A couple of other things to consider:

 

The $50 for a personal growing license is the maximum fee the Marijuana Control Commission can charge (adjusted for inflation)

 

The 1 ounce limit is the constitutionally required minimum allowable amount. Nothing in the amendment says more than 1 ounce is illegal. The state legislature could legalize higher amounts without passing a new constitutional amendment. To lower the amount of legally allowable marijuana you can possess a new constitutional amendment would have to be passed.

A couple of other things to consider:

 

The $50 for a personal growing license is the maximum fee the Marijuana Control Commission can charge (adjusted for inflation)

 

The 1 ounce limit is the constitutionally required minimum allowable amount. Nothing in the amendment says more than 1 ounce is illegal. The state legislature could legalize higher amounts without passing a new constitutional amendment. To lower the amount of legally allowable marijuana you can possess a new constitutional amendment would have to be passed.

 

So black kids will continue to go to jail for minor possession charges....

 

Why can't this state just ever get something right?

To some extent, yes. Even states with full legalization don't allow black market selling. You aren't allowed to sell any marijuana you grow at home in Colorado or Washington. You have to have a commercial growing license to do that. Nothing is perfect, but I'm sure this will decrease the rate of arrests of minorities for marijuana possession or selling (because fewer will be selling).

A couple of other things to consider:

 

The $50 for a personal growing license is the maximum fee the Marijuana Control Commission can charge (adjusted for inflation)

 

The 1 ounce limit is the constitutionally required minimum allowable amount. Nothing in the amendment says more than 1 ounce is illegal. The state legislature could legalize higher amounts without passing a new constitutional amendment. To lower the amount of legally allowable marijuana you can possess a new constitutional amendment would have to be passed.

 

So black kids will continue to go to jail for minor possession charges....

 

Why can't this state just ever get something right?

 

I don't get it.  What are you saying?  Because of the $50?  You do know that it won't be legal for "kids" to have marijuana at all, right?

so most people are voting "YES" on issue 2 which stops monopolies from being written into the state constitution?  and if issue 2 & 3 pass, it will likely go to Supreme Court to sort out?  Just trying to get the abbreviated version here...

There have been some issues brought up that it could be used too broadly if the party in power didn't like a proposed amendment. I'm not sure how realistic that is, but the ACLU and most editorials have come out against 2 (as well as 3).

I'm a NO on Issue 2 and a heavy lean YES on Issue 3.

 

If both pass, then it will be interesting to see what the Statehouse does.  That will be the first move.  Assuming it takes some action, pursuant to Issue 2, to block Issue 3's implementation, then a suit would be filed by the proponents of Issue 3, which would eventually be decided by the Ohio Supreme Court.  Not sure if the Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction (thus, no need to go through the common pleas court and court of appeals), but I suspect someone will make an argument it does.  What will also be interesting to see is if Issue 2 does in fact block all of Issue 3.  For instance, the right to grow and possess your own doesn't really have anything to do with a monopoly or oligopoly. 

What will also be interesting to see is if Issue 2 does in fact block all of Issue 3.  For instance, the right to grow and possess your own doesn't really have anything to do with a monopoly or oligopoly. 

 

Yeah, but the text of Issue 2 specifically calls out the legalization amendment in the November 2015 election and says it won't go into affect.

^Unless the rules of severability somehow apply

A couple of other things to consider:

 

The $50 for a personal growing license is the maximum fee the Marijuana Control Commission can charge (adjusted for inflation)

 

The 1 ounce limit is the constitutionally required minimum allowable amount. Nothing in the amendment says more than 1 ounce is illegal. The state legislature could legalize higher amounts without passing a new constitutional amendment. To lower the amount of legally allowable marijuana you can possess a new constitutional amendment would have to be passed.

 

So black kids will continue to go to jail for minor possession charges....

 

Why can't this state just ever get something right?

 

I don't get it.  What are you saying?  Because of the $50?  You do know that it won't be legal for "kids" to have marijuana at all, right?

 

By kids I meant young black men, who are disproportionately arrested for drug possession charges.    I was hoping that this law would decriminalize a larger amount for possession. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/

From what I heard if both issue 2 and 3 pass, the issue with the most votes trumps the other. It won't need to got to Court or the Statehouse.

 

If issue 2 gets more votes than issue 3 that would prevent issue 3 from going in affect. Issue 2 would become law immediately.

From what I heard if both issue 2 and 3 pass, the issue with the most votes trumps the other. It won't need to got to Court or the Statehouse.

 

If issue 2 gets more votes than issue 3 that would prevent issue 3 from going in affect. Issue 2 would become law immediately.

 

1) If both are passed, it will go to court.

 

2) Issue 2 technically goes into affect immediately and Issue 3 has to wait 30 days. If they both pass and 3 gets more votes than 2, Issue 2 proponents will say that their amendment goes into affect immediately and will stop Issue 3. Issue 3 will say they got more votes so they trump Issue 2.

^Do either of you have a source for the 'more votes' angle?

Ohio law provides that in the event that conflicting measures are approved, the measure with the most affirmative votes takes effect. The other measure does not become law. For example, in 2006, two ballot measures included competing restrictions on smoking. However, only one ultimately passed.

 

http://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Ohio

^ Here's the text in the Ohio Constitution:

 

If conflicting proposed laws or conflicting proposed amendments to the constitution shall be approved at the same election by a majority of the total number of votes cast for and against the same, the one receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall be the law, or in the case of amendments to the constitution shall be the amendment to the constitution.

 

I still think this would end up in court because Issue 2 and 3 might not be entirely conflicting. Issue 2 could strike down certain parts of 3, but not all of it. If Issue 3 passes with more votes, I'm sure the Issue 2 crowd would take it to court.

Here is the portion of Issue 2 that would block Issue 3. It specifically calls out the amendment. It specifically calls it out and says it will not take affect.

 

(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.

Regardless of your opinion on issue 3, you should vote against issue 2. It's a terrible proposal with potential far-reaching consequences much worse than the potential consequences of issue 3.

Based on the quick snapshot of the demographics I saw at the polls today, I'm not optimistic at all on 3.  Too much gray hair.

Regardless of your opinion on issue 3, you should vote against issue 2. It's a terrible proposal with potential far-reaching consequences much worse than the potential consequences of issue 3.

 

I'd be inclined to favor 2 if it wasn't simply a way to block 3.  It's entirely too easy to amend the state Constitution.  At the very least, a supermajority (60%, or better yet 2/3) should be required.

Based on the quick snapshot of the demographics I saw at the polls today, I'm not optimistic at all on 3.  Too much gray hair.

 

That's how it always is at 2:10pm.

 

Also, a lot more people vote absentee.  The seniors make it into an event.

I'd say about half the people I've talked to today who are otherwise in favor of legalization have voted no or plan to vote no on Issue 3.  This thing is going down in flames.  Too bad no one outside of Ohio will know why.

I'm not really sure what to expect when the results start coming in tonight. I don't trust many of the polls that were done. And a lot of the issues on the ballot this year are "good idea but bad implementation" so it will be interesting to see whether people decide "that's good enough, let's go with it" or "let's wait for something better".

The opposition did a good job getting people more worried about monopolies than whether or not marijuana should be legal.

Angie Schmitt tweeted this yesterday, thought it was pretty funny.

 

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.

 

I've heard this argument before and the problem is that none of these monopolies are enshrined into any state or Federal constitutions. I guess legally governments allow them to exist, but there's no requirement that they exist. There's no law preventing others from entering the market. You could argue that the barriers to entry into each of the above markets are significant, but they're not insurmountable.

By that same logic, won't we always have 10 different distributors? Preventing one from purchasing the others, creating a true monopoly? I don't know exactly how it's structured so forgive me if I'm missing the point...

Regardless of your opinion on issue 3, you should vote against issue 2. It's a terrible proposal with potential far-reaching consequences much worse than the potential consequences of issue 3.

 

I'd be inclined to favor 2 if it wasn't simply a way to block 3.  It's entirely too easy to amend the state Constitution.  At the very least, a supermajority (60%, or better yet 2/3) should be required.

 

I wonder why our initiative process is structured to always amend the constitution. Why can't we have citizen initiatives that simply create statutory laws?

 

EDIT - I suppose its so the legislature can't simply overturn the law. In that vein it makes sense.

I think they got tired of having all those Constitutional Conventions.

I'd say about half the people I've talked to today who are otherwise in favor of legalization have voted no or plan to vote no on Issue 3.  This thing is going down in flames.  Too bad no one outside of Ohio will know why.

 

agreed.  but it will be back on the ballot again soon enough, hopefully as a better piece of legislation

I'd say about half the people I've talked to today who are otherwise in favor of legalization have voted no or plan to vote no on Issue 3.  This thing is going down in flames.  Too bad no one outside of Ohio will know why.

 

agreed.  but it will be back on the ballot again soon enough, hopefully as a better piece of legislation

 

Nope. It got crushed. No one will touch it for awhile.

 

I predict an amendment will not be ready for next year (a presidential election) and thus this has no chance until 2020. In the meantime I predict 10-15 states and perhaps the federal government will legalize.

 

I hope someone is keeping track of all the $ we will lose out on and all the unnecessary $ we will spend jailing our citizens (as well as their time served) in the interim.

I'd say about half the people I've talked to today who are otherwise in favor of legalization have voted no or plan to vote no on Issue 3.  This thing is going down in flames.  Too bad no one outside of Ohio will know why.

 

agreed.  but it will be back on the ballot again soon enough, hopefully as a better piece of legislation

 

Nope. It got crushed. No one will touch it for awhile.

 

 

Yep - this is my thought as well. A la MetroMoves. However, I think there is a possibility that someone comes forward with a medicinal amendment in time for next year. A more phased plan to get legalization would probably be wise at this point.

I'd say about half the people I've talked to today who are otherwise in favor of legalization have voted no or plan to vote no on Issue 3.  This thing is going down in flames.  Too bad no one outside of Ohio will know why.

 

agreed.  but it will be back on the ballot again soon enough, hopefully as a better piece of legislation

 

Nope. It got crushed. No one will touch it for awhile.

 

I predict an amendment will not be ready for next year (a presidential election) and thus this has no chance until 2020. In the meantime I predict 10-15 states and perhaps the federal government will legalize.

 

I hope someone is keeping track of all the $ we will lose out on and all the unnecessary $ we will spend jailing our citizens (as well as their time served) in the interim.

 

Wow, I sure hope you're wrong.

Looks like issue 2 is going to pass. That's going to make it even harder to get ballot measures organized.

Hopefully next fall there will be a clean up and down vote on legalizing weed. I just moved out of Ohio, but I would have voted no on 3. Not really sure about 2 because I wasn't paying much attention to it since I wasn't voting anyway.

 

I hope Ohio and Michigan (my home again) both get ballot issues on it in 2016.

Well Gov. Kasich made the exact comment that I predicted he would.

Why wasn't issue 2 a clean up and down amendment in the first place?

Now a private passenger rail company can't even start a line without a statewide ballot initiative.

Now a private passenger rail company can't even start a line without a statewide ballot initiative.

 

How do you get that from the amendment? I just read through the whole thing again, it only talks about things that already were going to be ballot initiatives.

I'd say about half the people I've talked to today who are otherwise in favor of legalization have voted no or plan to vote no on Issue 3.  This thing is going down in flames.  Too bad no one outside of Ohio will know why.

 

Maybe, but maybe not.

 

USA Today leads today with the complication about the monopoly issue.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/04/6-reasons-ohio-marijuana-legalization-failed/75143764/

 

Prior to the vote, just a couple days ago, the New York Times also made the monopoly aspect central to its reporting.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/us/on-ballot-ohio-grapples-with-specter-of-marijuana-monopoly.html

 

The Atlantic, a much more in-depth publication, notes that "unlike some other cases in which ballot referenda to liberalize drug laws were defeated at the polls, it’s a bit more difficult to draw broad conclusions in Ohio."

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/where-did-ohios-marijuana-legalizers-go-wrong/414061/

 

CNN's coverage pretty well covered the oligopoly angle as well, though surprisingly they also didn't give the referendum its own story at all, making it the second part of a combined story:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/politics/election-day-2015-ballot-measures-referendum/index.html

 

(Not sure how long the actual video will load when you click that link, but hopefully the article itself will be reasonably permanent.)

 

Bottom line: The national media were all over this.  They did not ignore the oligopoly angle.

Now a private passenger rail company can't even start a line without a statewide ballot initiative.

 

How do you get that from the amendment? I just read through the whole thing again, it only talks about things that already were going to be ballot initiatives.

 

Because by nature, there is only going to be one company doing it initially. And you get a real mess if there are a bunch of companies providing passenger rail on the same R/W. Nobody is going to build much all-new R/W either.

Now a private passenger rail company can't even start a line without a statewide ballot initiative.

 

How do you get that from the amendment? I just read through the whole thing again, it only talks about things that already were going to be ballot initiatives.

 

Because by nature, there is only going to be one company doing it initially. And you get a real mess if there are a bunch of companies providing passenger rail on the same R/W. Nobody is going to build much all-new R/W either.

 

Hopefully not.  Issue 2 only applies to citizen-proposed constitutional amendments that would expressly guarantee monopoly rights.  But I can still see that this is a risk if there were ever a citizen-proposed constitutional amendment to force the funding of the 3C or similar passenger rail, because the state board could define it as no less monopolistic as Issue 3 was, which Issue 2 was clearly aimed at (Issue 3 did not name specific commercial entities, it named specific land--much as a constitutionally-defined right-of-way would probably need to do to force its way past inevitable Republican legislative obstruction).

Now a private passenger rail company can't even start a line without a statewide ballot initiative.

 

How do you get that from the amendment? I just read through the whole thing again, it only talks about things that already were going to be ballot initiatives.

 

Because by nature, there is only going to be one company doing it initially. And you get a real mess if there are a bunch of companies providing passenger rail on the same R/W. Nobody is going to build much all-new R/W either.

 

I don't think you understand the amendment.

 

It doesn't allow for a constitutional amendment to give exclusive rights to a nongovernmental individual, organization, or group of individuals/organizations where others are not allowed the same right.

 

We could still give the government the right to build a rail line and then contract out the construction and operation. We could not, however, get an amendment on the ballot that would give a private operator exclusive rights to operate a rail line. The state can still have a single operator, but it can't be written into the constitution who that operator is.

This is the only way that Issue 2 will affect a newly proposed (citizen driven) amendment to the Ohio Constitution. Everything after this is what to do if condition B(1) is found to be violated in a proposed constitutional amendment.

 

(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.

So:  Ohioans voted down a monopoly marijuana-legalization proposal by a nearly 2-to-1 vote - http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2015/election/ohio-state-issues-2-and-3-marijuana.html

 

But:  Lawmakers to discuss legalizing medical marijuana after ResponsibleOhio defeat - http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/11/04/ohio-politics-now-responsibleohio-defeat.html

 

---

According to both of those articles: “Although Issue 3 was handily defeated, the debate and conversations about the issue have convinced House Speaker Cliff Rosenberger, R-Clarksville, and other state lawmakers who were staunchly opposed to legalization to now say it may be time to move ahead with medical marijuana,"  Dispatch reporter Alan Johnson writes.

 

“After going through this process, myself and many of my colleagues realize there’s tremendous support for medical marijuana and something we should have a bigger discussion about,” said Rep. Ryan Smith, R-Bidwell, a leader in the House.

^My guess is they want to take the bite out of any broader 2016 initiative.  If medicinal marijuana is legal, then the petitioners can't claim some sick person is being deprived of medication.

 

I'd say about half the people I've talked to today who are otherwise in favor of legalization have voted no or plan to vote no on Issue 3.  This thing is going down in flames.  Too bad no one outside of Ohio will know why.

 

Maybe, but maybe not.

 

USA Today leads today with the complication about the monopoly issue.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/04/6-reasons-ohio-marijuana-legalization-failed/75143764/

 

Prior to the vote, just a couple days ago, the New York Times also made the monopoly aspect central to its reporting.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/us/on-ballot-ohio-grapples-with-specter-of-marijuana-monopoly.html

 

The Atlantic, a much more in-depth publication, notes that "unlike some other cases in which ballot referenda to liberalize drug laws were defeated at the polls, it’s a bit more difficult to draw broad conclusions in Ohio."

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/where-did-ohios-marijuana-legalizers-go-wrong/414061/

 

CNN's coverage pretty well covered the oligopoly angle as well, though surprisingly they also didn't give the referendum its own story at all, making it the second part of a combined story:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/politics/election-day-2015-ballot-measures-referendum/index.html

 

(Not sure how long the actual video will load when you click that link, but hopefully the article itself will be reasonably permanent.)

 

Bottom line: The national media were all over this.  They did not ignore the oligopoly angle.

 

True.  But probably 95% of the population only reads the headlines..... and all the headlines I read from this morning were something along the lines of "Marijuana Legalization Efforts Fail in Ohio." 

True.  But probably 95% of the population only reads the headlines..... and all the headlines I read from this morning were something along the lines of "Marijuana Legalization Efforts Fail in Ohio."

 

Why do you care so much about how this looks from the outside?  That is hardly legitimate criteria to make self-governance decisions.

^For the reasons I stated before.  It reinforces stereotypes about Ohio.  It drives away more progressive thinking millenials which Ohio is already losing to the coasts.  And the outcome of this vote was highly deceptive.  It would be like if we passed a law saying you have the free speech right to burn a flag, and the headlines read "Ohioans support flag burning"....... technically true, but the issue is more complex than that.

Now a private passenger rail company can't even start a line without a statewide ballot initiative.

 

How do you get that from the amendment? I just read through the whole thing again, it only talks about things that already were going to be ballot initiatives.

 

Because by nature, there is only going to be one company doing it initially. And you get a real mess if there are a bunch of companies providing passenger rail on the same R/W. Nobody is going to build much all-new R/W either.

 

 

We could still give the government the right to build a rail line and then contract out the construction and operation. We could not, however, get an amendment on the ballot that would give a private operator exclusive rights to operate a rail line. The state can still have a single operator, but it can't be written into the constitution who that operator is.

 

I see. I was working off of information published in the Dispatch voting guide.

Yeah the most important thing is that an amendment cannot grant a monopoly/oligopoly/etc that is not available to similarly situated individuals/groups. So as long as there is a fair and open bidding process, something like that could proceed.

 

I honestly think Issue 2 was a net positive, but I do have a few concerns that it could be used abusively for the first time before a court steps in and tells them to cut it out.

So could the current casino operators lose their monopoly thanks to Issue 2 passing?