Local leaders in Ohio say they’re getting the rug pulled out from under them. A new report from Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law reveals strong opposition from city governments to proposed changes in how marijuana tax revenue is distributed—changes that would slash funds voters had already green-lit last year.
The research, representing 38 municipalities across the state, paints a clear picture: officials are frustrated, worried, and gearing up for a fight. The money in question isn’t pocket change. Under the voter-approved law passed in 2023, 36% of adult-use marijuana tax revenue is meant to go to local governments where dispensaries are located. Now, Republican lawmakers want to redirect much of it.
Cities Say They Counted on That Money
For many cities and towns, those marijuana dollars were already spoken for.
Take Grove City, just south of Columbus. Officials there had penciled in funds for fixing pothole-riddled roads and boosting the fire department’s stretched overtime budget. Now, that plan’s in limbo.
“They indicated that this revenue would be critical to their ability to maintain public safety and improve the lives of their residents,” the OSU report states bluntly.
Some officials even said the cuts could force them to consider tax hikes to plug the gap. Others worried about staff layoffs—especially in public safety roles like police and fire departments. That’s not a good look politically or practically.
Lawmakers Have Other Plans—and Cities Aren’t Happy
The revised legislation—still under debate—suggests channeling more of the marijuana tax haul toward statewide programs instead of local budgets. State Republicans argue it makes sense to prioritise broader substance abuse initiatives and mental health services.
But city officials say that’s not what Ohioans voted for. One mayor, quoted anonymously in the report, said, “This feels like a bait and switch. Voters trusted us with this money, and now it’s being snatched away.”
Here’s how the current and proposed allocations compare:
| Allocation Category | Voter-Approved Law | Proposed Legislation |
|---|---|---|
| Local Governments | 36% | 10% |
| Social Equity Programs | 25% | 30% |
| Substance Abuse Programs | 25% | 40% |
| General Fund or Other Uses | 14% | 20% |
That’s a dramatic shift, and local governments argue it ignores the realities of implementation at the ground level.
Police, Parks, and Potholes on the Chopping Block
What exactly would get cut if the changes go through? Based on OSU’s interviews, here’s a rough snapshot:
-
Police department upgrades—like body cameras and new patrol vehicles
-
Park clean-ups and playground repairs
-
Basic road maintenance projects
-
Fire and EMS staffing increases
One official even said their town was planning a new community mental health outreach officer with the marijuana revenue—ironically, a goal that state legislators say they’re trying to fund more broadly.
And some of these municipalities are already running on tight margins. Losing this revenue stream would sting.
Ohioans Voted for Local Control—So What Changed?
That’s the million-dollar question.
Voters approved Issue 2 in November 2023 by a solid margin, and it laid out in black-and-white how the cannabis tax cash would be split. But Ohio’s constitution doesn’t protect citizen-initiated laws from later changes by the legislature. That’s proving to be a sticking point.
“While we respect the legislature’s authority,” another anonymous city manager told OSU researchers, “this feels like rewriting the rules after the game’s already started.”
There’s no doubt some lawmakers see a political opportunity. Redirecting funds toward popular issues like substance abuse treatment can score points. But cities feel abandoned in the process.
What Happens Next? It’s Messy.
So where does this all go from here? It’s complicated.
The proposed legislation hasn’t passed yet. But hearings are underway, and the GOP holds majorities in both chambers. That said, local governments are getting louder—and some lawmakers may get cold feet if the backlash grows.
Ohio’s mayors and city councils are also trying to rally residents. Some are launching public campaigns, urging voters to call their state reps and voice their disapproval. Others are quietly lobbying behind the scenes.
There’s also talk—just talk, for now—about potential lawsuits if the funding formula is drastically changed without input from the cities most affected.
And with marijuana retail stores just beginning to open across the state, the stakes are rising fast.
