ANN ARBOR — Ohio’s intensifying fight over marijuana policy — now centered on the Legislature’s passage of Senate Bill 56 and the blocking of a voter referendum to undo it — is drawing close attention in Michigan, where adult-use cannabis followed a far steadier and less politicized path.

At the heart of the Ohio dispute is a question Michigan largely answered years ago: When voters approve a law, how much power should lawmakers have to rewrite it afterward?

Ohio: Voters Approved Legalization — Then Lawmakers Rewrote It

Ohio voters legalized adult-use marijuana in November 2023 through Issue 2. Within weeks, the Republican-controlled legislature passed SB 56, substantially altering the law voters approved.

Among the changes:

  • Narrower definitions of what counts as legal marijuana

  • New possession and transport restrictions

  • Reduced protections related to employment and parental rights

  • A crackdown on intoxicating hemp products sold outside dispensaries

When advocates attempted to launch a referendum to repeal SB 56 and restore the original voter-approved law, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost rejected the proposed petition language, preventing signature gathering from moving forward.

For now, SB 56 remains in effect — and Ohio voters are left watching lawmakers reshape a policy they already approved.Why This Didn’t Happen in Michigan

Michigan legalized recreational marijuana in 2018, but the state took a fundamentally different legal route than Ohio — and that difference explains today’s contrast.

Michigan: Legalization Locked Into the Constitution

Michigan voters approved marijuana legalization as a constitutional amendment, not a statute.

That meant:

  • The Legislature cannot rewrite or repeal core provisions without another statewide vote

  • Lawmakers were limited to implementation, not reversal

  • Oversight shifted quickly to regulators rather than politicians

Regulatory authority now sits with the Michigan Cannabis Regulatory Agency, which helped insulate the rollout from partisan swings.

The result has been one of the most stable cannabis markets in the country, generating billions in sales and hundreds of millions of dollars annually for schools, cities, and counties.

Ohio: Legalization Passed as a Statute

Ohio’s Issue 2 was a statutory initiative, meaning lawmakers retained full authority to amend it after passage.

That allowed the Legislature to rewrite major portions of the law — and left voters with only one tool to respond: a referendum, which comes with tight timelines and legal gatekeeping.

That’s the process now stalled.

Stability vs. Uncertainty: A Midwest Contrast

For Michigan residents and businesses, the difference has been tangible.

Michigan

  • Predictable rules for consumers and operators

  • Strong investor confidence

  • Revenue distributions now baked into local budgets

  • Policy debates focused on refinement, not reversal

Ohio

  • Delayed adult-use rollout

  • Legal uncertainty for businesses and municipalities

  • Ongoing disputes over voter authority

  • A referendum process blocked before it could even begin

Why Michigan Businesses Are Watching Ohio Closely

For Michigan cannabis operators — particularly near the Ohio border — Ohio’s uncertainty continues to shape consumer behavior and regional competition.

While Michigan has moved into a mature, price-competitive market, Ohio remains in regulatory flux, benefiting Michigan sellers in the short term but complicating long-term Midwest market normalization.

The Bigger Lesson

Ohio’s SB 56 fight has evolved beyond marijuana policy into a broader debate over democratic legitimacy.

Michigan avoided this scenario not because lawmakers embraced legalization — but because voters removed the option to undo it.

Ohio’s experience now stands as a cautionary tale for other states:
How a law is passed can matter as much as how many people vote for it.