People that overdose on illegal substances don't always go to the hospital or poison control centers. That skews the numbers enough that the comparison is suspect.

 

Edit: I've got to stop quickly scanning over posts. The OP was about marijuana exposure ages 0-5, not OD. TerryS, how were the numbers obtained?

Exposure = poisoned ?

Those percentages sound scary but when there's actual numbers...

 

I'm going to take a guess and presume the "** More statistics to come..." will all be statistics suggesting the measure not pass.

 

What I am really interested in is what will happen if Issues 2 AND 3 both pass. What will happen then? More interesting... how will it happen?

I guess that would require a separate thread though.

^^ I like that the crime rate went down :D

Legalizing marijuana in Colorado increased exposure of kids to marijuana

 

After Colorado citizens voted to legalize adult recreational and medical use of marijuana, Colorado moved from 14th to 3rd highest state in teen marijuana use. There was also a 40% increase in school suspensions and expulsions for marijuana use.

 

In general, the graph below shows teen marijuana use is higher in those states where marijuana is legalized for adults (red and green columns).

 

 

Legalizing marijuana in Colorado increased exposure of kids to marijuana

 

After Colorado citizens voted to legalize adult recreational and medical use of marijuana, Colorado moved from 14th to 3rd highest state in teen marijuana use. There was also a 40% increase in school suspensions and expulsions for marijuana use.

 

In general, the graph below shows teen marijuana use is higher in those states where marijuana is legalized for adults (red and green columns).

 

 

 

Here's a sortable chart by age group- http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/05/where-americans-smoke-marijuana-the-most/

 

 

2.85 million units of marijuana-infused foods and beverages were sold in Colorado in 2014. Marijuana edibles come in many forms, including cookies, cupcakes, soda pops, and candies. These commercialized products are appealing to children and dangerously mimic popular treats.

 

(Source: Colorado Department of Revenue, February 2015)

 

 

If that's a real concern, why not just require all marijuana-infused products to cary a large warning label similar to cigarettes? Or perhaps block them from mimicking/parodying popular brands? It seems like a pretty simple problem to solve.

Question about 'marijuana poisoning'. Does it actually have any harmful effects or do you just wait it out?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/marijuana-overdose_n_4538580.html

 

 

Does Tupperware selling any containers with locks on them? Problem solve. I mean if people can leave their load guns on the coffee without consequences...

Combined the newly created marijuana thread with the existing one about Issue 2 and 3.

I may have missed this earlier in the thread, but what happens if both issues pass?

More...

I am still undecided on Issue 3 and may end up abstaining on that question. However Issue 2 is garbage and I will vote against that, and I would encourage all of you to do that as well regardless of your stance on pot or on monopolies.

 

On the question of the perception of Ohio if Issue 3 goes down, I do sympathize with what Hts is saying but actually I would note that the "Issue 3 is a monopoly" thing seems to be getting a decent amount of national press.

I may have missed this earlier in the thread, but what happens if both issues pass?

 

No one knows. Typically if two amendments oppose each other on the same ballot the one with the most votes goes forward. In this case, Issue 2 explicitly states Issue 3 would not take effect if Issue 2 is based. To complicate things further, Issue 2 would take effect immediately and Issue 3 would take effect 30 days after the election. So Issue 3 could receive more votes than Issue 2, but Issue 2 would go into effect before Issue 3, possibly blocking a higher voted amendment.

 

If they both pass, courts will be involved and we probably won't know for sure the outcome until several months from the election.

^^^Terry - Are you also against alcohol being legal?  Why the vehement opposition to the legalization of a substance that has been widely used recreationally for decades?

 

I am still undecided on Issue 3 and may end up abstaining on that question. However Issue 2 is garbage and I will vote against that, and I would encourage all of you to do that as well regardless of your stance on pot or on monopolies.

 

Yes, Issue 2 is garbage.  I've made the same argument to my friends and family.  I don't care which way you vote on Issue 3 (I voted yes), but please don't vote for Issue 2.  It's a bureaucratic nightmare and creates miles of new red tape.

^Please explain further. My initial gut thinks this is a good thing, but I am hearing of more and more people against it. Yet, i do not know why.

^^^Terry - Are you also against alcohol being legal?  Why the vehement opposition to the legalization of a substance that has been widely used recreationally for decades?

 

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for "Terry." I'm pretty sure he/she's merely a graph-posting robot.

 

I'm for legalization of small quantities of marijuana including medicinal and recreational uses.  Most importantly, I'd like to see the draconian sentencing laws done away with that sends a far greater quantity of young black men to jail.   

 

I don't like the "monopoly" aspect of the growing. 

 

Should I vote for this and hope for something better down the road? 

I am still on the YES side of this, for the reasons stated above.  But I am hearing more and more of people who otherwise support legalization either planning to vote no or abstaining.  I am not optimistic this will pass

^Please explain further. My initial gut thinks this is a good thing, but I am hearing of more and more people against it. Yet, i do not know why.

 

I'm against issue 2 for two simple reasons.  1) It makes it more difficult to pass citizen initiatives.  If the state labels your initiative a "monopoly" (simple changes in the tax code could force this label) than you will need to have your issue voted for twice in order for it to become law.  2)  This law was proposed specifically in response to issue 3.  We don't need a hastily crafted law that limits the ability of the citizens to put initiatives on the ballot just because our politicians are afraid of the coming legalization of marijuana. 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/09/critics_say_issue_2_could_bloc.html

http://limaohio.com/opinion/154147/editorial-issue-2-is-a-poison-pill-for-democracy

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/editorials/2015/10/18/editorial-issue-risks-citizen-access-ballot/74198560/

I'm against issue 2 for two simple reasons.  1) It makes it more difficult to pass citizen initiatives.  If the state labels your initiative a "monopoly" (simple changes in the tax code could force this label) than you will need to have your issue voted for twice in order for it to become law.  2)  This law was proposed specifically in response to issue 3.  We don't need a hastily crafted law that limits the ability of the citizens to put initiatives on the ballot just because our politicians are afraid of the coming legalization of marijuana. 

 

From my understanding, the only way it would require a special second amendment for tax reasoning is if there is a preferential tax rate specified in the proposed amendment.

 

For instance: A marijuana legalization amendment in 2016 that would establish a specific tax rate on sales of marijuana permanently would require a second amendment that would need to be passed to legalize marijuana.

For instance: A marijuana legalization amendment in 2016 that would leave the tax rate on the sales of marijuana up to the determination of the state legislature would not require an additional amendment to be adopted.

 

Below is the full text of Issue 2. I've bolded the pertinent tax rate language. This to me, implies that you cannot specify a tax rate, but can grant an authority the right to determine a tax rate. It just can't be placed permanently in the Ohio Constitution without a second amendment specifically granting an exemption.

 

Section 1e. (A) The powers defined herein as the "initiative" and "referendum" shall not be used to pass a law authorizing any classification of property for the purpose of levying different rates of taxation thereon or of authorizing the levy of any single tax on land or land values or land sites at a higher rate or by a different rule than is or may be applied to improvements thereon or to personal property.

 

(B)(1) Restraint of trade or commerce being injurious to this state and its citizens, the power of the initiative shall not be used to pass an amendment to this constitution that would grant or create a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel, specify or determine a tax rate, or confer a commercial interest, commercial right, or commercial license to any person, nonpublic entity, or group of persons or nonpublic entities, or any combination thereof, however organized, that is not then available to other similarly situated persons or nonpublic entities.

 

(2) If a constitutional amendment proposed by initiative petition is certified to appear on the ballot and, in the opinion of the Ohio ballot board, the amendment would conflict with division (B)(1) of this section, the board shall prescribe two separate questions to appear on the ballot, as follows:

 

(a) The first question shall be as follows:

"Shall the petitioner, in violation of division (B)(1) of Section 1e of Article II of the Ohio Constitution, be authorized to initiate a constitutional amendment that grants or creates a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel, specifies or determines a tax rate, or confers a commercial interest, commercial right, or commercial license that is not available to other similarly situated persons?"

(b) The second question shall describe the proposed constitutional amendment.

© If both questions are approved or affirmed by a majority of the electors voting on them, then the constitutional amendment shall take effect. If only one question is approved or affirmed by a majority of the electors voting on it, then the constitutional amendment shall not take effect.

(3) If, at the general election held on November 3, 2015, the electors approve a proposed constitutional amendment that conflicts with division (B)(1) of this section with regard to the creation of a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel for the sale, distribution, or other use of any federal Schedule I controlled substance, then notwithstanding any severability provision to the contrary, that entire proposed constitutional amendment shall not take effect. If, at any subsequent election, the electors approve a proposed constitutional amendment that was proposed by an initiative petition, that conflicts with division (B)(1) of this section, and that was not subject to the procedure described in division (B)(2) of this section, then notwithstanding any severability provision to the contrary, that entire proposed constitutional amendment shall not take effect.

 

© The supreme court of Ohio shall have original, exclusive jurisdiction in any action that relates to this section.[5]

^I'll leave it up the lawyers to interpret the language of the amendment, but it seems to me that they are a bit broad with their definition.  Specifically when they say, "...any person... however organized." 

 

Generally I like the idea that citizens have the power to petition for ballot initiatives and create laws / amendments.  Sure we sometimes make bad law, but I don't like the premise that we need to be saved from ourselves.

2)  This law was proposed specifically in response to issue 3.  We don't need a hastily crafted law that limits the ability of the citizens to put initiatives on the ballot just because our politicians are afraid of the coming legalization of marijuana. 

 

That's it right there for me. It's a desperate attempt to stop a citizen initiative that the general assembly just so happens to dislike. The monopoly thing, for these politicians, was a convenient scapegoat. Let the amendment stand on its own, whether it wins or loses.

I would be worried that the language in Issue 2 would be used more broadly to smack down other initiatives that go against the General Assembly's wishes. We have what I would consider a very extremist legislature in this state (thanks in large part to gerrymandering) and their views often don't reflect the views of the people. I think we need a fairly open and free ballot initiative process to keep the Assembly in check as necessary.

 

Marijuana needs to be legal, but there are significant problems with Issue 3 as well.

I'm generally in favor of marijuana reform but I think this is a bad way to go about it.  Probably already mentioned elsewhere in this thread but I hate the way they are doing this by modifying the state constitution.  Why not just create a bill and have it voted on the way normal state legislation works? 

Thanks for pointing out the not so obvious rationale behind Issue 2. I was being lazy and not researching the initiative deeper than what was shown at face value.

I am still undecided on Issue 3 and may end up abstaining on that question. However Issue 2 is garbage and I will vote against that, and I would encourage all of you to do that as well regardless of your stance on pot or on monopolies.

 

On the question of the perception of Ohio if Issue 3 goes down, I do sympathize with what Hts is saying but actually I would note that the "Issue 3 is a monopoly" thing seems to be getting a decent amount of national press.

 

It is a monopoly.  If you read the fine print, you can see who the 10 growers are.  In NE ohio, it's Bobby George.  Douchebag bar operator & son of Tony George.  They have already gone on record projecting what the revenue would be, amount sold, taxes, etc.  They will control the price & supply.  That's a monopoly.

I'm generally in favor of marijuana reform but I think this is a bad way to go about it.  Probably already mentioned elsewhere in this thread but I hate the way they are doing this by modifying the state constitution.  Why not just create a bill and have it voted on the way normal state legislation works? 

 

It's because we have very few leaders in the legislature. They are either 1. deathly afraid of the political consequences for supporting marijuana or 2. completely beholden to major corporate interests or 3. both. A few gutsy pols have been pushing reform for years and these bills simply die year after year.

I'm generally in favor of marijuana reform but I think this is a bad way to go about it.  Probably already mentioned elsewhere in this thread but I hate the way they are doing this by modifying the state constitution.  Why not just create a bill and have it voted on the way normal state legislation works? 

 

It's because we have very few leaders in the legislature. They are either 1. deathly afraid of the political consequences for supporting marijuana or 2. completely beholden to major corporate interests or 3. both. A few gutsy pols have been pushing reform for years and these bills simply die year after year.

 

I figured as much.  Nobody wants to go on record as voting for marijuana reform in Ohio, but if the residents pass it, great.

I'm sure we have more than a few members of the GA who would vote in favor of legalization.  But our GA is so heavily tilted to the rural conservatives, it would never gain majority support.

 

I probably should educate myself some more.  Does anyone have an impartial summary of Issue 3, including an analysis of whether it really creates a monopoly in the traditional sense of that term.  I understand that there will be only 10 grow areas, much like we have with the casinos.  Are the 'growers' also limited to specific individuals or is that just by practical effect of who owns the land?  Aren't you allowed to grow your own, as well?  Would pot grown out of state still be illegal?  I suppose so given the federal regulations on transportation.  Is the distribution market limited in the same way as the growers?

 

Again, I'm looking for something objective on this.  Not something put out by either campaign or any supporters.

The Enquirer has been running Q&A's for several months. One was specific about whether issue 3 is a monopoly.

 

"...No. And because that it’s important to use the right word correctly, I will wage this battle with all the strength in my typing hands. But you needn’t take my word for it.

 

“‘Mono’ means one,” says Michael Jones, director of research at the Economics Center at the University of Cincinnati. “The technical economic definition is that a monopoly means one seller. This is the word that people use, and the secretary of state is using it in the ballot language, but it’s fair to say that it’s misleading. It’s not a monopoly...”

 

http://projects.cincinnati.com/Pages/anneanswers9.9/index.html

 

She seems far and balance. Unlike calling Tea Party groups organized as 501©(4); social welfare organizations

^^Now wait a minute.  Wouldn't the 10 growers be competing against each other on wholesale prices?  I assume that the retailers would be able to purchase from any of the 10 grow sites, correct?  If true that should invalidate the monopoly argument.  You can still say it's only benefiting select business interests, but it's not a monopoly.

Again, I'm looking for something objective on this.  Not something put out by either campaign or any supporters.

 

High Times online has quite a bit of writings on the matter.  I think they endorsed Issue 3 but with heavy reservations about the way it was written.  Go to their website & search for "ohio" and quite a few articles come up.  Link to one below

 

http://www.hightimes.com/read/irresponsibleohio-group-aims-monopolize-legal-marijuana-market

He's got a point:

 

Mike Polk Jr. ‏@mikepolkjr 22m22 minutes ago

 

Issue 3's not ideal but the idea of not having to go to a dreadlocked dude's apt. & feign interest in his terrarium to get weed is enticing.

 

https://twitter.com/mikepolkjr

It's an oligopoly.

It's an oligopoly.

 

True. And by the way, how did these 10 upstanding free-marketers agree to the wording "MONOPOLY" featured so prominently in the ballot language?

I don't think they did. I think they are taking it to court, but I'm not positive. There was a deadline to place the amendment on the ballot, and the state placed that language before the deadline. There wasn't enough time to go through the courts so the state's wording will be on the ballot.

Yeah.... my understanding is that was the State GOP's (via Husted) way of trying to undermine the support.

^ ^^ Thanks. Virtually everyone I know who is taking the time to actually read Issue 3 is immediately repulsed by this language.

^That was the goal

It's an oligopoly.

 

True. And by the way, how did these 10 upstanding free-marketers agree to the wording "MONOPOLY" featured so prominently in the ballot language?

 

Yeah, oligopoly is the correct word, but talking about the "monopoly" language is still good enough for democratic politics.  Economically, you can say an oligopoly or cartel is "less bad" than a monopoly, but the debate over Issue 3 would sound basically identical if you took every post, op-ed, etc. that uses the word "monopoly" and replaced it with "oligopoly."  It wouldn't change the argument and I doubt it would really change many people's minds ("oh, I was going to vote against it because I thought it granted a monopoly in the strict economic technical sense of the term, but I'm OK with it since it only constitutionalizes what economists call an oligopoly or cartel ...").

It's an oligopoly.

 

True. And by the way, how did these 10 upstanding free-marketers agree to the wording "MONOPOLY" featured so prominently in the ballot language?

 

Yeah, oligopoly is the correct word, but talking about the "monopoly" language is still good enough for democratic politics.  Economically, you can say an oligopoly or cartel is "less bad" than a monopoly, but the debate over Issue 3 would sound basically identical if you took every post, op-ed, etc. that uses the word "monopoly" and replaced it with "oligopoly."  It wouldn't change the argument and I doubt it would really change many people's minds ("oh, I was going to vote against it because I thought it granted a monopoly in the strict economic technical sense of the term, but I'm OK with it since it only constitutionalizes what economists call an oligopoly or cartel ...").

 

But if you used the language "Grants a small, shared market of a limited number of producers..." that is much more benign sounding.

Here's some info on Issue 3 you might not know.

 

Your pal always,

 

Nick Lachey

 

http://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative,_Issue_3_(2015)

Something that hasn't been discussed at all, is that the State of Ohio can issue additional growing licenses if supply doesn't adequately meet the demand for medical or recreational marijuana. So the list of 10 facilities could increase throughout the years. Also, if a site listed in the amendment fails to meet standards the state can revoke their license and move it to another location.

 

Here is the full text of the section I'm talking about:

 

To ensure that the supply of regulated marijuana is adequate to meet consumer demand in this state, beginning in the fourth year following the adoption of this section, the Commission shall develop and make publicly available annual consumer demand metrics for marijuana and medical marijuana based in substantial part on total gross sales of each within the state in the previous year. If the Commission determines during its annual audits of the MGCE facilities that such facilities collectively failed to produce marijuana and medical marijuana sufficient to substantially meet the published consumer demand metrics for the previous year and cannot demonstrate that they are likely to do so in the ensuing year, the Commission may issue a license for an additional MGCE facility at a site other than what has been designated herein.

 

This definitely lightens the oligopoly claims that have made my vote very hesitant.

 

Here is how I found out about it:

 

It's a very good Reddit AMA with a Cincinnati Enquirer reporter. It is the best discussion I have seen of Issue 3 to date. I am voting in favor of Issue 3 and will casually encourage friends to do the same now. I think the downsides are overblown.

10 companies competing with one another is a lot more competition than other 'vice' industries.

 

All liquor in Ohio is sold through a state owned monopoly.

After the Miller-Bud merger, 72% of beer will so sold by one company

Three cigarette companies control 90% of the market.

All liquor in Ohio is sold through a state owned monopoly.

 

A little misleading because a single company doesn't control the production of liquor in Ohio. But I digress. It's not that important.

All liquor in Ohio is sold through a state owned monopoly.

 

A little misleading because a single company doesn't control the production of liquor in Ohio. But I digress. It's not that important.

 

It does all pass through the State's Control System. Even if I own a distillery, I have to sell the product to the State, then buy it back to sell it to a consumer

 

(I will admit I am simplifying things a little here)

All liquor in Ohio is sold through a state owned monopoly.

 

A little misleading because a single company doesn't control the production of liquor in Ohio. But I digress. It's not that important.

 

It does all pass through the State's Control System. Even if I own a distillery, I have to sell the product to the State, then buy it back to sell it to a consumer

 

(I will admit I am simplifying things a little here)

 

It's probably a safe bet that a lot of liquor producers/handlers have since become libertarians!