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.
I'll be reading Issue 2 to make sure there's nothing in it I don't like enough that would force me vote No. Up to this point I've only considered the simple issue of whether we should allow monopolies, or oligopolies, in relation to the current amendment Issue 3. Time to delve deeper to see what else they've included and how it would affect future amendments.
Can't convince me on Issue 3 to change my mind though. NIce try there Senor Slick!
My understanding is that issue 2 would do two things..
#1, it would allow the Ballot Board to determine if a proposal would create a monopoly in the Constitution.
If they determined it did, then,
#2 the board would split the proposal in to two separate questions, both of which would have to pass for the proposal to become law...
So, say issue 2 passes, issue 3 fails and they bring it back next year. The first question would be "should so and so be granted an exception to the no monopoly rule" and the second question would be the proposal itself, both of which would have to get a majority yes vote to become law.
Guess you haven't read about how it can save lives? Especially cannabis oil (see Rick Simpson oil). The internet has been available 20 years, but I didn't start my cannabis education until I stumbled onto John Kerry's medical marijuana & marijuana decrim. forums. So then, there are about 10,000 pages before my eyes contradicting what our govt has said.
Rick Perry said of course "marijuana" (cannabis) users belong in jail, how could anyone question that? I guess he is too important in his mind to waste his time reading about a life & death matter on the internet? Maybe too adequately bribed by industries that would lose income from cannabis legalization?
I've read about 20,000 pages about cannabis from probably over 200 sources. Thousands of people say it saved their life. Most of the people running OH are more concerned about their money & power than what is best for the people. The people get to vote, but only after a last minute serious brainwashing attempt.
I say nothing is more important than if we are sick or well, alive or dead. Any politician who doesn't agree should be voted out before too many harmless people die. The Libertarian Party is for giving is all our freedoms back, including cannabis. They are for the 100% equally.
There are cannabis users that own multi-mullion dollar businesses. I don't think that would be possible if they were always "zoned out".
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXStrat
Is legalization of marijuana really something that should be a priority right now? Seems like we've got many more pressing issues than being concerned about someone's legal ability to zone out and increase the bottom line for Taco Bell.
Cannabis kills 0, does not cause mental or physical illness, & thousands say it saved their lives. So, what do you think are the seriously harmful effects? What is abuse of a drug if no significant harm occurs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by IDtheftV
There is no debate about the harmful effects of abuse of the drug.
You can substitute alcohol or tobacco with marijuana and the debate doesn't change.
Who's "we"? You say right there in your post that you're against legalization. Truth is, you wouldn't be happy with legalization no matter what it looks like. You wouldn't be pro-legalization if Nancy Reagan paraded down the street wearing nothing but a billboard saying "YES on 3".
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
You've as much as conceded the argument right there. You've admitted that this law is not a good deal for Ohio with your commentary. Well, unfortunately, I will be voting on this law, in it's existing form, and the only question before me is whether or not this law, in it's existing form, is good for Ohio, and as you yourself have admitted, it's not, To vote yes on it would be reckless and irresponsible.
I've conceded nothing. In fact, I'm happy with the amendment as it is, because it's a cautious approach. I don't want a "free for all" with everybody producing (and I say as much earlier in this very thread). I want to see the people who are putting up the money to make legalization happen be rewarded handsomely for their efforts.
For all pro-weed Ohioans, I just point out that the major obstacle we face is getting weed legalized. After that, the law can be adjusted as necessary. Adjustments are obviously going to happen.
Anyway, those of you who are genuinely pro-weed: I hope you realize that the people trying to kill this amendment because it's "not perfect" or not "free market" or whatever -- they are taking you for fools.
If they succeed, they'll be quietly laughing at you for being "stupid potheads", duped into voting against your own freedom. Don't let that happen. Weed smokers aren't stupid. They're in fact typically more "on the ball" intellectually than anti-weed people, in my experience.
Let's show them. If you genuinely want to end the injustice and bullying known as prohibition, make sure you get out and vote -- with a VENGEANCE. Bring AT LEAST one other person with you and ask them to vote "YES" as a personal favor to you.
"YES" on Issue 3; "NO" on Issue 2, TUESDAY OF NEXT WEEK, November 3, 2015.
You know they're desperate when they're focusing their opposition around "protecting the children". I wonder how many children died last year from marijuana vs guns. I know the gullible are eating the propaganda up with enthusiasm too.
Who's "we"? You say right there in your post that
you're against legalization.
As someone who's life has been touched and have had to deal with more than my fair share of the heartache and hardships that substance abuse can and does cause on a family, you're right, I'm personally not too giddy about legalizing, and by default, proliferating yet another recreational drug in to society. That said, it's my personal opinion, and I don't pretend for a minute that I have the right to tell other people what they can and can't put in their own body; everyone has the right to make that decision for themselves. But I also have other principles, like supporting a competitive free market for example, freedom of choice, and that the government exists to serve all citizens by ensuring equal opportunity for everyone. I'm not about to promote one of my principles at the expense of my others, and voting yes on issue 3 would be doing just that.
Quote:
Truth is, you wouldn't be happy with legalization no matter what it looks
like. You wouldn't be pro-legalization if Nancy Reagan paraded down the street
wearing nothing but a billboard saying "YES on 3".
LOL, I would find that image repugnant for more than one reason, but the primary reason would be that she was promoting the flawed, monopolistic Issue 3.
Quote:
I've conceded nothing. In fact, I'm happy with the amendment as it is, because
it's a cautious approach. I don't want a "free for all" with everybody
producing
You realize when there's competition in an industry, it forces businesses to compete with each other for customers, which in turn leads to better products at a fair price. If a business doesn't have to compete with anyone, they can just offer whatever products they want, and at whatever price they want to sell at. This is bad for consumers, and that's exactly the type of system that issue 3 sets up. It actually wouldn't be a "free-for-all"... that's just spin to make it sound good. A competitive marketplace would weed out ( no pun intended ) businesses that offered inferior products, but with issue 3, you'll have one option, and one option only.
Quote:
I want to see the people who are putting up the money to make legalization
happen be rewarded handsomely for their efforts.
I'd be interested in knowing your position on the Citizens United supreme court ruling and campaign finance reform?
Many of the same Liberals who rail on about "big money" in politics and plaster a Bernie Sanders sticker on their bumper, are now the same ones who want to allow a bunch of rich investors to cut themselves a sweetheart deal in the state Constitution. LOL, so much for principles.
Quote:
Bring AT LEAST one other person with you and ask them to vote "YES" apersonal favor to you.
I'm no lawyer, but me thinks you're treading dangerously close to encouraging voting fraud. Perhaps not, but either way I'd never abuse the sacred right of voting by asking someone for their vote as a personal favor. Ridiculous. All I ask is that everyone consider the facts and make their own educated decision, whatever that may be. If We The People decide that we want issue 3 on Nov. 3rd, then so be it! I won't be mad. Issue three actually does do a lot of good things; Primarily, sick people will finally be able to find relief with medical marijuana, people will finally have their freedom of choice restored to use marijuana legally, etc. I just think we can do better than issue 3, and know that we will do better in the future if it fails this time.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 10-29-2015 at 12:55 AM..
I sent the following letter to three of my local papers, all of which printed it. So this is my argument against issue 3...
The marijuana initiative before Ohio voters this November is both an affront to free market principles and a perversion of government. It distorts the state Constitution, which is meant to be representative of all citizens, by securing the prosperity of only a select few, out-of-state investors, while denying Ohioans the same ability to take advantage of the opportunities that this new and lucrative industry creates.
A free market system promotes a vibrant, healthy, and diverse marketplace that encourages competition, which ensures a variety of the best quality products at the lowest possible prices, but that's not what we'll have if Issue 3 passes. Because the entire legal marijuana market in Ohio will be controlled by one regime, there'll be no incentive to innovate and strive to offer the best products, because there'll be no one else in the industry for them to compete with. Supporters might counter that the Ohio Marijuana Control Commission would be responsible for creating quality standards, and any grower that fails to meet those standards risks losing their license, but all that really means is that consumers may have to settle for a product that is of the lowest acceptable standard of quality prescribed by this commission, and at whatever price those who control the market decide to sell it at. Do we want that, or do we want a market where businesses have to compete with one another to earn our money, which guarantees that consumers get good products at a fair price? Do we want a government in the form of an oligarchy, that monopolizes an industry to the benefit of only a wealthy few, or a democratic form of government that guarantees equal opportunity for all?
Some will argue that a no vote is, in effect, a vote for prohibition, for maintaining the status quo. They’ll reason that achieving the primary goal of legalization ultimately outweighs the deficiencies inherent in this initiative, that the law can be amended or changed in the future, and that we should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. That rational misses the point entirely, and when you start from that premise you’ve already conceded the argument. The only valid question before voters is, is this proposed law, in its existing form, a good deal for Ohio? If the answer is no, than we Ohioans have an obligation to reject it on Election Day.
My understanding is that issue 2 would do two things..
#1, it would allow the Ballot Board to determine if a proposal would create a monopoly in the Constitution.
If they determined it did, then,
#2 the board would split the proposal in to two separate questions, both of which would have to pass for the proposal to become law...
So, say issue 2 passes, issue 3 fails and they bring it back next year. The first question would be "should so and so be granted an exception to the no monopoly rule" and the second question would be the proposal itself, both of which would have to get a majority yes vote to become law.
Hope this helps explain it.
Good info Whippersnapper, thanks. Since I'm on the fence about Issue 2 I may end up voting no, but will still read the amendment before making up my mind.
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.
