Ohio votes against Pot Monopoly

[n2doc]

By Marc Kovac

[e-mail]

COLUMBUS

Ohioans torpedoed a proposal to regulate marijuana use in the state, countering a big-money campaign that sought to legalize pot for medicinal and recreational uses.

About two-thirds of those casting ballots voted against Issue 3, according to preliminary results posted by the secretary of state’s office Tuesday night.

But backers vowed to continue efforts to legalize marijuana in the state.

“This was the first step to legalization,” said Ian James, executive director of ResponsibleOhio, the group behind Issue 3. “We’re not going away. ... We’re going to make sure that we provide that legal marijuana for Ohio and that we do so starting tomorrow.”

Issue 3 opponents also appeared to be successful in convincing voters to block future efforts to add business monopolies to the state constitution — Issue 2 was passing, 52 percent to 48 percent, with 77 percent of precincts reporting.

- See more at: http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/nov/04/ohio-issues-pot-effort-goes-up-in-smoke/#sthash.UKzBa0RK.dpuf

[enough]

1. Not being from Ohio, I am confused.

Was this a vote against legalization? In that case, why is it seen as the first step toward legalization? I'm not arguing, just asking.

[n2doc]

2. The bigger issue was how this was to be done

People objected to having a preordained monopoly for pot sales. Hopefully next time a clean amendment can be voted on and passed.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. This was a vote against the idea that social justice has to be bought by reducing economic justice.

A hundred or so rich investors (the vast majority from out of state) wanted Ohioans to vote to give them a monopoly on growing and wholesaling pot in Ohio in exchange for legalizing it. To create an Ohio pot cartel, and to enforce it by using police to crack down on anyone not in the cartel. Oh, there was a supposed exception that anyone could grow four plants personally (bought FROM the cartel), but in order to use it, you also had to agree to let the police come in and search your home any time they felt like it, to make sure you weren't growing more than four plants, and didn't have an 'excessive' amount of non-cartel pot on hand.

Pretty much dictionary fascism, with agents of the state used to protect the monopoly powers of a corporation.

When Ohioans are ready to legalize, they'll be ready to LEGALIZE, and treat pot like they do any other agricultural crop. Food and safety inspections for retailers, wholesalers, and processors, and free to be grown in gardens alongside flowers and vegetables.

ETA -

Proponents said the plan offered Ohio an opportunity move forward with marijuana legalization, with polls showing voters favored allowing residents to partake, particularly for medical reasons.

So Ohioans are ready to legalize, they just don't intend to do so simply to make a handful of people rich.

[underpants]

4. Nick Lachey (of the boy band 98 Degrees) stood to make big money

He was one of the 10 "farmers" who would have had exclusive right to grow on his land.

I do have to say that I am a bit confused by Issue 2- I thought anti-monopoly issues were dealt with by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. ??? I am guessing that that has been worked around so much that something at the state level was felt needed....or was #2 directly countering #3?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. I think it's a slightly different usage of 'monopoly' here.

Technically, I suppose with ten different groups of investors having farms, it would not be considered a monopoly. This was a double tap to 3 - A) if both had passed, it would have gone to the courts to decide whether to kill 3 outright, or simply to kill off the part about it being limited to those 10, and B) if 3 failed, as it did, it would prevent them from putting pretty much the exact same issue on the ballot in the future, forcing them to actually rely more on people actually wanting legal pot, and not simply making another attempt to 'buy' the vote with deep pockets of speculators.

My next question is actually - how does this affect casinos in Ohio? Is it just not retroactive, so it ignores similar limited for profit enterprises already established? Or does it open it up to further casinos to weaken the existing ones?

[eridani]

6. Defeat of MJ Legalization in OH Says A Lot About the Kind of Economy People Are Sick and Tired Of

I wouldn't have voted for it either, based on the following.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/11/04/defeat-marijuana-legalization-ohio-says-lot-about-kind-economy-people-are-sick-and

Leaving aside heated rhetoric about the evils of “Big Pot,” the fact is that, had Issue 3 passed, it would have established a system of elite and most likely absentee ownership, as opposed to community-based family businesses. Voters recognized the need for local, broad-based ownership as the foundation of a thriving, resilient economy.

Issue 3 was created by a decision-making process led by private interests, excluding local residents. Voters sent a message that they want more voices at the table.

While much was said about the jobs a new legalized marijuana industry would create, there was no guarantee that those jobs would offer decent wages or dependable employment. There was a clear preference for a business model that offers inclusive, living wage jobs that help families from all walks of life enjoy economic security.

Finally, under Issue 3 the business of marijuana would have been the business as usual of wealth inequality. Resentment on this point was pervasive, particularly because there is such a culture of entrepreneurialism and private growth, created by marijuana’s longtime illegal status.

[eridani]

7. Statement from Mason Tvert, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project

MPP is supporting several of the 2016 initiative efforts. It neither supported nor opposed the Ohio initiative this year.

“It’s pretty obvious that the outcome in Ohio does not reflect where the nation stands or the direction in which it is heading when it comes to marijuana policy. It only reflects where Ohio voters stand on a specific and rather unique proposal in an off-year election. It will not have any bearing on the outcomes of the initiatives that we expect to appear on other states’ ballots in 2016.

“When voters in Nevada or Massachusetts get to the ballot box one year from now, they are not going to be thinking about what happened in Ohio a year earlier. They are going to be thinking about the problems marijuana prohibition has caused their states for so many years and the benefits of replacing it with a more sensible system. These initiatives will also benefit from heightened voter turnout during a presidential election year. The more voters that turn out, the more support we tend to see for marijuana policy reform.

“Polls show a strong and growing majority of Americans think marijuana should be legal for adults. There is a lot of momentum building behind the movement to end marijuana prohibition heading into 2016. Election Day was relatively uneventful this year, but next year it will be truly historic.”

[RussBLib]

8. I would have voted "yes"

...and then worked to overturn the rule setting aside only 10 companies to grow it. That could probably have been challenged and overturned in the courts.