It usually takes a graduate-level comparative literature class to parse a text as much as the state’s 6,600-word marijuana-legalization ballot initiative has been scrutinized in the past few weeks.
The proposed amendment to the Ohio constitution legalizing marijuana will still be called a “monopoly” on the November ballot after an Ohio Supreme Court ruling last week. Meanwhile, critics say the proposal’s language might provide a state business tax loophole for businesses involved in selling the drug.
ResponsibleOhio has landed an amendment to the state’s constitution on the upcoming November ballot legalizing marijuana. But the group sued the state last month, alleging that language created by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted for the ballot was biased and detrimental to the proposal’s chances with voters. It objected to the word “monopoly” in the title, as well as descriptions in the proposal’s body around how the drug can be sold and how many grow sites could be built in the future. The court upheld Husted’s title, but did rule that descriptions in the fine print were “misleading” and must be changed by the state’s ballot board.
Meanwhile, there are other critics of the ballot initiative’s language. Some business tax experts say the inclusion of the word “local” in a clause within the amendment proposal would allow businesses related to the marijuana effort to forego paying certain state income taxes. Some critics are crying foul at the language, though the legalization group says it’s not trying to avoid taxes.
The 10 grow sites and more than 1,100 retail locations that would be allowed under the proposal would have to pay a flat tax on their earnings. The ballot language also stipulates that such businesses would also have to pay any local taxes associated with doing business. But there’s the rub: Former Ohio tax commissioner Tom Zaino and other critics say “local” in that context can be read legally to exclude state taxes.
ResponsibleOhio says skirting those taxes isn’t the intention and that it included the language to make sure businesses pay all applicable tax obligations, not just municipal ones.
The initiative would allow anyone over 21 to purchase marijuana, and Ohioans could also apply for licenses, much like liquor permits, to sell marijuana and related products.
The proposal has caused controversy from conservative state officials, some business groups and even other legalization efforts. State officials including Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine have expressed concern that legalization would increase crime rates in the state. Meanwhile, business groups, including the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, have said they will work hard to oppose the initiative on workplace safety grounds, fearing that legalization could increase the number of workplace accidents.
Other groups that support legalization have criticized the plan due to the fact that it would only allow 10 grow sites around the state owned by the group’s investors. Those investors include Cincinnatians Oscar Robertson, Woody Taft, Nick Lachey and others.
This article appears in Sep 23-29, 2015.
