Why did the Arkansas AG reject Avalon Romane's 2017 ballot title for the proposed Arkansas Cannabis Amendment?

Plain-English summary

Avalon Romane of West Fork submitted a proposed constitutional amendment titled "The Arkansas Cannabis Amendment" for AG certification. The amendment would have made cultivation, production, distribution, sale, possession, and use of "the cannabis plant" lawful in Arkansas effective November 7, 2018, and provided release and expungement for persons convicted only of marijuana offenses.

AG Leslie Rutledge rejected the popular name and ballot title because three drafting ambiguities in the amendment's underlying text made it impossible to summarize honestly for voters. The AG could not exercise her substitute-and-certify power because the source text itself was unclear; rewriting the ballot title would not fix the proposal.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2017. 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.

The three specific defects the AG identified

Defect 1: Persons versus business entities. Sections 5 and 6 made it lawful for any "person who is eighteen (18) years of age or older" to participate in marijuana and paraphernalia activities. The 18-year age limit implied "person" meant a natural person (an individual human being). But the amendment said nothing about whether non-natural persons (corporations, partnerships, LLCs) could also engage in these activities. The ambiguity was sharper because Section 4 ("Restoration of Industrial Hemp") referred to "industrial hemp ... shall be lawful" without any "person" limitation, suggesting business entities could grow hemp but maybe not marijuana. A voter could not tell whether commercial marijuana businesses would be legal, illegal, or simply unregulated.

Defect 2: No regulatory framework at all. Section 2 made the cannabis plant "lawful" effective November 7, 2018, and removed it from the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. But neither Section 2 nor anywhere else did the amendment establish a regulator, a licensing scheme, or a legislative committee to implement the proposal. Section 9 said the amendment was self-executing. The AG flagged that voters would reasonably ask whether there would be any state oversight at all, citing Griffin v. Rhoton (1907), which holds that some constitutional provisions are mandatory commands to the legislature for supplemental enforcement legislation. The amendment's silence on this point made it impossible to summarize the regulatory effect.

Defect 3: "Products produced" undefined. Section 4 legalized "products produced from industrial hemp" and Section 5 legalized "products produced from marijuana." Section 3's definitions list omitted a definition of "products produced." Without that definition, a ballot title could not say what specific items voters were authorizing. The AG concluded the ballot title would mislead voters by failing to alert them to what changes in current law were actually being voted on.

What the proposal would have done (assuming the defects were resolved)

For policy researchers tracking the substantive features of Romane's submission:

• Effective date November 7, 2018
• Removes cannabis plant from Uniform Controlled Substances Act
• Allows persons 18+ to cultivate, produce, distribute, sell, possess, and use marijuana and paraphernalia
• Legalizes industrial hemp at .3% THC threshold (no person limitation)
• Release and expungement for persons whose only convictions were marijuana-related
• Carve-outs for employer policies, DUI prohibition, transfer to minors

Notable contrast with the contemporaneous Berry/Morris proposals: Romane's measure used age 18 (lower than Berry's 21) and contained no licensing, taxation, or excise scheme.

Common questions

Why does it matter whether business entities can sell marijuana?
Because most commercial cannabis operations are LLCs or corporations, not natural persons. If the amendment limited cultivation to natural persons, it would foreclose a commercial industry. If it allowed business entities, the regulatory questions multiply (taxation, licensing, ownership, audit). Either answer is fine, but voters need to know which one they are voting on.

Why is "no regulatory framework" a fatal drafting flaw?
Because the amendment makes activities lawful but does not say who supervises them. Griffin v. Rhoton says self-executing provisions sometimes need supplemental legislation, and amendments that leave that question entirely to voters' guesses cannot be summarized fairly.

What's the difference between this and the Berry submissions?
Berry's amendments (Op. Att'y Gen. 2017-010, 2017-014) had detailed licensing and tax schemes; they were rejected for definitional ambiguity inside the licensing framework, not for lack of a framework. Romane's amendment lacked the framework entirely.

Could Romane fix all three defects and resubmit?
Yes. The opinion expressly invited resubmission. The opinion also warned that "additional ambiguities may come to light on review of any revisions" beyond the three identified.

Why didn't the AG just substitute her own ballot title?
Because the AG's substitute-and-certify power under Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107(b) only fixes the ballot title, not the underlying measure. Roberts v. Priest prevents approval where internal inconsistencies in the measure would themselves drag down any honest title.

Background and statutory framework

Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107 implements the initiative/referendum provision in Amendment 7 / Article 5, § 1. The AG can certify, substitute, or reject. The Arkansas Supreme Court's framework for ballot titles requires that they "honestly, intelligibly, and fairly" set out the proposal, give voters a "fair understanding," disclose "essential facts" that would give "serious ground for reflection," and remain "free of any misleading tendency." Long-standing case law (Bailey v. McCuen, Roberts v. Priest, Becker v. Riviere) sets these standards.

The five-minute voting-booth limit in Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-309 forces brevity. Roberts v. Priest prevents the AG from approving a measure when "internal inconsistencies would inevitably lead to confusion in drafting a popular name and ballot title."

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107 (AG ballot-title certification authority)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-309 (five-minute voting-booth limit)
• Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 884 S.W.2d 938 (1994)
• Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 20 S.W.3d 376 (2000)
• Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 604 S.W.2d 555 (1980)
• Griffin v. Rhoton, 85 Ark. 89, 107 S.W. 380 (1907) (self-executing provisions and need for supplemental legislation)
• Lange v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 337
• Wilson v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 334
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2017-010 (Mary Berry sister submission)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2017-012 (Morris recreational marijuana submission)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2017-014 (Jason Berry sister submission)

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2017-011
February 10, 2017
A val on Romane, Sponsor
50 Crest A venue
West Fork, AR 72774
Dear Avalon:
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
I am writing in response to your request for certification, pursuant to Ark. Code
Ann. § 7-9-107 (Supp. 2015), of the popular name and ballot title for a proposed
initiated measure.
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, if practicable, 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 A val on Romane, Sponsor
Opinion No. 2017-011
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 proposal.
The purpose of my review and certification is to ensure that the popular name and
ballot title honestl1', intelligibly, and fairly set forth the purpose of the proposed
amendment or act.
REQUEST
You have requested certification, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107, of
the following popular name and ballot title for a proposed constitutional
amendment:
Popular Name
Arkansas Cannabis Hemp and Recreational Marijuana Amendment
Ballot Title
An amendment to the Arkansas Constitution concemmg the
cannabis plant, providing that the cultivation, production,
distribution, sale, possession, and use of recreational marijuana and
cannabis hemp and products produced therefrom may not be
prohibited under State law, but shall be regulated under State law;
recognizing that such activities remain unlawful under federal law;
providing for the release from incarceration, probation, or parole of
all persons whose current and only conviction(s) in which they are
serving were of State laws pertaining to the cultivation, production,
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, 841 S.W.2d 139
(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). A val on Romane, Sponsor
Opinion No. 2017-011
Page 3
distribution, sale, and possession of marijuana or possession of
marijuana paraphernalia, and the expungement of records relating to
such conviction(s); dividing cannabis in to cannabis hemp
(containing 0.3% or less THC) and marijuana (containing more than
0.3% THC); regulating the cultivation, production, distribution and
the sale of cannabis hemp and products produced therefrom;
providing that a business and anyone 21 years of age or older may
obtain a cannabis hemp license permitting the business or person to
cultivate cannabis hemp; authorizing recreational use of marijuana;
providing that a business and anyone 21 years of age or older may
obtain a marijuana license permitting the business or person to
cultivate, produce, and sell marijuana and products produced
therefrom for recreational purposes; providing that a licensed person
or business may cultivate up to 36 marijuana plants in a location not
subject to public view without optical aid; providing that sales of
recreational marijuana will be subject to existing sales taxes and an
additional 5% recreational marijuana excise tax and a local sales tax
of 2%; permitting any business that is 1500 feet away or more from
a public or private school, church, or daycare may sell recreational
marijuana to any person 21 years of age or older; providing that the
owner(s) of the business and any and all employees have a marijuana
license, and that the recreational marijuana being sold in the form of
edibles or drinkables (a)is [sic] not designed to appeal to children;
(b) shall not exceed 10 milligrams of TCH per service, and ( c)
labeling or packaging must provide product information; providing
that the manufacture, possession, purchase, sale, and distribution of
marijuana paraphernalia is lawful under State law; and providing
that the amendment (a) is not intended to require employers to
permit activities relating to recreational marijuana in the workplace,
(b) is not intended to permit driving under the influence of
marijuana, ( c) is not intended to permit the transfer of recreational
marijuana to anyone under 21 years of age, ( d) nor permit anyone
under 21 years of age to cultivate, produce, sell, possess, or use
recreational marijuana.
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,
4 Pafford v. Hall, 217 Ark. 734, 739, 233 S.W.2d 72, 75 (1950). Avalon Romane, Sponsor
Opinion No. 2017-011
Page 4
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, a ballot title will not be legally sufficient unless it "adequately
inform[ s ]" the voters of the contents of a proposed amendment or act so that they
can make a "reasoned decision in the voting booth."8 A ballot title's failure to
"honestly and accurately reflect what is contained in the proposed [act or]
Amendment" may lead the Court to conclude that the "omission is significant."9
The Court has also disapproved the use of terms that are "technical and not readily
understood by voters."10 Without a definition of such terms in the ballot title, the
title may be deemed insufficient. 11
Additionally, if information omitted from the ballot title is an "essential fact which
would give the voter serious ground for reflection, it must be disclosed."12 At the
same time, however, a ballot title must be brief and concise; 13 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. 14 The ballot title is not required to be perfect,
nor is it reasonable to expect the title to cover or anticipate every possible legal
5 See, e.g., Chaney v. Bryant, 259 Ark. 294, 297, 532 S.W.2d 741, 743 (1976); Moore v. Hall, 229
Ark. 411, 3 16 S. W .2d 207 ( 1958). For a better understanding of the term "partisan coloring," see
note 16 infra.
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 Lange v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 337, 9, at n. 2.
9 Id. at 9.
10 Wilson v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 334, *9.
11 Id.
12 Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 285, 884 S.W.2d 938, 942 (1994).
13 See Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107(b).
14 Bailey at 284, 884 S.W.2d at 944. A val on Romane, Sponsor
Opinion No. 2017-011
Page 5
argument the proposed measure might evoke.15 The title, however, must be "free
of any misleading tendency whether by amplification, omission, or fallacy, and it
must not be tinged with partisan coloring."16 The ballot title must be honest and
impartial, 17 and it must conve~ an intelligible idea of the scope and significance of
a proposed change in the law. 8
Furthermore, the Court has confirmed that a proposed measure cannot be approved
if the text of the proposal itself contributes to confusion and disconnect between
the language in the popular name and the ballot title and the language in the
proposed measure. 19 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."20 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 (I)
clarification or removal of the ambiguities in the proposal itself, and (2)
conformance of the popular name and ballot title to the newly worded proposal.
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 the measure
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
15 Id. at 293, 844 S.W.2d at 946-47.
16 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)).
17 Beckerv. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482, 489, 798 S.W.2d 71, 74 (1990).
18 Christian Civic Action Committee, 318 Ark. at 245, 884 S.W.2d at 607 (internal quotations
omitted).
19 Cf Roberts v. Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 825, 20 S.W.3d 376, 382 (2000).
20 Id. Avalon Romane, Sponsor
Opinion No. 2017-01 l
Page 6
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 and 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 proposal.

1. Sections 5 and 6 of your proposed amendment concern the
   legalization of industrial hemp, marijuana, and marijuana
   paraphernalia, respectively. Section 5 makes it lawful for any
   "person who is eighteen ( 18) years of age or older" to participate in
   the "cultivation, production, distribution, sale, possession, and use of
   marijuana and products." Likewise, Section 6 makes it lawful for
   any "person who is eighteen ( 18) years of age or older" to
   "manufacture, possess, and purchase marijuana paraphernalia, or [to]
   sell marijuana paraphernalia to another person who is eighteen ( 18)
   years of age or older."
   Although "person" is not defined in these sections, it seems clear from the 18-
   years-of-age limit that it means a natural person, i.e., an individual human being.
   But there is no express statement as to whether a non-natural person such as a
   business entity can engage in the marijuana-related activities that would be
   legalized under Sections 5 and 6. It is likewise unclear whether, by referring only
   to a natural person, you intend to prohibit business entities and other non-natural
   persons from cultivating, producing, distributing, selling, possessing, or using
   marijuana, marijuana products, and marijuana paraphernalia. This ambiguity is
   highlighted upon review of Section 4 ("The Restoration of Industrial Hemp"),
   which makes the "cultivation, production, distribution, sale, possession, and use of
   industrial hemp and products produced from industrial hemp" lawful. However,
   Section 4 does not refer to a "person" by any definition, implying that both natural
   and non-natural persons can engage in the industrial hemp-related activities that
   would become legal.
   The proposal's position on these issues is undoubtedly a significant matter for
   voters' consideration. Without clarification regarding what, if any, requirements
   or opportunities apply to non-natural persons in connection with the "cultivation,
   distribution, sale, [etc.]" of industrial hemp and marijuana, this significant point
   cannot be accurately summarized for voters in a ballot title.
2. Section 2 of your proposed amendment simply states that "on
   and after November 7th, 2018 the cultivation, production,
   distribution, sale, possession, and use of the cannabis plant (genus
   cannabis) shall not be an offense under Arkansas Law, or be a basis Avalon Romane, Sponsor
   Opinion No. 2017-011
   Page 7
   for seizure or forfeiture of assets pursuant to the Arkansas Uniform[]
   Controlled Substance Act." Neither Section 2, nor the remainder of
   the amendment, refer to creation of a regulatory body or legislative
   committee that would implement the proposal. And while Section 9
   states that the amendment is self-executing,21 it is unclear if the
   amendment contemplates no scheme whatsoever for regulation or
   licensure of those engaged in the "cultivation, production,
   distribution, sale, possession, and use of the cannabis plant."
   Because a voter would reasonably question the manner and extent of
   regulatory oversight for statewide recreational marijuana, these
   ambiguities must be resolved in order to accurately summarize the
   amendment in a ballot title.
3. In Section 3 ("Definitions"), the proposed amendment omits a
   definition of "products produced." However, Section 4 would
   legalize "products produced from industrial hemp," and Section 5
   would legalize "products produced from marijuana." A ballot title
   would be misleading if it lacked a reasonable description of what
   "products produced" are to become legal. Similarly, a ballot title
   without a reasonable description of "products produced" would fail
   to alert voters of changes to existing law resulting from the proposed
   amendment.
   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 1s
   embodied only in Ark. Code Ann. § 7-9-107, and my duty is to the electorate.
   21 Griffin v. Rhoton, 85 Ark. 89, 107 S.W. 380, 382 (1907) (For provisions that "do not in and of
   themselves constitute a sufficient rule by means of which such right may be protected or such
   duty enforced, ... supplemental legislation must be had, and the provision may be in its nature
   mandatory to the Legislature to enact the needful legislation."). Avalon Romane, Sponsor
   Opinian No. 2017-011
   Page 8
   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. 22 You may resubmit your proposed act along with a
   proposed popular name and ballot title at your convenience.
   Sincerely,
   <~~
   LESLIE RUT~Er:~
   Attorney General
   Enclosure
   22 Ark. Code Ann.§ 7-9-107(c). THE ARKANSAS CANNABIS AMENDMENT
   AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE CANNABIS PLANT,
   PROVIDING THAT THE CULTIVATION, PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, SALE, POSSESSION, AND USE
   OF MARIJUANA AND INDUSTRIAL HEMP AND PRODUCTS PRODUCED THEREFROM MAY NOT BE
   PROHIBITED UNDER STATE LAW; RECOGNIZING THAT SUCH ACTIVITIES REMAIN UNLAWFUL
   UNDER FEDERAL LAW; PROVIDING FOR THE RELEASE FROM INCARCERATION, PROBATION, OR
   PAROLE OF ALL PERSONS WHOSE CURRENT AND ONLY CONVICTION(S) IN WHICH THEY ARE
   SERVING WERE OF STATE LAWS PERTAINING TO THE CULTIVATION, PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION,
   SALE, AND POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA OR POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA PARAPHERNALIA, AND
   THE EXPUNGEMENT OF RECORDS RELATING TO SUCH CONVICTION(S); DIVIDING CANNABIS IN TO
   INDUSTRIAL HEMP (CONTAINING 0.3% OR LESS THC) AND MARIJUANA (CONTAINING MORE THAN
   0.3% THC); PERMITTING THE CULTIVATION, PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, SALE, POSSESSION AND
   USE OF MARIJUANA BY ANY PERSON 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER; PROVIDING THAT THE
   MANUFACTURE, POSSESSION, PURCHASE, SALE, AND DISTRIBUTION OF MARIJUANA
   PARAPHERNALIA IS LAWFUL UNDER STATE LAW; AND PROVIDING THAT THE AMENDMENT (A) IS
   NOT INTENDED TO REQUIRE EMPLOYERS TO PERMIT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO MARIJUANA IN THE
   WORKPLACE, (B) IS NOT INTENDED TO PERMIT DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA,
   (C) IS NOT INTENDED TO PERMIT THE TRANSFER OF MARIJUANA TO ANYONE UNDER 18 YEARS OF
   AGE, (D) NOR PERMIT ANYONE UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE TO CULTIVATE, PRODUCE, SELL,
   POSSESS, OR USE MARIJUANA.
   Section 1. Short Title.
   This is an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution that shall be called "The Arkansas Cannabis Amendment".
   Section 2 Effective Date.
   Effective on and after November 7th, 2018 the cultivation, production, distribution, sale, possession, and use of
   the cannabis plant (genus Cannabis) shall not be an offense under Arkansas Law, or be a basis for seizure or
   forfeiture of assets pursuant to the Arkansas Uniformed Controlled Substance Act.
   Section 3. Definitions.
   The following terms are defined for the purposes of this amendment:
   (a) "Driving under the influence of marijuana" means operating a motorized vehicle on any public road,
   highway, or street when the Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (b.9THC) content of the operator's blood exceeds
   thirteen micrograms per liter (13µg/L).
   (b) "Industrial hemp" means any part of the cannabis plant (genus Cannabis), living or not, and when harvested
   in its mature plant stage contains three tenths of one percent (0.3%) or less, by dry weight, Delta-9-
   tetrahydrocannabinol (b.9THC).
   (c) "Marijuana" means any part of the cannabis plant (genus Cannabis), living or not, and when harvested in its
   mature plant stage contains greater than three tenths of one percent (0.3%), by dry weight, Delta-9-
   tetrahydrocannabinol (ti9THC).
   (d) "Marijuana paraphernalia" means any equipment, utensils, products, and materials which are used,
   intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing,
   compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging,
   containing, or concealing marijuana, or for ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing marijuana into the
   human body.
   (e) "Remuneration" means an act in which money is being paid to purchase marijuana for recreational
   purposes. Section 4 The Restoration of Industrial Hemp.
   The cultivation, production, distribution, sale, possession, and use of industrial hemp and products produced
   from industrial hemp shall be lawful in every geographic area of every county of this state under Arkansas law,
   and shall not be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets pursuant to the Arkansas Uniformed Controlled
   Substance Act.
   Section 5 The Restoration of Marijuana.
   The cultivation, production, distribution, sale, possession, and use of marijuana and products produced from
   marijuana by any person who is eighteen (18) years of age or older shall be lawful in every geographic area of
   every county of this state under Arkansas law, and shall not be a basis for seizure or forfe_iture of assets
   pursuant to the Arkansas Uniformed Controlled Substance Act.
   Section 6. Marijuana Paraphernalia
   Any person eighteen (18) years of age or older may manufacture, possess, and purchase marijuana
   paraphernalia, or may sell marijuana paraphernalia to another person who is eighteen (18) years of age or
   older.
   Section 7. Employers, driving, and minors.
   (a) Nothing in this amendment is intended to require an employer to permit or accommodate the cultivation,
   production, distribution, sale, possession, or use of marijuana in the workplace or to affect the ability of
   employers to have policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees.
   (b) Nothing in this amendment is intended to permit driving under the influence of marijuana.
   (c) Nothing in this amendment is intended to permit the transfer of marijuana, with or without remuneration, to a
   person under the age of eighteen (18).
   (d) Nothing in this amendment is intended to permit a person under the age of eighteen (18) to cultivate,
   produce, sell, possess, or use marijuana.
   (e) Nothing in this amendment is intended to permit the cultivation, production, distribution, or sale, of any other
   substance that is controlled or prohibited by the state pursuant to the Arkansas Uniform Controlled Substances
   Act.
   Section 8. Non-violent marijuana offenders and criminal record expungement.
   All persons currently serving incarceration, probation, or parole in this state, whose current and only
   conviction(s) to which they are now serving were due to violating state laws as they pertain to the cultivation,
   production, distribution, sale, and possession of marijuana, and or possession of marijuana paraphernalia, and
   whose violation(s) occurred prior to the effective date of this amendment shall be released, and all criminal
   records in this state shall be expunged of such convictions that occurred prior to the effective date of this
   amendment.
   Section 9. Conflicting laws.
   The provisions of this Amendment are hereby declared to be severable and self-executing, and except where
   otherwise indicated in this Amendment, shall supersede all conflicting state and local laws, charters,
   regulations, and any and all other provisions in conflict with this Amendment. If any provision of this
   Amendment, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is declared invalid by any
   court for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Amendment.