Welcome admin !

It is currently Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:49 pm
Pathway:  Board index General Discussion Forum and Lounge Current Events & Politics

Ohio Legal Pot Ballot - No On 2 Yes On 3

Ohio Legal Pot Ballot - No On 2 Yes On 3

Postby partofit22 on Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:59 am

Among the ballot measures for the current election in Ohio is Issue 3, which:

Legalizes the limited sale and use of marijuana and creates 10 facilities with exclusive commercial rights to grow marijuana.

But that plain and accurate summary -- from Ballotpedia -- is not what Ohio voters will find on the ballot. Instead, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted has endorsed this language:

Grants a monopoly for the commercial production and sale of marijuana for recreational and medicinal purposes.

So, instead of leading with what is clearly the main thrust of the issue -- to legalize marijuana, Husted has led with a secondary point, and has done so with the negative and inaccurate word -- "monopoly." The ten separate growing companies that Issue 3 licenses would be banned by federal law from collusion, and would likely be in brisk competition among themselves. Clearly, that is not the description of a "monopoly," where one company controls a market. Also, Husted's ballot summary would leave you to believe that the "monopoly" was selling to the public. But Issue 3 strictly limits the ten companies to growing and wholesale. There would be some 1100 licensed retail outlets for selling to the public. A third problem with Husted's ballot text is that it leaves the main effect of the Issue on the broad population to the second sentence (which I have boldfaced) of the fourth bullet point:

* Allow each person, 21 years of age or older, to, grow, cultivate, use, possess, and share up to eight ounces of usable homegrown marijuana plus four flowering marijuana plants if the person holds a valid state license. Allow each person, 21 years of age or older, to purchase, possess, transport, use, and share up to 1 ounce of marijuana for recreational use. Authorize the use of medical marijuana by any person, regardless of age, who has a certification for a debilitating medical condition.

In addition to Husted's tricky ballot language, the Ohio legislature has (with Republicans voting 84-0 for it, and Democrats voting 21-18 against it) placed Issue 2 on the ballot to cancel Issue 3, which was placed on the ballot by initiative petition. Issue 2 would curtail direct democracy by banning "an initiated constitutional amendment that would grant a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel, specify or determine a tax rate, or confer a commercial interest, right, or license to any person or nonpublic entity." The issue empowers the ballot board, which is chaired by the secretary of state, to declare an initiative in violation of that ban, and to require voters to pass two questions in order to pass the initiative. The first question would ask the voters to authorize the initiative issue's "violation ... of the Ohio Constitution," and the second would be the issue itself. In addition, Issue 2 expressly says that any issue involving a "federal Schedule I controlled substance" in this November 3, 2015 election that is in violation of Issue 2's new rule -- in other words, Issue 3 -- would not take effect. So the Ohio General Assembly has created a situation where two issues could pass, and only one could take effect in total. Secretary Husted has publicly declared that if both pass, Issue 2, being placed by the legislature, would take effect immediately and cancel Issue 3. But, it seems to me that the vote on Issue 3 should decide Issue 3, and that Issue 2 would, at the least, have to be implemented without its special clause to cancel Issue 3, if not be thrown out entirely. Maybe an impartial judge would also see it that way.

This whole mess created by Husted and the General Assembly is ripe for irony. One irony would see supporters of legal marijuana that are fired up against the supposed "monopoly" vote "No", and cause marijuana to remain illegal in Ohio for years to come. Another would see, in some future year, a marijuana initiative with a more open market for growing pass, and Ohioans end up with less competition than they would have had with Issue 3. As the capitalistic process of bigger fish swallowing or starving smaller fish went on, Ohioans would be left with a choice between Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds -- two huge nationwide companies instead of ten small regional ones. A third irony would see Issue 2 pass, and Secretary Husted, through a ballot mess that he had a major hand in creating, bestowed with yet another trick in his bag for thwarting direct democracy and the will of the people.

http://theparagraph.com/2015/10/husted-general-assembly-create-ohio-legal-pot-ballot-mess-ripe-for-irony/
partofit22
 
Posts: 4551
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: Ohio Legal Pot Ballot - No On 2 Yes On 3

Postby Avisitor on Tue Nov 03, 2015 2:08 pm

Freedom ... that is the price we pay
Disclaimer: There is no intent to be offensive in my posts. None was intended and none should be interpreted as such.
Sorry, got a message that I was not being PC.
User avatar
Avisitor
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:43 pm
Location: Albany, NY

Re: Ohio Legal Pot Ballot - No On 2 Yes On 3

Postby fukasetsu on Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:36 pm

Where's the irony? I don't comprehend newsy English very well.
Mijn Oude Vriend uit de woestijn begrijpt geen Nederlands. <3
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 6493
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Ohio Legal Pot Ballot - No On 2 Yes On 3

Postby desert_woodworker on Thu Nov 05, 2015 5:16 pm

I hear that Ohio voters felt there was enough "hi" (high) in Ohio.

But I forget the margin by which they voted the proposition down.

Ohio is not Colorado, people are saying. ;)

--Joe
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: Ohio Legal Pot Ballot - No On 2 Yes On 3

Postby partofit22 on Fri Nov 06, 2015 6:10 am

desert_woodworker wrote:I hear that Ohio voters felt there was enough "hi" (high) in Ohio.

But I forget the margin by which they voted the proposition down.

Ohio is not Colorado, people are saying. ;)

--Joe


You have to say "hi" first to Ohioans otherwise they'll walk right on past- :heya: So, no .. not enough hi in Ohio just yet ..
partofit22
 
Posts: 4551
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: Ohio Legal Pot Ballot - No On 2 Yes On 3

Postby desert_woodworker on Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:07 pm

In Japanese, "Ohayo" is "Good morning".

--Joe
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: Ohio Legal Pot Ballot - No On 2 Yes On 3

Postby desert_woodworker on Mon Nov 09, 2015 9:39 pm

I see that the vote results were 2-to-1 against State legalization (Issue 3).

--Joe

Ohio_vote.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: Ohio Legal Pot Ballot - No On 2 Yes On 3

Postby partofit22 on Mon Nov 09, 2015 11:41 pm

Yes, those are the results- The majority of voters polled support legalization but voted against legalization due to the way in which it was proposed- The wording on the ballot made it sound like if it were to be legalized the selling / distribution of it would operate like corporation / monopoly- So ..
partofit22
 
Posts: 4551
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: Ohio Legal Pot Ballot - No On 2 Yes On 3

Postby desert_woodworker on Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:21 am

P., Teresa,

partofit22 wrote:Yes, those are the results- The majority of voters polled support legalization but voted against legalization due to the way in which it was proposed- The wording on the ballot made it sound like if it were to be legalized the selling / distribution of it would operate like corporation / monopoly- So ..

Right, I saw issue 2, and thought that the package of 2 and 3 would confuse a lot of people. Dunno.

Of course, money is to be made by many, and, so, the issue will appear -- reappear -- again on a ballot near you, soon, I suspect.

I sense it's all about money. Not about getting high, or growing collie-weed in one's (protected) yard. Tax. Taxation. And more taxation. The look and appearance and gloss of civil respectability! 55 percent to the General Fund, or sumpthin', I read. 15 percent to keep marijuana from getting out of hand ("control"). Another fraction to "counties".

I.e., a boondoggle, quite as usual, wherever we see these initiatives. Extort peoples' addictive habits to fund dubious government movements.

Call me a cynic! But justified.

I have no horse in these races. I just don't care. Well, to me, the fewer "stupid-on-stupid"-high a-holes around -- the better, and, with State-sanction! -- the worse. But, noticing! It's enough to have to put up w/ Drunks.

Yeah, dunno if Government can "protect us from everything". But, likewise, I'm dubious about what Government -- the People! -- should "sanction".

"Cheers", :tongueincheek:

--Joe
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: Ohio Legal Pot Ballot - No On 2 Yes On 3

Postby partofit22 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 4:39 am

desert_woodworker wrote:P., Teresa,

partofit22 wrote:Yes, those are the results- The majority of voters polled support legalization but voted against legalization due to the way in which it was proposed- The wording on the ballot made it sound like if it were to be legalized the selling / distribution of it would operate like corporation / monopoly- So ..

Right, I saw issue 2, and thought that the package of 2 and 3 would confuse a lot of people. Dunno.

Of course, money is to be made by many, and, so, the issue will appear -- reappear -- again on a ballot near you, soon, I suspect.

I sense it's all about money. Not about getting high, or growing collie-weed in one's (protected) yard. Tax. Taxation. And more taxation. The look and appearance and gloss of civil respectability! 55 percent to the General Fund, or sumpthin', I read. 15 percent to keep marijuana from getting out of hand ("control"). Another fraction to "counties".

I.e., a boondoggle, quite as usual, wherever we see these initiatives. Extort peoples' addictive habits to fund dubious government movements.

Call me a cynic! But justified.

I have no horse in these races. I just don't care. Well, to me, the fewer "stupid-on-stupid"-high a-holes around -- the better, and, with State-sanction! -- the worse. But, noticing! It's enough to have to put up w/ Drunks.

Yeah, dunno if Government can "protect us from everything". But, likewise, I'm dubious about what Government -- the People! -- should "sanction".

"Cheers", :tongueincheek:

--Joe


Every taxpayer has a horse in the race, Joe-
partofit22
 
Posts: 4551
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: Ohio Legal Pot Ballot - No On 2 Yes On 3

Postby desert_woodworker on Tue Nov 10, 2015 4:51 am

hiya, P., Teresa,

partofit22 wrote:Every taxpayer has a horse in the race, Joe-

Sure, yerright, but as an Arizonan, I have no part in Ohio politics, or Laws. It's been presumptuous of me to even comment on them. Apologies... .

I have no horses in Ohio!

In Arizona, I have ...cats. ;)

And lizards.

--Joe
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: Ohio Legal Pot Ballot - No On 2 Yes On 3

Postby Linda Anderson on Tue Nov 10, 2015 6:30 am

hello,
tax payers don't have a lot of horses in the race these days.... it's all smoke and mirrors... and, misinformation. Years ago, today Al Gore won the Presidental election... that is until it was rigged. Kentucky appears to be rigged as well this week.... fear mongers, all.... pay attention.

If only ppl would vote on facts or even vote at all .... dog help us if we don't get a clue before the BIG election. Tho I have good feelings that it's a no-brainer... the world is getting a clue!!
Not last night,
not this morning;
Melon flowers bloomed.
~ Bassho
User avatar
Linda Anderson
 
Posts: 3649
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:14 pm
Location: Forestville, CA

Re: Ohio Legal Pot Ballot - No On 2 Yes On 3

Postby partofit22 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 6:21 pm

Linda Anderson wrote:hello,
tax payers don't have a lot of horses in the race these days.... it's all smoke and mirrors... and, misinformation. Years ago, today Al Gore won the Presidental election... that is until it was rigged. Kentucky appears to be rigged as well this week.... fear mongers, all.... pay attention.

If only ppl would vote on facts or even vote at all .... dog help us if we don't get a clue before the BIG election. Tho I have good feelings that it's a no-brainer... the world is getting a clue!!


We've many, many horses- One for each prisoner-
partofit22
 
Posts: 4551
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: Ohio Legal Pot Ballot - No On 2 Yes On 3

Postby desert_woodworker on Thu Nov 12, 2015 3:46 am

"Nothing can deflect the Course
Of Pegasus, ...the Winged Horse."


--Joe

(quite a favorite Autumn constellation)

Pegasus_by_Ruth_Tay.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: Ohio Legal Pot Ballot - No On 2 Yes On 3

Postby partofit22 on Thu Nov 12, 2015 2:55 pm

partofit22
 
Posts: 4551
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:36 pm


Return to Current Events & Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
RocketTheme Joomla Templates

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 157 on Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:44 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest