Pubdate: Sun, 11 Oct 2015
Source: Blade, The (Toledo, OH)
Copyright: 2015 The Blade
Contact:  http://www.toledoblade.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/48
Author: Ryan Dunn

NEW TOLEDO ORDINANCE IN QUESTION AS STATE MULLS MARIJUANA ISSUE

If voters across Ohio next month approve a proposal to ease criminal 
sanctions on marijuana, the law's changes would fall short of a 
recently enacted and legally challenged Toledo ordinance.

The amendment to the Ohio Constitution would allow a resident of at 
least 21 years old to possess up to an ounce of marijuana for 
recreational use and grow up to 8 ounces of the drug if licensed by 
the state. Retail sale of recreational marijuana also would begin.

On Sept. 15, Toledo voters supported reducing penalties in the Toledo 
Municipal Code to no fines or jail time for marijuana-related 
offenses. The law went into effect a week ago.

A significant difference between an enacted State Issue 3 and 
Toledo's Issue 1, also known as the "Sensible Marihuana Ordinance," 
is the extent of its legal impact, said Dan Tierney, a spokesman for 
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine.

Issue 3 carries some restrictions, such as prohibiting marijuana 
establishments from locating within 1,000 feet of a church, public 
library, or school. It also does not change state law forbidding 
trafficking and possession of large amounts of marijuana.

Mr. Tierney said a recent State Highway Patrol seizure, for example, 
of 226 pounds of marijuana from the Ohio Turnpike in Lucas County 
would carry the same penalty.

"That would still be illegal if Issue 3 passed and went into effect," 
Mr. Tierney said.

During a news conference last week in which Mr. DeWine announced his 
lawsuit challenging the Toledo ordinance, the attorney general was 
asked about Issue 3. He said he was reluctant to compare the two and 
that he filed suit because he believes Issue 1 is unconstitutional.

"Whether State Issue 3 was on the ballot this fall or it wasn't, we 
would still be here. It really doesn't have anything to do with what 
has happened," Mr. DeWine said.

Mr. DeWine said several portions of Toledo's ordinance contradict 
state felony law. The city ordinance aimed to impose a "gag rule" 
stopping city police and the law director from providing information 
regarding marijuana or hashish crimes to another authority besides 
the law director. This would limit prosecution to a misdemeanor case 
in Toledo Municipal Court under a voter-approved law that removes 
incarceration, fines, or probation from a potential sentence.

Mr. DeWine's lawsuit was assigned to Judge Dean Mandros in Lucas 
County Common Pleas Court.

Toledo Law Director Adam Loukx said any change to Ohio law, such as 
the potential implementation of Issue 3, would affect Toledo as well.

"It would apply here as much as in Gallipolis," Mr. Loukx said.

Mr. Loukx said if Issue 3 is implemented, he does not expect a large 
impact on his office.

A small portion of Toledo Municipal Court cases are marijuana charges.

A Toledo police officer may also still cite under state law a 
resident carrying marijuana while the Issue 1 suit is pending, he said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom