What ballot summary did Missouri approve for petition 2026-142 on marijuana rights, expungement, and tax revenue?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2025. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Missouri law, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Missouri Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway approved the legal content and form of the proposed ballot summary for Eapen Thampy's initiative petition 2026-142, version 2 of an Article XIV amendment.
The approved summary said the proposal would repeal current medical- and adult-use-marijuana provisions and recognize individual rights to use, possess, and cultivate marijuana. It would require the legislature to enact unified regulation by 2027 or make those activities constitutionally lawful if the legislature failed to act.
The summary also described removing license caps, possession limits, and mandatory seed-to-sale tracking; automatically expunging prior nonviolent marijuana offenses; and dedicating tax revenue to veterans, addiction treatment, and public-defense programs.
The Attorney General's review under § 116.334, RSMo was limited to legal content and form and did not endorse the proposal.
What this means for you
Cannabis businesses
The approved wording described proposed removal of license caps, possession limits, and mandatory seed-to-sale tracking. The opinion itself did not change those rules.
People with prior nonviolent marijuana offenses
The summary described automatic expungement as part of the proposal. The opinion approved only the wording.
Voters and ballot-measure researchers
Opinion 325-2025 records the approved five-part description, including the 2027 legislative deadline and dedicated tax revenue.
Common questions
Q: Did version 2 mention hemp rights?
A: No. The approved summary described marijuana use, possession, cultivation, offenses, and tax revenues.
Q: What happened if the legislature did not enact unified laws by 2027?
A: The summary said the covered activities would become constitutionally lawful.
Q: Where would tax revenues go?
A: Veterans, addiction treatment, and public-defense programs.
Background and statutory framework
The Secretary of State requested review on October 15, 2025. The proposed summary concerned Eapen Thampy's petition 2026-142, version 2, to amend Article XIV of the Missouri Constitution.
The Attorney General issued Opinion 325-2025 on October 27, 2025 and approved the summary's legal content and form under § 116.334, RSMo.
Citations and references
Statute: § 116.334, RSMo.
Source
- Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/325-2025.pdf
Original opinion text
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
CATHERINE L. HANAWAY
October 27, 2025
OPINION LETTER NO. 325-2025
The Honorable Denny Hoskins, CPA
Missouri Secretary of State
James C. Kirkpatrick State Information Center
600 West Main Street
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Dear Secretary Hoskins:
This opinion letter responds to your request dated October 15, 2025, for our review under § 116.334, RSMo, of a proposed summary statement prepared for the petition submitted by Eapen Thampy (2026-142) regarding a proposed amendment to amend Article XIV, version 2, of the Missouri Constitution. The proposed summary statement is as follows:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to repeal current provisions governing medical and adult-use marijuana and instead:
- recognize individual rights to use, possess, and cultivate marijuana;
- require the legislature to enact unified laws for its regulation by 2027 or, failing that, make such activities constitutionally lawful;
- remove license caps, possession limits, and mandatory seed-to-sale tracking;
- provide for automatic expungement of prior non-violent marijuana offenses; and
- dedicate tax revenues to veterans, addiction treatment, and public defense programs?
Pursuant to § 116.334, RSMo, we approve the legal content and form of the proposed statement. Because our review of the statement is mandated by statute, no action that we take with respect to such review should be construed as an endorsement of the petition, nor as the expression of any view regarding the objectives of its proponents.
Very truly yours,
CATHERINE L. HANAWAY
Attorney General
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2025 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Missouri statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.