2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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

 

Yes, I usually blame the people actually doing the action for the action. Who else should we be talking about? 

 

I will ask again, is what the Republicans are doing following the will of Ohio voters? Yes or no?  It's a simple question requiring a very simple answer. 

6 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

 

Spectrum Channel 1 has covered the on-going debate in Columbus today (Weds.) over the repeal of Cannabis Prohibition following passage of Voter Initiative No. 2. Among the various sound bites was that of Governor Dewine who, I hate to say this-sounded almost paranoid about the passage of the number 2 measure. He appeared with all of a look of seriousness he could muster and emphatically stated that he wanted to protect the people of Ohio from this alleged "menace" known as Recreational Marijuana. Honorable Governor, it's a PLANT for heaven's sake! It didn't pick up the nickname "Weed" because it's some exotic toxic flower from dense tropical jungles. Cannabis/Marijuana has been around for Millennia. It's medicinal value has been recognized since ancient times. The first U.S Pharmacopia (a compendium of medically recognized drugs and compounds) had Cannabis listed in it in 1820. It wasn't until the 1930's that this long recognized medicinal plant was deemed evil, immoral, and even worse; addictive. The 1930's were also a time of Xenophobia (fear of foreigners) so another weapon in the war against Cannabis was to closely associate its use with disadvantaged Minority groups. The ultimate push in the War against Cannabis was the propaganda movie Reefer Madness. In today's retrospective, the movie was comical and totally detached from any truths or reality but it did succeed in generating Marijuana paranoia in the public realm. When the FBI was established with the newly minted chief, J. Edgar Hoover, the message to the public was that the Feds would use this new government agency to get tough on crime and bust up the violent criminal gangs. (who had flourished under alcohol prohibition) A close friend of Hoover was Henry J. Anslinger, who was appointed chief of the Bureau of Narcotics. He waged an incessant effort to make Cannabis illegal as his primary goal even though prohibition would also mean the end of Hemp cultivation which had been an American agriculture staple since Colonial times. By the end of the 1930's decade, Cannabis was legally lumped together with the most dangerous Narcotics in the world. I'm going to fast forward and go past the 1960's when the youth movement once again embraced Cannabis/Marijuana, and move to the present, when it is on the verge of legality in Ohio. However,  it's still (mis)classified as a Schedule 1 Narcotic on the DEA's list of drugs meaning it has no recognized medical value which flies in the face of almost two centuries of recognized medicinal value by the American Medical establishment. As I wrote before, I'm 100% for protecting minors from Cannabis use and alcohol use although in the real world, by the time kids reach high school age, many have already been exposed to illicit drugs and alcohol.

 

Why initiative Two has become the poster child of political grand-standing in the Ohio legislature remains obscure. I thought Initiative 1 which protects reproductive rights, would be far more controversial but instead, it's a political tug of war over legalizing the adult public's access to a plant.  Truly a shame, IMO, because 23 other states have been down this legalization road before and I'm not aware of any having such political pyrotechnics as Ohio is now having. I'm still bothered over two items on the political agenda debate-first, the allowable possession limits. Why must the (because it ain't broken, so why try to fix it? ) effort to reduce the amount from the current Med. Marijuana's 2.5 ounces (which has worked fine for Ohio medical MJ patients since the program has been in place) to a much lower, 1 ounce amount? For those who favor the one ounce limit, you do realize if individuals are allowed to home grow, that the weight of the entire plant (which is legally considered Cannabis even if unsmokable) can exceed a POUND? So growers would be in violation of that proposed possession amount change from the time that their plants cumulatively exceeded one ounce in weight.

 

I've harped on this before, but trying to lower potency because existing Medical Marijuana limits are "too permissive", only indicates you know very little about Cannabis. First, what do you know about T.H.C. the psycho-active compound in Cannabis? It's a fact that over time, the T.H.C. levels break down so harvested plant material that tested out at 28.5% at harvest time will test at significantly lower levels two months later. A year later, especially if stored at room temperature or a hotter environment, the T.H.C. levels become negligible. I said this effort seems asinine because it has the effect of the State limiting how "stoned" someone can get. Alcohol, which has a much longer track record than Cannabis, has no such limitations-if you're an adult, you can go buy yourself a bottle of Everclear, and drink yourself into unconsciousness. Cannabis is not like alcohol because it affects different areas of the brain. Alcohol can break down inhibitions, and encourage throwing caution to the wind while Cannabis often heightens alertness and in some cases can create an exaggerated sense of fear or concern. In other words, Cannabis affects different individuals, differently. That's why the State required label on Med. MJ states that the effects can last from 1 to 3 hours. In summary, eyeing T.H.C. with the same view as alcohol is a totally invalid approach. And since I've already mentioned the dichotomy between the proposed one ounce limit and the average weight of a home-grown plant-would all home grown Cannabis plants also have to be tested for T.H.C. content?  Would a new illicit market (which Initiative 2 was supposed to eliminate) of high potency home-grown Pot create yet another lucrative black market that isn't at all necessary? Again, T.H.C, because it's an organic compound, is unstable chemically causing it to break down over time just like any organic substance does. Trying to regulate how "high" someone can get by dictating T.H.C. levels is totally asinine. I do hope there's still room for some common sense in this discussion both here and in Columbus. I applaud the voters of Ohio for removing this barrier to a plant that 23 other states have already deemed worthwhile.  I continue to be dismayed that there are those who are trying to turn this positive initiative inside-out for whatever political gain they perceive they can accumulate by distorting and thwarting what the voters of Ohio asked for.  Please do the right thing, and you'll get my vote.

Yeah when I got the wrong street weed (for me) BITD I turned into a total space cadet. Once I can control what I put in my body I will be more likely to use MJ properly and not just drink the same booze that I know I like rather than what I don't. I don't like IPAs so I don't drink them. Not a big schnapps drinker either. But with street weed it was roulette. That's why I basically stopped smoking weed for over a decade. Too many heebie jeebies.

13 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Yes, I usually blame the people actually doing the action for the action. Who else should we be talking about? 

 

I will ask again, is what the Republicans are doing following the will of Ohio voters? Yes or no?  It's a simple question requiring a very simple answer. 

The answer is you have to see what comes out of it, right now you are just speculating on the noise. I assume you will take any potential changes as not doing the will of the voters. That is not necessarily the case. If say, the only change from the Senate cuts the amount of home grown plants from 12 to 6, is that really a huge deal? Probably not. And remember, there is nothing wrong with starting slower and expanding and growing things over time.  You just like to blame Republicans for all the ills of society and your own personal life. 

5 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The answer is you have to see what comes out of it, right now you are just speculating on the noise. I assume you will take any potential changes as not doing the will of the voters. That is not necessarily the case. If say, the only change from the Senate cuts the amount of home grown plants from 12 to 6, is that really a huge deal? Probably not. And remember, there is nothing wrong with starting slower and expanding and growing things over time.  You just like to blame Republicans for all the ills of society and your own personal life. 

 

Instead of taking your approach and constituents sat back and waited to see what the legislature actually passed instead of strongly voicing their displeasure of what the proposed changes were do you think the legislature would have moderated to a flat limit of home grown plants of 6 instead of 0?

 

Also, in all of this discussion you've ignored that the Ohio Senate's initial legislative changes decreased the THC limits for plant material from 35% to 25% and extracts from 90% to 50% while increasing sales tax from 10% to 15% and also imposing an additional 15% tax on growers. Those are some pretty substantive changes and not tweaks around the edges. 

 

One last point on your zoning arguments. Unless I'm missing something it is a totally disingenuous argument to say cities limiting parking through zoning codes is equivalent to the state imposing zoning restrictions that dispensaries must be a mile apart and ate least 500ft from any public places. If a city want's to impose those restrictions I think people on this forum would be annoyed, but I don't think there would be nearly the same level of outrage. 

 

I think you should also remember that the referendum that passed was a plan to legalize weed that was moderated through past failures and an extensive effort to get broad support of Ohioans, both in the number of supporters and the geographic distribution of those supporters. 

30 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The answer is you have to see what comes out of it, right now you are just speculating on the noise. I assume you will take any potential changes as not doing the will of the voters. That is not necessarily the case. If say, the only change from the Senate cuts the amount of home grown plants from 12 to 6, is that really a huge deal? Probably not. And remember, there is nothing wrong with starting slower and expanding and growing things over time.  You just like to blame Republicans for all the ills of society and your own personal life. 

 

No, the people of Ohio absolutely do not have to wait and see what comes out. As other people have already repeatedly told you, waiting until any changes are approved means it's already too late to do anything about them. And yes, why wouldn't I and others take any changes as ignoring the will of the voters? The voters didn't ask for changes, they asked for what they voted for. Even if the proposed changes don't end up as drastic as Republicans wanted, it will still mean they decided they knew better than the voters, and still engaged in anti-democratic action. And the only reason those changes may not end up as terrible as originally proposed is because enough people are expressing anger at the GOP, and Republicans are worried about greater backlash. Not worried enough to stop making changes, but trying to change the narrative by pretending to compromise. The GOP wanted no home grow at all, along with many other significant changes. Coming halfway back is still halfway from what we voted for. That's not a win for Ohioans. 

 

More personal deflections and ad-hominems. I blame the Republicans for what they do, for what they believe, for the actual damage they're causing across multiple issues. Republicans are not principled contrarians, they are extremists who represent a dire threat to democratic rule and the rights of all citizens. 

Edited December 7, 20231 yr by jonoh81

25 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

Instead of taking your approach and constituents sat back and waited to see what the legislature actually passed instead of strongly voicing their displeasure of what the proposed changes were do you think the legislature would have moderated to a flat limit of home grown plants of 6 instead of 0?

I do not disagree with you here. Certainly, voicing your opinion to the legislature is important because it helped to moderate things. My initial point was that there were a lot of people who were outraged that the legislature was considering certain changes and treating the debate as fait accompli. My main point was (if you were not going to voice your opinion to someone in power) complaining about something that has not happened and may not happen is a waste of time. If, you were working the channels to accomplish moderation in the proposed regs, then wait and see what comes from things before getting outraged. We were witnessing the sausages being made and while it did not look pretty, the result usually is not the same as the hyperbole you hear in the hearings, and initial proposals. 

 

29 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

Also, in all of this discussion you've ignored that the Ohio Senate's initial legislative changes decreased the THC limits for plant material from 35% to 25% and extracts from 90% to 50% while increasing sales tax from 10% to 15% and also imposing an additional 15% tax on growers. Those are some pretty substantive changes and not tweaks around the edges. 

There was going to be a lot of horsetrading back an forth on this. Certainly some people care about the tax as significant others are all in on the Home Grow issue. You have to figure there will be substantive changes from this, but things like tax rates are easily to be tweaked and the legislature has every incentive to do so and it is a purely market driven function. I do not worry much about that because if the tax is set too high, it discourages people from entering the field and would encourage a high black market. If this happens, you would think the legislature would want to maximize the potential tax revenue and lower tax rates to achieve efficient market policies.  Something similar happened with the sports gambling law and I believe it happened years back when fracking became law. 

 

Just because certain regs get passed right now, does not mean that things cant get changed later. If the referendum gets proponents 80% of the way there now, understand that it is not too difficult to change things later as they make sense to all involved. 

 

35 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

think you should also remember that the referendum that passed was a plan to legalize weed that was moderated through past failures and an extensive effort to get broad support of Ohioans, both in the number of supporters and the geographic distribution of those supporters. 

I do, but the sponsors of the referendum also knew that as a referendum, it was up to the state to write the rules and they likely were aware that some of the proposals would get rolled back some as the regs were developed. However, a lot of this can be revisited and reworked in time on a one off basis as the advocates decide to push for it. In the big picture, what would be most important to proponents of the bill is that it creates a legal and regulated environment that further pushes those who are skeptical of the rules to realize that their fears maybe misplaced and to later revisit the idea of further relaxing some of the initial regulations. 

26 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

No, the people of Ohio absolutely do not have to wait and see what comes out. As other people have already repeatedly told you, waiting until any changes are approved means it's already too late to do anything about them.

so have you called your legislator to complain about this, or do you just choose to whine about it on a random forum and resort to your tired trope of blaming Republicans for all the world's problems?

 

28 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

And yes, why wouldn't I and others take any changes as ignoring the will of the voters? The voters didn't ask for changes, they asked for what they voted for. Even if the proposed changes don't end up as drastic as Republicans wanted, it will still mean they decided they knew better than the voters, and still engaged in anti-democratic action.

Do you really believe this crap?? You are not in the minds of the voters. Is this what all of them asked for? Like all issues and candidates, you vote for the one that you feel is best. Certainly some voters voted for this because it had everything they wanted in the bill. Others voted for it because they may have preferred it over other alternatives. However, that does not mean they wanted it exactly as it is. It really does not work like that. The voters knew the legislature had to draw up the rules once this passed and they knew that the legislature was going to make changes. The extent of those changes may have been unknown, but it was well publicized that the legislature would make changes. SOme of them had to be made to square it with other laws in the ORC. But to act as if everyone who voted for this wanted it "as written" is patently false. The only thing we do know is that the majority of Ohio voters want legal weed and to be able to buy it and use it legally for recreational purposes. How that happens depends on the voter's preferences of which you really do not know what they are. 

 

33 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

And the only reason those changes may not end up as terrible as originally proposed is because enough people are expressing anger at the GOP, and Republicans are worried about greater backlash. Not worried enough to stop making changes, but trying to change the narrative by pretending to compromise. The GOP wanted no home grow at all, along with many other significant changes. Coming halfway back is still halfway from what we voted for. That's not a win for Ohioans

So to summarize your black and white point, If you voted for Issue 2 you must be a Democrat or Progressive, if you voted against Issue 2, you are an evil Republican.

You do realize that Ohio, is a Republican state, the passage of Issue 2 does not signal some changing of the guard, it means that there are a lot of GOP voters who like to use marijuana. The fact that this won in pretty much every county in the state does not mean these voters are going to vote D for all their candidates in the future, they are simply a bunch of Republicans who want recreational marijuana.

In the debate, there were certainly some GOP Senators who did not like this at all. There were other GOP Senators and legislators who have no problem with this. As they teach you in civics 101, the legislation process is about compromise, I suggest you revisit that class as you seem to have forgotten how that process works.  It is ok for a Senator to say he hates the new law and want to curtail it, that is his opinion. Fortunately, there are enough other Senators who may not agree with that position. However, compromise is good for everyone. 

 

38 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Coming halfway back is still halfway from what we voted for. That's not a win for Ohioans. 

In your opinion.

At halfway (and it is more like 75% to be realistic when this is all settled) the majority of Ohioans will likely be fine with the proposals. If 40 something percent is against this and around 60% are for it in some capacity, then the vast majority of the 60% will be fine with something that gives them the majority of what they want. Yes, there will be some miserable people out there that are not happy unless they get 100% of what they want, but the vast majority will be happy to have the option to use and grow marijuana in their homes and purchase it at retail outlets. 

I'm only going to respond to the middle section since con

 

26 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

There was going to be a lot of horsetrading back an forth on this. Certainly some people care about the tax as significant others are all in on the Home Grow issue. You have to figure there will be substantive changes from this, but things like tax rates are easily to be tweaked and the legislature has every incentive to do so and it is a purely market driven function. I do not worry much about that because if the tax is set too high, it discourages people from entering the field and would encourage a high black market. If this happens, you would think the legislature would want to maximize the potential tax revenue and lower tax rates to achieve efficient market policies.  Something similar happened with the sports gambling law and I believe it happened years back when fracking became law. 

 

Just because certain regs get passed right now, does not mean that things cant get changed later. If the referendum gets proponents 80% of the way there now, understand that it is not too difficult to change things later as they make sense to all involved. 

 

You can't cherry pick parts of the proposed legislation and have to look at it holistically. I agree, if you squint, tilt your head, and just look at individual provisions the resulting legislation would have resembled what Ohio voters passed. Taken together--eliminating the home grow provision, increasing taxes and decreasing THC levels, and zoning requirements (which was the only part of my original post you didn't respond to...), and the allocation of the tax revenue--this legislation starts to look very different. 

 

And I don't think enough attention has been given to the changes of the allocation of tax revenue. Given the disparity of how drug laws have been enforced in this country between different communities, I thought the original allocations were thoughtful and began to address some of the harms that were imposed. 

3 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

and zoning requirements (which was the only part of my original post you didn't respond to...), and the allocation of the tax revenue--this legislation starts to look very different. 

Zoning requirements are really not up to the state legislature. This is a local community thing as they control the zoning laws. Local communities will always be able to issue zoning regulations as to the types of businesses in certain districts in their community. The state regs really do not affect this. Just like local cities and communities can control where strip clubs locate in their cities and where parking lots or self storage centers or warehouses are built, the zoning code can limit how many pot dispensaries. It is an area where the language of the referendum conflicted with existing rules on the books in other areas. 

 

Allocation of the tax revenue is the easiest to fix and to me would be the least worrisome. In general, most legislators like the idea of new revenue streams. If, by setting the tax rate too high, it discourages people from using the dispensaries and further perpetuates the black market, thus leading the tax revenues to come in way below expectations, it makes sense that the state would cut the tax to maximize revenues. I personally agree with you on the tax being too high, but again, when 1) there is a change in legislative session with different members who may be more for the economic benefits, and 2) when tax revenues fall woefully short because the tax was set too high, it will give officials the incentive to reduce the tax to maximize revenues.

18 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

so have you called your legislator to complain about this, or do you just choose to whine about it on a random forum and resort to your tired trope of blaming Republicans for all the world's problems?

 

Do you really believe this crap?? You are not in the minds of the voters. Is this what all of them asked for? Like all issues and candidates, you vote for the one that you feel is best. Certainly some voters voted for this because it had everything they wanted in the bill. Others voted for it because they may have preferred it over other alternatives. However, that does not mean they wanted it exactly as it is. It really does not work like that. The voters knew the legislature had to draw up the rules once this passed and they knew that the legislature was going to make changes. The extent of those changes may have been unknown, but it was well publicized that the legislature would make changes. SOme of them had to be made to square it with other laws in the ORC. But to act as if everyone who voted for this wanted it "as written" is patently false. The only thing we do know is that the majority of Ohio voters want legal weed and to be able to buy it and use it legally for recreational purposes. How that happens depends on the voter's preferences of which you really do not know what they are. 

 

So to summarize your black and white point, If you voted for Issue 2 you must be a Democrat or Progressive, if you voted against Issue 2, you are an evil Republican.

You do realize that Ohio, is a Republican state, the passage of Issue 2 does not signal some changing of the guard, it means that there are a lot of GOP voters who like to use marijuana. The fact that this won in pretty much every county in the state does not mean these voters are going to vote D for all their candidates in the future, they are simply a bunch of Republicans who want recreational marijuana.

In the debate, there were certainly some GOP Senators who did not like this at all. There were other GOP Senators and legislators who have no problem with this. As they teach you in civics 101, the legislation process is about compromise, I suggest you revisit that class as you seem to have forgotten how that process works.  It is ok for a Senator to say he hates the new law and want to curtail it, that is his opinion. Fortunately, there are enough other Senators who may not agree with that position. However, compromise is good for everyone. 

 

In your opinion.

At halfway (and it is more like 75% to be realistic when this is all settled) the majority of Ohioans will likely be fine with the proposals. If 40 something percent is against this and around 60% are for it in some capacity, then the vast majority of the 60% will be fine with something that gives them the majority of what they want. Yes, there will be some miserable people out there that are not happy unless they get 100% of what they want, but the vast majority will be happy to have the option to use and grow marijuana in their homes and purchase it at retail outlets. 

 

Yes, I have contacted representatives, along with thousands of others. It's really not that hard. Whether they ultimately listen when they actually vote on the bill is another story.

 

I generally assume that when someone gives an affirmative vote on an issue, that indicates support of the proposal put in front of them. There's nothing illogical or strange about that. It's literally the most rational conclusion based on the evidence. It is, however, weird for you to believe an affirmative vote somehow doesn't mean support, and if anything, it means support for significant changes against what that affirmative vote was for. You are trying to argue black is actually white here. The voters shouldn't have to compromise what they voted for- not at 0%, not at 75%. That's what you continuously fail to understand or address. You act as if Republicans have earned some kind of right to change the results, but they haven't. They were opposed to Issue 2. They lost. Therefore their duty wasn't to make changes, it was to set the rules within the standards set by the voters. All the ad-hominems on my intelligence and education won't change that. 

27 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

I generally assume that when someone gives an affirmative vote on an issue, that indicates support of the proposal put in front of them. There's nothing illogical or strange about that. It's literally the most rational conclusion based on the evidence. It is, however, weird for you to believe an affirmative vote somehow doesn't mean support, and if anything, it means support for significant changes against what that affirmative vote was for. You are trying to argue black is actually white here. The voters shouldn't have to compromise what they voted for- not at 0%, not at 75%.

That is because, as you prove over and over, you only see things as black and white and do not seem to have the ability to understand nuance. 

 

Could you possibly understand that there could be some people who supported Issue 2, who voted for it because they liked the idea of legalized marijauna better than the alternative but maybe did not love the exact language in the bill. They voted for a tradeoff. There are also people who likely voted against it that maybe did not mind the idea of legalized marijuana but did not love the exact language in the bill either? Could there be nuance in how each voter rationalizes their decision to vote for or against an issue?

7 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

That is because, as you prove over and over, you only see things as black and white and do not seem to have the ability to understand nuance. 

 

Could you possibly understand that there could be some people who supported Issue 2, who voted for it because they liked the idea of legalized marijauna better than the alternative but maybe did not love the exact language in the bill. They voted for a tradeoff. There are also people who likely voted against it that maybe did not mind the idea of legalized marijuana but did not love the exact language in the bill either? Could there be nuance in how each voter rationalizes their decision to vote for or against an issue?

 

Sure, there could be people like that. But they didn't vote for that bill, they voted for Issue 2 and what was in it. You're making huge leaps to say that Republicans are justified in making changes because some people who voted yes *might* have actually been uncomfortable with some of the details. You have no actual evidence that's true, though, nor can you specifically support that- should those people exist- they wanted the exact changes Republicans are proposing. It could easily go the other way, where some people who voted yes may have wanted Issue 2 to go even further than it did and are doubly unhappy it's going in the wrong direction. You are simply grasping at excuses here. 

1 minute ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Sure, there could be people like that. But they didn't vote for that bill, they voted for Issue 2 and what was in it. You're making huge leaps to say that Republicans are justified in making changes because some people who voted yes *might* have actually been uncomfortable with some of the details. You have no actual evidence that's true, though, nor can you specifically support that- should those people exist- they wanted the exact changes Republicans are proposing. It could easily go the other way, where some people who voted yes may have wanted Issue 2 to go even further than it did and are doubly unhappy it's going in the wrong direction. You are simply grasping at excuses here. 

You do not know that though. Unless you have polled every individual voter (which you haven't) or you know their mindset on the bill when they voted for the bill. I have never claimed to know their mindset either, but I am allowing for nuance in the discussion whereas you see things purely as black and white. 

 

However, practically speaking, and statistically speaking, if you are trying to find something that will satisfy the most people, then there is nothing like the compromise process. Right now, you have a group of people who may represent 43% of the voters wishes on Issue 2 who are crafting the legislation on this. So the question then becomes is what type of legislation can you craft that may be palatable to say 60 or 70% of the state's voters. If say 57% of the voters voted for Issue 2, what percentage of that 57% would need to feel satisfied that the regs are reasonable to put the issue to bed and move on? If they make 37% of those voters happy or content with the provisions then you have a satisfied electorate. No, zealots like yourself will never be satisfied by any compromise, but now your stubborness and relegated you to an absolute minority at that point. Hence the legislative process. 

15 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

However, practically speaking, and statistically speaking, if you are trying to find something that will satisfy the most people, then there is nothing like the compromise process. 

 

...or you could just let people vote on it. 

Which they did.

 

And what's being proposed is not what they voted on. 

 

Simple. As. That.

You're spending a lot of time and energy, per usual, to really defend that the will of the people is being ignored. Whether it's this topic, the abortion topic, or the GOP being election deniers—there's no need to keep subjecting this forum to your trolling. 

 

Take the L and move on, or, just go to your local GOP meeting where your "alternative facts" are embraced.

Edited December 7, 20231 yr by Gordon Bombay

14 hours ago, GCrites said:

Yeah when I got the wrong street weed (for me) BITD I turned into a total space cadet. Once I can control what I put in my body I will be more likely to use MJ properly and not just drink the same booze that I know I like rather than what I don't. I don't like IPAs so I don't drink them. Not a big schnapps drinker either. But with street weed it was roulette. That's why I basically stopped smoking weed for over a decade. Too many heebie jeebies.

That is one of the strongest arguments I've yet heard for legalizing and regulating Cannabis. You never know whether Cannabis that came from illicit sources is Pot only or could have been dusted or adulterated with far more dangerous substances. The only incident of that kind I ever (thankfully) had was many years ago. A Michigan friend of mine shared a so called "pin" joint of what was being claimed as "Columbian" from a family member of his who had told him it was the best smoke he had ever had. I found it to be beyond strong as it created a bewildering sensation of extreme dizziness and disorientation. I later found out that it had allegedly been dusted with PCP, a potent (illegal for human use) animal tranquilizer.

I still think potency choices should be left up to the consumer-imagine going into a liquor store and only being able to purchase brands with 40% or less alcohol content because higher levels were prohibited by legislation. As stated before, limiting THC levels encourages home growing of more potent stains and the potential for a new black market. Are THC levels limited in Michigan? (where most Ohioans will have to travel get their legal retail pot for another year, or longer. ) And why are concentrates (usually a form of Cannabis resin)  available as they exceed the lower threshold for flower/buds? Maybe the mistake I'm making is trying to take a rational approach to this issue-of course, when politics are involved, none of that matters.

 

I don't understand very well the contentious debate over the allowable locations for dispensaries. If communities still consider them dangerous (putting them in the same category as Pawn shops, massage parlors, and payday loan businesses) then why not require dispensaries to be located within a half mile of a law enforcement facility? For dispensaries, that would be added security for what is for now still a cash only business. It would dissuade street dealers from hanging out near dispensaries (as has been known to happen in other states)  and mandate properly run businesses. Those who opine that there will be plenty of opportunities to tweak the law and its variety of rules are far more optimistic than I am. I guess I've had my say on this topic and I thank this forum for allowing it. Unless the final version is very close to the initiative language, I don't think this issue had been permanently settled. However, at least its a start. Happy Ohio 420 everyone.

 

Fentanyl scare!!! Omg DeWine....can we please get a governor who is not some yokel from the 1800's? 

 

Recreational marijuana is now legal in Ohio. What happens next?

by: David Rees

 

Issue 2, which voters passed Nov. 7 with 57% support, legalizes the sale, purchase and possession of cannabis for Ohioans who are 21 and older. However, unlike the abortion rights constitutional amendment that also passed, Issue 2 appeared on the ballot as an initiated statute — giving state lawmakers the final word.

 

Now, legislators at the Ohio Statehouse are negotiating how to alter the enactment of Issue 2 through two competing bills — House Bill 86, approved 28 to 2 in the Senate on Wednesday, and House Bill 354, awaiting a vote in the House of Representatives. During a Wednesday evening press conference, Gov. Mike DeWine spoke in favor of H.B. 86 and said the legislation will help prevent a “black market.”

 

“This black market will just take off,” DeWine said. “People will be getting it from many sources, none of them legally. Without this bill, people could be buying marijuana that has fentanyl in it. The leading cause of death in the state of Ohio of overdoses is fentanyl, 80% of our deaths.”

 

 

https://fox8.com/news/recreational-marijuana-is-now-legal-in-ohio-what-happens-next/?nxsparam=1#:~:text=Without this bill%2C people could,80% of our deaths.”&text=However%2C several House members have,far from what voters approved.

Well, if you all would come out and vote like you did for Abortion and Marijuana then we'd get to have a sensible, 21st century governor. 

4 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

Well, if you all would come out and vote like you did for Abortion and Marijuana then we'd get to have a sensible, 21st century governor. 

This is a must. Mike DeWine is a clueless a**hat.

Just now, Ineffable_Matt said:

This is a must. Mike DeWine is a clueless a**hat.

 

Heck just call him the "The Fentanyl Governor." All those deaths on his watch. Pin that on him...blame him for everything lol. 

I like how DeWine says "Mundee" instead of "Monday". Alice from the Brady Bunch did that.

 

I am so confused on the concentrate from 90% to 50% TCH. That like, defeats the whole purpose no?

14 minutes ago, IAGuy39 said:

I am so confused on the concentrate from 90% to 50% TCH. That like, defeats the whole purpose no?

Exactly, it also means that people will still seek out product from dealers which actually has a higher chance of being laced. Dewine is a complete idiot. Recreational is controlled just like alcohol and tobacco. There isn’t a single shop that would lace their product with fentanyl and risk losing their business and going to jail. 

1 hour ago, ColDayMan said:

Well, if you all would come out and vote like you did for Abortion and Marijuana then we'd get to have a sensible, 21st century governor. 

 

6 of the 8 reliably blue counties in the state voted for DeWine. There was a lot of crossover vote, along with people not showing up. I guess some of them were fooled by his performance on Covid, but a Republican conservative is still a Republican conservative. Them performing moderately rationally on one issue doesn't mean in any way that they will on anything else. 

1 minute ago, jonoh81 said:

fooled by his performance on Covid

the part where he started to wholesale disregard the advice of the Covid Czar who then had to quit because of all the death threats? 

15 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

6 of the 8 reliably blue counties in the state voted for DeWine. There was a lot of crossover vote, along with people not showing up. I guess some of them were fooled by his performance on Covid, but a Republican conservative is still a Republican conservative. Them performing moderately rationally on one issue doesn't mean in any way that they will on anything else. 

Or maybe the Dem candidate was just too far out there. 

3 hours ago, Gordon Bombay said:

 

...or you could just let people vote on it. 

Which they did.

 

And what's being proposed is not what they voted on. 

 

Simple. As. That.

You're spending a lot of time and energy, per usual, to really defend that the will of the people is being ignored. Whether it's this topic, the abortion topic, or the GOP being election deniers—there's no need to keep subjecting this forum to your trolling. 

 

Take the L and move on, or, just go to your local GOP meeting where your "alternative facts" are embraced.

I really do not care about what the rules are on this. It really does not effect me one way or another. 

So here’s the real question- where do you buy seeds? 

9 minutes ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

So here’s the real question- where do you buy seeds? 

 

need a UO stickied post lol

4 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

need a UO stickied post lol

Sticky-ickied

32 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Or maybe the Dem candidate was just too far out there. 

 

I still think Tim Ryan might have beaten Dewine.  Vance won by running against the national Dems.

 

The main reasons MD got re-elected was the split primary vote and his quick backdown to the (first in the nation) pushback.  Plus being able to throw Acton under the bus.

Tangentially related here:

 

Cleveland City Hall eliminates pre-hiring marijuana tests for some positions

 

Quote

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- On the first day of legalized recreational marijuana in Ohio, Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb announced City Hall will no longer require pre-employment marijuana screening for some city workers.

Bibb, in a Thursday news release, said that such marijuana testing has hindered past hiring efforts. The city currently has hundreds of vacant positions it is looking to fill.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2023/12/cleveland-city-hall-eliminates-pre-hiring-marijuana-tests-for-some-positions.html

44 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Tangentially related here:

 

Cleveland City Hall eliminates pre-hiring marijuana tests for some positions

 

 

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2023/12/cleveland-city-hall-eliminates-pre-hiring-marijuana-tests-for-some-positions.html

I think most companies are going to use common sense on this issue. If you work in admin for the city, then it really is probably not a big issue and there is really no reason to test people for it. If you operate heavy equipment, then it is a bigger issue and should probably be tested for it. Just like anything, the nature of the job should determine what the requirements are in regards for marijuana. A one sized fits all approach is stupid.

@IAGuy39is exactly right. The cap on THC has Michigan cannabis shops smiling from ear to ear. The cap for concentrates is 90% and I believe 35% for plants….what it was supposed to be in Ohio. I’m currently vaping a few strains that are between 80 and 90% THC potency. I’ll continue to buy from Michigan because a THC level of 50% or less is unacceptable. Most Ohio smokers that have been procuring their cannabis from other states will not want a cap at all and will continue to buy from whomever or wherever they have been buying. I will certainly not pay more for weak, watered down weed. It seems like every time we try to do something worthwhile for our citizens we find a way to shoot ourselves in the foot and regress. 

2 hours ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

the part where he started to wholesale disregard the advice of the Covid Czar who then had to quit because of all the death threats? 

 

I mean before that, when he was sort of listening to Amy Acton and other medical science. Yes, he eventually crapped the bed, but a lot of people clearly gave him credit for this. There wasn't any other reason a bunch of blue voters supported him. 

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Or maybe the Dem candidate was just too far out there. 

 

I'm not sure we can trust your judgement on this considering you support a movement that promoted horse paste and bleach during a pandemic, considers Donald Trump a good Christian leader, and that Ohio Republicans aren't actually undermining democratic results when they obviously are. Being "out there"- in more ways than one, mind you- is now literally the Republican brand. 

Edited December 7, 20231 yr by jonoh81

4 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I'm not sure we can trust your judgement on this considering you support a movement that promoted horse paste and bleach during a pandemic, considers Donald Trump a good Christian leader, and that Ohio Republicans aren't actually undermining democratic results when they obviously are. Being "out there"- in more ways than one, mind you- is now literally the Republican brand. 

Fortunately for you, you do not have to rely on my word, I think the majority of voters in Ohio decided she was  a bit too far out there for their liking.

 But again, as you often make clear, all your problems are solely the fault of Republicans. 

12 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Could you possibly understand that there could be some people who supported Issue 2, who voted for it because they liked the idea of legalized marijauna better than the alternative but maybe did not love the exact language in the bill. They voted for a tradeoff.

For what's it's worth, that describes me, and given the margin it passed with, I would bet at least half of the people (who bothered to read the text) found at least something in the bill they would have preferred to be different. 

 

I voted for the bill, but my honest reaction when reading the text was that the initiative shouldn't have been allowed as written. Initiatives are supposed to cover a single topic. I felt like there were at least two bills in initiative, one legalizing marijuana, and one or more describing how the funds should be spent. Personally I would have preferred the bill have stuck to legalizing recreational marijuana and all that entails, home-grow, THC limits, etc, and kept the kept the logistics and economics to a minimum.

 

I just don't like the idea of having to take up or down votes on overly complicated legislation. That's what representatives are for. They can debate the merits of the minutia, and propose amendments. I understand our current elected officials aren't as representative as they should be for reasons beyond the scope of this thread, but I still maintain that it's best to keep initiatives simple. 

 

Anyway this is a long way of saying I voted for issue 2 because it legalized recreational marijuana. I wasn't a fan of everything else in the text, but it wasn't enough to dissuade me. I don't think I'm very unique in this respect, either because people didn't even bother to read the specifics, they didn't care one way or the other, or didn't like them but voted yes anyway. I also don't think there is really anyone who voted yes, but wouldn't have voted for a simpler version of this bill. People made their decision based on the core of the initiative, that is, legalizing recreational marijuana. Our representatives should respect that and not substantially alter stuff like THC limits, etc. I admit I don't really have an issue with them fussing with stuff like taxes and directing funds though as I just don't think it was really what anyone was voting on, it was simply bundled in.

18 hours ago, Cleveland Rising said:

@IAGuy39is exactly right. The cap on THC has Michigan cannabis shops smiling from ear to ear. The cap for concentrates is 90% and I believe 35% for plants….what it was supposed to be in Ohio. I’m currently vaping a few strains that are between 80 and 90% THC potency. I’ll continue to buy from Michigan because a THC level of 50% or less is unacceptable. Most Ohio smokers that have been procuring their cannabis from other states will not want a cap at all and will continue to buy from whomever or wherever they have been buying. I will certainly not pay more for weak, watered down weed. It seems like every time we try to do something worthwhile for our citizens we find a way to shoot ourselves in the foot and regress. 

Thanks for speaking up. I go back to the original stated purpose of the initiative: To tax and regulate Marijuana like Alcohol.  If that places Marijuana on an equal legal footing as Alcohol,  then, like Alcohol, THC percentages should be up to the licensed suppliers and not determined by legislators with zero Marijuana use experience.  The THC percentages should be stated on the packaging (as they are for Medical MJ)  just as proof levels (percentages of grain alcohol) are required on containers of Alcohol distillates. If one chooses to partake of cannabis with an elevated level of T.H.C. then the responsible thing is to plan and act accordingly.  Just before bed it can help provide a better night's sleep. Watching the snow flakes falling or listening to favorite music on a day when roads are impassible may also be enjoyable but smoking Cannabis with higher THC levels is obviously inappropriate before going in for a job interview. (even if it's a Cannabis related job) In other words, there's no single percentage or a uniform THC level that fits all. It's almost as though people in Michigan are considered more responsible and having more common sense than folks in Ohio in the eyes of our State legislature who wants to "protect" us because we don't know any better.

 

So, has the final version of the two State bills on Initiative 2 been settled on?  I listened to one news report that mentioned an effort towards bringing Rec. MJ to the market at existing Medical MJ dispensaries in a "few months".  (as opposed to the year or longer delay previously circulating) I still find it unbelievable that Initiative 1 hasn't become the political football that it was before the November 7 vote.  Interesting too is all the controversy now surrounding adult public access Cannabis while for years, the existing Ohio guidelines for Medical Cannabis/Marijuana have operated smoothly and efficiently. Once again, "why try to fix something if it ain't broke?"  Of course, that's a rhetorical question as voter approved Marijuana legislation is now a political football to kick around for political points at least until the Governor signs it into Ohio law.

19 hours ago, Cleveland Rising said:

@IAGuy39is exactly right. The cap on THC has Michigan cannabis shops smiling from ear to ear. The cap for concentrates is 90% and I believe 35% for plants….what it was supposed to be in Ohio. I’m currently vaping a few strains that are between 80 and 90% THC potency. I’ll continue to buy from Michigan because a THC level of 50% or less is unacceptable. Most Ohio smokers that have been procuring their cannabis from other states will not want a cap at all and will continue to buy from whomever or wherever they have been buying. I will certainly not pay more for weak, watered down weed. It seems like every time we try to do something worthwhile for our citizens we find a way to shoot ourselves in the foot and regress. 

The part for me that sucks is I live in Cincy!!!

It's 3.2 beer all over again. Now that we can have adult conversations about alcohol we have been able to put 12% beers on the market for over 10 years and alcoholism has gone down. But if you asked Republicans back in the weak beer days what would happen they would say the apocalypse. Yet now the breweries that pour 12% beers get bagged on as being the most boring places to drink and having too many families in them.

Edited December 8, 20231 yr by GCrites

^ re the raised taxes -- yeah whatever happened to the republican party being the cost conscious party, that went out the window for demagogery i guess, but anyway that's on a par with nys -- nys has 9% goes to the state and 4% to the local community, so while that looks like 13% tax there is actually also a rather hidden thc level tax that distributers have to pay, which is obviously passed on to users. 

 

however, the rest is effed tho fo sure. cutting out social equity is especially heinous.

 

 

On 12/5/2023 at 9:19 AM, E Rocc said:

 

Background:   I voted yes on two even though I don't care for the approach.

 

One of the problems with the initiative process is that the devil is always in the details.   

 

The smoking ban referendum was a classic example.   It was in effect one day before the courts forced the state to delay implementation long enough to write actual, practical, enforceable rules.    

 

Before that the speculation on what it meant was downright crazy.

 

 

this is exactly how nys effed this up. they made it legal before any rules and procedures were in place. then legal actions delayed licensing (until very recently). this resulted in the complete wild west weed mess that exists today. 

 

otoh, so what. its not that big a deal. eventually they will clean this mess up. too many tax $$$ are being left on the table.

 

Marijuana has been Legalized in Ohio, But Lawmakers Are Still Making Changes

 

Marijuana is now legal in Ohio, but lawmakers are continuing to try and tinker with the law. 

 

The Ohio Senate passed a bill Wednesday night with major changes to the law that the Ohio House could bring to the floor for a vote this week. 

 

Meanwhile, the Ohio House has a bill in committee that adds clarifications to the current law under Issue 2 — which Ohioans passed with 57% of the vote. 

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/marijuana-has-been-legalized-in-ohio-but-lawmakers-are-still-making-changes-ocj1/

3 hours ago, mrnyc said:

^ re the raised taxes -- yeah whatever happened to the republican party being the cost conscious party, that went out the window for demagogery i guess, but anyway that's on a par with nys -- nys has 9% goes to the state and 4% to the local community, so while that looks like 13% tax there is actually also a rather hidden thc level tax that distributers have to pay, which is obviously passed on to users. 

 

however, the rest is effed tho fo sure. cutting out social equity is especially heinous.

 

 

 

These are sales taxes. Republicans like those since they are regressive.

While there's some hope of a 90 day rollout of Rec. Marijuana at existing Medical dispensaries, State legislators continue to tinker with specific items related to implementation of voter Initiative 2. There's an online publication focused on state by state Marijuana laws by Brooklyn. NY, activist  Tom Angell, called Marijuana Moment.  Angell is described as "a 20+ year veteran of the legalization movement, Marijuana Moment helps activists, industry professionals, consumers, policymakers and the public understand developments and trends affecting cannabis." On Dec. 12 Angell's online publication came out with an article about the current status of Ohio voter initiative 2:  https://www.marijuanamoment.net/ohio-house-lawmakers-take-up-gop-bill-to-amend-voter-approved-marijuana-law-as-alternative-to-senate-overhaul/     For UO readers' time convenience, I screen captured the following two Ohio House bills, HB 354 and HB 86 as well as the original provisions in Initiative No. 2 for comparison.  My conclusions from reading the article is that the debate at the State level isn't over so what the final version will look like remains to be seen.

"Prohibit sharing between adults" That's right folks, no puff puff give like a bunch of hippies. Everyone has to have their own like true, freedom-loving capitalists.

1950s mentality with a twist!

38 minutes ago, John S. said:

While there's some hope of a 90 day rollout of Rec. Marijuana at existing Medical dispensaries, State legislators continue to tinker with specific items related to implementation of voter Initiative 2. There's an online publication focused on state by state Marijuana laws by Brooklyn. NY, activist  Tom Angell, called Marijuana Moment.  Angell is described as "a 20+ year veteran of the legalization movement, Marijuana Moment helps activists, industry professionals, consumers, policymakers and the public understand developments and trends affecting cannabis." On Dec. 12 Angell's online publication came out with an article about the current status of Ohio voter initiative 2:  https://www.marijuanamoment.net/ohio-house-lawmakers-take-up-gop-bill-to-amend-voter-approved-marijuana-law-as-alternative-to-senate-overhaul/     For UO readers' time convenience, I screen captured the following two Ohio House bills, HB 354 and HB 86 as well as the original provisions in Initiative No. 2 for comparison.  My conclusions from reading the article is that the debate at the State level isn't over so what the final version will look like remains to be seen.

So if this idiocy passes, can voters get a referendum on the ballot next year to make it go back to what we actually voted for? The money going almost all to the police is incredibly stupid and super annoying. 

16 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

So if this idiocy passes, can voters get a referendum on the ballot next year to make it go back to what we actually voted for? The money going almost all to the police is incredibly stupid and super annoying. 

 

That would be a waste of time, energy, and money because they could just repeal the referendum. People are already going to be tied up trying to pass the anti-gerrymandering constitutional amendment

3 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

That would be a waste of time, energy, and money because they could just repeal the referendum. People are already going to be tied up trying to pass the anti-gerrymandering constitutional amendment

My bad, I meant if we got an amendment on the ballot, would that replace the stuff they are changing?