Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Vote "No" on Issue 2, "Yes" on Issue 3. If we get enough votes, rules are rules & we can't lose! Legal weed is within reach! And it all depends on your "Yes" vote on Issue 3 November 3rd.
Absolutely silly argument. It's an initiative on the ballot that can simply be voted for. How the **** does it cost anything? I find that line is used when people don't want something, but have no argument against it (or try to hide behind the time argument instead of their more ridiculous reasons).
(Also, quite humorous considering all the abortion stuff in our state government...as if THAT should be a priority...or increasing tobacco age in Upper Arlington et. al. numerous nanny-state policies over actually governing).
To use your vernacular, who the **** said that it cost anything? Reading comprehension is key.... There was a joke about passage improving the bottom line for Taco Bell, nothing about the initiative costing anything. Just seems like repairing the rust belt era economy, stopping flight from Ohio cities, and making the place more attractive to investors/employers and more livable would take priority over making it legal to blaze up. Loads of people already do, regardless of legality. Hasn't changed in that regard since the mid to late 1980s. Don't see what the big issue is.
We spend lots of money on enforcement and incarceration is the problem. That and the fact that there's little reason it should be illegal when alcohol isn't with far more proven and studied harmful effects.
You brought up the argument that time could be better spent elsewhere...well it's already on the ballot and enough people deemed it worthy to not waste all of that money and time destroying lives over something stupid and small-scale like weed when, as you mentioned, "we have bigger problems"
Just seems like repairing the rust belt era economy, stopping flight from Ohio cities, and making the place more attractive to investors/employers and more livable would take priority over making it legal to blaze up. Loads of people already do, regardless of legality. Hasn't changed in that regard since the mid to late 1980s. Don't see what the big issue is.
Let's not forget that legal weed will
- help repair the rust belt economy, through taxes
- stop flight from ohio, by providing a few more jobs and business opportunities
- make the the place more attractive to investors/employers (see above)
- make the place more livable (certainly for me )
I don't think it's a coincidence that places like denver are booming economically and seeing an influx of people since they had the wherewithal to legalize weed.
It may not be THE factor behind Denver's boom, but it's one factor.
Now, regarding the fact that people already smoke weed -- you're right! So --
let's make it safer by regulating it
let's take the profit OUT of the hands of criminal gangs
let's put the profit INTO the hands of legitimate business people
let's make it contribute to our TAX BASE
Plus -- let's not discount this: (mounting the soapbox):
Weed is SYMBOLIC of a larger issue. Most of our citizens say it should be legal, yet it's not. Since it's relatively harmless, the gubmint has NO BUSINESS penalizing people who grow or smoke it. Weed prohibition is the EPITOME of government OVERREACH.
As we enter an age when technology gives the authorities more and more power, we should be veeery sensitive about government overreach and capricious and arbitrary laws and enforcement. We need to be more assertive as citizens. There's NO reason weed should be illegal, while alcohol isn't and doctors hand out questionable and addictive psyche meds like candy.
With the tech now available to make "resistance is futile" a reality, we shouldn't get into the habit of being bullied by stuff we know is unfair.
There are all kinds of reasons that both progressives AND conservatives should be AGAINST prohibition and PRO legalization -- if they're being honest.
So -- Vote "No" on Issue 2 and "YES" on Issue 3 -- November 3, 2015. Polls are open from 6:30 in the morn to 7:30 p.m. Get out and vote!
If we get enough votes, rules is rules & we can't lose!
Even though I made my first comment in another thread I'll post the follow up here since this is the most relevant thread. While I support legalizing cannabis, I don't believe Issue 3 is good enough to vote yes on. As much as I want to I can't in good conscience vote yes. My main reason is the restrictions it puts on home growers. They have to get a cultivation license, which we have no idea how much it will cost, or how many licenses will be allowed by the Marijuana Commission. It also limits the number of plants to a measly four flowering plants. People who enjoy growing will not abide by that limit, so what will the penalty be for them? A huge fine dictated by the Marijuana Commission? Jail time?
While being allowed to have four flowering plants, eight ounces of marijuana, and one ounce of store bought marijuana may sound like plenty, I'm telling you people who take growing cannabis serious as a hobby will not be limited. Even if they try at first their enjoyment for growing weed will tempt them to grow more than the limit.
How will all of this be regulated? Will the Marijuana Commission have surprise inspections? Maybe even charge for inspections, including ones to make sure the electrical wiring in a residence is safe to use with HID lighting systems?
Also, the big money investors are not precluded from being on the Marijuana Commission, and its to their advantage to limit the number of home growers allowed to have licenses. I can see all types of problems with this. Lawsuits claiming discrimination for not being allowed to have a license tying up our court system. People growing without licenses opening themselves up to large fines and prison time. And don't think people wont be targeted for detection by scanning for high electric bills to see who might be growing, or by some other means.
If what I just typed out doesn't phase you, the fact that the Libertarian Party is against Issue 3 should raise your eyebrows and prompt you to find out why.
The Liberty Caucus of the Republican Party of Ohio had this to say about Issue 3, and it keys in on my main problem with it: "It is also vague in the homegrown licensing requirements and contains no stopgap to prevent the marijuana industry from preserving profits by limiting the number of licenses." Newbern goes on to explain that "investors in the industry are not prohibited from serving on the commission which has unilateral authority to set the rules pursuant to the issue of licenses and effectively deny licenses at will."
Don't believe that this will be the last chance in a long time to get marijuana legalized, because it will be on the ballot again probably in the general election in 2016. Until we have an option that's good enough for home growers I don't think we should pass something like this. They should not be forced to get a license to grow a plant that's deemed ok to grow by the voters. If you need a license to grow cannabis why not a license to grow tomatoes or sweet peppers, or better yet a license for hot peppers that might burn your tongue, and your eyes if you rub your eyes or take your contacs out after touching a hot pepper? Sounds more dangerous than cannabis to me and we don't need a license to grow Habaneros, do we???
Even though I made my first comment in another thread I'll post the follow up here since this is the most relevant thread. While I support legalizing cannabis, I don't believe Issue 3 is good enough to vote yes on. As much as I want to I can't in good conscience vote yes. My main reason is the restrictions it puts on home growers. They have to get a cultivation license, which we have no idea how much it will cost, or how many licenses will be allowed by the Marijuana Commission. It also limits the number of plants to a measly four flowering plants. People who enjoy growing will not abide by that limit, so what will the penalty be for them? A huge fine dictated by the Marijuana Commission? Jail time?
While being allowed to have four flowering plants, eight ounces of marijuana, and one ounce of store bought marijuana may sound like plenty, I'm telling you people who take growing cannabis serious as a hobby will not be limited. Even if they try at first their enjoyment for growing weed will tempt them to grow more than the limit.
How will all of this be regulated? Will the Marijuana Commission have surprise inspections? Maybe even charge for inspections, including ones to make sure the electrical wiring in a residence is safe to use with HID lighting systems?
Also, the big money investors are not precluded from being on the Marijuana Commission, and its to their advantage to limit the number of home growers allowed to have licenses. I can see all types of problems with this. Lawsuits claiming discrimination for not being allowed to have a license tying up our court system. People growing without licenses opening themselves up to large fines and prison time. And don't think people wont be targeted for detection by scanning for high electric bills to see who might be growing, or by some other means.
If what I just typed out doesn't phase you, the fact that the Libertarian Party is against Issue 3 should raise your eyebrows and prompt you to find out why.
The Liberty Caucus of the Republican Party of Ohio had this to say about Issue 3, and it keys in on my main problem with it: "It is also vague in the homegrown licensing requirements and contains no stopgap to prevent the marijuana industry from preserving profits by limiting the number of licenses." Newbern goes on to explain that "investors in the industry are not prohibited from serving on the commission which has unilateral authority to set the rules pursuant to the issue of licenses and effectively deny licenses at will."
Don't believe that this will be the last chance in a long time to get marijuana legalized, because it will be on the ballot again probably in the general election in 2016. Until we have an option that's good enough for home growers I don't think we should pass something like this. They should not be forced to get a license to grow a plant that's deemed ok to grow by the voters. If you need a license to grow cannabis why not a license to grow tomatoes or sweet peppers, or better yet a license for hot peppers that might burn your tongue, and your eyes if you rub your eyes or take your contacs out after touching a hot pepper? Sounds more dangerous than cannabis to me and we don't need a license to grow Habaneros, do we???
Just curious ... have you actually read the amendment? From the amendment:
21. Requiring annual license fees of $50,000 for MGCE facilities, $25,000 for MPM facilities and $10,000 for RMSs and marijuana testing facilities, and registration fees of $50 for home growing, and that such fees be adjusted upward annually for inflation.
Just curious ... have you actually read the amendment? From the amendment:
21. Requiring annual license fees of $50,000 for MGCE facilities, $25,000 for MPM facilities and $10,000 for RMSs and marijuana testing facilities, and registration fees of $50 for home growing, and that such fees be adjusted upward annually for inflation.
I read the Issue on Ballotpedia. $50 may not be much, but why should home growers have to pay anything? If we vote yes to allow it's use, then why shouldn't it be as free to grow as vegetables, tobacco, fruit trees, pumpkins, etc.? And why should a Marijuana Commission be allowed to dictate to home growers who'll be approved for a license and who wont? And why should home growers be limited in production? As I mentioned in my previous post home growers who grow because they enjoy the process are not going to limit themselves to four flowering plants. Which will lead to people refusing to buy licenses and growing anyway, leading to arrest, fines, possible jail time.
Sorry, but they need to go back to the drawing board on this. The allowance for home growing was a last minute addition according to info I read to appease home growers to attract votes. If voters vote yes on this Issue 3 the issues affecting home growers will likely not be corrected. The powers that be wont want to give up the licensing fees or restricting home growing to four flowering plants.
Vote No and insist on changes before it comes back for a vote again. Marijuana will be legalized in Ohio eventually, just hope it's not with this pile of dog poop.
Also, what will happen to the people who end up having their names in a data bank as being marijuana growers, something still against federal law? I didn't read the full comment someone else made, but it seemed to allude to the possibility that someone would be forbidden to buy a gun if they are breaking federal law by growing cannabis. I haven't checked into it, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was indeed the case.
I read the Issue on Ballotpedia. $50 may not be much, but why should home growers have to pay anything? If we vote yes to allow it's use, then why shouldn't it be as free to grow as vegetables, tobacco, fruit trees, pumpkins, etc.? And why should a Marijuana Commission be allowed to dictate to home growers who'll be approved for a license and who wont? And why should home growers be limited in production? As I mentioned in my previous post home growers who grow because they enjoy the process are not going to limit themselves to four flowering plants. Which will lead to people refusing to buy licenses and growing anyway, leading to arrest, fines, possible jail time.
Sorry, but they need to go back to the drawing board on this. The allowance for home growing was a last minute addition according to info I read to appease home growers to attract votes. If voters vote yes on this Issue 3 the issues affecting home growers will likely not be corrected. The powers that be wont want to give up the licensing fees or restricting home growing to four flowering plants.
Vote No and insist on changes before it comes back for a vote again. Marijuana will be legalized in Ohio eventually, just hope it's not with this pile of dog poop.
You are just a prohibitionist or unwilling to understand that there will never be a situation where you can grow, possess, sell, anything you want without restriction. The Man will never allow it. And it probably wouldn't be a good idea anyway.
"home growers who grow because they enjoy the process are not going to limit themselves to four flowering plants. Which will lead to people refusing to buy licenses and growing anyway, leading to arrest, fines, possible jail time." ..... in other words it will be just like it is now for some folks. Or am I missing something and could be growing my own already without fear of be arrested?
" ....Marijuana will be legalized in Ohio eventually ..." ....... I've been waiting for over 45 years for it to be legal. I am tired of waiting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Legal weed is within reach! And it all depends on your "Yes" vote on Issue 3 November 3rd.
)
