Ohio pot legalization - Maybe next time (2 Viewers)

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I don't understand the "enshrined in the Constitution" argument. The Ohio constitution is really easy to amend. We know that because this oligopoly thing was a constitutional amendment in the first place. If it had passed, couldn't somebody have put a "remember when we said only ten farms? Psyche!" measure on the ballot next year?

 

[Mile High]

Colorado schools and tourist department thanks Ohio.

 

[Otis]

Lol Ohio. Thanks for being a waste of a state. And you're welcome for us taking you on our backs the past 200+ years.

Hugs n kisses,

New York

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't understand the "enshrined in the Constitution" argument. The Ohio constitution is really easy to amend. We know that because this oligopoly thing was a constitutional amendment in the first place. If it had passed, couldn't somebody have put a "remember when we said only ten farms? Psyche!" measure on the ballot next year?

Fair point.

 

[lardonastick]

Thanks for nothing you guys.

 

[Das Boot]

After Ohio defeat, pot legalization backers aim for better luck in 2016
Reuters By Kim Palmer

CLEVELAND (Reuters) - Opponents of a voter initiative that would have legalized marijuana in Ohio celebrated their crushing victory on Wednesday as advocates of legalization said they see a better chance for victory in five other states next year.

Marijuana legalization in Ohio won only 36 percent of the vote on Tuesday, failing even in large urban areas and areas with large college populations.

Supporters claimed they were not surprised by the rejection of a ballot measure that would have allowed both recreational and medical use of the drug. Some critics blamed the advocates for pushing too far too fast, while also working to create an economic monopoly around production of the drug that many found objectionable.

"We realized the language was not to the liking of Ohio voters," Ian James, executive director of Responsible Ohio, which backed the failed Issue 3 ballot. The group plans a reworked measure next year.

Voters instead passed a rival measure that nullifies legislation that creates a monopoly. Turnout was low, with 42 percent of registered voters going to the polls.

Calvina Fay, executive director of Drug Free America Foundation, acknowledged the role that the wording of Issue 3 had in its defeat.

"Voters in Ohio wisely rejected a big marijuana monopoly, while at the same time protecting young residents from being subjected to the marketing and commercialization that would be aimed at promoting the use of a harmful substance," Fay said.

Failure in Ohio hasn't dissuaded supporters of legalized marijuana from envisioning a better outcome next year, when a presidential election will bring out a higher number of voters in at least five other states.

Those measures also won't suffer from the same market restrictions that hamstrung the Ohio effort, advocates said.

"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," said Mason Tvert, director of communications with the advocacy group Marijuana Policy Project.

"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," he added. "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."

The group had neither supported nor opposed the Ohio ballot initiative.

Nevada will vote on recreational use next November. Similar measures are expected to qualify for ballots in Arizona, California, Maine and Massachusetts, according to the Marijuana Policy Project.

National Cannabis Industry Association Executive Director Aaron Smith said a foundation has been laid for a 2016 effort that would "put forward a more common-sense initiative and have a major impact on the presidential conversation in the process."

Ohio, considered a bellwether politically because the presidential candidate who wins that state often captures the election, would have been the first Midwest state to legalize recreational marijuana, joining Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Oregon and the District of Columbia. About two dozen states permit medical use.

While polls showed over half of Ohio voters approved of legalizing marijuana for personal and medical use, the state measure was criticized for limiting commercial cultivation to only 10 predetermined producers who were the ballot measure's main backers, analysts said.

"It's clear Americans want legal marijuana, but most want a free market model," said Danielle Keane, political director for NORML, which advocates for marijuana legalization.

(Reporting by Kim Palmer in Cleveland and Mary Wisniewski in Chicago; Editing by Ben Klayman and Alan Crosby)

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Lol Ohio. Thanks for being a waste of a state. And you're welcome for us taking you on our backs the past 200+ years.

Hugs n kisses,

New York

Thanks, NY. We'll let you know who's going to be the next POTUS once we've decided.

 

[Tom Servo]

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.

Assuming you want to try again in 5 years. Also, you can't assume everyone migrating to Ohio cities like Columbus would automatically fall into the pro-pot demographic.

I'd be very surprised if this isn't back on the ballot in five years (maybe even next year). There is nothing to suggest that newcomers to Ohio cities will buck the national demographic trends; support will almost assuredly be higher at that time.

Prohibitionists are dying. New voters support legalization by close to 75%. People who change their minds on the issue are changing them to support for legalization by about a 3-1 margin. There is no indication that any of these trends will change in the next five years.

I think you have to separate medical mary jane from recreational use. Most everyone (myself included) have no issue with medical marijuana.

However, where is the real market for recreational blazing? Consider the following groups of people won't be able to partake:

1. All first responders - cops, firemen, EMTs, etc.

2. Anyone with a CDL - truck drivers, utility linemen, etc. Fail one Whiz Quiz and your license is GONE and so is your job.

3. Health care professionals - doctors, many nurses, technicians

4. State workers - everyone from ODOT to Department of Corrections to many office workers

5. Manufacturing workers

6. College employees

Many of these jobs have Whiz Quizzes that are administered regularly. Just those 6 classes of people wipe out a lot of people from 1%ers to the average Joe. Given that most people vote in their self-interest, if they cannot blaze up, why would they vote for it?

It's hard when your market is gamers who hang out at head shops on Neil Avenue in Columbus.

Why does the size of the market matter? Only something like 15% of Americans smoke cannabis with any regularity yet almost 60% of them want to end prohibition for whatever personal purposes the consumer intends. The only conclusion to draw from that is that even people who don't consume marijuana do not think that we should be prohibited by law from doing so.

Well, if only 15% are using - and assuming 100% of them are motivated enough to vote - you still have to convince the vast majority of the remaining 45% (60% overall support - 15% users) that it's a good idea. You've already got 40% already biased against you; your work is to convince the other 45% to support you.

That 45% in favor and not using are essentially a disinterested party; yeah, I'm in favor of it, but not necessarily enough to vote for it (wanting to <> voting to end it).

That is an interesting conclusion to glean from the recent polls showing nearly 60% of voters are in favor of legalization. I don't know how to say that in a nicer way.

Just because 60% favor pot doesn't mean it will translate to votes. You can poll all day long: because people can and do lie to pollsters. Until you get them in a voting booth with the choice of yes or no this is all theoretical.

Also, that 60% in favor doesn't mean they'll vote for something where they have no stake. Supporters have to get those voters to overcome the bias of disinterest (i.e., I'm not a pot smoker, don't want to yet I'm not bothered by others doing so) to vote against the status quo. If I were an Ohio voter, I would probably have voted against Issue 3 as it seemed to be bad law.

The block of voters who favor legalization but don't actually consume themselves were largely responsible for passage of laws in other states. Granted, Ohio is slightly more conservative than the states which have already legalized but demographics will pretty much wipe out those differences in the next 5-8 years. Why would we think that Ohio voters in the same category will vote differently than voters in Colorado, Washington and Oregon? Besides, it's not a problem getting them to the polls when we're electing a new president.

Issue 3 was a hot mess. I can see the arguments on both sides but even the most vociferous supporters were turned away by the constitutional establishment of a business cartel.

You're probably right on the bolded. I'm not sure where your 60% pot support comes from - national poll, Ohio poll, whatever (I'm not accusing, just wondering) - but I'm skeptical of any poll that is not "likely voters". This site has a report that states 57.5% of eligible citizens voted in the 2012 presidential election. That seems to be in line with recent elections. Essentially, around 4 in 10 will not vote for whatever reason.

I'm not sure why you assume this massive sea change in opinion in 5 years on this issue. When I lived in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia, it was growing like a weed, yet is still dwarfed in state politics by the Morgantown/Wheeling area. The area of WV I lived in was seeing outgrowth from DC and Baltimore; if that kind of double-digit growth can't change the political structure in 5-8 years, why would demographic change in a rust belt state like Ohio be different?

(Mind you, I'm not necessarily against recreational pot use; I'm just discussing the political aspect of it as I see things.)

 

[Tom Servo]

Lol Ohio. Thanks for being a waste of a state. And you're welcome for us taking you on our backs the past 200+ years.

Hugs n kisses,

New York

Dear New York -

Thank you for being the home of arrogant dooshes and self-important pudding brains. We won't miss you when we cut you off and let you drift into the Atlantic.

Rainbows and Unicorns,

Ohio

 

[roadkill1292]

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.

Assuming you want to try again in 5 years. Also, you can't assume everyone migrating to Ohio cities like Columbus would automatically fall into the pro-pot demographic.

I'd be very surprised if this isn't back on the ballot in five years (maybe even next year). There is nothing to suggest that newcomers to Ohio cities will buck the national demographic trends; support will almost assuredly be higher at that time.

Prohibitionists are dying. New voters support legalization by close to 75%. People who change their minds on the issue are changing them to support for legalization by about a 3-1 margin. There is no indication that any of these trends will change in the next five years.

I think you have to separate medical mary jane from recreational use. Most everyone (myself included) have no issue with medical marijuana.

However, where is the real market for recreational blazing? Consider the following groups of people won't be able to partake:

1. All first responders - cops, firemen, EMTs, etc.

2. Anyone with a CDL - truck drivers, utility linemen, etc. Fail one Whiz Quiz and your license is GONE and so is your job.

3. Health care professionals - doctors, many nurses, technicians

4. State workers - everyone from ODOT to Department of Corrections to many office workers

5. Manufacturing workers

6. College employees

Many of these jobs have Whiz Quizzes that are administered regularly. Just those 6 classes of people wipe out a lot of people from 1%ers to the average Joe. Given that most people vote in their self-interest, if they cannot blaze up, why would they vote for it?

It's hard when your market is gamers who hang out at head shops on Neil Avenue in Columbus.

Why does the size of the market matter? Only something like 15% of Americans smoke cannabis with any regularity yet almost 60% of them want to end prohibition for whatever personal purposes the consumer intends. The only conclusion to draw from that is that even people who don't consume marijuana do not think that we should be prohibited by law from doing so.

Well, if only 15% are using - and assuming 100% of them are motivated enough to vote - you still have to convince the vast majority of the remaining 45% (60% overall support - 15% users) that it's a good idea. You've already got 40% already biased against you; your work is to convince the other 45% to support you.

That 45% in favor and not using are essentially a disinterested party; yeah, I'm in favor of it, but not necessarily enough to vote for it (wanting to <> voting to end it).

That is an interesting conclusion to glean from the recent polls showing nearly 60% of voters are in favor of legalization. I don't know how to say that in a nicer way.

Just because 60% favor pot doesn't mean it will translate to votes. You can poll all day long: because people can and do lie to pollsters. Until you get them in a voting booth with the choice of yes or no this is all theoretical.

Also, that 60% in favor doesn't mean they'll vote for something where they have no stake. Supporters have to get those voters to overcome the bias of disinterest (i.e., I'm not a pot smoker, don't want to yet I'm not bothered by others doing so) to vote against the status quo. If I were an Ohio voter, I would probably have voted against Issue 3 as it seemed to be bad law.

The block of voters who favor legalization but don't actually consume themselves were largely responsible for passage of laws in other states. Granted, Ohio is slightly more conservative than the states which have already legalized but demographics will pretty much wipe out those differences in the next 5-8 years. Why would we think that Ohio voters in the same category will vote differently than voters in Colorado, Washington and Oregon? Besides, it's not a problem getting them to the polls when we're electing a new president.

Issue 3 was a hot mess. I can see the arguments on both sides but even the most vociferous supporters were turned away by the constitutional establishment of a business cartel.

You're probably right on the bolded. I'm not sure where your 60% pot support comes from - national poll, Ohio poll, whatever (I'm not accusing, just wondering) - but I'm skeptical of any poll that is not "likely voters". This site has a report that states 57.5% of eligible citizens voted in the 2012 presidential election. That seems to be in line with recent elections. Essentially, around 4 in 10 will not vote for whatever reason.

I'm not sure why you assume this massive sea change in opinion in 5 years on this issue. When I lived in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia, it was growing like a weed, yet is still dwarfed in state politics by the Morgantown/Wheeling area. The area of WV I lived in was seeing outgrowth from DC and Baltimore; if that kind of double-digit growth can't change the political structure in 5-8 years, why would demographic change in a rust belt state like Ohio be different?

(Mind you, I'm not necessarily against recreational pot use; I'm just discussing the political aspect of it as I see things.)

I'm a little confused as to how the West Virginia population changes are relevant to this discussion but the important numbers in the long run are these -- every year about 1.7 million Americans over the age of 70 pass away. That group is something like 75% opposed to legalization (and damn near all of them vote). Every year about 4 million kids turn 18. Their turnout is indeed low at that age but for those who do, something like 75% of them are in favor of legalization. They vote in larger percentages as they age and they vote in heavier percentages in presidential election years.

Those numbers grind away at the issue, glacier-like, year after year, and are why we're at the polling numbers we are now, with proponents reaching the 50% level in even conservative states like Ohio and nearly 60% in some of the bluer states. First, a breakthrough needs to occur east of the Mississippi; I don't know if Ohio is the place. After that, the dominoes will begin falling in much the same way that casino gambling has and one of the most interesting things to observe in the future will be how the most conservative states deal with it when their neighbors pass legalization.

I don't agree at all that the aforementioned block who favor legalization but don't consume are unmotivated. Their motivation is just slightly different -- they don't want to see people go into the criminal justice system any longer for consuming weed.

 

[James Daulton]

The tide is turning so that eventually it will be legal at a federal level and then the employer testing won't be an issue. This may take 10 or 20 years but it is coming. People are coming to realize that booze is a much more harmful drug than weed.

Why will being legal at a federal level change what employers can test for?

I agree that booze is much more harmful than weed, I will vote for legalization if I get the chance. I'm one of the people that doesn't smoke now, but would occasionally if it was legal.

Why would employers test for a legal substance? Do most test for booze now?

 

[Ookie Pringle]

The tide is turning so that eventually it will be legal at a federal level and then the employer testing won't be an issue. This may take 10 or 20 years but it is coming. People are coming to realize that booze is a much more harmful drug than weed.

Why will being legal at a federal level change what employers can test for?

I agree that booze is much more harmful than weed, I will vote for legalization if I get the chance. I'm one of the people that doesn't smoke now, but would occasionally if it was legal.

Why would employers test for a legal substance? Do most test for booze now?

Many do if an employee is injured on the job and it is done in the trucking industry for the DOT.

 

[roadkill1292]

I think testing laws and policies are going to change as testing procedures improve. Some workplaces should be able to test for inebriation as a safety measure. But we've also given American business way too much power in this area and hopefully there will be some ground level pushback. Unless medical science comes up with reason to the contrary, it's none of your business if an employee smoked a dooby two nights ago just because he gets a paycheck from you.

 

[B-Deep]

It's amazing to me that there are people out there who are scared of pot being legalized, thinking that everyone and their brother is going to rush to go buy some weed, and then all the kids will get their hands on it.

Guess what folks, the legalization of marijuana doesn't even make weed easier to get. It's VERY easy to get. In fact, I would argue it might make it HARDER for kids to get if it were to be legalized since the small time peddlers just might be put out of business. However, even if I am completely wrong about that, legalizing MJ would still only make it ever so slightly easier to get in general.

I do not smoke weed. I am not going to let my kids smoke week. Whether it is legal or illegal has absolutely nothing to do with any of it.

My really good friend (who is a big pot smoker) did not like the way the proposed laws were written and actually wanted them to fail. Why? Because he didn't want to see MJ monopolies. Why else? Because legal or illegal makes absolutely no difference in his pot buying/smoking habits. If anything, he gets his weed cheaper now than if it was to be legalized.

oh bullcrap

are you telling me most kids smoke their first blunt before they try their first beer? it is not going to make it harder for kids to get

 

[B-Deep]

I don't understand the "enshrined in the Constitution" argument. The Ohio constitution is really easy to amend. We know that because this oligopoly thing was a constitutional amendment in the first place. If it had passed, couldn't somebody have put a "remember when we said only ten farms? Psyche!" measure on the ballot next year?

yes

the concern is will enough people care?

by that point the weed industry is running and do people care enough to upset the apple cart?

In fact the 2016 amendment, if it passes, would have repealed the 2015. But if this year's had passed i think next year's would have failed miserably

Once it is legal many of the pro-weed folks just won;t vote, their issue is legalizing and that is done. so get the law right the first time. 1 more year isn't going to kill anyone. All we have heard here is weed flows freely and cheaply, so the weed is still out there for smokers. Continue having areas decriminalize it, no one goes to jail for minor weed possession, and get the law right.

seems harmless

 

[B-Deep]

Lol Ohio. Thanks for being a waste of a state. And you're welcome for us taking you on our backs the past 200+ years.

Hugs n kisses,

New York

have y'alll even voted on this yet?

 

[Tom Servo]

You're probably right on the bolded. I'm not sure where your 60% pot support comes from - national poll, Ohio poll, whatever (I'm not accusing, just wondering) - but I'm skeptical of any poll that is not "likely voters". This site has a report that states 57.5% of eligible citizens voted in the 2012 presidential election. That seems to be in line with recent elections. Essentially, around 4 in 10 will not vote for whatever reason.


I'm not sure why you assume this massive sea change in opinion in 5 years on this issue. When I lived in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia, it was growing like a weed, yet is still dwarfed in state politics by the Morgantown/Wheeling area. The area of WV I lived in was seeing outgrowth from DC and Baltimore; if that kind of double-digit growth can't change the political structure in 5-8 years, why would demographic change in a rust belt state like Ohio be different?

(Mind you, I'm not necessarily against recreational pot use; I'm just discussing the political aspect of it as I see things.)

I'm a little confused as to how the West Virginia population changes are relevant to this discussion but the important numbers in the long run are these -- every year about 1.7 million Americans over the age of 70 pass away. That group is something like 75% opposed to legalization (and damn near all of them vote). Every year about 4 million kids turn 18. Their turnout is indeed low at that age but for those who do, something like 75% of them are in favor of legalization. They vote in larger percentages as they age and they vote in heavier percentages in presidential election years.

Those numbers grind away at the issue, glacier-like, year after year, and are why we're at the polling numbers we are now, with proponents reaching the 50% level in even conservative states like Ohio and nearly 60% in some of the bluer states. First, a breakthrough needs to occur east of the Mississippi; I don't know if Ohio is the place. After that, the dominoes will begin falling in much the same way that casino gambling has and one of the most interesting things to observe in the future will be how the most conservative states deal with it when their neighbors pass legalization.

I don't agree at all that the aforementioned block who favor legalization but don't consume are unmotivated. Their motivation is just slightly different -- they don't want to see people go into the criminal justice system any longer for consuming weed.

The reason I bring up WV - and this is occurring to a much larger extent in Virginia (which is more properly consider politically "purple") - is that trends like these are taking over a decade. In 2000 you could safely count VA as a red state in Bush v. Gore; in 2016 where more liberals have settled in Loudoun and Prince William counties they have converted the state to a toss-up in a national election.

In a state like Ohio, which as a Rust Belt state maybe unique as it may be able to hold its own in population as there's enough growth in Columbus and Cincinnati to sustain its electoral status. My point is that if states like VA and WV are taking a decade or more to swing, why do you expect change on an issue in less time in a (to be gracious) net neutral population growth state like Ohio?

Regarding the bolded, I can agree with that point of view. I don't really want small time weed dealers clogging up our court system. I would rather see something like "don't ask, don't tell", but that's a whole other discussion.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I don't understand the "enshrined in the Constitution" argument. The Ohio constitution is really easy to amend. We know that because this oligopoly thing was a constitutional amendment in the first place. If it had passed, couldn't somebody have put a "remember when we said only ten farms? Psyche!" measure on the ballot next year?

yes

the concern is will enough people care?

by that point the weed industry is running and do people care enough to upset the apple cart?

In fact the 2016 amendment, if it passes, would have repealed the 2015. But if this year's had passed i think next year's would have failed miserably

Once it is legal many of the pro-weed folks just won;t vote, their issue is legalizing and that is done. so get the law right the first time. 1 more year isn't going to kill anyone. All we have heard here is weed flows freely and cheaply, so the weed is still out there for smokers. Continue having areas decriminalize it, no one goes to jail for minor weed possession, and get the law right.

seems harmless

I wouldn't characterize it as harmless. I think you only see it that way because you're accustomed to pot being illegal.

Imagine if Ohio said "we're going to ban booze in 2016, and violating the law even a little could potentially result in arrest, fines, possible imprisonment, negative job consequences, inability to get student loans, etc." But don't worry, it's only one year! Would you consider that law also to be harmless?

 

[Tom Servo]

The tide is turning so that eventually it will be legal at a federal level and then the employer testing won't be an issue. This may take 10 or 20 years but it is coming. People are coming to realize that booze is a much more harmful drug than weed.

Why will being legal at a federal level change what employers can test for?

I agree that booze is much more harmful than weed, I will vote for legalization if I get the chance. I'm one of the people that doesn't smoke now, but would occasionally if it was legal.

Why would employers test for a legal substance? Do most test for booze now?

If having an alcohol addiction is impairing your ability to function, you will be asked to get help. If you refuse, ask Steve Sarkesian how that worked out (allegedly).

 

[roadkill1292]

You're probably right on the bolded. I'm not sure where your 60% pot support comes from - national poll, Ohio poll, whatever (I'm not accusing, just wondering) - but I'm skeptical of any poll that is not "likely voters". This site has a report that states 57.5% of eligible citizens voted in the 2012 presidential election. That seems to be in line with recent elections. Essentially, around 4 in 10 will not vote for whatever reason.


I'm not sure why you assume this massive sea change in opinion in 5 years on this issue. When I lived in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia, it was growing like a weed, yet is still dwarfed in state politics by the Morgantown/Wheeling area. The area of WV I lived in was seeing outgrowth from DC and Baltimore; if that kind of double-digit growth can't change the political structure in 5-8 years, why would demographic change in a rust belt state like Ohio be different?

(Mind you, I'm not necessarily against recreational pot use; I'm just discussing the political aspect of it as I see things.)

I'm a little confused as to how the West Virginia population changes are relevant to this discussion but the important numbers in the long run are these -- every year about 1.7 million Americans over the age of 70 pass away. That group is something like 75% opposed to legalization (and damn near all of them vote). Every year about 4 million kids turn 18. Their turnout is indeed low at that age but for those who do, something like 75% of them are in favor of legalization. They vote in larger percentages as they age and they vote in heavier percentages in presidential election years.

Those numbers grind away at the issue, glacier-like, year after year, and are why we're at the polling numbers we are now, with proponents reaching the 50% level in even conservative states like Ohio and nearly 60% in some of the bluer states. First, a breakthrough needs to occur east of the Mississippi; I don't know if Ohio is the place. After that, the dominoes will begin falling in much the same way that casino gambling has and one of the most interesting things to observe in the future will be how the most conservative states deal with it when their neighbors pass legalization.

I don't agree at all that the aforementioned block who favor legalization but don't consume are unmotivated. Their motivation is just slightly different -- they don't want to see people go into the criminal justice system any longer for consuming weed.

The reason I bring up WV - and this is occurring to a much larger extent in Virginia (which is more properly consider politically "purple") - is that trends like these are taking over a decade. In 2000 you could safely count VA as a red state in Bush v. Gore; in 2016 where more liberals have settled in Loudoun and Prince William counties they have converted the state to a toss-up in a national election.

In a state like Ohio, which as a Rust Belt state maybe unique as it may be able to hold its own in population as there's enough growth in Columbus and Cincinnati to sustain its electoral status. My point is that if states like VA and WV are taking a decade or more to swing, why do you expect change on an issue in less time in a (to be gracious) net neutral population growth state like Ohio?

Regarding the bolded, I can agree with that point of view. I don't really want small time weed dealers clogging up our court system. I would rather see something like "don't ask, don't tell", but that's a whole other discussion.

I ran the (very approximate) future numbers for Ohio in an earlier post and I don't think they're growth-relevant; Ohio isn't significantly different in age demographics, which I believe are the most important ones, from the rest of the nation. The five year change in the electorate demographics plus a more reasonable bill plus a presidential election are the three factors that I think will combine to push Ohio to legalization in 2020 or to a very close miss. If another proposal gets on the 2024 ballot, I don't see how it can lose.

I love the demographics argument but admittedly it's because it mostly works in my favor on the issues I care about.

 

[thayman]

Making drugs easier for people to use is a bad idea. Too many people make poor decisions. Too many people get caught up in having a good time instead of being responsible for their lives or their kid's lives. Too many kids will get their hands on the drugs if they are available for adults.

I also think weed is a gateway drug. I smoked pot in my youth. I progressed to coke, mushrooms, LSD, uppers, downers, etc. None of that did me any good. I wish I had never done any of that stuff. I also wish I was not a drunk for 10 years either but that is another topic.

I had friends OD. I had friends get high and drunk then kill themselves while driving.

You should really educate yourself about drugs and addiction. Hopefully your friends didn't kill anyone else while they were out drinking and driving.

 

[cstu]

Ya that's a tough sell though. It's easy to make jokes about the kids issue or blow it off when you aren't raising kids in this state. For those of us that are, its a tough issue.

I was happy when it passed in other states but nervous about having it in my back yard. Just being honest

I don't think we proponents blow the issue off at all. Black market dealers don't check IDs, dispensaries do. Since legalization began in Colorado, high school usage rates have declined a little.

Which makes sense really - nobody wants to associate with shady drug dealers, especially in order to get a legal drug.

 

[Tom Servo]

You're probably right on the bolded. I'm not sure where your 60% pot support comes from - national poll, Ohio poll, whatever (I'm not accusing, just wondering) - but I'm skeptical of any poll that is not "likely voters". This site has a report that states 57.5% of eligible citizens voted in the 2012 presidential election. That seems to be in line with recent elections. Essentially, around 4 in 10 will not vote for whatever reason.


I'm not sure why you assume this massive sea change in opinion in 5 years on this issue. When I lived in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia, it was growing like a weed, yet is still dwarfed in state politics by the Morgantown/Wheeling area. The area of WV I lived in was seeing outgrowth from DC and Baltimore; if that kind of double-digit growth can't change the political structure in 5-8 years, why would demographic change in a rust belt state like Ohio be different?

(Mind you, I'm not necessarily against recreational pot use; I'm just discussing the political aspect of it as I see things.)

I'm a little confused as to how the West Virginia population changes are relevant to this discussion but the important numbers in the long run are these -- every year about 1.7 million Americans over the age of 70 pass away. That group is something like 75% opposed to legalization (and damn near all of them vote). Every year about 4 million kids turn 18. Their turnout is indeed low at that age but for those who do, something like 75% of them are in favor of legalization. They vote in larger percentages as they age and they vote in heavier percentages in presidential election years.

Those numbers grind away at the issue, glacier-like, year after year, and are why we're at the polling numbers we are now, with proponents reaching the 50% level in even conservative states like Ohio and nearly 60% in some of the bluer states. First, a breakthrough needs to occur east of the Mississippi; I don't know if Ohio is the place. After that, the dominoes will begin falling in much the same way that casino gambling has and one of the most interesting things to observe in the future will be how the most conservative states deal with it when their neighbors pass legalization.

I don't agree at all that the aforementioned block who favor legalization but don't consume are unmotivated. Their motivation is just slightly different -- they don't want to see people go into the criminal justice system any longer for consuming weed.

The reason I bring up WV - and this is occurring to a much larger extent in Virginia (which is more properly consider politically "purple") - is that trends like these are taking over a decade. In 2000 you could safely count VA as a red state in Bush v. Gore; in 2016 where more liberals have settled in Loudoun and Prince William counties they have converted the state to a toss-up in a national election.

In a state like Ohio, which as a Rust Belt state maybe unique as it may be able to hold its own in population as there's enough growth in Columbus and Cincinnati to sustain its electoral status. My point is that if states like VA and WV are taking a decade or more to swing, why do you expect change on an issue in less time in a (to be gracious) net neutral population growth state like Ohio?

Regarding the bolded, I can agree with that point of view. I don't really want small time weed dealers clogging up our court system. I would rather see something like "don't ask, don't tell", but that's a whole other discussion.

I ran the (very approximate) future numbers for Ohio in an earlier post and I don't think they're growth-relevant; Ohio isn't significantly different in age demographics, which I believe are the most important ones, from the rest of the nation. The five year change in the electorate demographics plus a more reasonable bill plus a presidential election are the three factors that I think will combine to push Ohio to legalization in 2020 or to a very close miss. If another proposal gets on the 2024 ballot, I don't see how it can lose.

I love the demographics argument but admittedly it's because it mostly works in my favor on the issues I care about.

I understand completely.

After some consideration, I think where I'm heading to is that if you and I were to bet on where the pot dam breaks on the east coast, I can't see Ohio being that state. Notwithstanding the good arguments you've made, I think there are better candidates for this to happen. My order of who goes 1st:

1. New York

2. Maryland

3. DC

4. Massachusetts

5. Minnesota

6. The field

My ranking is based on the population that is liberal/progressive and with enough interested voters from the right that could form a voting combination that could work. Minnesota, with it's Democrat-Farm Labor party roots, could be the Midwest state to break the dam. Wisconsin IMO would be the highest of the field candidates for me, but not enough to break out.

Anything in the deep south won't happen for a long time.

 

[jwb]

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.

Assuming you want to try again in 5 years. Also, you can't assume everyone migrating to Ohio cities like Columbus would automatically fall into the pro-pot demographic.

I'd be very surprised if this isn't back on the ballot in five years (maybe even next year). There is nothing to suggest that newcomers to Ohio cities will buck the national demographic trends; support will almost assuredly be higher at that time.

Prohibitionists are dying. New voters support legalization by close to 75%. People who change their minds on the issue are changing them to support for legalization by about a 3-1 margin. There is no indication that any of these trends will change in the next five years.

I think you have to separate medical mary jane from recreational use. Most everyone (myself included) have no issue with medical marijuana.

However, where is the real market for recreational blazing? Consider the following groups of people won't be able to partake:

1. All first responders - cops, firemen, EMTs, etc.

2. Anyone with a CDL - truck drivers, utility linemen, etc. Fail one Whiz Quiz and your license is GONE and so is your job.

3. Health care professionals - doctors, many nurses, technicians

4. State workers - everyone from ODOT to Department of Corrections to many office workers

5. Manufacturing workers

6. College employees

Many of these jobs have Whiz Quizzes that are administered regularly. Just those 6 classes of people wipe out a lot of people from 1%ers to the average Joe. Given that most people vote in their self-interest, if they cannot blaze up, why would they vote for it?

It's hard when your market is gamers who hang out at head shops on Neil Avenue in Columbus.

But if it became legal, wouldn't the whiz quiz eventually change?

They don't test for alcohol, right? If it's legal, why would employment hinge on whether you smoked a joint last Saturday any more than if you had a martini or a few beers?

 

[jwb]

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.

Assuming you want to try again in 5 years. Also, you can't assume everyone migrating to Ohio cities like Columbus would automatically fall into the pro-pot demographic.

I'd be very surprised if this isn't back on the ballot in five years (maybe even next year). There is nothing to suggest that newcomers to Ohio cities will buck the national demographic trends; support will almost assuredly be higher at that time.

Prohibitionists are dying. New voters support legalization by close to 75%. People who change their minds on the issue are changing them to support for legalization by about a 3-1 margin. There is no indication that any of these trends will change in the next five years.

I think you have to separate medical mary jane from recreational use. Most everyone (myself included) have no issue with medical marijuana.

However, where is the real market for recreational blazing? Consider the following groups of people won't be able to partake:

1. All first responders - cops, firemen, EMTs, etc.

2. Anyone with a CDL - truck drivers, utility linemen, etc. Fail one Whiz Quiz and your license is GONE and so is your job.

3. Health care professionals - doctors, many nurses, technicians

4. State workers - everyone from ODOT to Department of Corrections to many office workers

5. Manufacturing workers

6. College employees

Many of these jobs have Whiz Quizzes that are administered regularly. Just those 6 classes of people wipe out a lot of people from 1%ers to the average Joe. Given that most people vote in their self-interest, if they cannot blaze up, why would they vote for it?

It's hard when your market is gamers who hang out at head shops on Neil Avenue in Columbus.

But if it became legal, wouldn't the whiz quiz eventually change?

They don't test for alcohol, right? If it's legal, why would employment hinge on whether you smoked a joint last Saturday any more than if you had a martini or a few beers?

I don't know where testing technology is right now. Because of the amount of time it stays in your system, how do they tell if you smoked that morning before work, the day before, or a week ago? Same goes for DUI I guess. If that technology is available, how much does it cost? Employers aren't going to want to spend a bunch of money for a single test. They will still want to use the cheap urine test option and if it's in your system, no job for you.

Maybe that technology will become cheaper.

But if it was legal, why would they need a test for employment in the first place?

Just don't show up high (like we don't show up for work drunk - no "test" necessary).

 

[DocHolliday]

Making drugs easier for people to use is a bad idea. Too many people make poor decisions. Too many people get caught up in having a good time instead of being responsible for their lives or their kid's lives. Too many kids will get their hands on the drugs if they are available for adults.

I also think weed is a gateway drug. I smoked pot in my youth. I progressed to coke, mushrooms, LSD, uppers, downers, etc. None of that did me any good. I wish I had never done any of that stuff. I also wish I was not a drunk for 10 years either but that is another topic.

I had friends OD. I had friends get high and drunk then kill themselves while driving.

You should really educate yourself about drugs and addiction. Hopefully your friends didn't kill anyone else while they were out drinking and driving.

I am certain that I know more than you both due to my past and my profession.

 

[DocHolliday]

Making drugs easier for people to use is a bad idea. Too many people make poor decisions. Too many people get caught up in having a good time instead of being responsible for their lives or their kid's lives. Too many kids will get their hands on the drugs if they are available for adults.

I also think weed is a gateway drug. I smoked pot in my youth. I progressed to coke, mushrooms, LSD, uppers, downers, etc. None of that did me any good. I wish I had never done any of that stuff. I also wish I was not a drunk for 10 years either but that is another topic.

I had friends OD. I had friends get high and drunk then kill themselves while driving.

The problem I have with the bolded argument is that it's very easy for kids to get pot now in most American towns and cities.

It is too easy for kids to get their hands on pot now. Making it more available to adults logically means it will be more available to everyone, including kids.

 

[DocHolliday]

Making drugs easier for people to use is a bad idea. Too many people make poor decisions. Too many people get caught up in having a good time instead of being responsible for their lives or their kid's lives. Too many kids will get their hands on the drugs if they are available for adults.

I also think weed is a gateway drug. I smoked pot in my youth. I progressed to coke, mushrooms, LSD, uppers, downers, etc. None of that did me any good. I wish I had never done any of that stuff. I also wish I was not a drunk for 10 years either but that is another topic.

I had friends OD. I had friends get high and drunk then kill themselves while driving.

If that's the logic you want to go with then alcohol is a gateway drug since you probably did that before you ever tried weed - do you want to make that illegal as well?

Being drunk probably had a lot more to do with your friends killing themselves than being high.

Being drunk did have more to do with the vehicle accidents. The weed and coke likely did not help their decision making or reaction time though. That whole drug/alcohol scene led to a lot of bad decisions and accidents. The drugs did directly kill a few others. One OD'd on downers. Another committed suicide after battling a crack and alcohol addiction.

Alcohol is legal and many people will not cross that illegal drug line. Many posters have already written that they would smoke pot if it was legal so obviously, they are not since it is illegal. From my experience, once that drug line is crossed with weed, it leads to other drugs.

 

[DocHolliday]

Making drugs easier for people to use is a bad idea. Too many people make poor decisions. Too many people get caught up in having a good time instead of being responsible for their lives or their kid's lives. Too many kids will get their hands on the drugs if they are available for adults.

I also think weed is a gateway drug. I smoked pot in my youth. I progressed to coke, mushrooms, LSD, uppers, downers, etc. None of that did me any good. I wish I had never done any of that stuff. I also wish I was not a drunk for 10 years either but that is another topic.

I had friends OD. I had friends get high and drunk then kill themselves while driving.

Too late, they are already overdosing on prescription pain killers. Good luck trying to od on pot.

The pills are a huge problem right now. The increase use of heroin is also a much bigger problem than pot.

It does not seem possible to OD on pot. I did smoke so much one evening that I puked and passed out. I was not drinking at all. The puke tasted like smoke.

 

[jwb]

But if it was legal, why would they need a test for employment in the first place?

Just don't show up high (like we don't show up for work drunk - no "test" necessary).

I don't agree with it anymore than you do, but some companies will still test.

Oh, for a while, that's a given. I don't expect Mrs. Soccer Mom to be totally ok overnight with her kid's bus being driven by a drug addict.

But at some point, it will seem as silly as a "did you drink alcohol in the last 30 days?" condition.

 

[DocHolliday]

But if it was legal, why would they need a test for employment in the first place?

Just don't show up high (like we don't show up for work drunk - no "test" necessary).

I don't agree with it anymore than you do, but some companies will still test.

Most drug and alcohol programs are in place as part of a company's safety program. Many employers with EEs in safety sensitive positions, such as operators of forklifts, vehicles, heavy equipment, or machinery, have a random drug and alcohol program. Many of those drug and alcohol programs also include a reasonable suspicion section allowing the employer to test employees that seem to be at work under the influence.

Work comp can be a big expense. Injuries can cost a lot of money. Healthcare is costly and only getting more expensive.

 

[xulf]

Making drugs easier for people to use is a bad idea. Too many people make poor decisions. Too many people get caught up in having a good time instead of being responsible for their lives or their kid's lives. Too many kids will get their hands on the drugs if they are available for adults.

I also think weed is a gateway drug. I smoked pot in my youth. I progressed to coke, mushrooms, LSD, uppers, downers, etc. None of that did me any good. I wish I had never done any of that stuff. I also wish I was not a drunk for 10 years either but that is another topic.

I had friends OD. I had friends get high and drunk then kill themselves while driving.

If that's the logic you want to go with then alcohol is a gateway drug since you probably did that before you ever tried weed - do you want to make that illegal as well?

Being drunk probably had a lot more to do with your friends killing themselves than being high.

Being drunk did have more to do with the vehicle accidents. The weed and coke likely did not help their decision making or reaction time though. That whole drug/alcohol scene led to a lot of bad decisions and accidents. The drugs did directly kill a few others. One OD'd on downers. Another committed suicide after battling a crack and alcohol addiction.

Alcohol is legal and many people will not cross that illegal drug line. Many posters have already written that they would smoke pot if it was legal so obviously, they are not since it is illegal. From my experience, once that drug line is crossed with weed, it leads to other drugs.

I'm sorry about your friends.

With regards to the legal line, why would someone who refrains from pot because it is illegal, all of a sudden cross the line and start using other illegal drugs once pot is legal? If they have a line based on the law, then wouldn't they stay within these parameters? FTR, I do not smoke pot, but would occasionally if it were legal. I have been in rooms where hardcore drugs were being done, and that stuff scares the #### out of me. No way I would ever do those.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Alcohol is legal and many people will not cross that illegal drug line. Many posters have already written that they would smoke pot if it was legal so obviously, they are not since it is illegal. From my experience, once that drug line is crossed with weed, it leads to other drugs.

Do you see the internal inconsistency in this statement?

 

[mbrasi]

Making drugs easier for people to use is a bad idea. Too many people make poor decisions. Too many people get caught up in having a good time instead of being responsible for their lives or their kid's lives. Too many kids will get their hands on the drugs if they are available for adults.

I also think weed is a gateway drug. I smoked pot in my youth. I progressed to coke, mushrooms, LSD, uppers, downers, etc. None of that did me any good. I wish I had never done any of that stuff. I also wish I was not a drunk for 10 years either but that is another topic.

I had friends OD. I had friends get high and drunk then kill themselves while driving.

You should really educate yourself about drugs and addiction. Hopefully your friends didn't kill anyone else while they were out drinking and driving.

I am certain that I know more than you both due to my past and my profession.

Why do you think that making drugs legal is creating easier access????

When I was a kid, I had an easier time getting access to pot than I did for alcohol. This argument makes no sense. If pot were legal you could at least enforce age restrictions on use.

I think since we advertise the US as a free country, we should gain as much freedom as we can. The government should let people make their own decisions (on the flip side, they should be responsible for those decisions). I'm 100% for anything that increases our freedom as long as you are not restricting someone else's freedom in the process. Pot is victimless...you do not restrict someone else's freedom by using pot.

Driving while impaired is not victimless and should be punished...Do you really think that keeping pot illegal will stop people from driving impaired? People will smoke pot regardless of the legal status, and we continue to burden our judicial system with prosecution of victimless crimes. We need to legalize use and remove that burden...I mean there was a 15% tax on the sale on issue 3. We could turn a judicial burden into a revenue stream.

Ugg, its just frustrating that people believe that keeping something illegal means its harder to obtain or access and somehow that will limit use of the illegal product.

 

[Tom Servo]

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.

Assuming you want to try again in 5 years. Also, you can't assume everyone migrating to Ohio cities like Columbus would automatically fall into the pro-pot demographic.

I'd be very surprised if this isn't back on the ballot in five years (maybe even next year). There is nothing to suggest that newcomers to Ohio cities will buck the national demographic trends; support will almost assuredly be higher at that time.

Prohibitionists are dying. New voters support legalization by close to 75%. People who change their minds on the issue are changing them to support for legalization by about a 3-1 margin. There is no indication that any of these trends will change in the next five years.

I think you have to separate medical mary jane from recreational use. Most everyone (myself included) have no issue with medical marijuana.

However, where is the real market for recreational blazing? Consider the following groups of people won't be able to partake:

1. All first responders - cops, firemen, EMTs, etc.

2. Anyone with a CDL - truck drivers, utility linemen, etc. Fail one Whiz Quiz and your license is GONE and so is your job.

3. Health care professionals - doctors, many nurses, technicians

4. State workers - everyone from ODOT to Department of Corrections to many office workers

5. Manufacturing workers

6. College employees

Many of these jobs have Whiz Quizzes that are administered regularly. Just those 6 classes of people wipe out a lot of people from 1%ers to the average Joe. Given that most people vote in their self-interest, if they cannot blaze up, why would they vote for it?

It's hard when your market is gamers who hang out at head shops on Neil Avenue in Columbus.

But if it became legal, wouldn't the whiz quiz eventually change?

They don't test for alcohol, right? If it's legal, why would employment hinge on whether you smoked a joint last Saturday any more than if you had a martini or a few beers?

I don't know where testing technology is right now. Because of the amount of time it stays in your system, how do they tell if you smoked that morning before work, the day before, or a week ago? Same goes for DUI I guess. If that technology is available, how much does it cost? Employers aren't going to want to spend a bunch of money for a single test. They will still want to use the cheap urine test option and if it's in your system, no job for you.

Maybe that technology will become cheaper.

For certain people - like CDL drivers - it's not gonna matter when you toked. You smoke, you lose your license. If you don't like it, take it up with the Feds as IIRC CDLs are their baby.

 

[Tom Servo]

Why do you think that making drugs legal is creating easier access????


When I was a kid, I had an easier time getting access to pot than I did for alcohol. This argument makes no sense. If pot were legal you could at least enforce age restrictions on use.

I think since we advertise the US as a free country, we should gain as much freedom as we can. The government should let people make their own decisions (on the flip side, they should be responsible for those decisions). I'm 100% for anything that increases our freedom as long as you are not restricting someone else's freedom in the process. Pot is victimless...you do not restrict someone else's freedom by using pot.

Driving while impaired is not victimless and should be punished...Do you really think that keeping pot illegal will stop people from driving impaired? People will smoke pot regardless of the legal status, and we continue to burden our judicial system with prosecution of victimless crimes. We need to legalize use and remove that burden...I mean there was a 15% tax on the sale on issue 3. We could turn a judicial burden into a revenue stream.

Ugg, its just frustrating that people believe that keeping something illegal means its harder to obtain or access and somehow that will limit use of the illegal product.

Except for the most part we're not.

 

[thayman]

Making drugs easier for people to use is a bad idea. Too many people make poor decisions. Too many people get caught up in having a good time instead of being responsible for their lives or their kid's lives. Too many kids will get their hands on the drugs if they are available for adults.

I also think weed is a gateway drug. I smoked pot in my youth. I progressed to coke, mushrooms, LSD, uppers, downers, etc. None of that did me any good. I wish I had never done any of that stuff. I also wish I was not a drunk for 10 years either but that is another topic.

I had friends OD. I had friends get high and drunk then kill themselves while driving.

You should really educate yourself about drugs and addiction. Hopefully your friends didn't kill anyone else while they were out drinking and driving.

I am certain that I know more than you both due to my past and my profession.

Based on your posts I doubt that. Not trying to attack you, you just seem incredibly misinformed about drugs and addiction.

 

[DocHolliday]

Making drugs easier for people to use is a bad idea. Too many people make poor decisions. Too many people get caught up in having a good time instead of being responsible for their lives or their kid's lives. Too many kids will get their hands on the drugs if they are available for adults.

I also think weed is a gateway drug. I smoked pot in my youth. I progressed to coke, mushrooms, LSD, uppers, downers, etc. None of that did me any good. I wish I had never done any of that stuff. I also wish I was not a drunk for 10 years either but that is another topic.

I had friends OD. I had friends get high and drunk then kill themselves while driving.

You should really educate yourself about drugs and addiction. Hopefully your friends didn't kill anyone else while they were out drinking and driving.

I am certain that I know more than you both due to my past and my profession.

Based on your posts I doubt that. Not trying to attack you, you just seem incredibly misinformed about drugs and addiction.

Since you have added nothing to prove otherwise, I am pretty sure that I am correct.

Are you saying that drugs are not addictive? Are you disagreeing with the info I provided on company D and A policies? I have seen drug addiction first hand. I am going with my first-hand knowledge.

 

[B-Deep]

I don't understand the "enshrined in the Constitution" argument. The Ohio constitution is really easy to amend. We know that because this oligopoly thing was a constitutional amendment in the first place. If it had passed, couldn't somebody have put a "remember when we said only ten farms? Psyche!" measure on the ballot next year?

yes

the concern is will enough people care?

by that point the weed industry is running and do people care enough to upset the apple cart?

In fact the 2016 amendment, if it passes, would have repealed the 2015. But if this year's had passed i think next year's would have failed miserably

Once it is legal many of the pro-weed folks just won;t vote, their issue is legalizing and that is done. so get the law right the first time. 1 more year isn't going to kill anyone. All we have heard here is weed flows freely and cheaply, so the weed is still out there for smokers. Continue having areas decriminalize it, no one goes to jail for minor weed possession, and get the law right.

seems harmless

I wouldn't characterize it as harmless. I think you only see it that way because you're accustomed to pot being illegal.

Imagine if Ohio said "we're going to ban booze in 2016, and violating the law even a little could potentially result in arrest, fines, possible imprisonment, negative job consequences, inability to get student loans, etc." But don't worry, it's only one year! Would you consider that law also to be harmless?

i consider it harmless because more and more areas are decriminlizing it, because it is still and will still be illegal federally, and becuase it is illegal in far more states than it is legal in

and none of these laws, none of them, address the employer thing. I cn still get drug tested and fired tomorrow. I'd assume the same with student loans because those are federal

so

yeah, harmless

get the law right

 

[thayman]

Making drugs easier for people to use is a bad idea. Too many people make poor decisions. Too many people get caught up in having a good time instead of being responsible for their lives or their kid's lives. Too many kids will get their hands on the drugs if they are available for adults.

I also think weed is a gateway drug. I smoked pot in my youth. I progressed to coke, mushrooms, LSD, uppers, downers, etc. None of that did me any good. I wish I had never done any of that stuff. I also wish I was not a drunk for 10 years either but that is another topic.

I had friends OD. I had friends get high and drunk then kill themselves while driving.

You should really educate yourself about drugs and addiction. Hopefully your friends didn't kill anyone else while they were out drinking and driving.

I am certain that I know more than you both due to my past and my profession.

Based on your posts I doubt that. Not trying to attack you, you just seem incredibly misinformed about drugs and addiction.

Since you have added nothing to prove otherwise, I am pretty sure that I am correct.

Are you saying that drugs are not addictive? Are you disagreeing with the info I provided on company D and A policies? I have seen drug addiction first hand. I am going with my first-hand knowledge.

I didn't say drugs weren't addictive. Addiction is a complicated subject that I don't have the time nor inclination to educate you fully on the topic. Marijuana is not a "Gateway Drug" as you claim.

 

[cstu]

I was going to live a normal life then I got high...and started doing heroin and now I'm blowing guys in back alleys to get my fix. Slippery slope.

 

[cstu]

Except for the most part we're not.

American stands for freedom but if you think you're free, try walking into a deli and urinating on the cheese.

 

[DocHolliday]

Making drugs easier for people to use is a bad idea. Too many people make poor decisions. Too many people get caught up in having a good time instead of being responsible for their lives or their kid's lives. Too many kids will get their hands on the drugs if they are available for adults.

I also think weed is a gateway drug. I smoked pot in my youth. I progressed to coke, mushrooms, LSD, uppers, downers, etc. None of that did me any good. I wish I had never done any of that stuff. I also wish I was not a drunk for 10 years either but that is another topic.

I had friends OD. I had friends get high and drunk then kill themselves while driving.

You should really educate yourself about drugs and addiction. Hopefully your friends didn't kill anyone else while they were out drinking and driving.

I am certain that I know more than you both due to my past and my profession.

Based on your posts I doubt that. Not trying to attack you, you just seem incredibly misinformed about drugs and addiction.

Since you have added nothing to prove otherwise, I am pretty sure that I am correct.

Are you saying that drugs are not addictive? Are you disagreeing with the info I provided on company D and A policies? I have seen drug addiction first hand. I am going with my first-hand knowledge.

I didn't say drugs weren't addictive. Addiction is a complicated subject that I don't have the time nor inclination to educate you fully on the topic. Marijuana is not a "Gateway Drug" as you claim.

Ok. I guess I am just to believe you because you said so? Please go back to your important life until you have something meaningful to add.

Weed is a gateway drug. I saw the progression over and over.

 

[James Daulton]

Making drugs easier for people to use is a bad idea. Too many people make poor decisions. Too many people get caught up in having a good time instead of being responsible for their lives or their kid's lives. Too many kids will get their hands on the drugs if they are available for adults.

I also think weed is a gateway drug. I smoked pot in my youth. I progressed to coke, mushrooms, LSD, uppers, downers, etc. None of that did me any good. I wish I had never done any of that stuff. I also wish I was not a drunk for 10 years either but that is another topic.

I had friends OD. I had friends get high and drunk then kill themselves while driving.

You should really educate yourself about drugs and addiction. Hopefully your friends didn't kill anyone else while they were out drinking and driving.

I am certain that I know more than you both due to my past and my profession.

Based on your posts I doubt that. Not trying to attack you, you just seem incredibly misinformed about drugs and addiction.

Since you have added nothing to prove otherwise, I am pretty sure that I am correct.

Are you saying that drugs are not addictive? Are you disagreeing with the info I provided on company D and A policies? I have seen drug addiction first hand. I am going with my first-hand knowledge.

I didn't say drugs weren't addictive. Addiction is a complicated subject that I don't have the time nor inclination to educate you fully on the topic. Marijuana is not a "Gateway Drug" as you claim.

Ok. I guess I am just to believe you because you said so? Please go back to your important life until you have something meaningful to add.

Weed is a gateway drug. I saw the progression over and over.

Good grief.

 

[Warsteinner]

It's a gateway to Taco Bell.

 

[Johnnymac]

Making drugs easier for people to use is a bad idea. Too many people make poor decisions. Too many people get caught up in having a good time instead of being responsible for their lives or their kid's lives. Too many kids will get their hands on the drugs if they are available for adults.

I also think weed is a gateway drug. I smoked pot in my youth. I progressed to coke, mushrooms, LSD, uppers, downers, etc. None of that did me any good. I wish I had never done any of that stuff. I also wish I was not a drunk for 10 years either but that is another topic.

I had friends OD. I had friends get high and drunk then kill themselves while driving.

You should really educate yourself about drugs and addiction. Hopefully your friends didn't kill anyone else while they were out drinking and driving.

I am certain that I know more than you both due to my past and my profession.

Based on your posts I doubt that. Not trying to attack you, you just seem incredibly misinformed about drugs and addiction.

Since you have added nothing to prove otherwise, I am pretty sure that I am correct.

Are you saying that drugs are not addictive? Are you disagreeing with the info I provided on company D and A policies? I have seen drug addiction first hand. I am going with my first-hand knowledge.

I didn't say drugs weren't addictive. Addiction is a complicated subject that I don't have the time nor inclination to educate you fully on the topic. Marijuana is not a "Gateway Drug" as you claim.

Ok. I guess I am just to believe you because you said so? Please go back to your important life until you have something meaningful to add.

Weed is a gateway drug. I saw the progression over and over.

No it's not

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I never really understood what is meant by a gateway drug. Presumably everyone who's ever tried heroin has tried caffeine, but we never call caffeine a gateway drug.

But more relevantly, it stands to reason that someone who is willing to go to the trouble to break the law and deal with at least some sketchiness in their weed dealer would be more willing to go find even sketchier drug dealers dealing harder drugs.

It's hard to see how that would hold up when you're going to get your MJ from some dispensary in a strip mall in Canton.

 

[ghostguy123]

It's amazing to me that there are people out there who are scared of pot being legalized, thinking that everyone and their brother is going to rush to go buy some weed, and then all the kids will get their hands on it.

Guess what folks, the legalization of marijuana doesn't even make weed easier to get. It's VERY easy to get. In fact, I would argue it might make it HARDER for kids to get if it were to be legalized since the small time peddlers just might be put out of business. However, even if I am completely wrong about that, legalizing MJ would still only make it ever so slightly easier to get in general.

I do not smoke weed. I am not going to let my kids smoke week. Whether it is legal or illegal has absolutely nothing to do with any of it.

My really good friend (who is a big pot smoker) did not like the way the proposed laws were written and actually wanted them to fail. Why? Because he didn't want to see MJ monopolies. Why else? Because legal or illegal makes absolutely no difference in his pot buying/smoking habits. If anything, he gets his weed cheaper now than if it was to be legalized.

oh bullcrap

are you telling me most kids smoke their first blunt before they try their first beer? it is not going to make it harder for kids to get

Are you going to tell me that there are beer dealers in the neighborhoods just like there are pot dealers?? Once kids are old enough to actually ride their bikes from neighborhood to neighborhood, weed becomes rather easy to get. Easier than alcohol.

There is no money to be made for people illegally selling alcohol. Gee, I wonder why

 

[wadegarrett]

Lol Ohio. Thanks for being a waste of a state. And you're welcome for us taking you on our backs the past 200+ years.

Hugs n kisses,

New York

You whine like a woman.

Oh, wait....

nevermind.

 

[tonydead]

I once had a hotdog, peanut butter, jelly, egg, cheese, blt sandwich. Pot rules.

Legalize it! Yeah! Yeah!