Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Ohio to vote on legalizing marijuana November 3.


DieHardBrownsFan

Recommended Posts

 

Ohio to vote on legalizing marijuana

Anne Saker, The Cincinnati Enquirer5:07 p.m. EDT August 12, 2015

 

B9318408175Z.1_20150811141042_000_G81BJE

(Photo: File)

1522CONNECT 257TWEET 6LINKEDIN 23COMMENTEMAILMORE

CINCINNATI — Ohio voters will decide Nov. 3 whether to legalize marijuana with a constitutional amendment to institute a revolutionary proposal that backers say will create a billion-dollar industry in the next four years.

Secretary of State Jon Husted said Wednesday the private investor group ResponsibleOhio had collected 320,267 signatures of registered voters, 14,676 more than necessary to qualify for the general-election ballot. ResponsibleOhio has spent more than $2 million since March on the petition drive to put its proposed amendment before voters.

After Husted certified the petition result, Ian James, the group's executive director, issued a statement:

"It's time for marijuana legalization in Ohio, and voters will have the opportunity to make it happen this November — we couldn't be more excited. ... By reforming marijuana laws in November, we'll provide compassionate care to sick Ohioans, bring money back to our local communities and establish a new industry with limitless economic development opportunities."

The Ohio Ballot Board is scheduled to meet Aug. 18 to determine ResponsibleOhio's ballot language.

The ambitious campaign by ResponsibleOhio is the best-financed effort in the nation’s history to push back against the 1937 federal ban on marijuana. If voters say yes, the Buckeye State will be the sixth and, with nearly 11.6 million residents, the most populous jurisdiction to legalize marijuana, joining Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska and the District of Columbia.

ResponsibleOhio’s investors have pledged to spend $20 million in the 83 days until Nov. 3 on a sophisticated election effort, including a bus tour, Internet advertising, television and radio advertising, voter registration drives and door-to-door canvassing.

The group’s televised pitches began Aug. 6 during a nationally broadcast debate of Republican primary candidates in Cleveland, before all the petition signatures had been counted.

But what could be the biggest hurdle to legalization also is on the Nov. 3 ballot. In June, the Ohio Legislature quickly wrote and placed on the ballot a measure that would prohibit “a monopoly, oligopoly or cartel” in Ohio, especially involving any federally controlled substance, such as marijuana.

Husted has said that if voters pass both measures, the legislative initiative would take precedence, although ResponsibleOhio disputes that evaluation. If both measures pass, the dispute will go to court.

James and proponents of the Marijuana Legalization Amendment say a legal industry would produce economic and social benefits and save the millions of dollars now spent policing the black market and imprisoning people for low-level offenses.

A ResponsibleOhio task force, led by Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters, has forecast that a legal industry in Ohio could generate more than $2 billion a year by 2020.

The most controversial aspect of ResponsibleOhio’s proposal is a limit on the cultivation of the commercial crop to 10 farms, which are named in the amendment. Opponents have called this structure a monopoly, meaning owned by one, although the correct economic term is oligopoly, meaning owned by a few.

The farms have been purchased or put under purchase option by at least 20 wealthy investors, including reality-TV star Nick Lachey, former NBA star Oscar Robertson, NFL player Frostee Rucker, local philanthropist Barbara Gould, fashion designer and Youngstown native Nanette Lapore, Covington beer and wine distributor Jennifer Doering and two descendants of President William Howard Taft, Woody and Dudley Taft Jr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Not entirely familiar with whether the amendment bypasses or requires approval from the Ohio House of Representatives and Senate, but from what I've heard from one of the two physicians in the House, the likelihood of this passing them is zero. The house chair is far too conservative to allow for it.

 

The evidence for clinical efficacy is mixed per a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26103030

 

As for me, I'm inclined to vote for it as it's taking money away from the cartels, but I do share concerns about it creating a monopoly like we have with the casinos. Here's a Time article about the controversy: http://time.com/3921751/ohio-marijuana-ballot-measure/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does getting high lead to the same dangers as heart disease and drunk driving?

I don't think he was making that point but I could be wrong.

 

Time to legalize this shit. It is not healthy but neither is booze and cigs. Weed is safer than alchohol, not addictive like cigs, and it is giving money to drug cartels. It makes sense so clearly our government is going to go against all reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you agree drunk driving is bad correct? So you think it would be better if we still have drunk driving and up the ante with stoned driving?

In your zeal I think you're forgetting we already have the first two negatives with pot you will just have a third negative. That's all. Unless you think there is absolutely no downside to smoking pot.

 

And if that's the case then it doesn't matter. Even if it is the case I think people should be free to be stupid.

 

But I still don't want to see people who can't cope with the real world and have to be taken care of by the government spend that money on cigarettes booze or weed. I think that's a fair request.

 

(But that's another issue)

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the weed zealots, I really don't give a s*** about how much dope you smoked or how much you love it. I don't think it should be against the law. I just cant take it as seriously as you guys do.

 

Generally the people I know who smoke a lot of dope seem stupid to me. Drunks seems stupid to me. Cigarette smokers seemed really stupid to me.

 

(PS just for the record Woodrow did you just post me a study involving 19 people? I'm sure Cal could find 19 scientists the think global warming is a hoax. ;) )

 

But as to the norml propaganda sure there are less cases of stoned smoking. Probably lots more people drink than smoke pot and probably lots more people take a breathalyzer than a blood test.

 

So if you weed warriors would have no problem with somebody getting smoked up and driving a school bus, who cares?

 

(Still I don't want people on welfare spending their meager allowances on whiskey cigs or weed.)

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As little bit of a shit as I could possibly give it is funny to hear the lefties whine about somebody making money from this stupid shit.

 

WSS

I think the push back is that it wont be free enterprise, but is gonna be controlled by 10 "pre-determined" investors.....and all the pot grown, bought and sold in Ohio will be produced by these 10 "investors" only.....they will be selling shares, so others can invest, but guess who gets the money from the shares ???....they'll make millions before even one seed is produced........so, is it fair to give all the business income to just 10 individuals.....????

 

Sounds like a good guy deal to me that will make the rich richer and not allow others to benefit from the income potential....

 

Can you think of any other products that are a monopoly from day one???........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the push back is that it wont be free enterprise, but is gonna be controlled by 10 "pre-determined" investors.....and all the pot grown, bought and sold in Ohio will be produced by these 10 "investors" only.....they will be selling shares, so others can invest, but guess who gets the money from the shares ???....they'll make millions before even one seed is produced........so, is it fair to give all the business income to just 10 individuals.....????

 

Sounds like a good guy deal to me that will make the rich richer and not allow others to benefit from the income potential....

 

Can you think of any other products that are a monopoly from day one???........

Cable television and Internet?

Casino gambling?

Public transportation and taxi cabs?

 

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...