 acres
76826778	NG Green Investments	Nanette Lapore, Barbara Gould, Paul Heldman, Woody Taft, Dudley Taft Jr.	Butler	40.44 acres
76826779	Prestoncox Industries	Rick Kirk	Franklin	19.12 acres
GTI Ohio	GTI Investors LLC	Ben Kovler, Peter Kadens	Stark	27.18 acres

How would the Ohio marijuana industry have worked?

Regulation

The measure would have created an Ohio Marijuana Control Commission to regulate industrial and homegrown marijuana production, the chemical content of marijuana products, retail sales and marijuana taxation. The commission would have also acted as a clearinghouse for scientific research on marijuana and created a marijuana innovation and business incubator in Cuyahoga County.

Stores, dispensaries and manufacturing

Retail marijuana stores would have only been allowed to sell marijuana from MGCE facilities and marijuana-infused products from licensed manufacturing facilities. Stores would not have been allowed to sell marijuana or infused products for less than what the store paid for it.

The total number of marijuana retail stores in Ohio would have been limited by a ratio of one store for every 10,000 Ohioans. With Ohio's population at 11,594,163 in 2014, the amendment would have allowed for a maximum of 1,159 stores.

Marijuana stores would have been prevented from locations within 1,000 feet of a house of worship, public library, public or chartered elementary or secondary school, state-licensed day care center or public playground. A store's location would have also needed to be approved by voters in the precinct in which the store would be located.

Medical marijuana would have only been sold by licensed not-for-profit dispensaries to individuals with a doctor’s note. The Ohio Marijuana Control Commission would have issued regulatory rules for these dispensaries and fund necessary operating costs.

Only licensed Marijuana Product Manufacturing, or MPM, facilities would have been able to manufacture, process and package marijuana-infused products. The facilities would have also manufactured marijuana accessories and sell marijuana-infused products made only from marijuana purchased from licensed MGCE facilities. The control commission would have regulated parts of the process such as the chemical content or potency of marijuana-infused products.

Taxes

Along with general business taxes, fees, and assessments, marijuana production facility gross revenue would have been taxed at a flat 15 percent rate, and marijuana retail stores would have been taxed at a flat 5 percent rate.

The tax revenue would have been dedicated as follows:

• 55 percent to the Municipal and Township Government Stabilization Fund;
• 30 percent to the Strong County Fund; and
• 15 percent to the Marijuana Control Commission Fund.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot text was as follows:

“

Issue 3 Grants a monopoly for the commercial production and sale of marijuana for recreational and medicinal purposes Proposed Constitutional Amendment Proposed by Initiative Petition To add Section 12 of Article XV of the Constitution of the State of Ohio. A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass. The proposed amendment would: Endow exclusive rights for commercial marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction to self-designated landowners who own ten predetermined parcels of land in Butler, Clermont, Franklin, Hamilton, Licking, Lorain, Lucas, Delaware, Stark, and Summit Counties. One additional location may be allowed for in four years only if existing facilities cannot meet consumer demand. Permit retail sale of recreational marijuana at approximately 1,100 locations statewide. Such retail establishments must have a state license that may be obtained only if the electors of the precinct where the store will be located approve the use of the location for such purpose at a local option election. Legalize the production of marijuana-infused products, including edible products, concentrates, sprays, ointments and tinctures by marijuana product manufacturing facilities. Allow each person, 21 years of age or older, to, grow, cultivate, use, possess, and share up to eight ounces of usable homegrown marijuana plus four flowering marijuana plants if the person holds a valid state license. Allow each person, 21 years of age or older, to purchase, possess, transport, use, and share up to 1 ounce of marijuana for recreational use. Authorize the use of medical marijuana by any person, regardless of age, who has a certification for a debilitating medical condition. Prohibit marijuana establishments within 1,000 feet of a house of worship, public library, public or chartered elementary or secondary school, state-licensed day-care center, or public playground, however: after a certain date, a new day-care, library, etc., cannot force a preexisting marijuana establishment to relocate by opening a new location within 1,000 feet of the business. Prohibit any local or state law, including zoning laws, from being applied to prohibit the development or operation of marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction facilities, retail marijuana stores, and medical marijuana dispensaries unless the area is zoned exclusively residential as of January 1, 2015 or as of the date that an application for a license is first filed for a marijuana establishment. Create a special tax rate limited to 15% on gross revenue of each marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction facility and marijuana product manufacturing facility and a special tax rate limited to 5% on gross revenue of each retail marijuana store. Revenues from the tax go to a municipal and township government fund, a strong county fund, and the marijuana control commission fund. Create a marijuana incubator in Cuyahoga County to promote growth and development of the marijuana industry and locate marijuana testing facilities near colleges and universities in Athens, Cuyahoga, Lorain, Mahoning, Scioto and Wood Counties, at a minimum. Limit the ability of the legislature and local governments from regulating the manufacture, sales, distribution, and use of marijuana and marijuana products. Create a new state government agency called the marijuana control commission (with limited authority) to regulate the industry, comprised of seven Ohio residents appointed by the Governor, including a physician, a law enforcement officer, an administrative law attorney, a patient advocate, a resident experienced in owning, developing, managing and operating businesses, a resident with experience in the legal marijuana industry, and a member of the public.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article XV, Ohio Constitution

The proposed amendment would have added a Section 12 to Article XV of the Ohio Constitution. The full text can be read below: Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Amendment to Section 12 of Article XV of the Ohio Constitution

12. Legalization, Regulation and Taxation of Medical and Personal Use of Marijuana

(A) Summary

This section provides for the legalization of medical marijuana for use by persons with debilitating medical conditions and for the legalization of marijuana and marijuana-infused products for personal use by individuals 21 years of age and older. This section establishes the Ohio Marijuana Control Commission (“Commission”) to regulate the state’s marijuana industry in a manner similar to the state’s regulation of alcohol. A patient may obtain medical marijuana only after being issued a medical marijuana certification by an Ohio-licensed physician, and only from state-regulated, not-for-profit medical marijuana dispensaries. Sale of marijuana and marijuana-infused products for personal use is limited to licensed retail marijuana stores, and the location of any such store must receive approval of the voters of the precinct in which the store would be located. It is lawful for persons 21 years of age or older to grow and possess no more than four homegrown marijuana plants for personal, non-commercial use; however, growth, cultivation and extraction of marijuana and medical marijuana to be sold within the state will occur only at site-specific, state-regulated facilities. Marijuana-infused and medical marijuana-infused products may be produced only by state-regulated facilities. No marijuana establishment may be within 1,000 feet of a house of worship, a publicly-owned library, playground, an elementary or secondary school, or a state-licensed child day-care center. Marijuana Growth, Cultivation & Extraction (“MGCE”) facilities and Marijuana Product Manufacturing (“MPM”) facilities must pay a special flat tax equal to 15% of their gross revenue, and marijuana retail stores must pay a special flat tax equal to 5% of their gross revenue, without any deduction for expenses. Revenue from these special taxes must be allocated as follows: 55% to municipalities and townships on a per capita basis, 30% to counties on a per capita basis, and 15% to a Marijuana Control Commission Fund for the reasonable and necessary costs of operating the Commission, to provide additional funding for mental health and addiction and treatment services, and to fund a marijuana innovation and business incubator to award support to Ohio-based companies, colleges and universities, nonprofit medical centers, and other nonprofit research institutions to engage in research and development, and to create new products, companies and jobs associated with the medical marijuana and marijuana industries in Ohio.

(B) Use of Medical Marijuana for Debilitating Medical Conditions

It is lawful for patients with debilitating medical conditions to acquire, administer, purchase, possess, transport, and use, and for licensed caregivers to acquire, administer, purchase, possess, transport and transfer, medical marijuana pursuant to a valid medical marijuana certification. The state shall regulate the conduct of physicians in issuing medical marijuana certifications in a manner similar to its regulation of medical prescriptions. A treating physician who has examined a patient and determined that he or she has a debilitating medical condition may issue a medical marijuana certification if: (1) a bona fide physician-patient relationship exists; (2) the physician determines the risk of the patient’s use of medical marijuana is reasonable in light of the potential benefit; and (3) the physician has explained the risks and benefits of using medical marijuana to the patient. If the patient is younger than 18 years of age, treatment involving medical marijuana may not be provided without consent by at least one custodial parent, guardian, conservator, or other person with lawful authority to consent to the patient’s medical treatment.

No agency, including a law enforcement agency, of this state or of a political subdivision of this state may initiate an administrative, civil, or criminal investigation of a physician, nor shall a physician be denied any right or privilege or be subject to any disciplinary action, solely on the ground that the physician: (1) discussed with a patient the use of medical marijuana as a treatment option; or (2) issued a medical marijuana certification under this section, or otherwise made a written or oral statement that, in the physician’s professional opinion, the potential benefits of the patient using medical marijuana would likely outweigh any health risks.

(C) Establishment of Medical Marijuana Not-For-Profit Dispensaries

Medical marijuana shall only be dispensed and sold to patients and caregivers by not-for-profit medical marijuana dispensaries licensed under this section, in accordance with a medical marijuana certification issued by the patient’s current treating physician, who shall exercise the same professional care, ethics and judgment in doing so as is required in issuing medical prescriptions.

The Commission shall issue licenses to, and shall promulgate and enforce regulations governing the operations of, not-for-profit medical marijuana dispensaries. Such regulations shall include rules regarding the number of licenses within any political subdivision of the state. The Commission shall promulgate the initial regulatory rules for such dispensaries by May 30th of the year following adoption of this section.

MGCE facilities and MPM facilities shall sell to the dispensaries, at their lowest wholesale prices, medical marijuana and medical marijuana-infused products, respectively, sufficient to satisfy patient demand for them in this state.

From the Marijuana Control Commission Fund established herein, the Commission may fund the reasonable and necessary operating costs of the not-for-profit medical marijuana dispensaries and establish a program to provide low-cost medical marijuana to qualifying patients who are unable to afford the full cost. Nothing in this section, however, shall require any health insurance provider or any government agency or authority to reimburse any patient for expenses related to the use of medical marijuana.

(D) Personal Use of Marijuana and Authorization of Homegrown Marijuana

It is lawful for persons 21 years of age or older to purchase, possess, transport, use and share with another person 21 years of age or older one ounce or less of marijuana or its equivalent in marijuana-infused products.

It is lawful for persons 21 years of age or older to grow, cultivate, use, possess and share with another person 21 years of age or older homegrown marijuana in an amount not to exceed four flowering marijuana plants and eight ounces of usable homegrown marijuana at a given time; provided, however, that such person must first obtain a non-transferrable license pursuant to Commission-promulgated rules and regulations, which include, at a minimum, registration requirements and rules ensuring that homegrown marijuana is not grown or consumed within public view and that home-growing takes place in an enclosed, locked space inaccessible to persons under the age of 21.

(E) Taxation of Marijuana Revenue

The state shall levy and collect a special flat tax of 15% on all gross revenue of each MGCE facility and MPM facility, and 5% on all gross revenue of each retail marijuana store. “Gross revenue” as used in this subdivision means 100% of all revenue received without deduction for any expenses or distribution of any profit. Such facilities and stores shall also pay the state commercial activities tax and all other local taxes, assessments, fees and charges as apply to businesses in general. Such facilities and stores shall not receive any abatement, credit or deduction that is unavailable to other businesses. Dispensaries shall pay the same taxes, assessments, fees and charges that other not-for-profit organizations are required to pay. No additional taxes, assessments, fees or charges shall be levied on the operations, revenue, or distributed income of a marijuana establishment, other than the license fees authorized under this section.

One hundred percent of the revenues generated from the special tax shall be collected and distributed by the state for the following purposes (the “Purposes”):

(1) 55% to a Municipal and Township Government Stabilization Fund with 100% of such funds being distributed to every municipality and township on a per capita basis, excluding, in the case of a township, population that is also within a municipality. Such funds shall be used for public safety and health, including police, fire and emergency medical services, road and bridge repair, and other infrastructure improvements;

(2) 30% to a Strong County Fund with 100% of such funds being distributed to each county on a per capita basis. Such funds shall be used for public safety and health, including law enforcement, economic development, road and bridge repair, and other infrastructure improvements; and

(3) 15% to a Marijuana Control Commission Fund with 100% of such funds being distributed in the following order for: (a) the reasonable and necessary costs of operating the Commission; (b) funding for the marijuana innovation and business incubator established hereunder; (c) to the extent the Commission so elects, the reasonable and necessary operating costs of the not-for-profit medical marijuana dispensaries established under this section, (d) mental health and addiction prevention and treatment programs and services; and (e) to the extent the Commission so elects, a program to provide low-cost medical marijuana to qualifying patients who are unable to afford the full cost.

The above described Funds shall be established in the state treasury and the above described special tax collected and distributed monthly. Funds distributed under this subdivision shall supplement, not supplant, funding obligations of the state and local governments. Accordingly, all such distributions shall be disregarded for purposes of determining whether funding obligations imposed by other sections of this constitution or by the revised code are met. The Funds will be allocated and distributed consistent with the foregoing Purposes by the applicable state or local government entity.

(F) Establishment of Marijuana Growth, Cultivation & Extraction Facilities

The growth and cultivation of marijuana and medical marijuana, and the extraction of cannabinoids from marijuana and medical marijuana, for sale and medical use within this state shall be lawful only at licensed MGCE facilities. Subject to the exceptions set forth herein, there shall be only ten MGCE facilities, which shall operate on the following real properties: (1) Being an approximate 40.44 acre area in Butler County, Ohio, identified by the Butler County Auditor, as of February 2, 2015, as tax parcel numbers Q6542084000008 and Q6542084000041; (2) Being an approximate 13.434 acre area in Clermont County, Ohio, identified by the Clermont County Auditor, as of February 2, 2015, as tax parcel numbers 413103B284 and 373103E301; (3) Being an approximate 19.117 acre area in Franklin County, Ohio, being a portion of a larger parent parcel which is identified by the Franklin County Auditor, as of February 2, 2015, as tax parcel number 040-004959-00. The approximate 19.117 area is described as follows: all of the real property being described as Franklin County, Ohio, tax parcel number 040-004959-00, less and except the portion of such tax parcel lying south of the centerline of the stream known as Grant Run Tributary No. 3; (4) Being an approximate 24.466 acre area in Hamilton County, Ohio, identified by the Hamilton County Auditor, as of February 2, 2015, as tax parcel number 500-0081-0004; (5) Being an approximate 35.031 acre area in Licking County, Ohio, identified by the Licking County Auditor, as of February 2, 2015, as tax parcel number 063-140952-00.000; (6) Being an approximate 76.83 acre area in Lorain County, Ohio, being a portion of two larger parent parcels which are identified by the Lorain County Auditor, as of February 2, 2015, as tax parcel numbers 03-00-053-108-013 and 03-00-054-102-008. The approximate 76.83 acre area is described as follows: all of the real property being described as Lorain County, Ohio tax parcel numbers 03-00-053-108-013 and 03-00-054-102-008, less and except the portions of such tax parcels lying northerly of a line located 2,100 feet southerly of and parallel with Colorado Avenue (also known as State Route 611); (7) Being an approximate 28.459 acre area in Lucas County, Ohio, identified by the Lucas County Auditor, as of February 2, 2015, as tax parcel number 22-74697; (8) Being an approximate 24.948 acre area in Delaware County, Ohio, identified by the Delaware County Auditor, as of February 13, 2015, as tax parcel number 419-230-01-035-000; (9) Being an approximate 27.18 acre area in Stark County, Ohio, identified by the Stark County Auditor, as of February 2, 2015, as tax parcel number 7701271; and (10) Being an approximate 29.0052 acre area in Summit County, Ohio, identified by the Summit County Auditor, as of February 2, 2015, as tax parcel number 3009928.

No local zoning, land use laws, agricultural regulations, subdivision regulations or similar provisions or governmental consents and approvals applicable to creating transferrable legal descriptions, or to any subsequent assignment of different parcel numbers to the aforesaid real properties shall prohibit the creation of transferrable and recordable legal descriptions or separate tax parcel numbers for any of the aforesaid real properties. In addition, notwithstanding the identification of the real properties by reference to the parcel numbers as set forth above, any MGCE facility may expand its structures and related operations to adjacent real property which may be identified by different parcel numbers so long as all other applicable terms of this section are met.

The Commission shall promulgate the initial regulatory rules for the operation of MGCE facilities by May 30th of the year following adoption of this section; however, the Commission shall issue the application form for a provisional license within 60 days of the adoption of this section. If an owner of one of the above-designated sites chooses not to apply for a provisional license within 90 days of the passage of this section, the Commission may issue a license to operate a MGCE facility at a different site in lieu of that site so long as all other criteria set forth herein are met.

The Commission shall issue one-year provisional licenses within 90 days of the passage of this section to the owners of the above-designated real properties who have applied for licenses to operate MGCE facilities subject to the following conditions: payment of an initial licensing fee of $100,000 and the filing of affidavits by the chief executive officer and chief financial officer affirming under oath that the facility will: comply with all requirements under this section; comply with all applicable health, safety, prevailing wage, building code, sanitation, environmental, land use, and employment laws and regulations not in conflict with this section; employ industry best practices with respect to the growth, cultivation and extraction of marijuana; comply with generally accepted accounting principles; comply with Commission regulations upon adoption; and subject the facilities and operations to immediate inspection and review by Commission personnel upon demand. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no existing local or state law shall be applied to prohibit the development or operation of such facilities. No later than six months after the facility commences its operations, the Commission shall inspect such facility and review its operations to confirm that it has complied with the assurances set forth in its officers’ affidavits. If the Commission determines it has not, it shall order immediate remedial action as to that facility; and if the facility fails to remediate within 120 days, the Commission may suspend the provisional license until satisfied that all remedial actions have been implemented. The Commission shall issue non-provisional annual licenses to MGCE facilities upon expiration of their provisional licenses so long as such facilities are meeting their obligations under their provisional licenses and demonstrate the ability to comply with all regulations promulgated by the Commission regarding the operation of MGCE facilities.

To ensure that the supply of regulated marijuana is adequate to meet consumer demand in this state, beginning in the fourth year following the adoption of this section, the Commission shall develop and make publicly available annual consumer demand metrics for marijuana and medical marijuana based in substantial part on total gross sales of each within the state in the previous year. If the Commission determines during its annual audits of the MGCE facilities that such facilities collectively failed to produce marijuana and medical marijuana sufficient to substantially meet the published consumer demand metrics for the previous year and cannot demonstrate that they are likely to do so in the ensuing year, the Commission may issue a license for an additional MGCE facility at a site other than what has been designated herein.

If the Commission determines as part of its annual audit that a MGCE facility is in material noncompliance with applicable laws or regulations, the Commission may order remedial action; and, to the extent such MGCE facility fails to materially comply with the Commission’s remediation order within the reasonable time period set forth by the order, the Commission may suspend or revoke the MGCE facility’s license. If the Commission revokes a MGCE license for failure to remediate material noncompliance, the Commission may issue a license for a MGCE facility at a site other than what has been designated herein. If a MGCE facility terminates or indefinitely suspends its operations, the Commission may relocate that facility or revoke the facility’s license and issue a license for a MGCE facility at a site other than what has been designated herein.

(G) Establishment of Marijuana Product Manufacturing Facilities

The manufacturing, processing and packaging of marijuana-infused products, including medical marijuana-infused products, shall be lawful only at licensed MPM facilities pursuant to a licensing and regulatory framework established by the Commission by May 30th of the year following adoption of this section. MPM facilities may also manufacture, process and package marijuana accessories. Such facilities may sell marijuana-infused products made only from marijuana purchased from licensed MGCE facilities.

The Commission shall establish rules regulating the chemical content and/or potency of marijuana-infused products and shall ensure they are prominently displayed on the products’ packaging. As part of the regulatory framework governing MPM facilities, the Commission shall create and oversee a special division within the Commission staffed with individuals with extensive experience in food and prescription drug regulation to assist the Commission in promulgating industry-leading standards regulating the manufacture, processing, transportation, packaging and advertising of marijuana-infused products, including ensuring that marijuana-infused products are not manufactured, packaged or advertised in ways that create a substantial risk of attractiveness to children.

(H) Establishment of Retail Marijuana Stores

Marijuana and marijuana-infused products may be sold to individuals 21 years of age and older only by licensed retail marijuana stores. Such stores may sell only marijuana purchased from licensed MGCE facilities and marijuana-infused products purchased from licensed MPM facilities, and shall sell no other goods or services except for marijuana accessories and related products. No retail marijuana store shall allow to be consumed any marijuana or marijuana-infused product that has been opened on the premises. No retail marijuana store shall sell marijuana or marijuana-infused products at a price less than the store paid for such products.

No later than 60 days following adoption of this section, the Commission shall promulgate the initial regulatory rules for licensing such stores. The Commission may promulgate rules regarding the number of licenses within any precinct of the state; provided, however, that the number of stores statewide shall not exceed the ratio of one to ten thousand based on the state’s population as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program (PEP) and revised annually according to either the PEP estimates or the decennial Census, and that no such license shall be issued to a store unless the electors of the precinct where the store will be located have approved the use of the location for such purpose at a local option election. Except for provisions unique to authorization of alcohol sales, including limits on resubmitting an issue to the voters, such elections shall be held and conducted by election authorities in the same manner as local option elections for the approval by the electors of a precinct of the sale of alcohol to the public at a specific location. No later than 60 days following adoption of this section, the secretary of state shall prescribe forms for the petition process and procedures for the conduct of retail marijuana store elections. Such elections shall be held on dates authorized by law for special elections for other ballot questions, including dates for primary and general elections, occurring not less than 90 days after a petition for such election is filed. The petitioner shall reimburse the expense of conducting the special election where there are no candidates or other questions on the precinct ballot. In the calendar year following adoption of this section, special elections for such question may also be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of May and the petitioner shall reimburse the cost of conducting such election.

(I) Ohio Marijuana Control Commission

There is hereby established the Ohio Marijuana Control Commission, which shall regulate the acquisition, growth, cultivation, extraction, production, processing, manufacture, testing, distribution, retail sales, licensing and taxation of medical marijuana, marijuana and marijuana-infused products and the operations of marijuana establishments and home growing. The Commission shall have seven members who have not served as elected public officials in the eight years prior to their appointment, and shall be composed of the following: a licensed Ohio physician, a sworn Ohio law enforcement officer, a licensed Ohio attorney experienced in administrative law, an Ohio-based patient advocate, an Ohio resident with demonstrated experience in owning, developing, managing and operating businesses, an Ohio resident with demonstrated experience in the legal marijuana industry, and a public member. The initial seven members shall be appointed no later than 40 days after the adoption of this section for terms commencing upon appointment. The initial Commission members shall hold the first meeting of the Commission no later than 45 days after the adoption of this section. In order to create staggered terms, the initial seven appointees shall be for terms lasting as follows: the attorney, the physician, the industry-experienced member and the Ohio-based patient advocate will serve terms lasting until December 31st of the fourth year following adoption; and the business owner, the public member and the sworn law enforcement officer will serve terms lasting until December 31st of the second year following adoption. All subsequent terms on the Commission shall be for four years ending on December 31st of the fourth year of the term. All Commission members shall be appointed by the governor to full or unexpired terms as defined herein and shall be residents of Ohio.

The Commission shall adopt rules to facilitate this section’s implementation and continuing operation. The initial regulatory rules required to be adopted herein by specific dates shall be adopted by the Commission notwithstanding any other provision of law regarding promulgation of administrative rules, provided that the Commission shall offer an opportunity for public input. Regulatory rules shall not prohibit the operation of marijuana establishments or home growing, either expressly or through regulations that make their operation unreasonably impracticable. Such regulations shall include, but not be limited to: procedures for the application for, and the issuance, renewal, transfer, suspension, and revocation of, a license to operate a marijuana establishment or marijuana testing facility or qualify as a caregiver; a schedule of application, licensing and renewal fees to be deposited into the Marijuana Control Commission Fund, provided such fees shall not exceed $50,000 for MGCE facilities, save for the $100,000 provisional license fee required herein, $25,000 for MPM facilities, $10,000 for retail marijuana stores and marijuana testing facilities, and registration fees of $50 for home growing, with this upper limit adjusted annually for inflation; qualifications for licensure that are directly and demonstrably related to marijuana establishment; registration requirements for home growing; regulations regarding debilitating medical conditions, medical marijuana certifications, caregiver qualifications; requirements to prevent the sale and diversion of medical marijuana, marijuana, homegrown marijuana and marijuana-infused products to persons under the age of 21; requirements for testing the safety and potency of medical marijuana, marijuana and marijuana-infused products; labeling requirements for medical marijuana, marijuana and marijuana-infused products sold or distributed by a marijuana establishment; health and safety regulations for the acquisition, growth, cultivation, harvesting, processing, packaging, preparation, extraction, handling, distribution, transportation, manufacture, and production of medical marijuana, marijuana and/or marijuana-infused products; restrictions on the advertising and display of medical marijuana, marijuana and marijuana-infused products to persons under the age of 21; civil penalties for failure to comply with regulations made pursuant to this section, including enhanced civil penalties for repeat violations; and rules governing the allocation of resources from the marijuana innovation and business incubator established hereunder to third parties. The Commission shall also establish and implement a system for real-time tracking and monitoring of all marijuana, medical marijuana, and marijuana-infused products from the initial germination and/or extraction through the final consumer transaction.

Beginning in the second year following the adoption of this section, the Commission shall conduct an annual audit of each marijuana establishment to certify, at a minimum, that such marijuana establishment is in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations. To the extent it determines that a marijuana establishment is in material noncompliance with applicable rules and regulations, the Commission may order remedial action; and, to the extent that establishment fails to comply with the Commission’s order within the reasonable time period set forth by that order, the Commission may suspend or revoke the establishment’s license.

The Commission shall issue annual licenses to marijuana establishments, and register home growing applicants, no later than 90 days after receipt of the completed application unless the Commission finds the applicant is not eligible for a license or registration under applicable laws and regulations. Thereafter, licensees shall be entitled to have their licenses renewed pursuant to the Commission’s rules, unless the Commission determines that the licensee has repeatedly failed to comply with its remedial orders. Such renewal shall be issued or denied prior to expiration of the current license. Ohio’s administrative procedure statutes generally applicable to other licensing bodies not in conflict with this section shall apply to rulemaking, license denials, suspensions and revocations by the Commission.

The Commission shall serve as a clearing house for scientific and medical industry research on the use of marijuana, marijuana-infused products and medical marijuana. The Commission shall establish a marijuana innovation and business incubator in Cuyahoga County to award support to Ohio-based public and private business entities, colleges and universities, nonprofit medical centers, and other nonprofit research institutions to engage in research and development, as well as to create new products, companies and jobs, associated with the medical marijuana and marijuana industries in Ohio. The Commission shall provide the incubator funding and appoint advisors to it who have demonstrated a commitment to the goal of national leadership in job creation and medical, technological, economic, environmental sustainability, product safety, and entrepreneurial innovation in the medical marijuana and marijuana industries.

The Commission shall employ necessary and qualified persons, including enforcement agents, and shall retain services of qualified third parties, including experts, to perform its duties.

(J) General Provisions and Specific Limitations

No marijuana establishment shall be located within 1,000 feet of the primary building structure used for any of the following: a house of worship exempt from taxation under the revised code; a publicly-owned library; a public or chartered non-public elementary or secondary school; or a state licensed child day-care center, or within 1,000 feet of any public playground or playground adjacent to any of the foregoing primary building structures, so long as such house of worship, library, playground, school or day-care center was in existence within the 1,000-foot zone on or before January 1, 2015 in the case of a MGCE facility or the date of an applicant’s first application for a license in the case of a MPM facility, retail marijuana store, or not-for-profit medical marijuana dispensary.

In no event shall a person consume marijuana, homegrown marijuana or marijuana-infused products in any public place, or in, or on the grounds of, a public or chartered non-public elementary or secondary school, a state licensed child day-care center, a correctional facility or community corrections facility, or in a vehicle, aircraft, train or motorboat. No person shall operate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any vehicle, aircraft, train or motorboat while under the influence of medical marijuana, marijuana, homegrown marijuana or marijuana-infused products. The foregoing provisions, other than operating or being in physical control of a vehicle, aircraft, train or motorboat, do not prohibit a patient from possessing or using medical marijuana in accordance with a medical marijuana certification. The general assembly shall pass laws for enforcing all of the preceding.

Other than for medical marijuana transferred or sold by a dispensary to a patient or caregiver, and for transfers between a patient and caregiver consistent with Commission regulations, it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell or transfer marijuana, homegrown marijuana, medical marijuana or marijuana-infused products to a person under the age of 21. The general assembly shall enact laws defining this conduct as child endangerment and shall enact enhanced penalties for violations of such laws.

Nothing in this section is intended to require an employer to permit or accommodate the use, consumption, possession, transfer, display, or transportation of medical marijuana, marijuana, homegrown marijuana, marijuana-infused products or marijuana accessories in the workplace or to affect employers’ ability to restrict the use of such products by employees, except that a patient with a medical marijuana certification may self-administer the medical marijuana subject to the same conditions applied to administration of prescribed medications.

No person shall have an ownership interest in, or be an officer or director of, a marijuana establishment who is under the age of 21 or who has been convicted of a felony offense within the prior five years. No person shall continue to hold an ownership interest in, or an officer or director position with, a marijuana establishment upon conviction of a felony and exhaustion of any appeals.

No person under the age of 21 shall be permitted to be on the premises of a marijuana establishment, except that a patient 18 to 20 years of age may be on a dispensary’s premises for the purpose of obtaining medical marijuana pursuant to a medical marijuana certification issued for such patient.

It shall be lawful for persons 21 years of age or older to purchase, possess, transfer, transport, use and share with other persons 21 years of age or older marijuana accessories within the state; however, this age limitation shall not apply to patients with valid medical marijuana certifications.

It shall not be unlawful for a licensed MGCE facility, or its designated employees or agents, to handle, sell, store, deliver, transport or transfer marijuana to a licensed MPM facility, licensed marijuana testing facility or a licensed retail marijuana store; nor shall it be unlawful for a licensed MGCE facility, or its designated employees or agents, to sell, store, handle, deliver, transport or transfer medical marijuana to a licensed MPM facility, licensed dispensary or licensed marijuana testing facility. It shall not be unlawful for a licensed MPM facility, or its designated employees or agents, to handle, sell, store, receive, deliver, transport or transfer marijuana accessories or marijuana-infused products to another licensed MPM facility, a licensed retail marijuana store or licensed marijuana testing facility; nor shall it be unlawful for a licensed MPM facility, or its designated employees or agents, to sell, handle, store, receive, deliver, transport or transfer medical marijuana-infused products to another licensed MPM facility, a licensed dispensary or a licensed marijuana testing facility; nor shall it be unlawful for a licensed MPM facility, or its designated employees or agents, to sell, handle, store, receive, deliver, transport or transfer marijuana accessories to a licensed dispensary. It shall not be unlawful for licensed retail marijuana stores, licensed medical marijuana dispensaries, and licensed marijuana testing facilities, or their designated employees or agents, to purchase, obtain, handle, store, receive, deliver, transport or transfer marijuana accessories, marijuana, marijuana-infused products or medical marijuana from licensed MGCE and MPM facilities, and other retail marijuana stores, licensed medical marijuana dispensaries, and licensed marijuana testing facilities.

MGCE facilities and MPM facilities are prohibited from selling, delivering, transporting or transferring marijuana, medical marijuana, marijuana-infused products and marijuana accessories directly to consumers, and no retail marijuana store or dispensary may be located on the premises of a MGCE or MPM facility.

Marijuana establishments shall be subject to all applicable state and local laws and regulations related to health, safety and building codes, including signage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no local zoning, land use laws, agricultural regulations, subdivision regulations or similar provisions shall prohibit the development or operation of marijuana establishments, provided that no such marijuana establishment shall be located in a district zoned exclusively residential as of January 1, 2015 for MGCE facilities, or as of the date that an application for a license is first filed by a MPM facility, retail marijuana store or not-for-profit medical marijuana dispensary.

(K) Self-Executing, Severability, Conflicting Provisions, and Enactment of Law

All provisions of this section are self-executing except as specified herein, are severable, and, except where otherwise indicated in the text, shall supersede all conflicting state and local laws, charters and regulations or other provisions of this constitution. The general assembly may pass laws implementing the provisions of this section that are not in conflict with its provisions. Nothing in this section requires the violation of federal law or purports to give immunity under federal law.

(L) Definitions

As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires,

“Adjacent real property” means real property that is within 1,000 feet or less of the existing property line of a licensed MGCE facility.

“Cannabinoids” means the chemical compounds in marijuana having a variety of pharmacologic properties.

“Caregiver” means an individual licensed by the Commission, other than the patient and the patient’s physician, who is 21 years of age or older and is the person responsible for managing the well-being of a patient with a debilitating medical condition for whom a medical marijuana certification has been issued under this section. To qualify as a caregiver, this individual’s responsibilities to the patient must include, at a minimum, provision of services in addition to provision of medical marijuana.

“Debilitating medical condition” means cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus, or acquired immune deficiency syndrome, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, sickle-cell anemia, ulcerative colitis, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, or treatment for such conditions; a chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition, or treatment for such conditions, which produces, for a specific patient, one or more of the following, and which, in the professional opinion of the patient’s physician, foreseeably may be alleviated by the use of medical marijuana: cachexia, post-traumatic stress disorder, severe pain, severe nausea, seizures, including those that are characteristic of epilepsy, or persistent muscle spasms, including those that are characteristic of multiple sclerosis. The Commission shall establish and update the list of debilitating medical conditions for which medical marijuana certifications may be issued on an annual basis, consistent with current, peer-reviewed medical research.

“Homegrown marijuana” means marijuana grown by a person 21 years of age or older at that person’s place of residence for purposes that are not dependent or conditioned upon the provision or receipt of financial consideration, including but not limited to trading and bartering. The sale of homegrown marijuana is unlawful.

“Marijuana” and “marihuana” mean all parts of the plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not, the seeds thereof, the resin extracted from any part of the plant, and every compound, salt derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or its resin. “Marijuana” includes hashish, as defined in the revised code, but does not include homegrown marijuana, medical marijuana or industrial hemp, as defined by the general assembly, nor does it include fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination, or the weight of any other ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink or other product.

“Marijuana accessories” means any equipment, products, or materials of any kind which are used, intended, or designed for vaporizing, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing, marijuana or medical marijuana into the human body.

“Marijuana Growth, Cultivation and Extraction Facility” or “MGCE facility” means one or more structures in which, or the real property on which, the growth, cultivation, harvesting, processing, packaging, preparation, and labeling of all marijuana and medical marijuana available for sale or medical use within the state, and the extraction of cannabinoids from marijuana plants for use in marijuana-infused products or medical marijuana-infused products available for sale or medical use within the state, is lawful.

“Marijuana-infused products” means concentrated marijuana products that are composed of marijuana or medical marijuana and other lawful ingredients and are intended for use or consumption, such as, but not limited to, edible products, marijuana concentrates, sprays, ointments, and tinctures.

“Marijuana establishment” means a MGCE facility, a MPM facility, a retail marijuana store, or a not-for-profit medical marijuana dispensary. A marijuana establishment’s actions, and the actions of that establishment’s employees and agents, are lawful and are not subject to civil or criminal penalties so long as such actions are in compliance with this section, with any laws passed by the general assembly in furtherance of this section, and with any rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission.

“Marijuana Product Manufacturing Facility” or “MPM facility” means a facility licensed by the Commission to develop, manufacture, prepare, and/or package marijuana-infused products, medical marijuana-infused products and/or marijuana accessories.

“Marijuana testing facility” means a facility or laboratory licensed by the Commission to acquire, possess, store, transfer, grow, cultivate, harvest, and process medical marijuana, marijuana and marijuana-infused products for the explicit and limited purposes of engaging in research related to, and/or certifying the safety and potency of, medical marijuana, marijuana and marijuana-infused products. At a minimum, such facilities shall be situated near colleges and universities in Athens, Cuyahoga, Lorain, Mahoning, Scioto and Wood Counties. Such facilities are prohibited from selling medical marijuana, marijuana and marijuana-infused products to marijuana establishments and consumers, and may transfer medical marijuana, marijuana and marijuana-infused products only to a marijuana establishment that has engaged the facility to perform quality control testing on those products or in connection with a safety and potency certification process developed by the Commission.

“Medical marijuana” means marijuana used to treat a debilitating medical condition, and includes medical marijuana-infused products used to treat debilitating medical conditions.

“Medical marijuana certification” means a written certification issued on a form prescribed by the Commission by a patient’s treating physician acting in the usual course of his or her professional practice.

“Not-for-profit medical marijuana dispensary” or “dispensary” means an entity incorporated under Ohio’s not-for-profit corporation law licensed to purchase medical marijuana from MGCE facilities, medical marijuana-infused products from MPM facilities and marijuana accessories, and to sell medical marijuana and marijuana accessories to patients and caregivers who present valid medical marijuana certifications pursuant to rules adopted by the Commission.

“Ohio Marijuana Control Commission” or “Commission” means the agency created herein to regulate the marijuana industry, including, but not limited to, regulating, researching and reporting on the growth, cultivation, production, processing, manufacture, testing, distribution, transportation, retail sales, licensing, and taxation of marijuana, medical marijuana and marijuana-infused products.

“Patient” means an Ohio resident who has a debilitating medical condition.

“Physician” means an individual who maintains, in good standing, a license to practice medicine issued by the State of Ohio.

“Retail marijuana store” means a retail space occupied by an entity licensed to purchase marijuana from MGCE facilities, marijuana-infused products from MPM facilities, and marijuana accessories, and to sell marijuana, marijuana-infused products, and marijuana accessories for personal use to consumers.

“Unreasonably impracticable” means that the measures necessary to comply with the regulations require such a high investment of risk, money, time, or any other resource or asset that the operation of a marijuana establishment is not worthy of being carried out in practice by a reasonably prudent businessperson.

Support

Responsible Ohio led the campaign in support of Issue 3.

Supporters

Former officials

• Former Ohio Senate Minority Leader Eric Kearney (D-9)
• Former Cincinnati Police Chief Tom Streicher

Organizations

• United Food And Commercial Workers Union, Local 75
• United Food And Commercial Workers Union, Local 880
• United Food And Commercial Workers Union, Local 1059
• ACLU of Ohio

Individuals

• Woody Taft, descendant of President William Howard Taft
• Dudley Taft Jr., descendant of President William Howard Taft
• Scott Greenwood, civil rights attorney
• Keith Stroup, founder of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)
• Rob Ryan, former president of Ohio NORML
• Montel Williams, talk show host

Arguments in favor

Ian James, executive director of ResponsibleOhio, speaks about the benefits of his group's initiative on The News-Herald.

• Lydia Bolander, spokesperson for Responsible Ohio, said, "Marijuana for medical and personal use should be a choice made by adults 21 and older in this state. We are going to end this failed prohibition. ... Legalizing marijuana for medical and personal use means increased safety because we will regulate, tax and treat marijuana like alcohol. We will smother the black market and use the taxes generated to help local communities provide vital public services. We need to be compassionate and ensure patients receive the treatment they rightfully deserve. We will create jobs in the agricultural, wholesale and retail marketplace, and we will drive research at our universities and hospitals. ... We will take the steps that so many other states have taken to decriminalize marijuana so that we are no longer destroying lives and our law-enforcement officers are spending their time investigating and arresting the real criminals threatening our communities. ... This is about safety, personal freedom, healthy choices, jobs and tax dollars for our communities."

• Former Cincinnati Police Chief Tom Streicher said, "When I served as the Chief of Police for Ohio’s third-largest city, I saw first-hand the destructive impact of Ohio’s marijuana laws. Our state spends over $120 million per year to enforce marijuana prohibition, even though we all know these laws do not work. Law enforcement should instead be able to spend their time and their resources cracking down on the real criminals. ResponsibleOhio’s amendment will do just that, paving the way for a better, safer future for our children and grandchildren."

• Former Sen. Eric Kearney (D-9) said, "The issue of marijuana legalization is one all Ohioans should take seriously. As a former legislator, I know that our state government is not ready to act on this important issue. Ohioans are being unjustly punished for using marijuana, while patients do not have access to medical marijuana for treatment. It’s time we reform this failed prohibition, and I’m proud to be part of the effort to do so."

• Christine Link, executive director of the ACLU of Ohio, said, "By voting yes on Issue 3, Ohio voters have a unique opportunity to end an unjust and unworkable policy. Ballot initiatives are expensive and difficult to achieve in Ohio. Marijuana reform legislation was first introduced in Ohio 18 years ago. Many efforts to get on the ballot have failed. This may be our last chance for years to come. Issue 3 needs to pass on Election Day because its failure may well mean another 10 or 20 years of the same bad policies of excessive punishment, a justice system clogged by marijuana prosecutions, lives ruined by prison, and marijuana in the hands of illegal, unregulated, and dangerous cartels."

• In response to claims that marijuana could reduce workplace safety, ResponsibleOhio spokesperson Faith Oltman said, "There is this big misconception that employers can’t drug test (for legal drugs), but they can. As far as workplace safety goes, studies show that in states that have legalized marijuana, employees who get into accidents on the job are no more likely to test positive for marijuana than a random group of employees. ... It will be a boon to businesses in our economy in Ohio. Grow sites, manufacturing, testing facilities, innovation centers, and local entrepreneurs can open up retail locations. We are conservatively estimating that this industry could bring 10,000 jobs to Ohio."

• Woody Taft, an MGCE facility investor, said, "Despite the fact that a medical marijuana bill has been introduced to the Ohio House each of the last several years, politicians refuse to consider it. Why? People from all walks of life use marijuana, so any position they take will alienate part of their voting base. Politicians simply don’t want to touch it, which is why it is necessary to take the vote to the people, and an amendment to the Ohio constitution is the only method of legalization that prevents the legislature from coming back and making marijuana illegal again. Forces within the state government have been trying to kill Issue 3 with petition, ballot title and language shenanigans. They go so far as to call Issue 3 a “marijuana monopoly,” when its structure, which provides for 10 competing growers and up to 1,150 retail stores, cannot be classified as a monopoly by any existing legal definition, federal, state or otherwise. If we don’t vote yes on Issue 3, do you really have any faith that the people we have elected to represent our interests will actually do so when it comes to marijuana?"

Opposition

Ohioans Against Marijuana Monopolies led the campaign in opposition to Issue 3.

Opponents

Officials

• Gov. John Kasich (R)
• Attorney General Mike DeWine (R)
• State Auditor Dave Yost (R)

Organizations

• Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
• Ohio Manufacturers' Association
• Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce
• Libertarian Party of Ohio
• Republican Liberty Caucus of Ohio
• Ohio Society of CPAs
• Associated General Contractors of Ohio
• Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio
• Ohio Children's Hospital Association
• Ohio Association of County Behavioral Health Authorities
• Buckeye State Sheriff's Association
• Ohio State Medical Association
• Green Party of Ohio
• National Federation of Independent Business/Ohio
• Ohio School Boards Association
• Buckeye Association of School Administrators
• Ohio Association of School Business Officials
• Ohio Chamber of Commerce
• Greater Cleveland Partnership
• ACT Ohio
• Monroe Board of Education
• Mahoning County Children Services Board
• Ohio branches of NAACP

Individuals

• Eric Burkland, president of Ohio Manufacturers’ Association
• Reverend Dr. David Cobb, pastor at Emmanuel Baptist Church
• Bill Denihan, CEO of the Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Services (ADAMHS) Board of Cuyahoga County
• Jack Fisher, executive vice president of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
• Gordon Gough, president and CEO of the Ohio Council of Retail Merchants
• Elise Spriggs, associated with the Drug Free Action Alliance

Arguments against

• State Auditor Dave Yost said, "Today, the self-proclaimed ResponsibleOhio is seeking an end to marijuana prohibition through the initiative process – but with a twist. If approved by voters, it would write into the Ohio Constitution the location of ten farms that would be allowed to grow marijuana, exclusively. ... Even if you're for ending prohibition — of oleo or marijuana — writing into the constitution an exclusive license to make the newly legalized product is a bad idea. It wasn't needed for oleo legalization, and it's not needed for marijuana legalization either. A legalized, properly licensed market should be available to all comers, not just the few with the money to enshrine into the Ohio Constitution a monopoly for themselves. Oleo prohibition ended at the hands of the voters — and without the creation of a cartel of rich guys to control the market. If it is the judgment of the voters of Ohio that marijuana prohibition should end, the ResponsibleOhio amendment is the wrong way to go about it."

• Jon Allison, an attorney representing the Drug Free Action Alliance, said, "If you put that creators of the Sopranos and Breaking Bad in the same room they couldn’t come up with a plot this far fetched. Perhaps the details will help clarify things but right now it sounds like 10 wannabe drug lords are going to ask Ohio voters to constitutionally protect their cartels and turf. That doesn’t sound like anything that could happen in the Ohio I have lived in for almost 50 years. I don’t even think the grass-roots medical marijuana true believers in this state will find this appealing."

• The Libertarian Party of Ohio said, "The Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of Ohio voted unanimously to oppose the initiative to re-legalize cannabis for all purposes being launched by the group known as Responsible Ohio. The group is currently petitioning to place an initiative on the Ohio ballot which would create a closed system of 10 growing sites for the cultivation of cannabis in the state, a strictly-limited network of vendors and suppliers, and a provision for users to grow only a very small amount of cannabis for their own use. Because the Libertarian Party has supported re-legalizing cannabis since the party's inception in 1971, the LPO's decision to oppose this particular measure is very significant. The party's objection to the proposal stems from the crony-capitalist nature of the proposed legislation. The Responsible Ohio initiative would lock in the 10 particular growing sites, granting an effective monopoly to the investors who control those sites. Since the initiative is being offered as an amendment to the Ohio Constitution, any future change would also have to be done by means of a constitutional amendment, which would likely face well-financed opposition from the beneficiaries of this proposal." issued the following statement regarding its opposition to the initiative:

• Mike Newbern, Legislative Affairs Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Ohio said, "The amendment proposed by Responsible Ohio effectively provides private entities with a government mandated captive market. It expressly prohibits the sale of imported marijuana and marijuana infused products. It is also vague in the homegrown licensing requirements and contains no stopgap to prevent the marijuana industry from preserving profits by limiting the number of licenses."

• Joseph Roman, president and CEO of the Greater Cleveland Partnership, said, "One big area of concern is that it’s becoming a challenge to find new workers and fulfill your workforce needs. Employers are having difficulty with drug testing today. Legalizing another substance is not going to make it easier to find qualified candidates. ... The complicating factor of legalized marijuana from a workplace perspective is at the federal level, the drug would continue to be viewed as illegal. If Ohio passes Issue 3, an employer would need to be attentive to both state and federal laws, and what we do know is that lawsuits are an expense."

• Stephen Norton, spokesman for Steris, a global manufacturer based in Mentor, Ohio, said, "It’s bad for business; it’s bad for Ohio. Steris is one of the safest companies in America by any generally accepted metric. We believe the ballot issue passage would compromise workplace safety. We are working to get the message out to vote no on Issue 3 and vote yes on Issue 2. Ohio should not be among the first states to pass something with so many unknowns."

• Jay McDonald, president of the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio, said, "The reports we are hearing from states that have legalized recreational and medicinal marijuana are sobering. The percentage of driving fatalities involving marijuana-positive drivers is on the rise in states like Washington, and we would expect to see similar results in Ohio."

• Derek M. Siegle, executive director of the Ohio High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program, said, "Legalization may actually increase law enforcement expenditures. As Colorado has seen, there will be increased marijuana usage by all ages, leading to an increase in traffic accidents/fatalities involving marijuana, driving while impaired, public consumption/display citations, investigations into marijuana being shipped out of state, illegal grow sites, referral from schools, and more individuals having their probation revoked for positive drug tests sending them to jail. There will be an increase in crime related to the newly established marijuana businesses such as robbery, burglary, and violent crime, including domestic violence. Finally, the "black market" will not go away; dealers will still be pushing heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and supplying marijuana, especially to those who are under 21 years of age. Legalization is simply not the answer."

Media editorials

Support

Ballotpedia did not find media editorials supporting the measure. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Oppose

The Cincinnati.com editorial board wrote:

“

The measure comes with serious additional baggage. It would award the commanding heights of this new sector of the economy – the manufacturing of Ohio-legal pot – to those investors who spent millions on their campaign to put the issue on the ballot. It would shield their rich reward by constitutionally enshrining their right to the market and fixing in place the tax rate they would pay. The ballot measure comes dressed in the trappings of the benefits of legalizing marijuana, and it is certainly an audacious proposal. But its promoters’ display of benevolent inventiveness is self-serving. Ohioans should reject Issue 3.

”

The Lima News editorial board wrote:

“

Issue 3 is more than a proposal to make Ohio the fifth state to legalize marijuana for both recreational and medicinal usage. Hiding underneath the cloak of personal freedom is a well-developed plan that lines the pockets of wealthy backers. It allows just 10 indoor facilities to produce all of the marijuana to be sold in the state. The limited liability companies (LLCs) chosen to operate those facilities were each required to make a $2 million donation to the ResponsibleOhio advocacy group. None of the operators of the LLCs had to go through a statewide bidding process to get their contract, nor was there any bidding for the growing sites.

”

The Times Reporter editorial board wrote:

“

The same investors who’ve pumped millions into the legalization campaign would operate the 10 grow facilities, reaping financial rewards that are estimated to gross $1.14 billion for growers alone. We believe that’s anything but responsible. The effort ignores basic free market principles and is aimed solely at lining the pockets of a select few. They’ve even set the tax rate themselves.

”

The Beacon Journal editorial board wrote:

“

ResponsibleOhio had the option of pursuing an initiated statute, which would be open to legislative changes. Instead, it chose the constitutional path, and the result is, its investors have a degree of protection. More, ResponsibleOhio has the big money needed for its campaign. Which gets to the problem with the structure of the proposed amendment. It calls, essentially, for a monopoly, or cartel, or oligopoly, pick your description. A small group of investors would control the 10 sites, one in Summit County, designated for growing and cultivating all marijuana for sale and medical use in the state. If as many as 1,100 retail outlets would be possible, that doesn’t erase the sweet deal for investors. That was the price necessary to attract their money to the scheme. ResponsibleOhio has taken a page from the casino operators who won voter approval to cement their plans in the state constitution. Ohioans should not allow themselves to be fooled twice. There is merit in legalizing marijuana use, advancing the concept for revenue and applying smart regulation. This proposal has some appealing aspects. What its supporters have not overcome are the misguided form and structure put forward.

”

The Times Recorder editorial board wrote:

“

Issue 3 is really about giving a private group that should be called “Irresponsible Ohio” complete control of a new legal marijuana industry in Ohio. These are the same people pushing a green cartoon character named Buddie, who’s clearly targeting children, as they seek pro-marijuana votes. ... It may be time to legalize marijuana, but this is clearly the wrong proposal. Even kids know that, when you own all of the green properties in the game “Monopoly,” it’s time to cash in on everyone else.

”

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Ohio ballot measures

Responsible Ohio PAC led the campaign in support of the initiative. The committee reported $20.09 million in contributions and $20.2 million in expenditures.

Ohioans Against Marijuana Monopolies led the campaign in opposition to Issue 3. The committee reported $2.17 million in contributions and $2.17 million in expenditures. Additionally, Citizens Against Marijuana raised an additional $850 and Hancock County Opposition to Issue 3 raised an additional $3,188.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$20,091,030.15	$4,006.00	$20,095,036.15	$20,256,396.67	$20,260,402.67
Oppose	$2,136,541.24	$38,067.22	$2,174,608.46	$2,136,541.24	$2,174,608.46
Total	$22,227,571.39	$42,073.22	$22,269,644.61	$22,392,937.91	$22,435,011.13

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of Issue 3.

Committees in support of Issue 3
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Responsible Ohio PAC	$20,091,030.15	$4,006.00	$20,095,036.15	$20,256,396.67	$20,260,402.67
Total	$20,091,030.15	$4,006.00	$20,095,036.15	$20,256,396.67	$20,260,402.67

Donors

The five top donors to the support campaign were as follows:

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
RC Operations LLC	$2,250,000.00	$0.00	$2,250,000.00
Bridge Property Group LLC	$1,938,835.00	$0.00	$1,938,835.00
Ohioven LLC	$1,937,000.00	$0.00	$1,937,000.00
Verdure GCE LLC	$1,912,000.00	$0.00	$1,912,000.00
DGF LLC	$1,812,000.00	$0.00	$1,812,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to Issue 3.

Committees in opposition to Issue 3
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Ohioans Against Marijuana Monopolies	$2,132,502.64	$38,067.22	$2,170,569.86	$2,132,502.64	$2,170,569.86
Hancock County Opposition to Issue 3	$3,188.60	$0.00	$3,188.60	$3,188.60	$3,188.60
Citizens Against Marijuana	$850.00	$0.00	$850.00	$850.00	$850.00
Total	$2,136,541.24	$38,067.22	$2,174,608.46	$2,136,541.24	$2,174,608.46

Donors

The five top donors to the opposition campaign were as follows:

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Partnership for Ohio's Future	$1,010,000.00	$0.00	$1,010,000.00
Ohio Hospital Association	$368,500.00	$0.00	$368,500.00
Ohio Chamber of Commerce	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Protect our Constitution	$80,071.64	$0.00	$80,071.64
L Brands	$75,000.00	$0.00	$75,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Polls

See also: Polls, 2015 ballot measures

The University of Akron Buckeye Poll below, conducted between September and October 2015, found that 46 percent of registered voters supported the amendment, while 46 percent opposed it and 8 percent were undecided.

Ohio Issue 3 Poll (University of Akron)
Poll	Favor	"Good Idea"	Undecided	"Bad Idea"	Oppose	Margin of error	Sample size
University of Akron Buckeye Poll 9/1/2015 - 10/1/2015	35%	11%	8%	8%	38%	+/-3	1,074
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Commissioned by Ohio television news station WKYC, Kent State University surveyed 500 registered voters in Ohio to determine how they would vote on ballot measures in the election. After providing respondents with summaries of each measure from the Ohio Secretary of State website, researchers asked how they plan to vote.

The survey found that 56 percent of voters would have supported Issue 3.

Ohio Issue 3 Poll (Kent State University)
Poll	Support	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Kent State University Poll	56%	10%	+/-4.0	500
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

A Bowling Green State University poll found that 44.4 percent of voters supported the measure.

Ohio Issue 3 Poll (Bowling Green State University)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Bowling Green State University Poll October 16-17, 2015	44.4%	42.9%	12.7%	+/-3.5	782
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Quinnipiac University released a poll in October 2015 showing that 53 percent of Ohio adults supported legalizing personal marijuana use, while about 44 percent opposed it.

Ohio Marijuana Legalization Initiative
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Quinnipiac University Poll 3/17/2015 - 3/28/2015	53.0%	44.0%	4.0%	+/-3.0	1,077
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Marijuana legalization ballot measures

See also: History of marijuana ballot measures and laws

The following table provides information about when and how recreational marijuana became legal.

Timeline and process of recreational marijuana legalization
State	Year legalized	Process used	Votes on ballot measures
			For	Against
Colorado	2012	Initiative	55.32%	44.68%
Washington	2012	Initiative	55.70%	44.30%
Alaska	2014	Initiative	53.23%	46.77%
Oregon	2014	Initiative	56.11%	43.89%
Washington, D.C.	2014	Initiative	70.06%	29.94%
California	2016	Initiative	57.13%	42.87%
Maine	2016	Initiative	50.26%	49.74%
Massachusetts	2016	Initiative	53.66%	46.34%
Nevada	2016	Initiative	54.47%	45.53%
Michigan	2018	Initiative	55.89%	44.11%
Vermont	2018	Legislation	N/A	N/A
Illinois	2019	Legislation	N/A	N/A
Arizona	2020	Initiative	60.03%	39.97%
Montana	2020	Initiative	56.90%	43.10%
New Jersey	2020	Referral	67.08%	32.92%
New York	2021	Legislation	N/A	N/A
Virginia	2021	Legislation	N/A	N/A
New Mexico	2021	Legislation	N/A	N/A
Connecticut	2021	Legislation	N/A	N/A
Rhode Island	2022	Legislation	N/A	N/A
Maryland	2022	Referral	67.20%	32.80%
Missouri	2022	Initiative	53.10%	46.90%
Delaware	2023	Legislation	N/A	N/A
Minnesota	2023	Legislation	N/A	N/A

List of all marijuana ballot measures since 1972

The following table lists marijuana-related ballot measures that appeared on a statewide ballot from 1972-2023.

State	Year	Measure	Outcome	Yes	No	Origin	Topic
California	1972	Proposition 19	d	33.47%	66.53%	Initiative	Recreational
Georgia	1980	Amendment 9	a	64.88%	35.12%	Referral	Other
Oregon	1986	Ballot Measure 5	d	26.33%	73.67%	Initiative	Recreational
Alaska	1990	Measure 2	a	54.29%	45.71%	Initiative	Other
Arizona	1996	Proposition 200	a	65.41%	34.59%	Initiative	Other
Washington	1997	Initiative 685	d	39.57%	60.43%	Initiative	Other
Alaska	1998	Measure 8	a	58.67%	41.33%	Initiative	Medical
Arizona	1998	Proposition 301	a	53.54%	46.46%	Initiative	Other
Nevada	1998	Question 9	a	58.65%	41.35%	Initiative	Medical
Oregon	1998	Measure 67	a	54.60%	45.40%	Initiative	Medical
Washington	1998	Initiative 692	a	58.97%	41.03%	Initiative	Medical
Arizona	1998	Proposition 300	d	36.12%	63.88%	Initiative	Medical
Oregon	1998	Measure 57	d	33.54%	66.46%	Initiative	Other
Maine	1999	Question 2	a	61.41%	38.59%	Initiative	Medical
California	2000	Proposition 36	a	60.86%	39.14%	Initiative	Other
Colorado	2000	Initiative 20	a	53.78%	46.22%	Initiative	Medical
Nevada	2000	Question 9	a	65.38%	34.62%	Initiative	Medical
Alaska	2000	Measure 5	d	40.88%	59.12%	Initiative	Other
Arizona	2002	Proposition 203	d	42.65%	57.35%	Initiative	Recreational
Nevada	2002	Question 9	d	39.13%	60.87%	Initiative	Other
South Dakota	2002	Initiative 1	d	37.97%	62.03%	Initiative	Other
Montana	2004	I-148	a	61.81%	38.19%	Initiative	Medical
Alaska	2004	Measure 2	d	44.25%	55.75%	Initiative	Recreational
Oregon	2004	Measure 33	d	42.78%	57.22%	Initiative	Medical
Colorado	2006	Initiative 44	d	41.08%	58.92%	Initiative	Other
Nevada	2006	Question 7	d	44.08%	55.92%	Initiative	Recreational
South Dakota	2006	Initiative 4	d	47.70%	52.30%	Initiative	Medical
Massachusetts	2008	Question 2	a	65.25%	34.75%	Initiative	Other
Michigan	2008	Proposal 1	a	62.66%	37.34%	Initiative	Medical
California	2008	Proposition 5	d	40.52%	59.48%	Initiative	Other
Maine	2009	Question 5	a	58.87%	41.13%	Initiative	Medical
California	2010	Proposition 19	d	46.54%	53.46%	Initiative	Recreational
Arizona	2010	Proposition 203	a	50.1%	49.9%	Initiative	Medical
Oregon	2010	Measure 74	d	44.21%	55.79%	Initiative	Medical
Montana	2012	IR-124	a	57.25%	42.75%	Initiative	Medical
Washington	2012	Initiative 502	a	55.7%	44.3%	Initiative	Recreational
Massachusetts	2012	Question 3	a	63.3%	36.7%	Initiative	Medical
Oregon	2012	Measure 80	d	46.58%	53.42%	Initiative	Other
Arkansas	2012	Issue 5	d	48.56%	51.44%	Initiative	Medical
Colorado	2012	Amendment 64	a	55.32%	44.68%	Initiative	Recreational
Colorado	2013	Proposition AA	a	65.27%	34.73%	Referral	Other
Alaska	2014	Ballot Measure 2	a	53.23%	46.77%	Initiative	Recreational
Florida	2014	Amendment 2	d	57.62%	42.38%	Initiative	Medical
Washington	2014	Advisory Vote No. 8	a	54.41%	45.59%	Referral	Other
Oregon	2014	Measure 91	a	56.11%	43.89%	Initiative	Recreational
Colorado	2015	Proposition BB	a	69.39%	30.61%	Referral	Other
Washington	2015	Advisory Vote No. 11	a	41.27%	58.73%	Referral	Medical
Ohio	2015	Issue 3	d	36.35%	63.65%	Initiative	Recreational
Arkansas	2016	Issue 6	a	53.11%	46.89%	Initiative	Medical
California	2016	Proposition 64	a	57.13%	42.87%	Initiative	Recreational
Massachusetts	2016	Question 4	a	53.66%	46.34%	Initiative	Recreational
Montana	2016	I-182	a	57.87%	42.13%	Initiative	Medical
Nevada	2016	Question 2	a	54.47%	45.53%	Initiative	Recreational
North Dakota	2016	Initiated Measure 5	a	63.79%	36.21%	Initiative	Medical
Arizona	2016	Proposition 205	d	48.68%	51.32%	Initiative	Recreational
Maine	2016	Question 1	a	50.26%	49.74%	Initiative	Recreational
Florida	2016	Amendment 2	a	71.32%	28.68%	Initiative	Medical
Colorado	2018	Amendment X	a	60.64%	39.36%	Referral	Other
Michigan	2018	Proposal 1	a	55.89%	44.11%	Initiative	Recreational
Missouri	2018	Amendment 2	a	65.59%	34.41%	Initiative	Medical
Oklahoma	2018	State Question 788	a	56.86%	43.14%	Initiative	Medical
Utah	2018	Proposition 2	a	52.75%	47.25%	Initiative	Medical
Missouri	2018	Amendment 3	d	31.50%	68.50%	Initiative	Medical
Missouri	2018	Proposition C	d	43.57%	56.43%	Initiative	Medical
North Dakota	2018	Measure 3	d	40.55%	59.45%	Initiative	Recreational
Arizona	2020	Proposition 207	a	60.03%	39.97%	Initiative	Recreational
Mississippi	2020	Ballot Measure 1	a/ot	68.52%	31.48%	Initiative	Medical
Montana	2020	CI-118	a	57.84%	42.16%	Initiative	Other
Montana	2020	I-190	a	56.90%	43.10%	Initiative	Recreational
New Jersey	2020	Public Question 1	a	67.08%	32.92%	Referral	Recreational
South Dakota	2020	Initiated Measure 26	a	69.92%	30.08%	Initiative	Medical
South Dakota	2020	Amendment A	a/ot	54.18%	45.82%	Initiative	Recreational
Arkansas	2022	Issue 4	d	43.75%	56.25%	Initiative	Recreational
Maryland	2022	Question 4	a	67.20%	32.80%	Referral	Recreational
Missouri	2022	Amendment 3	a	53.10%	46.90%	Initiative	Recreational
North Dakota	2022	Measure 2	d	45.06%	54.94%	Initiative	Recreational
South Dakota	2022	Measure 27	d	47.08%	52.92%	Initiative	Recreational
Oklahoma	2023	State Question 820	d	38.33%	61.67%	Initiative	Recreational

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Ohio

Petitioners needed to submit 1,000 signatures with the initial petition filing. The initiative's filing was approved on March 13, 2015.

Supporters then needed to collect 305,591 signatures by July 1, 2015, to get the initiative placed on the November 2015 ballot. On June 9, ResponsibleOhio reported collecting 550,000 signatures. The campaign submitted signatures on the day before the filing deadline, June 30, and reported submitting 695,273 signatures.

On July 21, the state determined 276,082 signatures, or 39.7 percent of those submitted, were valid. ResponsibleOhio claimed 40,000 signatures were uncounted and planned to bring the issue before the Ohio Supreme Court. Ian James responded to the low validation rate, saying, "The total number of signatures evaluated by the boards of elections is significantly lower than it should be. Every single voter who signed this petition has the right to be counted." Elise Spriggs, an opponent of the initiative, contended, "It’s a reflection of their shoddy petition drive and how reckless the plan is that they’re trying to put forward." ResponsibleOhio had until July 30, 2015, to collect an additional 30,000 signatures.

ResponsibleOhio filed nearly 96,000 additional signatures on July 30, 2015. Secretary of State Jon Husted announced on August 12, 2015, that the initiative was certified for the ballot. ResponsibleOhio collected 320,267 valid signatures, which was 14,676 more than required for certification.

On July 29, 2015, Secretary of State Jon Husted (R) announced that his department found "significant disparities" in the signatures submitted by ResponsibleOhio. Husted noted that the number of invalid signatures was high and some physical signature petitions did not match electronic ones. He said, "As with every possible case of election fraud, it is my responsibility to investigate and hold accountable anyone who may have cheapened the voice of all Ohioans by cheating the system." Husted appointed David Bowers to lead the investigation. Ian James, executive director of ResponsibleOhio, was subpoenaed by Husted.

Andrew G. Douglas, a former Ohio Supreme Court justice and legal counsel to ResponsibleOhio, claimed Husted was targeting the campaign. He said, "Instead of working with us and addressing the problems within his office and at the county boards of election, Secretary Husted has slapped us with a subpoena meant to silence us and chill any future opposition. He even deputized a former prosecutor to investigate us, then bragged about his past success gaining convictions - all in a further attempt to frighten, harass and silence us."

Husted said the state received nearly 700 fraud accusations against Issue 3, including signing up those too young to vote, dead people and people who might not exist. While collecting signatures to get Issue 3 on the ballot, campaign strategists at The Strategy Network registered more than 150,000 new voters. "We fully comply with the law and we have zero tolerance with regard to fraud. We will work with the prosecutor to make sure anyone who committed a crime is brought to justice," James said.

Dispute over measure language

On August 18, Andy Douglas, the legal counsel for ResponsibleOhio, announced that the group would challenge the measure's language as approved by the Ohio Ballot Board. The board approved final language for Issue 3 that included the word "recreational" rather than the group's preferred language of "personal use" when discussing marijuana legalization. Douglas argued:

“	The ballot language assigned to the Marijuana Legalization Amendment, Issue 3, is clearly biased and gives preference to the arguments of marijuana reform opponents. The language is inaccurate and strategically worded as to misguide voters. As is our right under the law, we'll file an action with the Ohio Supreme Court for ballot language that better reflects our proposal.	”
—Andy Douglas (2015),

Secretary of State Jon Husted countered that the term "recreational" is commonly used to differentiate medical and non-medical marijuana use. He concluded:

“	In the end, I think the voters in Ohio are going to clearly know what they're voting for. They are either going to vote to legalize a marijuana monopoly in this state or they're going to vote to reject it.	”
—Secretary of State Jon Husted (2015),

Ohio Supreme Court ruling

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on September 16 that the Ohio Ballot Board used ballot language that "inaccurately states pertinent information and omits essential information." The court was ordered to reconvene for adjustments to language pertaining to how retail stores could open, additional growing facilities and the amount of marijuana a person could grow and transport. The court found that the title used in Issue 3, particularly the use of the phrase "grants a monopoly," was not misleading, inaccurate or persuasive.

Initiated Monopolies Amendment

See also: Ohio Initiated Monopolies Amendment (2015)

The Ohio Legislature approved a constitutional amendment for the November 3, 2015, ballot that would have invalidated the marijuana legalization initiative if voters had approved Issue 3. The legislature's measure, which was approved in the election, invalidates citizen initiatives establishing economic monopolies that appear on the November 2015 ballot. The 10 MGCE facilities would likely have been considered a monopoly under the amendment.

ResponsibleOhio criticized the legislature's action. Don McTigue, an attorney for the group, said, "It’s fundamentally unfair to try to ram this through at this point just because there’s personal opposition to the merits of the marijuana proposal put forth by ResponsibleOhio." Sen. Dave Burke (R-26) disagreed with McTigue's assessment, saying, "Using the constitution to set up monopolies is a bad idea anytime, not just now. … I don’t think there’s ever a bad time to fix a bad concept."

See also

Suggest a link

• 2015 ballot measures
• Ohio 2015 ballot measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in Ohio

External links

Basic information

• State Issues Report - General Election - November 3, 2015
• The League of Women Voters of Ohio Voters' Guide 2015

Support

• ResponsibleOhio
• ResponsibleOhio Facebook
• ResponsibleOhio Twitter

Opposition

• No On Issue 3