Brutus continuing to stick up for idiotic Republican's in here?  I'm shocked

2 hours ago, GISguy said:

Man, what is up with r's absolutely hating democracy. The rules they've proposed DO NOT reflect the people who voted nearly 60% to legalize. Michigan must love how badly the legislature is flubbing this. Can't wait for Fair Districts Ohio to finally boot these gerrymandered idiots from office.

 

 

The last time a Democrat not named Sherrod Brown or running for a judgeship won statewide was 2006.   Playing with the lines won't help you much, if at all.   Especially when intra-party politics come into play.  

 

29 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

Brutus continuing to stick up for idiotic Republican's in here?  I'm shocked

 

Don't forget, @E Rocc who's here with his greatest hit: "gerrymandering doesn't really matter."

2 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

The last time a Democrat not named Sherrod Brown or running for a judgeship won statewide was 2006.   Playing with the lines won't help you much, if at all.   Especially when intra-party politics come into play.  

 

If that’s true, why are Republicans so reticent to draw even remotely fair and logical districts?

There's a good faith and a bad faith way that legislators could "tweak" the passed initiative. Where exactly that line aught to be drawn isn't entirely clear, but some of the comments from Republican leaders definitely seem to cross it. 

 

If I had to draw that line it's whether or not it touches the central part of the initiative or not. In this case I think that means the stuff that explicitly deals with marijuana, so THC limits, home grow, possession amounts, etc. This is what most people based their vote on. The other stuff, taxation amounts, where the money should go, etc, may still be important, but I doubt it impacted much of anyone's vote. Clarifying things that weren't even in the amendment (since it's quite a bit shorter than most laws) is of course also fair game. 

 

Not that I'm saying legislators should or need to tweak the amendment, just that there is a reasonable good faith version, and a bad faith version. The bad faith version explicitly spits in the face of the electorate, and I imagine they'll pay the price for it eventually. 

6 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

The last time a Democrat not named Sherrod Brown or running for a judgeship won statewide was 2006.   Playing with the lines won't help you much, if at all.   Especially when intra-party politics come into play.  

 

 

A supermajority wouldn't exist if we had fair and representative districts (our state is about 54%R/46%D give or take), legislators would have to legislate. But back to weed, the supermajority does not "know best" when it comes to the supermajority of voters that put Issue 2 into their hands.

5 minutes ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

If that’s true, why are Republicans so reticent to draw even remotely fair and logical districts?

 

Neither party really wants major redistricting reform.  It might help the Democrats externally, but not enough to become a majority.   It could potentially devastate them internally.

3 hours ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

So your position is that people should not get upset when what they voted on is being materially altered, for the worse, by people who didnt want it passed in the first place? They should just chill and let Rs get what they want, because thats your "team"?

 

If people didnt express displeasure with what is being proposed the Rs would assume their constituents are happy with what they are proposing (which of course they arent).

 

The only acceptable action from Republicans is to create the regulations that adhere to the standards the people voted for. Anything beyond that is intentionally undermining the will of the voters and calling them all rubes who didn't understand it. 

2 hours ago, Mendo said:

 

No, folks should contact their legislators now to show they aren't happy with the proposed changes. Waiting until the laws are passed is too late. 

 

Brutus up in here with the "You have to pass it first to know what's in it". 

14 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Neither party really wants major redistricting reform.  It might help the Democrats externally, but not enough to become a majority.   It could potentially devastate them internally.

 

Almost all states with the worst gerrymandering are red. Almost all the states with the least gerrymandering are blue. You could argue that at a most basic possible level, both parties gerrymander. But that would be a very incomplete and arguably intellectually dishonest statement in terms of which side absolutely uses it more and to what degree. It's pretty clear which party depends on gerrymandering to survive. 

While ironing out the details something to keep in mind:  please contact your local reps about making sure there are dispensaries in walkable areas. The knee-jerk reaction from moral police is to locate these far far away from schools, churches, etc. This overreach basically isolates them to 1414 Industrial Way, or sketchy areas which just necessitates that customers drive, some of whom shouldn't be driving.   

Hey, in the rural areas so many of the schools have been moved way out of town out on to the 55mph highway by Republican school boards and people left the old denominations for megachurches also on the highway that it may not be as much of a problem as expected 

32 minutes ago, surfohio said:

While ironing out the details something to keep in mind:  please contact your local reps about making sure there are dispensaries in walkable areas. The knee-jerk reaction from moral police is to locate these far far away from schools, churches, etc. This overreach basically isolates them to 1414 Industrial Way, or sketchy areas which just necessitates that customers drive, some of whom shouldn't be driving.   

 

Great point.

Well, to me this is disappointing. It's looks like an inexcusable attempt to turn a voter passed Cannabis Prohibition-ending amendment inside-out. Not just to thwart the major aims of initiative 2, but to actually craft a bill that for cannabis consumers makes things worse after passage than they were before the passage. On the front page of this effort appears to be a use whatever means necessary to hold off implementation of recreational Pot sales in Ohio for at least a year, if not longer. Second, is an obvious attempt to water down THC potency levels. (I see it as a indirect effort to discourage Marijuana use) States have tried to limit alcoholic contents for beer which have been universally unpopular for Beer consumers. The drastic proposed increase in taxes is designed to hit everyone connected as a consumer or supplier in the wallet-so yet another thinly veiled attempt to discourage Cannabis consumption while unintentionally or not, it results in funneling more money towards illicit sales or sending more Ohio dollars to other more permissive states.  I sincerely hope saner minds will prevail but at this point the legislative playbook appears to be continuing to punish Cannabis consumers in every way legally possible. The continuing use of Medical Marijuana is ignored- undoubtedly those opposed in the legislature are in lockstep with those who still believe Cannabis has no medical value whatsoever-yet, there is abundant medical evidence of it's benefits ranging from helping PTSD impacted Veterans to treating neurological and organic brain disorders.

 

On a personal level, I had hoped passage of this measure this might replace the need for the rather expensive Ohio Med. MJ license but unless these radical changes to the voter passed initiative do not make it to the final version, then years of effort towards sensible changes in Ohio Marijuana policy at the state level will go down the proverbial toilet. It changes December 7th from being the potential dawn of a new, more enlightened era, into a regressive draconian legal Frankenstein that makes a mockery of Ohio's good faith voters.  The proposed changes are NOT what I voted for and its a dereliction of legislators' duty to attempt to thwart the will of Ohio voters. I realize that our country is in a tug of war between ideological sides in the so called "Cultural Wars" but there was nothing in the No. 2 initiative that called for this insidious assault by political ideologues from the right.  Give Cannabis consumers what they voted for-the language of the initiative was unambiguous and plain and the final accepted version considered by the legislature should be as well.

Here's a VERY rudimentary map of community features buffered 500' and Commercial/Mixed Use Zoning: https://veganbrisket.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=ccba6e9f831143f0a4ee4c73784d96c5

 

Obviously this isn't anything super serious, but gives a general idea of how difficult even a 500' buffer will be. Add the mile buffer and certain municipalities are out of it.

16 minutes ago, GISguy said:

Here's a VERY rudimentary map of community features buffered 500' and Commercial/Mixed Use Zoning: https://veganbrisket.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=ccba6e9f831143f0a4ee4c73784d96c5

 

Obviously this isn't anything super serious, but gives a general idea of how difficult even a 500' buffer will be. Add the mile buffer and certain municipalities are out of it.

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

7 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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

 

Reducing parking minimums <> 'banning parking lots'

2 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

Reducing parking minimums <> 'banning parking lots'

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.

3 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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.

Downtown. Not the whole city.

1 hour ago, John S. said:

Well, to me this is disappointing. It's looks like an inexcusable attempt to turn a voter passed Cannabis Prohibition-ending amendment inside-out. Not just to thwart the major aims of initiative 2, but to actually craft a bill that for cannabis consumers makes things worse after passage than they were before the passage. On the front page of this effort appears to be a use whatever means necessary to hold off implementation of recreational Pot sales in Ohio for at least a year, if not longer. Second, is an obvious attempt to water down THC potency levels. (I see it as a indirect effort to discourage Marijuana use) States have tried to limit alcoholic contents for beer which have been universally unpopular for Beer consumers. The drastic proposed increase in taxes is designed to hit everyone connected as a consumer or supplier in the wallet-so yet another thinly veiled attempt to discourage Cannabis consumption while unintentionally or not, it results in funneling more money towards illicit sales or sending more Ohio dollars to other more permissive states.  I sincerely hope saner minds will prevail but at this point the legislative playbook appears to be continuing to punish Cannabis consumers in every way legally possible. The continuing use of Medical Marijuana is ignored- undoubtedly those opposed in the legislature are in lockstep with those who still believe Cannabis has no medical value whatsoever-yet, there is abundant medical evidence of it's benefits ranging from helping PTSD impacted Veterans to treating neurological and organic brain disorders.

 

On a personal level, I had hoped passage of this measure this might replace the need for the rather expensive Ohio Med. MJ license but unless these radical changes to the voter passed initiative do not make it to the final version, then years of effort towards sensible changes in Ohio Marijuana policy at the state level will go down the proverbial toilet. It changes December 7th from being the potential dawn of a new, more enlightened era, into a regressive draconian legal Frankenstein that makes a mockery of Ohio's good faith voters.  The proposed changes are NOT what I voted for and its a dereliction of legislators' duty to attempt to thwart the will of Ohio voters. I realize that our country is in a tug of war between ideological sides in the so called "Cultural Wars" but there was nothing in the No. 2 initiative that called for this insidious assault by political ideologues from the right.  Give Cannabis consumers what they voted for-the language of the initiative was unambiguous and plain and the final accepted version considered by the legislature should be as well.

 

At this point the only way GOP legislators in Ohio will ever get the point is if their own constituents make it known that they'll be in physical danger by going against the will of the people. This power grab is so unbelievably egregious and insulting, that I can only assume a healthy contingent of liberty-loving conservatives will have had enough. But then again, this is Ohio.

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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.

 

I'm old enough to remember when conservatives/Republicans were against home rule on things like the minimum wage, plastic bag bans or gun regulations. Now it's "city zoning codes are great if they block something I disagree with." There's just zero consistent ideology with the Right except when it comes to benefitting their ability to control others.

1 hour ago, ryanlammi said:

Downtown. Not the whole city.

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.

9 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I'm old enough to remember when conservatives/Republicans were against home rule on things like the minimum wage, plastic bag bans or gun regulations. Now it's "city zoning codes are great if they block something I disagree with." There's just zero consistent ideology with the Right except when it comes to benefitting their ability to control others.

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. 

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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.

 

Who here is suggesting that cities cannot use zoning? 

 

If you're playing Devils advocate you are not doing a great job at it. 

4 hours ago, ASP1984 said:

 

At this point the only way GOP legislators in Ohio will ever get the point is if their own constituents make it known that they'll be in physical danger by going against the will of the people. This power grab is so unbelievably egregious and insulting, that I can only assume a healthy contingent of liberty-loving conservatives will have had enough. But then again, this is Ohio.

 

Physical threats against legislators? That has no place in a civilized society. Money almost always seems to be a major component in every controversial law. Do any Ohio legislators have incentives derived from gratuities and perks from various sources, legal or illegal? I want to believe that all elected legislators are pillars of virtue and cannot be corrupted but I'm not that naive. Are owners of Pot shops in Michigan leaning on Ohio legislators to help keep their Ohio business traffic robust? The fact that amendments to the passed version of voter initiative No. 2 are being rushed at warp speed to the floor to beat the initiative becoming law on Thursday seems curious because the actual availability of recreational Marijuana across the counter in Ohio will take, according to most estimates I've read, a minimum of Nine (9) months to a full year, That means until December of 2024 (unless other changes are made)  recreational Marijuana won't be available for purchase in the State of Ohio. I'm sure the Michigan Pot shops will greatly appreciate that glacially slow rollout. So will those who supply the underground economy because possession (and the debate continues between an allowable 2.5 ounces to only 1 ounce) will become legal after Thursday, will they too have a full year in which to enrich themselves. (and, of course, pay zero taxes?)

 

There is no need to reinvent the wheel-Medical Marijuana has been legal for several years in Ohio. Why does recreational (I hate that term) Marijuana require a whole new set of rules? I have no problem with any measures put in place to reduce the exposure of minors to Cannabis. For that reason, I can't see outdoor cultivation as being beneficial as it could encourage thefts of plants by minors. I think those who wish to grow their allowable 6 plants should be provided ID tags for a year and a fee could be charged and collected, to level the tax burden between licensed grow facilities (who now face a 15% tax instead of the current 10%) and home growers. Trying to reduce THC potency is asinine. One of the most noticeable scare tactics used against Cannabis in recent years is the "this isn't your Dad's kind of Pot!" No, it isn't, but so what? Cannabis is a very complex plant with other ingredients besides THC. All of these ingredients interact to produce the "high". Medical Cannabis labels show the effects can last from 1-3 hours so, for some, the effects can wear off in an hour or less while for others it can linger for up to 3 hours. If THC levels of up to 90% for concentrates and 50% for flower/buds worked without problems for Medical Marijuana prescribed patients, then why now must all forms of Cannabis in Ohio be limited to 50% for concentrates and 25% for buds/flowers? Then there's the pile on the taxes issue. The recreational market will open up a new source of state and local revenues but here greed seems to creep in with taxation proposed at 15%. Why not start at 10%, then, after a year, increase the rate to 12.5% and up to 15% in the following years? The goal here appears to be to kill the new market before it even gets off the ground. Those licensed growers who would supply the new recreational Pot market have to make a profit to stay in business. If the hidden goal is to preserve the illicit underground market (which pays zero taxes) then taxing licensed growers into unprofitability would be one sure way to achieve it.  Best IMO, for the new legislation to deviate minimally from the No. 2 measure's language. During this long year ahead while all the details are being worked out there will be plenty of time for sensible changes to be made if there is something found to be lacking. Voters for the measure are against the current prohibition because it hasn't worked in Ohio and hasn't worked nation-wide. Hysteria, fears, and greed should not be part of the implementation of this repeal of prohibition. Back in the days of Alcohol Prohibition, the criminal element profited immensely-since it was repealed in the 1930's, the legal liquor market has become well established. A legal Cannabis market in Ohio needs to be given a chance to show it can work-otherwise, the effort to curb people's behavior will continue to fail as it has for many decades.  Politically, for the record, I consider myself a Libertarian and I voted for Ron Paul in 2009.  I tend to vote for the candidate based on his or her record rather than political party affiliation.  I'm dismayed that there are those who wish to score political points by arbitrarily tinkering with a voter passed initiative but that seems to be fashionable during these days of national malaise and dysfunction.

How often has it happened in the past that the party associated with the opposition of one of these measures tries to upend the will of the voters? Like say with previous measures in Ohio that allowed say, Black people or women to vote, did bills turn up to say "OK you can vote, but only in the general -- not the primaries." Granted there may not have been primaries then but some other caveat or qualifier.

13 hours ago, surfohio said:

 

Who here is suggesting that cities cannot use zoning? 

 

If you're playing Devils advocate you are not doing a great job at it. 

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. 

28 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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. 

 

You can argue that these changes are no big deal all you want.

We're still left with the basic fact that none of these changes are what the voters wanted and ultimately supported with their vote. So no matter how many ways you act like this isn't a big deal, it remains a completely anti-democratic FU to the voters by the Republican Party in an increasing list of such actions against the people of Ohio. You can't get around that fact no matter how much you believe those actions are "practical". A practical disregard for democratic results is still a disregard for democratic results. 

29 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

You can argue that these changes are no big deal all you want.

We're still left with the basic fact that none of these changes are what the voters wanted and ultimately supported with their vote. So no matter how many ways you act like this isn't a big deal, it remains a completely anti-democratic FU to the voters by the Republican Party in an increasing list of such actions against the people of Ohio. You can't get around that fact no matter how much you believe those actions are "practical". A practical disregard for democratic results is still a disregard for democratic results. 

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?

22 hours ago, Cincy513 said:

Brutus continuing to stick up for idiotic Republican's in here?  I'm shocked

Dude has the worst takes I have ever seen. I’ve never seen someone so wrong and backwards on everything they post. 

1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

 

You can argue that these changes are no big deal all you want.

We're still left with the basic fact that none of these changes are what the voters wanted and ultimately supported with their vote. So no matter how many ways you act like this isn't a big deal, it remains a completely anti-democratic FU to the voters by the Republican Party in an increasing list of such actions against the people of Ohio. You can't get around that fact no matter how much you believe those actions are "practical". A practical disregard for democratic results is still a disregard for democratic results. 

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?

42 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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?

 

Oh look, another Brutus post full of ad-hominems, deflection and excuses in order to avoid addressing the actual point of contention most people are arguing. Are the proposed changes what the people of Ohio voted for? Yes or no?

Edited December 6, 20231 yr by jonoh81

30 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

Dude has the worst takes I have ever seen. I’ve never seen someone so wrong and backwards on everything they post. 

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?

9 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Oh look, another Brutus post full of ad-hominems, deflection and excuses in order to avoid addressing the actual point of contention most people are arguing. Are the proposed changes what the people of Ohio voted for? Yes or no?

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.

Edited December 6, 20231 yr by Brutus_buckeye

38 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

Dude has the worst takes I have ever seen. I’ve never seen someone so wrong and backwards on everything they post. 

 

His takes are nothing but laughable attempts to distract from the subject by spewing irrelevant BS.

Whatever the Republican position is it is his job to push it no matter how ridiculous it is. An amateur think tank

16 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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?

It matters when those seemingly impractical provisions the GOP is making up and codifying into law are used against you in a court of law. It matters a lot.

17 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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.

 

You're desperately trying to skirt the issue here. A lot of the proposed changes Republicans want to make are in direct contradiction to the specifics within the bill Ohioans voted for. It's not just a matter of the legislature determining how to follow through with the passed legislation- they are directly undermining what it said and what Ohioans wanted. 

 

It's not about me. I don't smoke, so the rule changes won't affect me whatsoever. The proposed changes will absolutely affect those that do, however. Also, you do realize that people can be against anti-democratic action regardless if it directly affects them, right? That's called having consistent principles. You should try it sometime.

Edited December 6, 20231 yr by jonoh81

41 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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? 

 

Are you asserting that most people don't have respect for the law. Are you a lawyer who is unaware of how prosecutors throw the book at people for leverage? 

 

Come on man, just admit the R's are wrong here. This isn't sports and rooting for your team this is real life with real consequences.  You conflating striking home growing (major change) with rules on advertising and smoking indoors (well duh of course) is strawman territory. 

12 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

Are you asserting that most people don't have respect for the law. Are you a lawyer who is unaware of how prosecutors throw the book at people for leverage? 

 

Come on man, just admit the R's are wrong here. This isn't sports and rooting for your team this is real life with real consequences.  You conflating striking home growing (major change) with rules on advertising and smoking indoors (well duh of course) is strawman territory. 

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.

37 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

You're desperately trying to skirt the issue here. A lot of the proposed changes Republicans want to make are in direct contradiction to the specifics within the bill Ohioans voted for. It's not just a matter of the legislature determining how to follow through with the passed legislation- they are directly undermining what it said and what Ohioans wanted. 

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. 

Is there seriously an adult on here, who wants to be taken for an intelligent and informed individual, making the argument that it's ok to pass laws in direct contravention of what the voters passed, because they may not get enforced anyway?  Is that really a thing that anyone is saying without thinking they're stupid and or completely disingenuous?

 

Of course those laws are going to get enforced according to the discretion of the police and prosecutor.  Fine if you're rich and white, not good at all if you're poor or a minority.

39 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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.

 

Archaic. Okay. So you're suggesting illegally growing narcotics at home is comparable to say, prohibitions against whaling on Sundays.

 

Got it. 

Just now, surfohio said:

 

Archaic. Okay. So you're suggesting illegally growing narcotics at home is comparable to say, prohibitions against whaling on Sundays.

 

Got it. 

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.

9 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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.

 

The "the law's the law" types will absolutely enforce this. You know that. 

 

 

So their incompetence may save us all.  Praise Allah.

29 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

So their incompetence may save us all.  Praise Allah.

Incompetence or maybe a few of them actually realizing it would be a bad call to change it. 

1 hour ago, surfohio said:

 

The "the law's the law" types will absolutely enforce this. You know that. 

 

I don't think he's defending the changes because he truly believes they won't be enforced. He's defending them because just outright saying the party he supports is subverting the will of Ohioans is too uncomfortable an admission. Because if you admit they're doing it on this, what about gerrymandering? What about election results? Can't afford to fall down that rabbit hole of acknowledging reality and responsibility. Can't afford to admit this is not actually the same Republican Party of old. Because then he and others might have to look themselves in the mirror and accept what they've really been supporting in the name of party loyalty.

Edited December 6, 20231 yr by jonoh81

1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I don't think he's defending the changes because he truly believes they won't be enforced. He's defending them because just outright saying the party he supports is subverting the will of Ohioans is too uncomfortable an admission. Because if you admit they're doing it on this, what about gerrymandering? What about election results? Can't afford to fall down that rabbit hole of acknowledging reality and responsibility. Can't afford to admit this is not actually the same Republican Party of old. Because then he and others might have to look themselves in the mirror and accept what they've really been supporting in the name of party loyalty.

As usual, you are wrong again. but again, its all about Republicans in your imagination I guess.