What are everyone's thoughts on these? The are very intertwined, so I figure a single topic is good for this so we can have a comprehensive discussion.

 

Issue 3: Recreational Marijuana Amendment

 

If this issue is passed, Ohio would be the 5th state to legalize recreational marijuana (after Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Colorado +DC).

 

The amendment would allow only 10 commercial growing sites which are owned by the financial backers of the amendment (the biggest controversy).

 

Individuals would be allowed to grow up to four mature plants at their home if they purchased a (I believe $50) license.

 

There would still be a limit to how much marijuana you can possess. Legal age of purchase and consumption would be 21.

 

The amendment would put the tax rate in the state constitution, which would be very difficult to change (just like casinos).

 

Issue 2: Anti Monopoly Amendment

 

This would prevent any citizen driven amendment from granting a monopoly to anyone (except the actual state of Ohio) in the Ohio Constitution.

 

It would also prevent any tax rate from being placed in the Ohio Constitution.

 

I believe that the state legislature could still put these amendments up for a vote as it only limits the citizen driven amendments (which seems wrong - if you're going to ban it, ban it).

 

The State Ballot Board would have complete authority on determining what a "monopoly, oligarchy, or cartel" is and could use this measure to block amendments they don't agree with politically.

 

This would not retroactively affect already passed amendments (ie casinos).

 

Any issue that the Ballot Board determines grants a monopoly or preferential tax status would essentially break an amendment into two pieces that are each voted on. The first one would grant a monopoly or tax rate to a certain industry/company/group/etc. The second would be the bulk of the amendment that is trying to be passed. Both would have to pass and would probably be difficult.

 

This is my understanding of what would happen in the future if: Issue 2 passes, Issue 3 fails. Then marijuana legalization is on the ballot in 2016 and grants a set tax rate on sales. To my understanding, the amendment would split into two pieces: one would grant a tax rate for the industry, and the other would do everything else the amendments wants to do (legalization, set up licenses, etc). Would they both have to pass for either to take effect or if the bulk of the amendment passed, but the tax rate didn't pass, it would be legalized and the state could tax it as they see fit? That's the confusion I have about the effect of this amendment on future amendments.

 

Issue 2 and Issue 3 Together

 

This gets really murky legally/politically. Issue 2 was crafted as a direct response by the Republicans in the state legislature to block Issue 3. It even specifically says so by calling out the amendment. It says if both are passed, Issue 2 would block Issue 3. But according to Ohio law, if two ballot initiatives pass, the one with the most votes would supersede the other. So this thing would go to court if they both pass and the Ohio Supreme Court would likely have to decide.

 

The Akron Beacon Journal endorsed Issue 2 and said this:

 

No surprise that Issue 2 contains language that aims to nullify the proposed amendment on marijuana legalization. Supporters of Issue 2 insist that if both issues pass, their proposal would trump the legalization measure because it would take effect first. At the same time, the state constitution holds that in the case of conflicting issues, the one with the largest majority prevails. What all of this makes possible is a final decision from the Ohio Supreme Court.

 

What voters should keep foremost in mind as they cast their ballots is that Issue 2 represents sound governance. It reasserts the first purpose of the initiative process. It reclaims power from the big-money interests and returns authority to ordinary people, the process their opportunity to take direct action in the public interest.

 

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I'm tempted to vote for both amendments. They both have serious flaws, but I think are a step in the right direction overall. I hate the reasoning and trickery of Issue 2. I hate the monopoly of Issue 3. But I think I like the overall results of both.

My first question:  what would Issue 2 do to the existing casinos?

Nothing. It only affects proposed amendments.

I am completely 100% against any more monopolies written in as an amendment to our State's constitution, so I'll be voting against Issue 3.  I'm hoping that it fails and that a better initiative is written and proposed during the Presidential elections.  As such, I'll be voting in favor of Issue 2.

 

 

I'm not sure why the Issue 3 people decided to go the route of essentially creating a monopoly on the marijuana business.  I think that doing that has cost the issue a lot of support that they would otherwise have.  However, I think the pros of Issue 3 far outweigh the cons, and the monopoly aspect of the growing only affects people who are trying to profit from legalized marijuana.  For many people, Issue 3 represents a chance to start over with a clean record.  It reduces the strain on our criminal justice system, brings lots of additional revenue to the state, and further limits police power.  Imagine being stonewalled in a career search simply because you have a pot related offense on your record.  Think about how many people in this state are economically underperforming because of the archaic and asinine pot rules that we have.  I urge people to vote yes on 3.  The stakes are too high to vote no simply out of concern about one aspect of the amendment that really will not effect too many people. 

^They went with that because it was the only way to get rich people to bankroll the campaign. Without the monopoly element, very few people are going to donate to the cause. It's unfortunate, but the truth.

 

If the Republicans are upset about the monopoly element, the state legislature should simply bring an amendment next year that strikes the monopolistic/tax rate portions of the law. They could propose a state board to determine the tax rate and open commercial growing to more sites that pass certain restrictions. It would get support from everyone except the millionaires and billionaires who funded this venture.

Yeah, it's ultimately the same reason why the casino amendment only allowed 4 casinos in specific locations, rather than just legalizing gambling outright across the state.

Anybody got a reliable recent poll yet, with statistical validity and likely voters only in the sample?

Ohioans say yes to pot legalization, sharply divided on U.S. Senate race

 

A poll conducted by Quinnipiac University found that 53 percent of Buckeye State voters support pot legalization for personal use, compared to 44 percent who are opposed.  But 65 percent of Ohioans said they would “definitely not” use marijuana if it were legalized, the poll found.

 

The poll comes as Ohio voters face a referendum, Issue 3, that would amend Ohio’s constitution to legalize marijuana. Quinnipiac didn't specifically ask voters about that measure, but instead posed a more general question about marijuana legalization.

 

This doesn't touch Issue 2 or even (directly) Issue 3, but it is a good litmus test. I suppose the 53% in favor of legalization plus the 3% undecided is the maximum Issue 3 can receive. And some of those in support of legalization are against Issue 3. It will be interesting, but I'm going to guess the measure fails.

^Yeah, I think you're right.  With a 56% ceiling it doesn't take much peeling away from that theoretical support to cause the issue to fail.  And there are legitimate concerns with the way Issue 3 is structured.

That's my concern.  IMO, there is more potential for voters who otherwise support legalization to vote against this measure due to the way it is structured and the hit-job ads on that haven't even really began.  Of course, it is not out of the question that the opposite happens and it gains support the more people are educated on the logic behind and rationale for legalization.

 

I'm fairly certain I am voting in favor of it even thought I don't like the way it is structured.  I just want to move the goalposts on this issue.  Make it legal and then we can revisit the law at a subsequent election if we don't like the way it is structured.  I'm concerned that failure at this juncture would frustrate future efforts.

 

I'm disappointed they didn't wait for 2016.  With it structured like it is and putting it on the ballot in an election which is something less than mid-term, the deck is stacked against it.

Ohioans say yes to pot legalization, sharply divided on U.S. Senate race

 

A poll conducted by Quinnipiac University found that 53 percent of Buckeye State voters support pot legalization for personal use, compared to 44 percent who are opposed.  But 65 percent of Ohioans said they would “definitely not” use marijuana if it were legalized, the poll found.

 

The poll comes as Ohio voters face a referendum, Issue 3, that would amend Ohio’s constitution to legalize marijuana. Quinnipiac didn't specifically ask voters about that measure, but instead posed a more general question about marijuana legalization.

 

This doesn't touch Issue 2 or even (directly) Issue 3, but it is a good litmus test. I suppose the 53% in favor of legalization plus the 3% undecided is the maximum Issue 3 can receive. And some of those in support of legalization are against Issue 3. It will be interesting, but I'm going to guess the measure fails.

 

You're assuming roughly equal pro and con turnout.  If the 53% who support legalization turn out 50% of their people and the 44% opposed turn out 30%, legalization wins in a landslide.

 

That said, your assumption might be right; I just wanted to make sure people kept in mind the difference between opinion polls and election results.  (This is why motivated single-issue voters can wield such power, for better or worse.)

 

I think I'm going to be voting Yes on 2/No on 3 as well, with the hope that 3 will get broken into pieces (as ryanlammi described above, though if Issue 2 passes, I don't think a tax rate proposal would come back in any form), and that I can therefore get a shot at a clean vote on legalization sans the cartel provisions.  I'm OK with legalization, but I'm more anti-cartel than pro-legalization, so I can't get behind 3.

Upon further investigation, this is the scenario if Issue 2 passes for future citizen-driven amendments to the Ohio Constitution.

 

1) Citizens bring an amendment to the State Ballot Board

2) The State Ballot Board will determine if there is

    a) A monopoly created in an industry for private individuals, organizations, and/or groups.

    b) A preferential tax rate is created for an individual, organization, and/or group.

3) If neither of the above are found to exist in the amendment, it proceeds as usual and is placed on the ballot for a vote.

4) If 2a or 2b is found to exist in the ballot language

    a) An amendment would be proposed to the Ohio Constitution to grant exclusive rights to the individual(s), organization(s) and/or group(s).

    b) The full text of the proposed amendment follows immediately after new issue 4a.

5) If both pass a majority vote, the Ohio Constitution is amended to grant special privileges and the full amendment is put into effect.

6) If either of the amendments fail, the measure is defeated. No part of the original amendment is enacted and no changes are made to the Ohio Constitution regardless of whether the amendment itself passed and the monopoly fails.

I see.  Well that's interesting.  It's a good way to disincentivize people from putting disparate tax rates or legally-granted cartels into any ballot measure in the first place, since they'll be voted on separately and monopoly provisions are going to be hard to pass in isolation.  I actually kind of approve of that, even if it might mean defeating some otherwise good amendments, just because once that happens a few times, people will hopefully stop trying to put special tax rates or special industry privileges in the state constitution.

I created a little flow chart for y'all.

 

 

Since it will take another vote to legalize marijuana anyway, I say vote yes on issue 3, keep people out of jail, prevent young people from having to live with a criminal stigma, and get sick people the medicine they need. Then fix it with another amendment in 2016 (and throw some monopoly language in that amendment as well).

I was reading an alt-weekly in Columbus (free times?) And they were pretty anti-issue 2. Said it harmed direct democracy and the initiative process, because a secretary of state could just declare anything he doesn't like a monopoly and doom it. Not sure if that's legit or just fear mongering. I don't like the idea of donors being able to buy a constitutionally granted monopoly, but this makes me nervous.

 

Edit- this piece from the green party basically explains the position

 

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/10/ohio-green-party-withdraws-support-of-issue-2/

Very interesting...

 

A Kent State University poll shows 56% plan on voting Yes on 3. 54% plan on voting Yes on 2.

 

About 57 percent of voters who plan to vote yes on Issue 2 also plan to vote yes for Issue 3.

Only 57%? That's actually surprisingly little overlap considering how closely the amendments are tied together.

The expectation is that if you vote Yes on 3, you should vote No on 2 because it could block it. I'm surprised so many Yes on 2 are also Yes on 3.

Passing Issue 3 and then going back to tweak it is a fantasy. Who's going to pay for the campaign? Who's going to pay for collecting signatures to get it on the ballot? The Ohio Constitution is not the place for tweaking things we just voted on. The Constitution is not place to enshrine the proprietors or locations of any business or industry, or to set tax rates. Using the Constitution for these kinds of details makes Ohio look like a banana republic that fills its constitution with petty details that hold until the next coup. I want marijuana to be legalized, but let's be honest and fair about it from the start. This is NOT the way to do it.

Couldn't the state legislature pass an amendment to be voted on in 2016 that would honestly repeal the negative aspects of the marijuana law while leaving legalization intact? Say, strike the amount of taxation and allow the state legislature or Department of Commerce to set the rate, strike the requirement of certain locations being sole growers, and allow the Ohio Division of Liquor Control or the Department of Agriculture to provide growing permits?

Couldn't the state legislature pass an amendment to be voted on in 2016 that would honestly repeal the negative aspects of the marijuana law while leaving legalization intact? Say, strike the amount of taxation and allow the state legislature or Department of Commerce to set the rate, strike the requirement of certain locations being sole growers, and allow the Ohio Division of Liquor Control or the Department of Agriculture to provide growing permits?

 

This is an issue where the legislature should have been proactive in the first place, but as we've seen on several issues they are too weak kneed. I predict both 2 and 3 will pass. And I predict years of confusion. 

More like months in my opinion. I'm skeptical 3 will pass, though. We'll see.

 

Maybe if everyone pressured their legislatures to submit the idea for a vote it would move forward. But again, we'll see.

Man, I'm waffling.  And time is getting close.  I'm now flirting with voting no on both, even though I oppose monopolies (and hate the concept of constitutionally-guaranteed ones, see, e.g., casinos) and have no real problem with recreational marijuana legalization.

^Why the no vote on 2?  What is your concern?

I haven't actually seen the official ballot language yet, but if that Green Party critique of it posted by mu above is correct, that would be concerning to me.

Couldn't the state legislature pass an amendment to be voted on in 2016 that would honestly repeal the negative aspects of the marijuana law while leaving legalization intact? Say, strike the amount of taxation and allow the state legislature or Department of Commerce to set the rate, strike the requirement of certain locations being sole growers, and allow the Ohio Division of Liquor Control or the Department of Agriculture to provide growing permits?

Yes, there is the legislative avenue for a followup ballot initiative, but there still are lots of hurdles. Rather than vote Yes on #3 and then vote again in a year or two or three to fix what I voted on, I'd rather vote No and seek a legislative push to do it right.

^There will be no legislative push if Issue 3 is soundly defeated.  It's a catch 22.  The Republicans that control the state aren't going to put their necks out for an issue that was just defeated at the polls.

Passing Issue 3 and then going back to tweak it is a fantasy. Who's going to pay for the campaign? Who's going to pay for collecting signatures to get it on the ballot?

 

This group- https://legalizeohio2016.org/amendment/

I've heard they have very little money and poor support. Anyone have info to the contrary?

I've heard they have very little money and poor support. Anyone have info to the contrary?

 

Then have the state legislature propose an amendment that say something like:

 

In the event the State has a budget deficit of $X or Y% or more the state legislature may adjust the tax rates on the marijuana business, use any increase in revenues to offset the budget deficit and license any number of additional commercial farms.

 

I would imagine such an amendment would enjoy widespread support

^what? I'm talking about the group trying to push for that 2016 amendment. I've heard they aren't a very realistic alternative because they have little funding or support.

If Issue 3 is defeated soundly, make no mistake, marijuana won't get legalized in any form for years. It's a far from perfect ballot item, but easier to fix after it's passage than waiting a decade for anyone to take the political risk again.

Remember that it's still illegal to sell Corn Flakes on a Sunday in Columbus. It can be very hard to get a law changed once passed.

Unfortunately none of the proposals are perfect (surprise) so you have to pick your poison.  The other marijuana amendments that are listed in the SOS's website are vastly different. The problem I have is that while the other proposals don't promote a 'monopoly' they also aren't well thought out at all. Which for all the bad to be said about issue 3, it is very detailed.

 

Also, can we please dispel the myth that marijuana being illegal in Ohio is encarcerating mass amounts of people? Since the 1990's, the max penalty for possession of a massive amount of weed is a $100 fine. It's been decriminalized for 20 years.

Also, can we please dispel the myth that marijuana being illegal in Ohio is encarcerating mass amounts of people? Since the 1990's, the max penalty for possession of a massive amount of weed is a $100 fine. It's been decriminalized for 20 years.

 

Good point - though if I recall from college, people would get penalties for "paraphernalia" and other related charges, than the actual possession. Not sure if that's still how it is.

Here's a list of penalties. Anything under 100 grams (3.5 ounces) is a misdemeanor with a $150 fine. Anything over that can land you in jail.

 

Possession of over 7 ounces is a felony.

Here's a list of penalties. Anything under 100 grams (3.5 ounces) is a misdemeanor with a $150 fine. Anything over that can land you in jail.

 

Possession of over 7 ounces is a felony.

 

And there you have it. We have a state crawling with felons.

Enquirer came out against issue 2 today in an editorial, something about vague and confusing language that could be constructed too broadly by the courts.  I was for #2 but may have to re-think.

I'm leaning heavily towards voting Yes on 3.  I am not enthusiastic about the specifics, and I wish they would've waited for 2016, but I'm afraid that it's defeat will harm Ohio the same way the gay marriage ban did.  I was in school when that happened and recall that being the nail in the coffin for several of my classmates who decided Ohio wasn't the right place for them after graduation.  If nothing else, passage of Issue 3 will move the goalposts...... it will start a real discussion.  More importantly, it will help Ohio's image whereas it's defeat will confirm the general notion that there is not much which separates us from "Kentucky USA" and the rest of "flyover country".  Nobody outside of Ohio will know specifically why it was defeated.

More importantly, it will help Ohio's image whereas it's defeat will confirm the general notion that there is not much which separates us from "Kentucky USA" and the rest of "flyover country".  Nobody outside of Ohio will know specifically why it was defeated.

 

True. The Bill O'reilly's of the world will spin it that "the people of Ohio had the good sense to think of the children."

I just read the text of Issue 2:

 

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.

 

If Issue 2 prevented future monopolies for marijuana, casinos, etc. going forward, I'd support it. But it only seeks to block Issue 3. And putting one specific date in the constitution is illogical. So, I'm voting no on Issue 2.

It does work to prevent future monopolies or preferential tax rates. That's only a portion of the text.

After revisiting this, I'll be voting against Issue 2 as well... however voting in more monopolies into our Constitution makes me very uneasy. 

I'm leaning heavily towards voting Yes on 3.  I am not enthusiastic about the specifics, and I wish they would've waited for 2016, but I'm afraid that it's defeat will harm Ohio the same way the gay marriage ban did.  I was in school when that happened and recall that being the nail in the coffin for several of my classmates who decided Ohio wasn't the right place for them after graduation.  If nothing else, passage of Issue 3 will move the goalposts...... it will start a real discussion.  More importantly, it will help Ohio's image whereas it's defeat will confirm the general notion that there is not much which separates us from "Kentucky USA" and the rest of "flyover country".  Nobody outside of Ohio will know specifically why it was defeated.

 

I really do understand this position ... but it also sounds like a rationalization for letting image trump substance.  Who cares if nobody outside Ohio knows the specifics of why it's defeated?  Is that really a good argument for a bad constitutional amendment?  I repeat ... a constitutional amendment?

^I would agree but for the fact that we long ago bastardized the Oho 'Constitution'...... and, moreover, so long as the Ohio Constitution can be amended by a simple majority vote of electors who actually show up at the polls on any given election day, it doesn't serve the fundamental purpose of a constitution anyways.  It is more of a proactive referendum process than it is a constitution

It does work to prevent future monopolies or preferential tax rates. That's only a portion of the text.

 

Full text can be found on Page 26 of this PDF.

 

I'm really not liking any part of it, though.

 

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.

 

All this does is prevent a monopoly from petition-backed amendments. The legislature could still propose an amendment that creates a monopoly. It also does not retroactively apply to casinos or anything else. So I don't see what benefit this actually gets us.

 

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.

 

Again, I just hate when anyone attempts to hijack the constitution to add an extremely specific item like this. Constitutions and charters are supposed to be evergreen, not to block the controversial item of the moment.

 

In Colorado, where marijuana is legal for adult use, the number of young children poisoned by marijuana is much higher than national.

 

(Note: 2006-2009 Colorado had limited medical access; 2010-2012 commercialized medical access; 2013 – 2014 legalized personal use.)

 

(Source: Rocky Mountain High Intensity Trafficking Area September 2015)

 

** More statistics to come...

 

Thanks Terry S. I'll keep my kids out of Colorado!!!!