bbedward Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 I guess technically it's an oligopoly, but the popular word was monopoly for some reason. All we have now is hind sight, medical should have come first because it would have passed in a landslide and made recreational easier down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 When I was filling in my ballot today I couldn't believe it said "establishes a monopoly..." right at the top of the amendment in the big text. Once I saw that I knew it was over for 3 - low information voters likely would have said NO off the bat, not counting the other challenges 3 faced. I think 18-30 voters failed to turn out as usual too. I'm in that demographic and a lot of my friends from all across the political spectrum voted against it because of the ramifications of the monopoly. If the bill wasn't hijacked by responsible ohio, I would have voted for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 I'm in that demographic and a lot of my friends from all across the political spectrum voted against it because of the ramifications of the monopoly. If the bill wasn't hijacked by responsible ohio, I would have voted for it. I ended up voting for it, but was widely against it for awhile. Mainly because I thought Ohio would be a big stepping stone for our neighbors and federally in terms of legalization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 One of my friends voted for both because he wanted to see it go to the Supreme Court. I thought that was an interesting take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 It's too bad. They overreached in the worst way. LIberals.... it was supposed to be about medicinal use early on, and became inclusive of casual use across the board, then talked about monopolies to make it more... palatable? Or, they had skin in the game? Ready to invest in those monopolies? I would have voted for issue three, if it had been for medicinal use only. And issue two... would make it illegal.... for any individual to do whatever to create a monopoly........... I was trying to vote for that, and couldn't figure out what the hell I do... flipping a coin wasn't my style. so, I ignored that one. Then I decided, that issue two was a left handed way of getting rid of the monopolies in issue one, by trojan horse. Or something. I didn't vote either way on two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 Why should only the 10 richest groups of people who are capable of mass producing marijuana be allowed to do so? What about the 11th richest? 12th? 30th? Last time I checked, competition is a good thing for the customers. When Kasich relaxed the brewery restrictions, the craft beer scene got a lot better. Also, early results, with 28% reporting has issue 3 at 66% no, issue 2 at 52% yes. This does not include many of the more populated counties. The bold is why I think Issue 3 went down in flames. The anti-dopers saw this angle as the only possible way to shoot it down- and succeeded. They made it look like a cash grab by the people promoting the bill. An Alaska or Colorado style bill would have had a much better chance of success. Let's talk about the weather too- I live in a neighborhood with more than it's share of senior citizens- those more likely to vote no. I was shocked about the turnout when I went to vote. BTW, heard on CNN California will be voting on a recreational pot bill soon, and if that domino falls, national legalization won't be far behind. With Issue 2 passing, Responsible Ohio is going to have to rewrite their game plan. Wonder if the initial investors will still have the hots to proceed- now that they're not guaranteed exclusivity rights. LOL auction off grow permits to the highest bidders? Or, say- we'll give you a grow permit for $10k, as long as you don't exceed X production. Sort of like tobacco permits used to be handled. I'm in that demographic and a lot of my friends from all across the political spectrum voted against it because of the ramifications of the monopoly. If the bill wasn't hijacked by responsible ohio, I would have voted for it. Yup. I think Steve had a crystal ball when he said- medical marijuana comes up for a vote next year- and drug companies will be selling the stuff. For those that want a recreational high- I'm sure some of those pill mill docs will be more than glad to write you a 'scrip for the stuff instead of oxycontin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 what are you talking about? "Liberals" being responsible for another monopoly? Because we all know that big govt liberals aren't the ones always going after monopolies right? Oh wait..... Dude seriously is it possible for you to write one single paragraph that isn't politicizing something against liberals? We're gonna play a game from now on where I shout something out and you tell me why liberals are responsible. Here we go.......ASTROIDS!! Tell me how liberals are responsible for asteroid strikes....GO It's too bad. They overreached in the worst way. LIberals.... it was supposed to be about medicinal use early on, and became inclusive of casual use across the board, then talked about monopolies to make it more... palatable? Or, they had skin in the game? Ready to invest in those monopolies? I would have voted for issue three, if it had been for medicinal use only. And issue two... would make it illegal.... for any individual to do whatever to create a monopoly........... I was trying to vote for that, and couldn't figure out what the hell I do... flipping a coin wasn't my style. so, I ignored that one. Then I decided, that issue two was a left handed way of getting rid of the monopolies in issue one, by trojan horse. Or something. I didn't vote either way on two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 what are you talking about? "Liberals" being responsible for another monopoly? Because we all know that big govt liberals aren't the ones always going after monopolies right? Oh wait..... Dude seriously is it possible for you to write one single paragraph that isn't politicizing something against liberals? We're gonna play a game from now on where I shout something out and you tell me why liberals are responsible. Here we go.......ASTROIDS!! Tell me how liberals are responsible for asteroid strikes....GO Any issue that you support in the future just tell Cal that liberals are against. Anything you don't support tell him that liberals are for it. It's like casting two votes But I do agree medical only should have been on the ballot, it would have passed with flying colors. Not sure why it's so hard for the people to get what they want here in Ohio, support for medical is like 80/20 in favor. Support for recreational is closer to 52 in favor with the rest against or undecided. We'd be in much better position for recreational had we passed medical first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 I sometimes think he has dreams about being Paul Revere riding through the country side yelling the liberals are coming the liberals are coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 what are you talking about? "Liberals" being responsible for another monopoly? Cleve ********************************** Eh... because liberals wrote issue 3. And liberals put in there about the monopoly biz. Therefore, they are responsible for it being in there. That's why they didn't like issue 2.... Take your time....let the knee jerky fade away..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 No doubt about it, this was killed by the Liberals. They've hitched their wagon to the income inequality horse. Cut off their noses to spite their faces. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 http://www.drugs.com/schedule-2-drugs.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 what are you talking about? "Liberals" being responsible for another monopoly? Cleve ********************************** Eh... because liberals wrote issue 3. And liberals put in there about the monopoly biz. Therefore, they are responsible for it being in there. That's why they didn't like issue 2.... Take your time....let the knee jerky fade away..... Are you incapable of distinguishing between people who are actually liberals...or conservatives for that matter.....vs people who say whatever shit they need to say to make a buck? It's ok, take your time....let the geritol kick in, it's early afterall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 No doubt about it, this was killed by the Liberals. They've hitched their wagon to the income inequality horse. Cut off their noses to spite their faces. WSS Or by greedy people who wanted to establish a lucrative monopoly and had the connections in Columbus to get that done? Why is it that crony capitalism sucks....till it doesn't? I'm continually amazed at the circuitous principles of certain people here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 I thought the commercial with Nick Lachey talking about all the benefits of passing issue 3 was dishonest as he left out the financial windfall he was going to receive as being an investor in one of the 10 marijuana farms. A statewide TV ad paid for by marijuana amendment backer ResponsibleOhio features Cincinnati-native Nick Lachey, but critics argue that it fails to mention his stake as an investor who would benefit financially from the proposal’s passage. In January, ResponsibleOhio listed the former boy band member as a key investor in its plan to legalize medicinal and recreational marijuana in the state. A spokesman for Lachey confirmed to newnet5.com that he is an investor in the Summit Co. growing center which is one of 10 growing centers that would be created by the passage of ballot Issue 3. http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-cuyahoga/nick-lachey-pro-issue-3-tv-commercial-fails-to-mention-that-he-is-an-investor-in-proposed-pot-site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 aha ! Like I figured..."skin in the game".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 Are you incapable of distinguishing between people who are actually liberals Cleve **************************************************** Are you claiming that all voters who voted for issue 3 are not liberals, and not wanting to make a buck? Are you unable to stop changing subjects??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 No doubt about it, this was killed by the Liberals. They've hitched their wagon to the income inequality horse. Cut off their noses to spite their faces. WSS The large margin by which it was defeated does not support your point. There are still too many older folks who are 100% against recreational pot. Even if the oligopoly wasn't attached to the bill, I don't think it would've passed this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 Or by greedy people who wanted to establish a lucrative monopoly and had the connections in Columbus to get that done? Why is it that crony capitalism sucks....till it doesn't? I'm continually amazed at the circuitous principles of certain people here. There's not one product, one service for one prescription drug that's not making somebody a lot of money. Sorry you dipshit think that's because it's weed, man, the everybody should be able to produce and sell it. But why bitch? The hippies and the income inequality gang got their way! WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 The large margin by which it was defeated does not support your point. There are still too many older folks who are 100% against recreational pot. Even if the oligopoly wasn't attached to the bill, I don't think it would've passed this year. Maybe it was defeated by one of the side effects of smoking the ship in the first place. Too fucking stupid to understand the bill and too fucking lazy to go vote even if they did. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 If the liberals had cared, they would have put forth a medical use only bill, and tried again later for rec use. Too bad for those who really need it for medical use. Libs don't really care. It's all about them and what they get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 And another group it benefits is weed dealers. Still a relatively low risk and high profit crime. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 There's not one product, one service for one prescription drug that's not making somebody a lot of money. Sorry you dipshit think that's because it's weed, man, the everybody should be able to produce and sell it. But why bitch? The hippies and the income inequality gang got their way! WSS Who's bitching? I'm happy with the result. Weed will make the ballot again in the next 5-10 years, and it'll pass without the oligopoly. Until then, everyone who's mad about it can continue to smoke weed illegally. There's no reason that family farms who have the land and capability to grow it should be restricted from doing so by the state government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 There's no reason that family farms who have the land and capability to grow it should be restricted from doing so by the state government. ^^This. Was there even a personal use clause for a couple plants in the bill that got voted down? I heard there was and than I heard there wasn't. Which means it's vague....and vagueness to me means we'll see how it effects the market winners we chose. If too many people grew their own plants it'll be shortly illegal to grow your own plants. As disappointed as I am that we don't get legal weed here, this bill was horseshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 There's not one product, one service for one prescription drug that's not making somebody a lot of money. Sorry you dipshit think that's because it's weed, man, the everybody should be able to produce and sell it. But why bitch? The hippies and the income inequality gang got their way! WSS No I get it dude, crony capitalism is sweet.....hear you loud and clear bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 Who's bitching? I'm happy with the result. Weed will make the ballot again in the next 5-10 years, and it'll pass without the oligopoly. Until then, everyone who's mad about it can continue to smoke weed illegally. There's no reason that family farms who have the land and capability to grow it should be restricted from doing so by the state government. Or by the 10 "cartel" members who wanted to write their exclusivity rights into the state constitution. That won't happen now. IMHO a large reason the bill got shot down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 There's not one product, one service for one prescription drug that's not making somebody a lot of money. Sorry you dipshit think that's because it's weed, man, the everybody should be able to produce and sell it. But why bitch? The hippies and the income inequality gang got their way! WSS I've noticed your typings been off on multiple posts lately, you baking yourself there westside? And in any case, yes anybody should be able to grow and sell A PLANT. This isn't an industrial product. There's no reason, if I so chose...that I couldn't grow plants in my backyard and sell it to my neighbors. I mean again, we are talking about the free market in it's most pure....you should be gently rolling your nipples between thumb and forefinger at the thought of such a free enterprise. Or are you a super sekret pinko commie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 RO mainly had to campaign against all the monopoly arguments and issue 2. There was no room for them to actually talk about the benefits. There'll be a better amendment, but it's so difficult to get on the ballot without the financial backing so we'll see. It will probably be legally federally pretty soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 Who's bitching? I'm happy with the result. Weed will make the ballot again in the next 5-10 years, and it'll pass without the oligopoly. Until then, everyone who's mad about it can continue to smoke weed illegally. There's no reason that family farms who have the land and capability to grow it should be restricted from doing so by the state government. Not particularly from you guys but I've heard people bitching and bitching and bitching today. 5/10 years? As I said it doesn't affect me so roll the dice kiddies. I wouldn't be surprised if it just passes for medical. Pfizer, Lilly etc have more money than 3 jerkoffs with a few acres of land. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 Not particularly from you guys but I've heard people bitching and bitching and bitching today. 5/10 years? As I said it doesn't affect me so roll the dice kiddies. I wouldn't be surprised if it just passes for medical. Pfizer, Lilly etc have more money than 3 jerkoffs with a few acres of land. WSS Something like ~80% of Ohioans support medical marijuana - including Cal. Why the hell can't we get it on the ballot here in Ohio It would make any future recreational bill so much easier. In 5-10 years I believe it will be legal everywhere federally and locally. The oligopoly that 3 would have established would have been gone after the first 4 years if I understand correctly anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.