Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Ohio pot legalization - Maybe next time (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter MikeIke
- Start date
top dog
Footballguy
ffldrew
Footballguy
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I wanted to make the first O-HIGH-O joke. :(
grateful zed
Footballguy
Q: Whats the difference between Ohio and yogurt?
A: Yogurt has an active living culture
A: Yogurt has an active living culture
grateful zed
Footballguy
Q: What does a Ohio native and a bottle of beer have in common?
A: They're both empty from the neck up
A: They're both empty from the neck up
grateful zed
Footballguy
Q: Why don't girls play hide and seek in Ohio?
A: No one would look for them.
A: No one would look for them.
grateful zed
Footballguy
NutterButter
Footballguy
Das Boot
Footballguy
Marijuana legalization just failed in Ohio — and it may have nothing to do with attitudes about legalization
Business Insider By Harrison Jacobs
1 hour ago
Ohio voters rejected a ballot proposal on Tuesday that would have legalized marijuana for recreational and medical use. The measure was defeated by nearly a 2 to 1 margin, according to current projections.
The rejection, however, may have less to do with Ohioans attitudes about marijuana than one might think.
The proposal, known as Issue 3, allowed adults 21 and older to use, purchase, and grow certain amounts of marijuana, while establishing a regulatory and taxation scheme to handle the legalization.
However, embedded in the proposal was a stipulation that would have given “exclusive rights” for commercial marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction to ten predetermined parcels of land.
The varied owners of those land parcels were the proponents and funders of the initiative, known as ResponsibleOhio. The group spent more than $12 million on ads and The New York Times reports that they spent $25 million on the campaign in total.
The problems with Issue 3 were best summed up by Case Western University School of Law professor Jonathan Adler in the Washington Post:
… Issue 3 would create a marijuana “monopoly” (actually, an oligopoly) consisting of 10 producers who would have their exclusive rights to engage in the commercial production of marijuana enshrined in the state constitution. The campaign in support of Issue 3 — so-called Responsible Ohio — is predictably supported by those who would hold these exclusive rights. This is crony capitalism at its worst.
The monopolistic design of the initiative was part of the campaign from the start, according to the New York Times. Ian James, a political consultant who helped architect the campaign, found 10 investment groups willing to put up $2 million each to finance the campaign for the marijuana legalization amendment.
The investment groups would in exchange receive exclusive rights to grow marijuana on ten parcels of land owned or optioned by the investors.
NORML, the outspoken marijuana reform organization, endorsed the legislation, but did so with “some hesitancy” because of the limited number of growing sites, according to Reuters. The Marijuana Policy Project and the Drug Policy Alliance stayed neutral on Issue 3.
Meanwhile, an October poll by Kent State University found that 58% of registered voters in Ohio would support allowing adults to legally possess small amounts of marijuana for personal use.
Issue 3, as written, was so abhorred that a wide coalition of children's hospitals, business organizations, lawmakers, and farmers banded together to create Ohioans Against Marijuana Monopolies and to put an initiative on the ballot that sought to directly counteract Issue 3.
That other initiative, known as Issue 2, is called the “anti-monopoly amendment” and it seeks to protect “the initiative process from being used for personal economic benefit,” namely to prohibit the state from granting a petitioner “a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel for their exclusive financial benefit.”
State Representative Michael F. Curtin, a Democrat and former editor of The Columbus Dispatch, has called Issue 3 "a prostitution of the initiative process," according to The New York Times.
The sentiment among many Ohioans was clear, according to Cincinatti’s WLWT5:
"I can't believe I voted 'no' when it was finally on the ballot," said Marty Dvorchak, 62, of the northern Cincinnati suburb of Fairfield. "I think it's ridiculous that marijuana is illegal." But he said he had problems with the way the initiative is structured.
Steve Mosier, 61, of Cincinnati, also voted no because of similar concerns, even though he says he generally supports legalization.
"It's no greater danger to society than alcohol and some other things that are legal, like cigarettes," he said.
Tom Angell, the chairman of advocacy group Marijuana Majority, was even harsher in his assesment of Issue 3. Here's what Angell had to say in a statement sent to Business Insider:
“[issue 3] was about a flawed measure and a campaign that didn't represent what voters want ... Several polls leading up to Election Day showed that a clear majority of Ohioans support legalizing marijuana, but voters won't tolerate this issue being taken over by greedy special interests. Our ongoing national movement to end marijuana prohibition is focused on civil rights, health and public safety, not profits for small groups of investors ...
Here's just a bit of the chatter on Twitter about the amendment:
@jaketapper Please report that they are saying no to marijuana monopolies, which is what this election (and my vote) is about.
— amk44139 (@amk44139) November 4, 2015
Ohioans didn’t say no to legal marijuana tonight (as recent polls show). They rejected a greedy initiative & poor campaign.
— Marijuana Majority (@JoinTheMajority) November 4, 2015
Man ppl surprised or upset at #Issue3 going down aren't from here. Literally every famous pro-3 Ohioan turned out to be an investor in it
— Arthur Chu (@arthur_affect) November 4, 2015
The gap between @YesOn3Ohio results and generic legalization polling in OH shows this was about the oligopoly language, not marijuana.
— Dan Riffle (@DanRiffle) November 4, 2015
Business Insider By Harrison Jacobs
1 hour ago
Ohio voters rejected a ballot proposal on Tuesday that would have legalized marijuana for recreational and medical use. The measure was defeated by nearly a 2 to 1 margin, according to current projections.
The rejection, however, may have less to do with Ohioans attitudes about marijuana than one might think.
The proposal, known as Issue 3, allowed adults 21 and older to use, purchase, and grow certain amounts of marijuana, while establishing a regulatory and taxation scheme to handle the legalization.
However, embedded in the proposal was a stipulation that would have given “exclusive rights” for commercial marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction to ten predetermined parcels of land.
The varied owners of those land parcels were the proponents and funders of the initiative, known as ResponsibleOhio. The group spent more than $12 million on ads and The New York Times reports that they spent $25 million on the campaign in total.
The problems with Issue 3 were best summed up by Case Western University School of Law professor Jonathan Adler in the Washington Post:
… Issue 3 would create a marijuana “monopoly” (actually, an oligopoly) consisting of 10 producers who would have their exclusive rights to engage in the commercial production of marijuana enshrined in the state constitution. The campaign in support of Issue 3 — so-called Responsible Ohio — is predictably supported by those who would hold these exclusive rights. This is crony capitalism at its worst.
The monopolistic design of the initiative was part of the campaign from the start, according to the New York Times. Ian James, a political consultant who helped architect the campaign, found 10 investment groups willing to put up $2 million each to finance the campaign for the marijuana legalization amendment.
The investment groups would in exchange receive exclusive rights to grow marijuana on ten parcels of land owned or optioned by the investors.
NORML, the outspoken marijuana reform organization, endorsed the legislation, but did so with “some hesitancy” because of the limited number of growing sites, according to Reuters. The Marijuana Policy Project and the Drug Policy Alliance stayed neutral on Issue 3.
Meanwhile, an October poll by Kent State University found that 58% of registered voters in Ohio would support allowing adults to legally possess small amounts of marijuana for personal use.
Issue 3, as written, was so abhorred that a wide coalition of children's hospitals, business organizations, lawmakers, and farmers banded together to create Ohioans Against Marijuana Monopolies and to put an initiative on the ballot that sought to directly counteract Issue 3.
That other initiative, known as Issue 2, is called the “anti-monopoly amendment” and it seeks to protect “the initiative process from being used for personal economic benefit,” namely to prohibit the state from granting a petitioner “a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel for their exclusive financial benefit.”
State Representative Michael F. Curtin, a Democrat and former editor of The Columbus Dispatch, has called Issue 3 "a prostitution of the initiative process," according to The New York Times.
The sentiment among many Ohioans was clear, according to Cincinatti’s WLWT5:
"I can't believe I voted 'no' when it was finally on the ballot," said Marty Dvorchak, 62, of the northern Cincinnati suburb of Fairfield. "I think it's ridiculous that marijuana is illegal." But he said he had problems with the way the initiative is structured.
Steve Mosier, 61, of Cincinnati, also voted no because of similar concerns, even though he says he generally supports legalization.
"It's no greater danger to society than alcohol and some other things that are legal, like cigarettes," he said.
Tom Angell, the chairman of advocacy group Marijuana Majority, was even harsher in his assesment of Issue 3. Here's what Angell had to say in a statement sent to Business Insider:
“[issue 3] was about a flawed measure and a campaign that didn't represent what voters want ... Several polls leading up to Election Day showed that a clear majority of Ohioans support legalizing marijuana, but voters won't tolerate this issue being taken over by greedy special interests. Our ongoing national movement to end marijuana prohibition is focused on civil rights, health and public safety, not profits for small groups of investors ...
Here's just a bit of the chatter on Twitter about the amendment:
@jaketapper Please report that they are saying no to marijuana monopolies, which is what this election (and my vote) is about.
— amk44139 (@amk44139) November 4, 2015
Ohioans didn’t say no to legal marijuana tonight (as recent polls show). They rejected a greedy initiative & poor campaign.
— Marijuana Majority (@JoinTheMajority) November 4, 2015
Man ppl surprised or upset at #Issue3 going down aren't from here. Literally every famous pro-3 Ohioan turned out to be an investor in it
— Arthur Chu (@arthur_affect) November 4, 2015
The gap between @YesOn3Ohio results and generic legalization polling in OH shows this was about the oligopoly language, not marijuana.
— Dan Riffle (@DanRiffle) November 4, 2015
Warsteinner
Footballguy
Sucks... I'm still stoned.
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
I hate you all
Binky The Doormat
Footballguy
Good that people in Ohio at least read what was going on instead of blindly voting. Sounds like there is enough interest to legalize in the proper manner. The principles behind this need to be shamed and run out of the state.
Warsteinner
Footballguy
4 plants was the proposal. All I need is one for me. I effed around like you when I was a kid. I think now I could closet a plant up. Also saw a fun safe thing on online today for a decent price that allows easy hydro.
Johnny Rock
Footballguy
It's easy to say pass it and deal with trying to change the language and oligopoly later, but once it's in the constitution that's not likely. What's another year or two wait?
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
roadkill1292
Footballguy
What's the deadline for getting a new proposal on the 2016 ballot?
xulf
Footballguy
Who is going to fund it? That's the problem. These 10 groups funded the entire campaign and got it on the ballot.
cheese
Footballguy
Takes a ton of money to drum up the support to get something on the ballot. No guarentee they want to invest again given it wasn't very close. I don't expect it back on the ballot in a year or 2 in Ohio but who knows.
wadegarrett
FFA Legend™
We may have lost the battle...
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I keep reading estimates that it takes $20 million to get something on the ballot in Ohio. Legalization advocates may have better luck finding a less expensive and more amenable state east of the Mississippi.
Even so, some Ohio legislators are already talking about medical marijuana legislation, saying that the word from their constituents was that they were opposed to the commercial ramifications of Prop 3, not to legalization itself. Ohio is still pretty conservative on this issue compared to the rest of the nation, polling at about fitty-fitty compared to a national favorable rating of closer to 60% than 50%, and the demographics will be slightly better in 2016 and better still in 2020.
Even so, some Ohio legislators are already talking about medical marijuana legislation, saying that the word from their constituents was that they were opposed to the commercial ramifications of Prop 3, not to legalization itself. Ohio is still pretty conservative on this issue compared to the rest of the nation, polling at about fitty-fitty compared to a national favorable rating of closer to 60% than 50%, and the demographics will be slightly better in 2016 and better still in 2020.
grateful zed
Footballguy
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
Wait, grateful zed is making all the Ohio jokes and he's from ...Montana?! 
Guess that explains where the jokes came from, just substitute the state. At least they were funny.
Guess that explains where the jokes came from, just substitute the state. At least they were funny.
James Daulton
Footballguy
Stupid Ohio.
MAC_32
Footballguy
I'd think the costs required to build and maintain a casino differ slightly from the costs required to build and maintain a weed farm.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
More musing about numbers: Issue 3 lost by about 800,000 votes. By 2020, Ohio will have lost something around 250,000 voters who would have opposed legalization, regardless of the structure. But about 800,000 new voters will come onto the rolls, about 75% of whom will be in favor of a Colorado-like system. That seems like the year to shoot for.
These proportions hold true almost everywhere in the country, including states like Maryland and Massachusetts where public support is already nearing 60%. Unless today's teenagers suddenly decide en masse that they don't want pot to be legal, this remains inevitable.
These proportions hold true almost everywhere in the country, including states like Maryland and Massachusetts where public support is already nearing 60%. Unless today's teenagers suddenly decide en masse that they don't want pot to be legal, this remains inevitable.
B-Deep
Footballguy
There'sa new petition for Ohio trying to get the law without writing the names of the growers in
In theory the WORDST it should do is how this issue did, and will probably do much better
The problem is it'll have less $$$ supporting it because the groups that created Responsible Ohio don't give two bong hits about marijuana legalization, they only care about trying to corner the market.
Hang 10
Footballguy
:(
NutterButter
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Casinos might be expensive, but gambling establishments aren't necessarily expensive. Ohio granted the casinos a monopoly on gambling. So the big casino in Cleveland can take a rake on a poker game, but your local sports bar in Chillicothe cannot. And when cheap, seedy internet sweepstakes cafes popped up, the casinos lobbied against them in the legislature (because it wasn't clear under the gambling statutes that the internet cafes were gambling) and collaborated with local prosecutors to get them shut down.
MAC_32
Footballguy
Well, yeah. If you want gambling available everywhere then you probably weren't happy with the outcome.
wadegarrett
FFA Legend™
NutterButter
Footballguy
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
B-Deep
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
I think doctor's in some other states are strict about giving out mj scripts. Here you can tell the doctor that your eyes are too white and they need to be red.
Tom Servo
Nittany Beavers
Similar threads
