Brutus_buckeye

If there is no desire to enforce it and no criminal penalties associated with it, then it has the same effect as banning whaling in Ohio or a ban on harvesting bananas in Ohio.

No, my position has been all along that wait and see what comes out of the legislature before getting upset. Yes, there were a lot of upset people after the Senate hearings but what you hear in the House is far more moderate. Before getting upset, lets see what comes out of it. Then, look to what is actually enforceable with teeth or just on the books for posturing. I have consistent principles, you just can't seem to see where your principles can be hypocritical in many cases.

I think there are two things. 1) I admit the the R's are wrong on some of this. I think they are over-reaching and do not understand the issue and are not properly listening to their constituent's on some of this. 2) While most people generally respect the law, the practicality of the law is that there are a lot of items that are not enforced and not worth prosecutors or even law enforcement charging the individual. There are a lot of archaic laws on the books that really are not enforced and some even do not have an enforcement mechanism. Depending on what comes out of the bill (which I am hearing the House is pushing back against many Senate ideas) some of what comes out may be in name only and have no practical effect on anything. That is typically not anything I have worried about.

Is there any realistic discussion going on about commuter rail? I have not heard anything serious there for the last 10 years

Ohioans voted for a referendum to allow recreational marijauana use and it was up to the legislature to propose rules and regs around it. That is what they are debating. What did you think was going to happen, that there would be no guardrails or rules behind this? Again, I have asked you how you see these proposed rules as something that will hurt your ability to partake in the use/business/etc of recreational marijuana? You refuse to answer, and your only comment it to attack me or attack Republicans. As usual, like a broken record, you never have an actual answer to anything beyond blame Republicans.

I am just arguing the practicality here. How does some of this actually matter on a day to day basis? I may be missing something, and I do not agree with much of the proposed law. Educate me? WHere am I wrong, what may i be missing?

So you just feel that this is the boogeyman coming to get you. I asked you to let me know how these changes will affect you or cause you harm? You just reflexively go to Republicans are bad. So, I ask you to let me know on a personal level, how would many of these proposed changes affect you on a daily basis? if, many of them have no practical enforcement mechanism and are merely just semantics that make people feel good for having them on the books but will not actually change anything and people will have essentially the same freedoms in Ohio to home grow and do other activities as they have in Colorado, then what difference does it make to you?? To be fair, other posters have actually posted some things that would affect them, and while I may disagree with some of it, I can see the merit in their arguments. So @jon81oh can you articulate an argument on how some of these impractical proposals will affect you on a regular basis? Or is the crux of your argument simply Republicans are bad?

Is there any momentum to build a NKY Line? How important would it be to connect the tracks in Cincy or as you say to use the transit center for transfers. It may be optimal to keep NKY trains underground on the Ohio side and then those who want to use the line in Cincy can walk upstairs to the banks to wait for the local line. It would prevent confusion with ridership from getting on an NKY train when they want to stay downtown, and would also limit traffic backups on gamedays and such?

I get it. I know you are in the camp that somehow unkind words equate to actual violence, but there are many laws and rules on the books that have no actual meaning and no practicality. I personally think a lot of what the Senate is debating is stupid and do not agree with it but at the day, even if it passes, it will not actually mean anything. A few old codgers get to feel good for a few minutes and think they did something, the practicality of it will amount to nothing, no one will go to jail and nobody will be fined over it. Much of this is political theatre and a giant waste of time. Let me ask you a question. If the legislature passes a ban on home grow, what do you actually think will happen?? Do you think people will listen to the legislature? no, they have been growing at home for 60 years now, that will not change. Police will not go to homes and search for illegal weed plants or issue fines or prosecute for these crimes, because they have more important things to do with their time. Even if they pass such a rule, it likely will not have any criminal effect so no body will go to jail over this. Banning advertising on billboards and such, again a minor nuissance. Most people get their advertising on the internet anyway and youtube. So after 1-2 years of seeing that their legislation only hindered local billboard and radio companies advertising, then it will be repealed. Again, minimal harm. As people see that the pot legislation is not a big deal, whatever is proposed now will be pulled back in 12-24 months anyway. I know you claim this is a huge deal to you. How will this really impact your life? What fear will you be living in, or what impact will many of these proposed regulations have on how you currently live your life? WHat inconvenience will you be willing to tolerate and what do you feel is unacceptable. Outside of Republicans are evil, i really do not get much substance so, educate me on where the pain points actually are?

I get it, but I think some of what gets passed may play loudly in the media, but what are the practicalities. For example a few things that have caused issues: 1) Home grow - I personally have no issue with home grow, but if it makes the bill and is illegal, fine. This is an example of something that is on the books as illegal, but there really is no way to enforce this provision. Police are not going to be going door to door looking for homes with a few plants there and even when they find them, they will likely not be cited. It is just not worth spending the resources to enforce this on the books. It would be a completely feckless provision even if it passes. It is not as big of a deal as it may sound. 2) Provisions to ban smoking it in apartment homes and allowing landlords to evict for smoking weed in their units. - Whether this is in the bill or not, it will not prevent a landlord from legally evicting someone for smoking marijuana in their homes. If the lease says no smoking, then it includes pot. There really is no overcoming it. Given the smell, there are neighbors who may not want to smell it and it could be seen as a nuisance. If a landlord wants to evict for such activity, they have every right to do so as long as it is in their lease. We evict for people smoking cigarettes in their unit for some of our places. Marijuana would be no different. 3) Employers have the right to fire someone for smoking weed - Last time i checked, most jobs are employment at will so of course they would. If your employer finds you impaired on the job or not performing your functions as required, they can fire you. Whether it is codified or not is irrelevant in many cases. While some of these may sounds extreme, even if it becomes law, let's look at the practical effect of some of the proposals floating around. How many of the crazier ones are actually going to have much of an enforcement mechnism or even a desire to enforce and spend state resources to prosecute? Given the lack of effort in enforcement today, I highly doubt that such new provisions will be enforced in the future.

I know you have some reflexive action to hate every opinion of a conservative, but maybe just maybe, could you see some merit in moving slowly on something like this vs creating a wild wild west environment. Do we really want pot shops on every corner or are they better spread out and in certain areas? - I know a lot of seedy vape shops that sprung up years ago before any regulations came into place and they were not a good thing. Some were completely unsanitary. I knew one that the guy lived in the rear and mixed his own vapors without any equipment to ensure cleanliness. Do you think it may be a good idea to work to address some of these issues upfront before moving forward. And again, as you always tend to do, you misunderstood the post. I was commenting mainly on how liberals do not have an issue using things like the zoning code to restrict things they do not like, but when someone uses the same tools to restrict one of their sacred cows, it is somehow conservatives going crazy. Also, people are upset that the certain municipalities want to use zoning to restrict the sale of marijuana and are blaming the legislature. Again, that is not the legislatures problem. Local townships control their zoning rules and regs and can do as they feel appropriate. The same would be true even if there were an amendment.

Again, not an issue. If the zoning is too restrictive and prevents business from operating at all then it will be thrown out by the courts. So municipalities have to figure out a way to allow it but they can use zoning restrictions (just like cities can to ban parking lots) to curtail them.

Sorry, for clarification, Cincinnati just used the zoning code to ban the construction of new surface level parking lots in the city. While many people agree that parking lots are a bad use of the land, they are pretty innocuous for the most part. Passing an ordinance to prevent this type of development in the city is essentially the same thing as cities using the zoning code to ban marijuana shops. Cities can use the zoning code to regulate regardless of the regs or law says. Banning marijuana shops in the city are more of an issue for local officials to worry about than state legislators.

how is this any different than using the zoning code to ban parking lots in cities?

South Korea in general has one of the worst work life balances of any industrialized country. They typically work at least 6 days a week and 10 hour days. The child benefit is nice, but they definitely work around the clock over there.

I do not disagree with that approach either. My point was, before talkign about needing to do an amendment, see where things end up once the regs are finalized.

You can get upset at anything you wanted. But what was voted on was a referendum to allow the use and consumption of marijuana in the state of Ohio. The legislature has the job to write the rules as to how that works. Right now those rules and regs have not been written and passed yet, so getting angry is just speculation at this time. My point is wait until the rules are passed before you get angry. Also, recognize that certain provisions in the referendum were likely untenable in some capacity but others are not. I think the main goal to focus on is 1) will this allow for the ability of citizens to purchase marijuana for personal use without criminal penalties, 2) Will people be allowed to grow marijuana for personal consumption in their single family home 3) what will the taxes be in order to obtain a license to open a dispensary (will they be too draconian. Those are the main issues that should be discussed and if those are reasonable, the rest if just filler. Yes, it is very reasonable to allow an employer to fire an employee for coming to work under the influence (whether it is codified or not is irrelevant. It is reasonable to have a provision banning people in rental housing from smoking weed in their apartments (because, again that is already allowed with cigarettes and would just make sure people have notice that a private landlord could evict you for smoking weed in your apartment, It is reasonable to allow townships or cities to ban dispenceres under the zoning code (I think it is short sighted for them to do so, but if they want to proceed slowly here, that is fine). But my main point is that instead of focusing on the rhetoric coming out of the debate, relax and see what comes from this. Get upset when things are finalized if you do not like them. Right now, everything is fluid.

Before getting upset. see what they come back with first. Right now, it is just positioning by some members of the legislature. There will be good rules, there will be rules people do not like out of this, and there will be some rules people say are meh but whatever. See what comes out of the regs and work from there. Then for the regs that are not great, get them changed. If you cant, then move to an amendment at that time, but no need to get too angry until things are actually settled. This was never going to be a free for all nor should it, that would be chaotic.

The one thing I do hope gets in the regulations is a ban on smoking within a multifamily building. We have already sent notices to our residents that while marijuana is now legal to use in Ohio, it is still and will always be illegal to smoke it in your apartment and to remind them that the building is non-smoking and that includes weed. It would be good to have that as a standard policy in landlord tenant law.

I admit, I used to like watching FC at home when they were on local TV. I am not a big enough soccer fan to pay for Apple's MLS package as I would only watch FC at this point. I think there is some merit to the fact that the newer casual fan will not grow their interest as quickly without the likes of ESPN or Fox televising the games. However, I do think that the biggest benefit of the Apple deal that is not talked about is less about growing MLS stateside (those fans will eventually find their way to the stadiums or sports bars, etc) but rather getting MLS an international exposure that it could never achieve with just an ESPN or Fox broadcast. With Apple, they can be on throughout Europe or the Middle East or Asia and develop a foothold of a following in those countries. When the rabid fan in Italy or England also talks about the MLS, it is almost a bigger win for MLS than getting the local fan.

Agreed, except Oklahoma would have been left out because there is a spot for a G5 team so Liberty would have been in the playoff, plus assuming Oklahoma and Texas in the SEC, the Big 12 would get someone in which would likely be OK State at the expense of Ole Miss. But that really does not change your point at all. That is the bigger concern about it. It is one thing for college to be the NFL farm system, but if you have NFL money and expectation for 18 year old's in college, that is a lot of pressure on the kids. Secondly, and more importantly, if will NFL style money sustain itself in college (without major changes) if the product is far inferior to the NFL. What you are likely to see in the future is the top players will go to a low level "minor league" and skip college altogether where they actually get paid and showcase themselves against better competition and not have to operate under the guise or pretense of a college environment I love college football but the "on field" product is far inferior to the NFL. That does not mean it is not worth watching, but it is just not the highest level football. To me it is akin to womens soccer. It is an entertaining product, but if you want to watch the top athletes in the game you need to watch the mens game. That is what I fear college football is going to become the closer they try and move toward the NFL level compensation

I wonder how serious this proposal actually is or if it is a trial balloon of some sort to get subsidies or something from it. Considering the conversion of Carew, Macy's Building, the Terrace Plaza and the 2nd National Bank building. THat is a lot of apartments coming on board in the CBD, plus you have to figure there are a number of other better office to residential conversions out there (I would tend to think 4th and Walnut ultimately ends up in that realm if hotel becomes too heavy of a lift) or even the 7th and Walnut tower.

I would hope Atrium would stay office. there are many other buildings that would seem better to convert than Atrium.

Also, it seems like some of rumors about a new QB coming in may be true. I think Day has solid leads on a better replacement otherwise he would be more committal to McCord. The game is changing and not necessarily for the good. I fear it becoming NFL lite which is problematic because will people want to pay NFL prices and watch a pseudo NFL product when the quality of the talent on the field is far from NFL caliber. I completely agree with the players being paid but NIL has to be reigned in for the benefit of game. It is too wild west out there now. Also, (and again I have no issues with players getting as much as they can) it seems as though there is an imbalance developing which is not great for the college game, when you will have some players earning more in college (to play a game against lesser competition) than those very same players will ever earn to play in the NFL (against better competition). I think long term, this will be problematic for college football.

new hotel