Legalizing cannabis in the United States has never been a straightforward journey. Even when voters overwhelmingly support medical or recreational marijuana initiatives, some elected officials find ways to override or undercut those hard-won laws. From Arizona’s controversial “Prop 200” rollback to Ohio’s recent legislative maneuvers in 2025, this article explores how democracy can be sidestepped—and what it means for the future of cannabis legalization.
Arizona’s Betrayal: Prop 200 and the Blocked Path
A Snapshot of Prop 200
In 1996, Arizona voters supported Proposition 200 with a 65% majority, aiming to allow doctors to prescribe cannabis for medical use. This victory signaled a significant step forward for medical marijuana in the state.
Legislative Interference
Shortly thereafter, Governor Fife Symington—newly pardoned from a federal conviction—enabled the legislature to add an almost impossible requirement: FDA approval. Given cannabis’s Schedule I classification, obtaining FDA approval was virtually out of reach. This legislative maneuver effectively nullified the voters’ wishes and delayed medical marijuana implementation by more than a decade.
Key Takeaway
Arizona’s experience illustrates how a state government can undermine voters’ will by layering impractical conditions on a newly passed law. It set a precedent for other states wary of legislative “poison pills” that make implementation nearly impossible.
Florida’s Long Road to Legalization
Medical Marijuana and Amendment 2
In 2016, Florida voters gave a decisive 71.3% vote in favor of Amendment 2, legalizing medical cannabis. Despite the clear mandate, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi contested the amendment, citing public safety. Although her challenge failed, it dragged the measure through time-consuming legal battles.
2024 Recreational Vote
By 2023, activists—bolstered by major funding from Trulieve—aimed to add recreational marijuana to the 2024 ballot. After gathering more than a million signatures, they successfully placed the initiative before voters. Attorney General Ashley Moody called the proposal misleading, but the Florida Supreme Court allowed it to move forward.
The measure ultimately secured 55.9% support in 2024, falling short of Florida’s 60% threshold for constitutional amendments. In addition, Governor Ron DeSantis allocated $12 million in state funds to oppose the amendment, citing concerns about public safety and “Big Weed.”
Key Takeaway
Florida’s example highlights how constitutional percentage thresholds and well-funded opposition campaigns can create significant headwinds—even when public support is strong.
South Dakota’s Roller-Coaster Ride
Amendment A’s Initial Success
South Dakota made history in 2020 by approving Amendment A with 54% support, opening the door for recreational marijuana, home cultivation of up to three plants, and an accompanying medical program.
Governor Noem’s Opposition
Governor Kristi Noem immediately fought the measure. Through Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller, the administration sued, arguing the amendment violated the single-subject rule. A judge appointed by Noem ruled against the initiative, a decision the South Dakota Supreme Court later upheld.
The Second Attempt
In 2022, Measure 27 tried once more to legalize recreational cannabis. This time, only 47% of voters supported it, following a protracted campaign that emphasized perceived risks of legalization.
Key Takeaway
South Dakota underscores the power governors hold to challenge voter-approved laws—often under the banner of legal technicalities.
Virginia’s Halted Progress
The First Southern State to Legalize
Virginia made headlines in 2021 when Governor Ralph Northam signed legislation to legalize recreational marijuana. Residents could possess up to an ounce and cultivate four plants at home starting July 1 of that year. However, establishing a retail market required future legislative action.
Governor Youngkin’s Veto
Governor Glenn Youngkin’s election in late 2021 put these plans in limbo. Although 63% of Virginians expressed support for a regulated cannabis marketplace, Youngkin vetoed several 2024 bills that would have structured legal cannabis sales. As of 2025, Virginia remains caught between a legal right to possess cannabis and a lack of a formal system to buy or sell it.
Key Takeaway
Virginia demonstrates how shifting political leadership can stall or reverse the progress of newly passed cannabis laws—leaving residents and businesses in regulatory limbo.
Mississippi’s Ongoing Legalization Challenges
A Strong Mandate for Medical Cannabis
In November 2020, Mississippi voters passed Initiative 65 by a 74% majority, intending to implement a medical cannabis program.
Court-Ordered Invalidity
In May 2021, the Mississippi Supreme Court struck down Initiative 65 due to a technical ballot procedure rule. The court pointed out that the signature-gathering requirement—based on five congressional districts—was outdated since the state only has four districts now.
Key Takeaway
Mississippi highlights how technicalities embedded in state constitutions or statutes can become the basis for judicial decisions that overturn well-supported voter initiatives.
Ohio’s Recent Setbacks
Issue 2 and Its Initial Success
Ohio voters legalized recreational marijuana in 2023 through Issue 2, garnering 57% approval. Sales kicked off in August 2024, amassing $346 million in revenue. The law allowed possession of up to 2.5 ounces, home cultivation of up to 12 plants, and licensed dispensaries across the state.
Senate Bill 56 Changes the Rules
In early 2025, Ohio Senate Republicans passed Senate Bill 56, reducing allowable THC levels in extracts from 90% to 70%, capping home grows at six plants, and limiting retail packages to 100 mg of THC. Proponents of the bill—led by Senator Steve Huffman—claimed voters had misunderstood the original provisions. The measure also banned out-of-state cannabis imports and diverted tax funds away from addiction treatment programs, despite widespread public disapproval. It quickly advanced to the House, supported by Speaker Matt Huffman.
Key Takeaway
Ohio showcases how legislatures can effectively dilute voter-approved measures through piecemeal regulations, often under the argument that the public did not fully grasp what they were voting for.
Common Tactics Used to Undermine Cannabis Initiatives
-
Judicial Challenges
Lawsuits often cite constitutional or procedural technicalities to invalidate newly passed measures, as seen in South Dakota and Mississippi. -
Legislative Amendments
State legislatures can add restrictive provisions or undo core elements of an approved law, exemplified by Arizona’s post-passage FDA requirement and Ohio’s THC limits. -
Executive Opposition
Governors can veto or delay critical legislation needed for a voter-approved measure to take effect, as demonstrated in Florida and Virginia.
These approaches can stall the rollout of legalization for years, draining resources, eroding public trust in the democratic process, and leaving consumers and businesses in legal limbo.
FAQs
1. Why do some elected officials oppose voter-approved cannabis measures?
Reasons range from public health and safety concerns to political pressures and ideological stances. Influential interest groups may also play a role.
2. Can voters fight back against legislative or executive overrides?
Yes. Mechanisms vary by state but often include referendums, ballot initiatives, or electing new representatives who support legalization.
3. Are there any states where implementation went smoothly?
Several states have successfully established medical and recreational programs without significant government pushback, though local nuances differ widely.
4. What legal options are available when courts invalidate a measure?
Appeals to higher courts, constitutional amendments, and reintroducing updated initiatives in subsequent elections are common strategies.
5. Does federal law protect state-level cannabis legalization?
At present, cannabis remains a Schedule I substance under federal law, creating conflicts with state legalization. Congressional efforts to reconcile these differences continue.
Final Thoughts
The saga of cannabis legalization reveals an ongoing tug-of-war between voter mandates and political power. Cases like Arizona, Florida, South Dakota, Virginia, Mississippi, and Ohio illustrate a consistent pattern: when public sentiment favors legalization, certain elected officials still find ways to override or dilute those outcomes.
For advocates and citizens alike, vigilance is key. Staying informed, supporting advocacy organizations, and voting for leaders who respect the electorate’s will can help safeguard the progress already made. As the national conversation evolves, it’s crucial for every supporter of legal cannabis to remain engaged, ensuring that the democratic process truly reflects the will of the people.
