Marijuana legalization amendment approved for Ohio's November ballot (cabinets, tax)

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by bigpicture

1. The proposal allows 10 growers -- not a "monopoly". And these growers will indeed compete on quality and strains...

But there's a cap on the number of grow sites, which constitutes a semi-monopoly at best. Say a specific grower does exceedingly well.... there is no way for that grower to expand and grow their business to meet higher consumer demands.. They are only permitted 1 grow site, which also means a limited selection of strains. Less popular strains will no doubt fall by the wayside and give way to only the most popular strains being produced. Life Saving strains like Charlottes Web might not make the cut. Issue 3 leaves no room for niche markets.

2. The proposal allows people to grow their own if they want.

Sure, you can grow your own if a life saving strain like Charlottes Web isn't being produced, but how are people in Columbus living in an eleventh floor studio apartment supposed to grow?

Four plants is certainly enough to supply an individual and friends...(A mini-industry might even spring up around home grows...) Home grows also represent competition for the farms (ie: not a "monopoly")...

I'm pretty sure that would constitute a crime. I will be re-reading the language, but I'm fairly certain you can only grow for personal use, i.e. NOT an industry or business!!!

3. The proposal leaves room for more growers, if demands of volume and strain aren't met...

Let's be clear, the proposal allows for one additional grow site, in four years and only if consumer demands aren't being met by the original 10.

Thanks for your concern, whip, but if weed smokers are okay with just 10 farms (and thousands of jobs and businesses resulting), you (a nonsmoker) should be okay too!

Nope. I'm an Ohio resident, which means that this initiative will effect me one way or another, regardless of whether or not I smoke weed. My opinion means just as much as those who will use the product.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Ok guys, I found a section in Issue 2's language that does concern me...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Article II Section (B)(3) states as follows:

If at any subsequent election, the electors approve a Constitutional Amendment that was proposed by an initiative petition that conflicts with division (B)(1) ( the anti-monopoly provision ) of this section and that was not subject to the procedure described in division (B)(2) ( ballot board review ) of this section, then that entire Constitutional Amendment shall not take effect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So dioes that mean that in the future. the ballot board can come back after an election, retroactively declare that a passed initiative would create a monopoly, and nulify it?

[OhioJB]

Sounds like it Whippersnapper. I haven't read the full text yet, but what you posted makes it appear that way. Have a feeling there may be more bad in Issue 2 so definitely need to read the full text, not just what we'll see on the ballot before going to my polling station.

[h Steve]

Originally Posted by OhioJB

Sounds like it Whippersnapper. I haven't read the full text yet, but what you posted makes it appear that way. Have a feeling there may be more bad in Issue 2 so definitely need to read the full text, not just what we'll see on the ballot before going to my polling station.

Just vote NO on issue 2 and hope they come up with a better anti-monopoly amendment next year.

[Señor Slick]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Ok guys, I found a section in Issue 2's language that does concern me...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Article II Section (B)(3) states as follows:

If at any subsequent election, the electors approve a Constitutional Amendment that was proposed by an initiative petition that conflicts with division (B)(1) ( the anti-monopoly provision ) of this section and that was not subject to the procedure described in division (B)(2) ( ballot board review ) of this section, then that entire Constitutional Amendment shall not take effect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So dioes that mean that in the future. the ballot board can come back after an election, retroactively declare that a passed initiative would create a monopoly, and nulify it?

Good catch, Whipper! I've never heard of a law that allows some entity to retroactively nullify an initiative that was already passed. Seems like if the government drops the ball on the ballot board review that's their fault, not the electorate's.

[OhioJB]

Originally Posted by h Steve

Just vote NO on issue 2 and hope they come up with a better anti-monopoly amendment next year.

Except if Issue 3 passes we'd need Issue 2 to hopefully nullify it. Not saying I'm voting for Issue 2 because I wont know until I read the full amendment, not just the language that will show on the ballot. If Responsible Ohio had just written a better amendment it would have made my decision much easier. Grrrr....

[h Steve]

Originally Posted by OhioJB

Except if Issue 3 passes we'd need Issue 2 to hopefully nullify it. Not saying I'm voting for Issue 2 because I wont know until I read the full amendment, not just the language that will show on the ballot. If Responsible Ohio had just written a better amendment it would have made my decision much easier. Grrrr....

I hope you're not willing to pass a bad amendment, that will affect future ballot issue just to block another amendment that you think is flawed? If issue 2 is bad then it's bad, and doesn't deserve passage. If you don't like Issue 3 then vote NO on both.

[OhioJB]

Originally Posted by h Steve

I hope you're not willing to pass a bad amendment, that will affect future ballot issue just to block another amendment that you think is flawed? If issue 2 is bad then it's bad, and doesn't deserve passage. If you don't like Issue 3 then vote NO on both.

Absolutely not, that's why I indicated I'd be reading the full amendment like a high court judge to determine if I should vote yes or no on it.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by OhioJB

Sounds like it Whippersnapper. I haven't read the full text yet, but what you posted makes it appear that way. Have a feeling there may be more bad in Issue 2 so definitely need to read the full text, not just what we'll see on the ballot before going to my polling station.

Definately read the full text so that you can get the full context. It isn't very long at all. The rest is pretty plain and straightforward. If not for that one clause I have concerns over, I'd be on board no problem. I don't know if I'm just over thinking it or not. They may just be reiterating the fact that all future initiatives will be subject to this review.

Problem is, you almost have to be an attorney to understand completely the implications of every word of the law. I may call around to some of my representatives and / or the election board to see if I can get further guidence on the issue.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by Señor Slick

Good catch, Whipper! I've never heard of a law that allows some entity to retroactively nullify an initiative that was already passed.

I know, right? If I'm interpreting it correctly ( which I have no confidence whether I am or not ) that would give WAY too much power to an unelected, partisan board of bereaucrats.

Seems like if the government drops the ball on the ballot board review that's their fault, not the electorate's.

Exactly. It seems implausible that a statewide initiative could even make it on to the ballot without being reviewed first, so that gives me doubts as to whether or not I'm interpreting it correctly. I think they may have just been reiterating the fact that all future initiatives will be subject to this process, but I can't be certain.