Why did the Arkansas AG reject Mary Berry's third cannabis legalization ballot title in 2015?

Plain-English summary

Mary L. Berry submitted "The Arkansas Cannabis Amendment" for the third time in 2015 after the AG's two prior rejections in Opinions 2015-117 and 2015-122. The AG identified ten ambiguities in the proposed amendment that prevented certification.

The AG laid out the problems:

1. Section 5 ambiguity on "items" and "substances." Section 5's reference to "products produced" was ambiguous on whether it applied to a substance (as distinct from an "item") manufactured from or with cannabis; whether it covered an item or substance that constituted (rather than contained) something "prohibited by this state"; and whether it covered something merely regulated but not prohibited.

2. Section 6 regulatory authority over hemp. The section said various hemp activities "may be regulated" but barred any limitation on plant size, number, or quantity of products. Without clarification of what regulation actually means in that context, the AG could not honestly tell voters what the proposal would do.

3. Section 7 "subject to the following conditions" ambiguity. Section 7 said the activities "are lawful in this state and may be regulated, but not prohibited, subject to the following conditions." It was unclear whether "subject to the following conditions" modified "lawful" or "regulated." If any of the conditions failed, would the activities lose their legality? Or just their freedom from regulation?

4. Excise tax scope. Section 7 did not make clear whether it prohibited additional taxes beyond the required excise tax.

5. Marijuana use by people under 18. The section affirmatively authorized cultivation and use by people 18 and older, but did not expressly prohibit such activities by younger people. It also barred the state from prohibiting marijuana use by people under 18 in certain circumstances. Read literally, the proposal might imply that people under 18 could cultivate or use marijuana in the absence of state legislative action.

6. Documentation for under-18 use. Section 7 described the document permitting under-18 use as a "written recommendation for the treatment of an illness or disease." The proposal did not say what kind of document, whether the state has any regulatory role over it, or whether "physician" includes out-of-state-licensed or non-MD physicians.

7. "Only conviction" ambiguity. Section 8 referred to a person whose "only conviction" was a marijuana offense. It was not clear how that applied to a person serving sentences for both a marijuana offense and an unrelated past offense.

8. Persons charged but not convicted as of the effective date. Section 8 was unclear about persons charged but not yet convicted on the proposal's effective date who were later convicted and sentenced based on pre-effective-date conduct. Would they be released?

9. Expungement of records of unincarcerated persons. Section 8's "all criminal records in this state shall be expunged of any such violations" was ambiguous about whether it reached only convictions of people incarcerated on the effective date or all convictions ever.

10. Expungement of "violations." Section 8 provided for expungement of "violations." In Arkansas, expungement is of convictions, not of violations. The proposal's use of "violations" was an unfamiliar concept.

The AG also cross-referenced AG Opinion 2014-091, which had identified the same regulatory-authority ambiguity in another proposal with similar language.

The AG could not substitute a fix because the ambiguities went to the substance of the proposal, not just the ballot-title summary. The sponsor was again told she could redesign and resubmit.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2015. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107 authorizes certification or rejection of a popular name and ballot title; substitution authority is in (b); resubmission is addressed in (c). The opinion also cites Arkansas Supreme Court cases addressing what makes a summary honest, impartial, and intelligible.

The AG cited Roberts v. Priest for the problem of internal inconsistencies in a proposal. She said ambiguities in Berry's proposed amendment prevented her from fairly and completely summarizing it in a popular name or ballot title.

The third Berry rejection is notable for its breadth: ten distinct categories of ambiguity, several of which (regulatory-authority scope, under-18 use, expungement-of-violations) had no obvious fix at the ballot-title level. The AG's cross-reference to Op. Att'y Gen. 2014-091 shows how recurrent the regulatory-authority drafting problem had become across Arkansas cannabis initiatives in this period.

The opinion does not address whether this proposal was resubmitted or later reached voters.

Common questions

Did Berry resubmit again after this third rejection?

The opinion says Berry could redesign the measure, popular name, and ballot title and resubmit them. It does not say whether she did so.

What was the recurring regulatory-authority problem?

The proposal said hemp activities "may be regulated" but then forbade any limitation on plant size, plant number, or quantity of products. The AG asked, in effect: if the legislature cannot limit any of these, what does "regulate" actually mean? The proposal did not say. AG Opinion 2014-091 had identified the same drafting issue in another cannabis proposal.

Could people under 18 have cultivated marijuana under the proposal?

The text was unclear. It affirmatively authorized people 18 and older but did not expressly prohibit younger people. Reading the under-18 provisions together with the under-18 silence, the proposal might imply that people under 18 could cultivate marijuana absent state legislative action.

What's the difference between expunging "violations" and expunging "convictions"?

The AG said expungement as understood in Arkansas applies to convictions, while a person may violate a criminal statute without ever being charged or convicted. The proposal did not clarify what it meant by expunging "violations."

What did the AG mean by "constitute" versus "contain" prohibited substances?

Section 5's definition of "products produced" excluded items containing something "prohibited by this state." The AG asked whether it also excluded an item or substance that itself constituted something prohibited by the state, and whether merely regulated items or substances were covered. The opinion did not resolve those questions.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107 (Repl. 2013) (AG certification authority)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107(b) (substitution authority)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107(c) (sponsor may redesign and resubmit)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-309 (five-minute voting-booth limit)
• Kurrus v. Priest, 342 Ark. 434, 29 S.W.3d 669 (2000)
• Donovan v. Priest, 326 Ark. 353, 931 S.W.2d 119 (1996)
• Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654, 841 S.W.2d 139 (1992)
• Arkansas Women's Political Caucus v. Riviere, 283 Ark. 463, 677 S.W.2d 846 (1984)
• Pafford v. Hall, 217 Ark. 734, 233 S.W.2d 72 (1950)
• Chaney v. Bryant, 259 Ark. 294, 532 S.W.2d 741 (1976)
• Moore v. Hall, 229 Ark. 411, 316 S.W.2d 207 (1958)
• May v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 100, 194 S.W.3d 771 (2004)
• Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 604 S.W.2d 555 (1980)
• Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994)
• Crochet v. Priest, 326 Ark. 338, 931 S.W.2d 128 (1996)
• Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 241, 884 S.W.2d 605 (1994)
• Becker v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482, 798 S.W.2d 71 (1990)
• Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 20 S.W.3d 376 (2000) (internal inconsistencies bar certification)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2014-091 (prior rejection of similar regulatory-authority language in another cannabis proposal)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2015-117 (first rejection of this same proposal)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2015-122 (second rejection of this same proposal)

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/
• Official PDF: https://ag-opinions.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2015-132.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE

Opinion No. 2015-132

November 17, 2015

Mary L. Berry, Sponsor
Post Office Box 511
Summit, AR 72677

Dear Ms. Berry:

I am writing in response to your request for certification, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107 (Repl. 2013), of the popular name and ballot title for a proposed constitutional amendment.

At the outset, I wish to make clear to you that the decision to certify or reject a popular name and ballot title is in no way a reflection of my view of the merits of a particular proposal. I am not authorized to, and do not, consider the merits of the measure when making my determination to certify or reject a popular name and ballot title.

The Attorney General is required, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107, to certify the popular name and ballot title of all proposed initiative and referendum acts or amendments before the petitions are circulated for signature. The law provides that the Attorney General may, ifpracticable, substitute and certify a more suitable and correct popular name and ballot title. Or, if the proposed popular name and ballot title are sufficiently misleading, the Attorney General may reject the entire petition.

Section 7-9-107 neither requires nor authorizes this office to make legal determinations concerning the merits of the act or amendment, or concerning the likelihood that it will accomplish its stated objective. In addition, consistent with Arkansas Supreme Court precedent, unless the measure is "clearly contrary to

323 CENTER STREET, SUITE 200 · LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 TELEPHONE (501) 682-2007 · FAX (501) 682-8084 ARKANSASAG.GOV

Page 2

Mary L. Berry, Sponsor
Opinion No. 2015-132
Page 2

law," 1 this office will not require that a measure's proponents acknowledge in the ballot title any possible constitutional infirmities. 2 Consequently, this review has been limited primarily to a determination, pursuant to the guidelines that have been set forth by the Arkansas Supreme Court, discussed below, of whether the popular name and ballot title you have submitted accurately and impartially summarize the provisions of your proposed amendment.

The purpose of my review and certification is to ensure that the popular name and ballot title honestly, intelligibly, and fairly set forth the purpose of the proposed amendment or act. 3

REQUEST

You have requested certification, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107 (Repl. 2013), of the following popular name and ballot title for a proposed constitutional amendment:

Popular Name

THE ARKANSAS CANNABIS AMENDMENT

Ballot Title

An amendment proposed by the people to the Arkansas Constitution to provide, effective January 20, 2017, that the cultivation, production, distribution, sale, possession, and use of the cannabis plant (genus Cannabis) and all products produced from the cannabis plant are lawful within the entire geographic area of every county of this state; that for purposes of the amendment "hemp" means any part of the cannabis plant, living or not, containing one percent or less, by dry weight, Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta-9-THC),

1
See Kurrus v. Priest, 342 Ark. 434, 445, 29 S.W.3d 669, 675 (2000); Donovan v. Priest, 326 Ark. 353, 359, 931 S.W.2d 119, 121 (1996); Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654, 841S.W.2d139 (1992). 2 As part of my review, however, I may address constitutional concerns for consideration by the measure's proponents. 3 See Arkansas Women's Political Caucus v. Riviere, 283 Ark. 463, 466, 677 S.W.2d 846 (1984).

Page 3

Mary L. Berry, Sponsor
Opinion No. 2015-132
Page 3

"marijuana" means any part of the cannabis plant, living or not, containing more than one percent, by dry weight, Delta-9-THC, and "products produced" means any items manufactured from the cannabis plant (genus cannabis) that may contain Delta-9-THC but does not contain a substance or item prohibited by this state; whereas marijuana products contain greater than one percent Delta-9-THC and hemp products contain one percent or less; that the listed activities with respect to hemp and products produced containing hemp may be regulated but not prohibited, provided that the quantity and size of plants cultivated and the quantity of products produced shall not be limited or prohibited; that the listed activities with respect to marijuana and products produced containing marijuana by any person 18 years of age or older are lawful in this state and may be regulated but not prohibited, provided that (1 )(a) the cost of a license that shall be issued by the state to authorize any person 18 years of age or older to cultivate, produce, distribute, and sell marijuana, and products containing marijuana shall not exceed $250.00 per license per year; (b) any person 18 years of age or older shall qualify to obtain such license; and (c) there shall be no limit to the number of licenses issued in this state; (2) the quantity of plants cultivated shall be limited to 36 growing plants per qualified person, but the size of plants cultivated and the quantity of products produced shall not be limited or prohibited; (3) the state shall impose upon the sale of marijuana and products containing marijuana an excise tax that shall not exceed five percent; and (4) the use of marijuana and products containing marijuana shall not be prohibited to any person under 18 years of age whose physician has authorized it by a written recommendation for the treatment of an illness or disease; upon the effective date of this amendment, all persons who are incarcerated in this state whose only conviction(s) were for violating state laws as they pertain to the cultivation, production, distribution, sale, or possession of marijuana shall be released; all criminal records in this state shall be expunged of such violations; and all laws that conflict with the amendment are repealed to the extent that they conflict with the amendment. Voters should note that the listed activities with respect to the cannabis plant are unlawful under federal law and that the amendment can have no effect on federal law.

Page 4

Mary L. Berry, Sponsor
Opinion No. 2015-132
Page 4

This submission is a follow-up to Attorney General Opinion 2015-122, wherein I rejected your proposed popular name and ballot title due to ambiguities in the text of the proposed constitutional amendment that is the subject of your current request.

RESPONSE

The popular name is primarily a useful legislative device. 4 It "need not contain detailed information or include exceptions [that) might be required of a ballot title," but it must not be misleading or give partisan coloring to the merit of the proposal. 5 The popular name is to be considered together with the ballot title in determining the ballot title's sufficiency. 6

The ballot title must include an impartial summary of the proposed amendment or act that will give the voter a "fair understanding of the issues presented." 7 According to the Court, if information omitted from the ballot title is an "essential fact which would give the voter serious ground for reflection, it must be disclosed." 8 At the same time, however, a ballot title must be brief and concise (see Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107(b)); otherwise voters could run afoul of Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-309's five-minute limit in voting booths when other voters are waiting in line. 9 The ballot title is not required to be perfect, nor is it reasonable to expect the title to cover or anticipate every possible legal argument the proposed measure might evoke. 10 The title, however, must be "free of any misleading tendency whether by amplification, omission, or fallacy, and it must not be tinged with

4
Pafford v. Hall, 217 Ark. 734, 739, 233 S.W.2d 72, 75 (1950).
5
E.g., Chaney v. Bryant, 259 Ark. 294, 297, 532 S.W.2d 741, 743 (1976); Moore v. Hall, 229 Ark. 411, 316 S. W.2d 207 (I 958). For a better understanding of the term "partisan coloring," see infra at note I 1. 6 May v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 100, 105, 194 S.W.3d 771, 776 (2004).
7
Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 226, 604 S.W.2d 555, 558 (1980) (internal citations omitted).
8
Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 285, 884 S.W.2d 938, 942 (1994).
9
Id. at 288, 884 S.W.2d at 944.
10
Id. at 293, 884 S.W.2d at 946-47.

Page 5

Mary L. Berry, Sponsor
Opinion No. 2015-132
Page 5

partisan coloring." 11 The ballot title must be honest and impartial, 12 and it must convey an intelligible idea of the scope and significance of a proposed change in the law. 13

Furthermore, the Court has confirmed that a proposed amendment cannot be approved if "[t]he text of the proposed amendment itself contribute[s] to the confusion and disconnect between the language in the popular name and the ballot title and the language in the proposed measure." 14 The Court concluded that "internal inconsistencies would inevitably lead to confusion in drafting a popular name and ballot title and to confusion in the ballot title itself." 15 Where the effects of a proposed measure on current law are unclear or ambiguous, it is impossible for me to perform my statutory duty to the satisfaction of the Arkansas Supreme Court without ( 1) clarification or removal of the ambiguities in the proposed amendment itself, and (2) conformance of the popular name and ballot title to the newly worded amendment.

It is my opinion based on the above precepts that a number of additions or changes to your ballot title are necessary in order to more fully and correctly summarize your proposal. I cannot, however, at this time, fairly or completely summarize the effect of your proposed measure to the electorate in a popular name or ballot title without the resolution of the ambiguities in the text of your proposed amendment itself. And thus I cannot determine precisely what changes to the ballot title are necessary to fully and correctly summarize your proposal. It is therefore not appropriate, in my opinion, for me to try to substitute and certify a more suitable and correct popular name and ballot title pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107(b). Instead, you may, if you wish, redesign the proposed measure, popular name, and

11
Id. at 284, 884 S. W .2d at 942. Language "tinged with partisan coloring" has been identified by the Arkansas Supreme Court as language that "creates a fatally misleading tendency" (Crochet v. Priest, 326 Ark. 338, 347, 931 S.W.2d 128, 133 (1996)) or that "gives the voter only the impression that the proponents of the proposed amendment wish to convey of the activity represented by the words." (Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 241, 249, 884 S.W.2d 605, 610 (1994)). 12 Becker v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482, 489, 798 S.W.2d 71, 74 (1990).
13
Christian Civic Action Committee, 318 Ark. at 241, 884 S.W.2d at 607 (internal quotations omitted). 14 Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 825, 20 S.W.3d 376, 382 (2000).

1s Id.

Page 6

Mary L. Berry, Sponsor
Opinion No. 2015-132
Page 6

ballot title, and then resubmit for certification. In order to aid your redesign, I highlight below the more concerning ambiguities in the text of your proposed amendment.

1. Section 5 is ambiguous with respect to whether it applies to (a) a substance - as opposed to an "item" - manufactured from or with cannabis; (b) an item or substance that constitutes - rather than contains - something "prohibited by this state"; or (c) an item or substance that is merely regulated - but not prohibited outright - under state law.

2. Section 6 is ambiguous regarding the scope of the General Assembly's regulatory authority. The section states that the various recited activities with respect to hemp "may be regulated" but forecloses any limitation on the size or number of plants cultivated and the quantity of products produced. It is unclear precisely what is meant by "regulated" if persons can grow as much hemp as they want. The proposal's position on this issue is undoubtedly a significant matter for a voter's consideration. But without clarification regarding what regulations the legislature is authorized to impose, this significant point cannot be accurately summarized for the voters in a ballot title. 16

3. Section 7 provides that "cultivation, [etc.] are lawful in this state and may be regulated, but not prohibited, subject to the following conditions .... " It is unclear whether the phrase "subject to the following conditions" modifies the word "lawful" or the word "regulated." As a result, it is unclear and ambiguous whether the failure of one or more of the conditions would compromise the activities' legality under the proposal.

4. Section 7 is ambiguous in failing to make clear whether it is intended to constitute a prohibition on the state's imposition of taxes in addition to the required excise tax.

5. Section 7 affirmatively authorizes marijuana cultivation, etc., by people 18 and older, but does not expressly prohibit such activities by younger people. The section also forecloses the state from prohibiting in certain circumstances the use of marijuana by people under 18. The section is

16
This is the same ambiguity that was identified as a basis for rejection in Attorney General Opinion No. 2014-091, which addressed another proposal with very similar language as to the state's regulatory authority. This ambiguity also arises in Section 7 and is not cured by Section 7(b)'s reference to "thirty-six (36) growing plants."

Page 7

Mary L. Berry, Sponsor
Opinion No. 2015-132
Page 7

ambiguous with respect to the rights of people under 18 in the event the state takes no legislative action. The proposal may be read to imply that those under 18 may cultivate, etc., marijuana, provided the state takes no action to prohibit such use.

6. Section 7 is ambiguous with respect to the document that will permit a
   person under 18 to use marijuana. The proposal describes the document as
   a "written recommendation for the treatment of an illness or disease." It is
   unclear what type of document is envisioned and whether the state will
   have any regulatory role with respect to this document. The section is also
   ambiguous with respect to whether "physician" includes persons licensed
   as such under the laws of other jurisdictions or persons licensed other than
   as medical doctors.

7. Section 8 is ambiguous with respect to a person incarcerated on the
   proposal's effective date only for one or more convictions for violation of
   "state laws as they pertain to the cultivation, [etc.] of marijuana" but who
   has previously been convicted of one or more other offenses. It is not clear
   whether under the proposal such a person would be deemed to be one
   whose "only conviction" is for a marijuana offense.

8. Section 8 is ambiguous with respect to a person who, on the proposal's
   effective date, has been charged with but not convicted of a marijuana
   offense. Such a person clearly may be convicted and sentenced to
   incarceration on the basis of conduct that occurred before the proposal's
   effective date. It is not clear whether the proposal would require his release
   once he is incarcerated after the effective date, as he was not incarcerated
   "[ u]pon the effective date of this amendment."

9. Section 8 is ambiguous with respect to expungement of criminal records of
   persons who are not incarcerated on the proposal's effective date. The
   second part of the section forms a complete sentence reading, "[A]ll
   criminal records in this state shall be expunged of any such violations." As
   the proposal is drafted, it is not clear whether "any such violations" refers
   only to convictions of persons incarcerated on the proposal's effective date,
   or all convictions of anyone at any time for "violating state laws as they
   pertain to the cultivation, [etc.] of marijuana."

10. Section 8 is ambiguous in providing for expungement of "violations." A
    person's actions and intent may constitute violation of a criminal statute,
    and the person may or may not be charged with and convicted of that

Page 8

Mary L. Berry, Sponsor
Opinion No. 2015-132
Page 8

crime. Expungement, as we know it in Arkansas, is of convictions, not of violations.

11. Section 8 is ambiguous with respect to a person, previously on parole or probation with respect to a non-marijuana crime, who is incarcerated on the effective date for having violated the terms of his parole or probation by engaging in activity constituting a crime of the sort described in Section 8.

12. Section 9 is ambiguous with respect to which laws "conflict with this amendment." It is not clear, for example, whether the following sorts of laws would be deemed to conflict with the proposal: laws regarding the usage of water for agriculture; laws protecting farmers; laws relating to taxation or to sales and distribution; laws relating to medical practice; laws relating to consumer protection and deceptive trade practices; laws relating to overdose or impaired driving; and local zoning laws related to agricultural production.

CONCLUSION

The ambiguities noted above are not necessarily all the ambiguities contained in your proposal, but they are sufficiently serious to require me to reject your popular name and ballot title. I am unable to substitute language in a ballot title for your measure due to these ambiguities. Further, additional ambiguities may come to light on review of any revisions of your proposal.

My office, in the certification of ballot titles and popular names, does not address the merits, philosophy, or ideology of proposed measures. I have no constitutional role in the shaping or drafting of such measures. My statutory mandate is embodied only in Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107, and my duty is to the electorate.

Based on what has been submitted, my statutory duty is to reject your proposed ballot title for the foregoing reasons and instruct you to redesign the proposed measure and ballot title. 17 You may resubmit your proposed act along with a proposed popular name and ballot title at your convenience.

Sincere!y, ~ r >
LESLIE RU
==---~
~ -~
Attorney General

17
Ark. Code Ann.§ 7-9-107(c).

Page 9

Popular Name:
The Arkansas Cannabis Amendment

Ballot Title:
An amendment proposed by the people to the Arkansas Constitution to provide, effective January 20, 2017, that the cultivation, production, distribution, sale, possession, and use of the cannabis plant (genus Cannabis) and all products produced from the cannabis plant are lawful within the entire geographic area of every county of this state; that for purposes of the amendment "hemp" means any part of the cannabis plant, living or not, containing one percent or less, by dry weight, Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta-9-THC), "marijuana" means any part of the cannabis plant, living or not, containing more than one percent, by dry weight, Delta-9-THC, and "products produced" means any items manufactured from the cannabis plant (genus cannabis) that may contain Delta-9-THC but does not contain a substance or item prohibited by this state; whereas marijuana products contain greater than one percent Delta-9-THC and hemp products contain one percent or less; that the listed activities with respect to hemp and products produced containing hemp may be regulated but not prohibited, provided that the quantity and size of plants cultivated and the quantity of products produced shall not be limited or prohibited; that the listed activities with respect to marijuana and products produced containing marijuana by any person 18 years of age or older are lawful in this state and may be regulated but not prohibited, provided that (1 )(a) the cost of a license that shall be issued by the state to authorize any person 18 years of age or older to cultivate, produce, distribute, and sell marijuana, and products containing marijuana shall not exceed $250.00 per license per year; (b) any person 18 years of age or older shall qualify to obtain such license; and (c) there shall be no limit to the number of licenses issued in this state; (2) the quantity of plants cultivated shall be limited to 36 growing plants per qualified person, but the size of plants cultivated and the quantity of products produced shall not be limited or prohibited; (3) the state shall impose upon the sale of marijuana and products containing marijuana an excise tax that shall not exceed five percent; and (4) the use of marijuana and products containing marijuana shall not be prohibited to any person under 18 years of age whose physician has authorized it by a written recommendation for the treatment of an illness or disease; upon the effective date of this amendment, all persons who are incarcerated in this state whose only conviction(s) were for violating state laws as they pertain to the cultivation, production, distribution, sale, or possession of marijuana shall be released; all criminal records in this state shall be expunged of such violations; and all laws that conflict with the amendment are repealed to the extent that they conflict with the amendment. Voters should note that the listed activities with respect to the cannabis plant are unlawful under federal law and that the amendment can have no effect on federal law.

Section 1. This is an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution that shall be called "The Arkansas Cannabis Amendment."

Section 2. Effective January 20, 2017 the cultivation, production, distribution, sale, possession, and use of the cannabis plant (genus Cannabis) and all products produced from the cannabis plant (genus Cannabis) shall be lawful within the entire geographic area of each and every county of the state of Arkansas.

Section 3. "Hemp" is defined for purposes of this amendment as any part of the cannabis plant (genus Cannabis), living or not, containing one percent ( 1%) or less, by dry weight, Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta-9-THC).

Section 4. "Marijuana" is defined for purposes of this amendment as any part of the cannabis plant (genus Cannabis), living or not, containing greater than one percent (1 %), by dry weight, Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta-9-THC).

Page 10

Section 5. "Products produced" is defined for purposes of this amendment as items manufactured from the cannabis plant (genus Cannabis) that may contain Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta-9-THC), but does not contain a substance or item prohibited by this state; whereas marijuana products contain greater than one percent (1%) Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta-9-THC) and hemp products contain one percent (1%) or less Delta-9-THC. Any item whose components may contain a variation in Delta-9-THC content that would span above the one percent (1 %) threshold is to be considered marijuana.

Section 6. The cultivation, production, distribution, sale , possession , and use of hemp and products produced containing hemp may be regulated , but not prohibited, subject to the following condition : (a .) The quantity and size of plants cultivated and the quantity of products produced shall not be limited or prohibited.

Section 7. The cultivation, production, distribution, sale, possession, and use of marijuana and products produced containing marijuana by any person eighteen (18) years of age or older are lawful in this state and may be regulated, but not prohibited, subject to the following conditions: (a) The cost of a license that shall be issued by the state to authorize any person eighteen (18) years of age or older to cultivate, produce , distribute, and sell marijuana and products containing marijuana shall not exceed two-hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) per license per year, and any person eighteen (18) years of age or older shall qualify to obtain such license, and there shall be no limit to the number of licenses issued in this state. (b) The quantity of plants cultivated sha!I be limited to thirty-six (36) growing plants per qualified person, but the size of plants cultivated and the quantity of products produced shall not be limited or prohibited. (c) The state shall impose upon the sale of marijuana and products containing marijuana an excise tax that shall not exceed five percent (5%). (d) The use of marijuana and products containing marijuana shall not be prohibited to any person under eighteen (18) years of age whose physician has authorized it by a written recommendation for the treatment of an illness or disease.

Section 8. Upon the effective date of this amendment, all persons who are incarcerated in this state whose only conviction(s) were for violating state laws as they pertain to the cultivation, production, distribution, sale, or possession of marijuana shall be released, and all criminal records in this state shall be expunged of any such violations.

Section 9. All laws which conflict with this amendment are hereby repealed to the extent that they conflict with this amendment.