Legislators aware part of Ohio medical marijuana law legally questionable |

Legislators aware part of Ohio medical marijuana law legally questionable

The Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Apparently unconstitutional portions of Ohio’s medical marijuana law, which set aside a percentage of the state’s pot licenses for minorities, were spotted during legislative debate but left in the measure to gain needed votes, a key lawmaker says.

State Sen. Bill Seitz, a Cincinnati Republican, said legally prickly provisions exposed by The Associated Press in June may require changes.

The law takes effect Sept. 8, at which point a new panel will begin laying out a blueprint for how the new industry will work.

“I certainly think it’s something the (Medical) Marijuana Advisory Committee ought to take a look at,” Seitz said. “Because we’re not just talking about government contracts, but government licenses.”

Changes may wind up in a marijuana corrective bill that emerges in the lame duck session.

The provisions are contained in legislation that was fast-tracked by the Republican-controlled Legislature to head off a medical marijuana proposal that was on its way to Ohio’s fall ballot. Ohio is the 25th state to legalize medicinal cannabis.

They require at least 15 percent of Ohio’s cultivator, processor, retail dispensary and laboratory licenses to go to the businesses of one of four economically disadvantaged minority groups — blacks, Hispanics, Asians or Native Americans — so long as an adequate number apply.

Minority Democrats sought the provisions. State Rep. Dan Ramos, a Latino Democrat from Lorain who offered the proposal, said last month that he and members of the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus felt it was important to assure minority communities disproportionately punished under existing marijuana laws some benefit when medical marijuana was legalized.

However, such racial preference rules — even if well-intended — are a violation of the U.S. Constitution and have generally failed to stand up in court, the AP reported, citing legal scholars.

Legislators of both parties in both the Ohio House and Senate said at the time that they were unaware of this, but Seitz said he brought it to people’s attention.

Seitz had drafted an amendment to fix the unconstitutional sections — a simple fix that would have made the 15 percent a goal as opposed to a requirement. However, he said he never introduced the change, because champions of the bill said it might derail the delicate compromise that had been struck to get it passed.

The legislation cleared the Senate by just three votes. Eleven Republicans opposed it, while six Democrats supported it — three of them members of the Black Caucus.

Most caucus members interviewed who had supported the bill said it was a whole package of Democratic-backed additions that led to their support, not just the 15 percent license provision.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.