Yep - I voted yes on 3 (no on 2)... But washington politics is so messed up... the politicians are so craven ... that I don't think fed prohibition is going to end for a loooong time. People have been saying it's going to end since the '70s. Mainly because ending prohibition makes perfect sense. ... But our system isn't built for bravery among politicians. The best possibility for ending prohibition at the federal level might lie with DC lobbyists hired by weed producers in states where weed has become legal. Those weed producers need fed law to change so that they can use banks. Right now, they can't, so it's all cash (very inconvenient -- even dangerous)... So they're lobbying hard to get the feds to fix that. Ending prohibition would indeed fix it. Big money might be able to accomplish what politics cannot. Sound familiar? :^) YES on 3 NO on 2 Polls open until 7:30...
Not so stupid to me and many others. I think this is the right thing to do. If you don't like it then vote no. Simple as that. The people will decide the fate of this amendment. Check out the NORML website. They might offer you some insight into why it's actually wise to vote yes on 3 and no on 2. http://blog.norml.org/2015/10/19/a-second-look-at-...
NORML flip flopped on their opinion of Responsible Ohio one day completely out of the blue. I think someone in NORML got payed off, but thats just me. How could you be against something and publicly speak out about the creation of a "cartel," and than change your opinion a few months later with absolutely no changes to the proposed amendment? the whole thing stinks of greed.w
looks like it didn't pass. Although issue 2 looks like it will pass. Guess it might get another go next elections but then again the financial backers may not try again since they can't have a monopoly.
I was hoping for a positive change (even if not optimal). I can see where you are coming from and I don't disagree with you. I'm watching the live results and it is not looking like it's not going to pass anyway lol. I just wish there would have been a better amendment to vote on but that is the wonderful state of Ohio for ya. I'm not sure of the ramifications if issue 2 passes though. It could be very bad for us in the long run. Time to hit the books again. //static.grscty.com//public/style_emoticons/default/sad_2.gif //static.grscty.com//public/style_emoticons/default/emoticons_humor_divertido_msnanimal_com-96.gif
I voted yes for issue 2. I dont understand why everyone is saying it is such a bad thing if you are against issue 3? I can see why you would dislike issue 2 if you are a part of a large corporation teetering on becoming a monopoly, or if you are a politician getting payed off by said corporation. But I can't see why so many people are against this bill other than their local political idol telling them that they should be. Similar amendments have already been enacted in 19 states. here is the exact language of issue 2 from the secretary of state's office: Issue 2 Anti-monopoly amendment; protects the initiative process from being used for personal economic benefit Proposed Constitutional Amendment Proposed by Joint Resolution of the General Assembly Proposing to amend Section 1e of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Ohio. A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass. The proposed amendment would: • Prohibit any petitioner from using the Ohio Constitution to grant a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel for their exclusive financial benefit or to establish a preferential tax status. • Prohibit any petitioner from using the Ohio Constitution to grant a commercial interest, right, or license that is not available to similarly situated persons or nonpublic entities. • Require the bipartisan Ohio Ballot Board to determine if a proposed constitutional amendment violates the prohibitions above, and if it does, present two separate ballot questions to voters. Both ballot questions must receive a majority yes vote before the proposed amendment could take effect. • Prohibit from taking effect any proposed constitutional amendment appearing on the November 3, 2015 General Election ballot that creates a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel for the sale, distribution, or other use of any federal Schedule I controlled substance. • The Ohio Supreme Court has original, exclusive jurisdiction in any action related to the proposal. If passed, the amendment will become effective immediately. http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/...
Maybe these monopolies will finally get the hint since florida rejected it too and michigan is trying it next years election.. Sorry you guys wont get your nick lachey kush lol
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/201... Hopefully the reformers take note that the people will ultimately reject an initiative because it's written poorly, and not just because it says the word "legal". Details do matter, and people realized the details made this one a bad law. Not because they didn't like pot, but they didn't want a monopoly. It was doomed to fail, no matter how much money they poured into it. This is about weed, a plant that grows almost anywhere, that can be grown by anyone. It's an insult to "legalization" to throw in monopolies, overtax, and overregulate something not even close to as harmful as alcohol and tobacco. Basic principals should come into play here. It's refreshing to see they voted accordingly.
Issue 3 backers pledge to return with new marijuana legalization measure They'll be back. The creators of Ohio's failed marijuana legalization issue said Tuesday night they heard the voters and will put a revised plan on the ballot next year. "We're going to make sure we provide that legal marijuana for Ohio and that we do so starting tomorrow," Ian James, executive director pro-Issue 3 group ResponsibleOhio, said. "This does not end. People are counting on us and we cannot let them down."......... Continue reading by clicking the link below if you'd like. We aren't doomed. http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/11/is...
Sure has. Only chance now for legal weed in ohio is change at the federal level. And that ain't happening. Well at least the drug dealers are happy. I don't doubt that a lot of the most vocal "pro-weed" opposition to Yeson3 came from guys who make their living selling weed. If the Yeson3 people really plan to continue their campaign (as they say they're going to), I think they should go for making weed legal for medicinal purposes (like right next door in Michigan). For me, an ideal proposal would be something like: You need a free permit (not a prescription), certified by a physician to buy. Physician certifies that you're healthy enough, mentally and physically, to consume. Plus, they get a buck out of it from the doctor visits, and they get some "say" in the matter to satisfy their asshole authoritarian instincts -- so their opposition might not be as vocal.... You need a free permit to grow for personal use (up to 4 plants) Selling edibles (candy, pastries, concentrates) is prohibited. (If you want edibles, gotta make them yourself.) Manufacture of concentrates ("daps") etc. is prohibited (just like you can't make sudafed into meth...) No public consumption "Drug free" workplace laws don't change... You need an expensive permit (with zoning, etc.) to grow for profit (a very expensive permit, so there's still a high enough "bar to entry" to satisfy the millionaire investors)... You need a very expensive permit, zoning, etc. to open a dispensary ... And of course, to participate at all, you gotta be over 21. ...AND institute similar laws for alcohol. Sure, that might kill the proposal... But it would also highlight the stark hypocrisy of weed prohibition, when all the alcoholics start screaming about their "freedom" and government overreach and "nanny state" and shit like that...
If this is the path of a proposal we are doomed. And the Ohioans voted... and it was destroyed. Think of all the poor stoners who will be arrested in the time it takes some beuroucrat to draft an even shittier bill - because the difference between what adults can purchase it, who from and if people can grow their own was what made this a failing measure (sarcasm). Your saying that next time you can spin it as a quasi-medical bill and make it an even more dishonest and shittier bill than before... wow, this seems to be how our world operates across the board. You just depressed me. I hope you are happy. Let's just keep neutering it and tacking on taxes until it passes: Beuroucrat's motto.
Dude you sound like an absolutist. Absolutism has no place in sorting out an issue like weed. What we have right now in fact (prohibition) is a form of absolutism. Is this what you like? (Apparently you like it better than any form of legalization that isn't "perfect" ... You want "all or nothing" ... and get nothing.) ...See, in the real world, you have to take the opposition's concerns seriously. You have to sell them on why legalization will be good for them and safe for their kids. After all, weed is a drug -- however benign it might be. In the real world, the opposition has a vote too -- like it or not. They're not going to just disappear, not going to just roll over ... so you have to make legalization palatable for them . Absolutism has no place in that. Most of us just want clean, readily available product and would be perfectly happy to compromise with society to get that. Absolutists like yourself play right into the hands of the absolutist opposition to deny us that. ...But then, you probably can grow your own (or don't mind buying from the underground). Well, not all of us are in a position to grow our own... Not all of us want to chase after drug dealers... And not all of us want to smoke weed if we don't know what's in it, where it's been, and who it profits.
I believe in making smart choices. Defending your own extortion is not what I would call a smart choice. My main point though is the language of a bill doesn't matter much to most voters, so why would you set up such a crooked system with so many less restrictive options that would be equally friendly to average voters? And is the product worth the price? It's the culture of now, everybody wants to sit on their ass while some unknown dude in a 3 piece suit drafts an initiative in his ivory tower above the treeline. They hoot and hollar as the man slowly lowers the initiative down by the many strings attached to it, and weep their self righteous tears as they Invision all the potential potheads that would be jailed by signing on the dotted line. But they didn't do dick, they are getting screwed again by the same dildos that banned it in the first place. So to conclude, it's not absolution, it's patience... not that it matters, 'cause people really don't care or have any patience, so we are doomed. But what about those that are jailed while if we wait? Well, maybe a few days in the pen wouldn't be so bad for most of them. Put some hair on their chest.