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.
As I understand it there will be a permitting system for commercial growers and they are starting with 10 permits.Then based on an analysis of demand, more permits can be issued.
I agree that the monopoly issue is off-putting, but it is not so cut and dried as many are making it out to be.
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.
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).
Saw that "big picture" is going into all of the Ohio forums around here.
Wanted to note that I am leaning on voting no solely based on the fact that there will be a monopoly of a small group of people who will have access to permits and supplier status in the state under this amendment.
I am not a weed smoker and dont' smoke at all but have been looking at getting into the business of being a shop owner to sell supplies, seed, and weed in the future and this amendment will shut out people like me who want to get into a growing industry.
There are corporations and lobby group behind this and I am just wary of it and will do more research before deciding.
I do think marijuana should be made legal up to a point and that people shouldn't be jailed or fined for possession like they are today. It takes too much focus away from actual crimes IMO but as far as I can tell, this may not be the right issue to vote for.
For those who still may be leaning toward voting Yes on 3, please also vote Yes on 2 (something I am considering). From the same link:
Responsible Ohio as far as I can tell are just trying to set up a drug cartel monopoly in the state. This amendment is backed by millionaire investors who only seek to make more money while disallowing regular Ohioans from making money as well as time goes on by essentially shutting out anyone not a part of the millionaire's club.
They say that it can be "amended" later but honestly, once it is approved and they get even richer and more influential, do you honestly believe it will be amended? I don't think so.
Many groups are opposed to this issue based on the above.
Please do some research before you decide whether or not you will vote for this.
ETA: I saw on our local news as well that the 10 suppliers are already gearing up and have stated which "types" of marijuana they will be growing. Many parents of children who have seizure disorders that can be cured by a specific type of cannabis oil are against this issue due to the suppliers not growing the type of cannabis necessary to treat their children. They currently have to go to CO to get that specific type of treatment if they can afford to do so. Not allowing these limits on suppliers will increase the types of cannabis grown to include those who need specific medical marijuana. Just another consideration for you all.
Personally, I like the fact that production and distribution will be tightly controlled.
While prohibition is ridiculous, legalization is still an experiment.
In the rush to make money, a lot of negative things might be done that undermine the best outcome. In colorado, for example, you see people who don't even smoke manufacturing stuff to make "dabs" and concentrates, which are extremely powerful in their effect and dangerous to manufacture.
"Dabs" to weed is like cocaine to coca leaves. And the kits the money-grubbers are selling to make concentrates have been implicated in house fires.
Having just a few limited licenses to grow and distribute is better than a "free for all," in which anyone and everyone who wants to make cash can dive into the business. How do we know we won't be subjected to stuff like synthetic cannabinoids if there's a wild free-for-all to make cash?
A more orderly transition from prohibition to legalization is better than a free-for-all. And the limited number of licenses (1,100) will help to keep it orderly, manageable and easily "tweakable".
...And I write this from the perspective of someone actually looking forward to smoking legal weed -- not from the perspective of someone who simply wants to make money.
I think that's the difference between the "Yes on 3" and "Issue 2" folks. Not to call you out, residinghere2007, but since you don't even smoke, you're probably okay if marijuana is never legalized at all (but if it is, you want to make money off of it).
...Whereas actual smokers (or people who want to have the option, like me) simply want to see prohibition ended.
And let me add: the people who can actually accomplish legalization deserve their advantage in the market. Other efforts and campaigns have been basically impotent in getting the job done, and will continue to be. If "Issue 3" folks can break the barrier (and it looks like they can!), let them get rich. They put the money in to get it done. Let them reap the spoils of their investment.
"Issue 2" folks throw around the word "cartel". Well, their efforts to kill our best shot at legalization actually helps real drug cartels -- actual dangerous drug gangs -- in keeping weed illegal and underground. In fact, the fact that they're using disingenuous terms like "cartel" says something. They're not playing on the up and up.
They're actually working to undermine legalization now that it's within reach, when they should be helping us cross the hurdle of getting weed legalized and then tweak the law if they like. That path would be MUCH, MUCH EASIER than killing this chance for legalization while pushing the same ol' impotent, disorganized, half-hearted "NORML" nonsense as an alternative path.
How long has NORML been "working" to get weed legalized? How many decades?
Obviously they'd have a better shot at pushing their "anti-monopoly" agenda once we break the barrier of legalization. I think they know that, but I get the feeling that NORML doesn't really want weed legalized, for a lot of shady reasons.
Their reputation is going to take a real hit if they help defeat Issue 3. Pro-legalization folks nationwide should be watching this closely.
We (finally) have a real shot at ending weed prohibition in Ohio. Vote "Yes" on "Issue 3" -- November 3rd!
Last edited by bigpicture; 08-28-2015 at 10:44 AM..
Saw that "big picture" is going into all of the Ohio forums around here.
Wanted to note that I am leaning on voting no solely based on the fact that there will be a monopoly of a small group of people who will have access to permits and supplier status in the state under this amendment.
I am not a weed smoker and dont' smoke at all but have been looking at getting into the business of being a shop owner to sell supplies, seed, and weed in the future and this amendment will shut out people like me who want to get into a growing industry.
There are corporations and lobby group behind this and I am just wary of it and will do more research before deciding.
I do think marijuana should be made legal up to a point and that people shouldn't be jailed or fined for possession like they are today. It takes too much focus away from actual crimes IMO but as far as I can tell, this may not be the right issue to vote for.
For those who still may be leaning toward voting Yes on 3, please also vote Yes on 2 (something I am considering). From the same link:
Responsible Ohio as far as I can tell are just trying to set up a drug cartel monopoly in the state. This amendment is backed by millionaire investors who only seek to make more money while disallowing regular Ohioans from making money as well as time goes on by essentially shutting out anyone not a part of the millionaire's club.
They say that it can be "amended" later but honestly, once it is approved and they get even richer and more influential, do you honestly believe it will be amended? I don't think so.
Many groups are opposed to this issue based on the above.
Please do some research before you decide whether or not you will vote for this.
ETA: I saw on our local news as well that the 10 suppliers are already gearing up and have stated which "types" of marijuana they will be growing. Many parents of children who have seizure disorders that can be cured by a specific type of cannabis oil are against this issue due to the suppliers not growing the type of cannabis necessary to treat their children. They currently have to go to CO to get that specific type of treatment if they can afford to do so. Not allowing these limits on suppliers will increase the types of cannabis grown to include those who need specific medical marijuana. Just another consideration for you all.
"For those who still may be leaning toward voting Yes on 3, please also vote Yes on 2 (something I am considering)." It would make absolutely no sense for anyone who is for the legalization amendment to also vote Yes on Issue 2. Basically they would jeopardize the legalization because the determination of which issue takes precedent if they both pass would lead to a long, drawn out court battle that would in the end be decided by the Ohio Supreme Court.
You know, I assume, that Issue 2 was the last minute answer that the anti-legalization folks in the Ohio legislature came up with to try to keep weed a "dangerous drug". They came up with the rallying cry "MONOPOLY" / "CARTEL" because they really don't have any solid arguments against weed and knew they needed to divert voters attention. Research the main guys behind putting this bill together ....... and look at their statements about marijuana in the months before they came up with their last minute b-s. They are not against a "monopoly", they are against legalized weed.
Regarding your ability to profit from legal weed (even though you don't smoke it) ...... there will be over 1100 permits issued to open dispensaries. Why don't you start working on putting your money together to go after one of those permits? There will also be other business opportunities besides the dispensaries once Issue 3 passes.
The monopolized 10 growing sites would be put into law and legislated, which would disallow others who could produce a superior, cheaper product for shop owners.
Under the current proposal, shop owners and all dispensaries in OH will be forced to buy their product ONLY from those 10 sites and would not be allowed to gain better pricing and product from a wider market.
There are various types of cannabis and we should not disallow future or potential suppliers from participating in this business venture.
On legalization, I believe all drugs should be legal. Regardless of if I am a smoker or not, I do not feel that marijuana should be criminalized at all.
If anything, I feel that should be the ONLY thing we are voting for - decriminalization.
Why do we need a legislatured business venture on the books. No other industry, including tobacco or alcohol is so rigidly written into law.
Think of beer and breweries and micro-breweries. Beer is legal. Anyone who can make a good beer and pass inspection can sell their beer and develop a business. Suppliers of cannabis should be no different IMO.
If you really want weed legalize, give us an actual "issue" to vote on that is only about decriminalization and not about setting up businesses for millionaires to make more money.
If the citizens of Ohio vote to legalize recreational cannabis the biggest impact will be on it's border states.
Hopefully, a major domino effect will happen causing Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky, and Indiana to follow Ohio's lead. If even two of those states (most notably Pennsylvania) decide to follow Ohio's example, it will be a major blow to prohibition.
I'm leaning toward yes now as well...simply to end prohibition. I don't smoke, but it'd be cool to have Ohio be out there as one of the states legalizing early. I have strong doubt it passes, though. Especially with that monopoly bill on there that seems like an automatic "yes" and a good idea for the casual person who has no real idea why it exists.
If enough people actually go out and vote (Yes on Issue 3), it can't fail.
There's also that commercial, encouraging people to vote. First time I've seen anything like that. If it weren't for that commercial in fact, I wouldn't know there was a vote coming up (November 3rd).
I think there won't be many voters in general, because it's an "off ballot" (or something like that). That helps the cause, because grandma and grandpa will stay at home.
Shame that this Issue 2 nonsense is threatening to get in the way. And special shame on the folks who say they're pro-legalization, yet for some reason they want to kill this one real chance.
Time to mobilize! If you want it to pass, be sure to get out and vote. And tell a friend!
"No" on Issue 2, "Yes" on Issue 3. Easy to remember, because the vote is on November 3rd.
If enough people actually go out and vote (Yes on Issue 3), it can't fail.
There's also that commercial, encouraging people to vote. First time I've seen anything like that. If it weren't for that commercial in fact, I wouldn't know there was a vote coming up (November 3rd).
I think there won't be many voters in general, because it's an "off ballot" (or something like that). That helps the cause, because grandma and grandpa will stay at home.
Shame that this Issue 2 nonsense is threatening to get in the way. And special shame on the folks who say they're pro-legalization, yet for some reason they want to kill this one real chance.
Time to mobilize! If you want it to pass, be sure to get out and vote. And tell a friend!
"No" on Issue 2, "Yes" on Issue 3. Easy to remember, because the vote is on November 3rd.
The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November is always election day. Has been that way for years.
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.
