Plan B Forum

On the Ohio ballot for November are two constitutional amendments:

Issue 3 would legalize marijuana growth and sale in Ohio
But wait... before the cheering starts... this proposal is written by some very rich people. They happen to be ten property owners. And the Constitution will be amended such that marijuana may only be grown by the owners of those ten properties.

Not only that, but they've written in a maximum 15% state tax (unalterable by any legal means) on the growers and a maximum 5% tax on retail sellers (also eternally "no more than"). Sales tax on retail in Ohio is 5.75% and local municipalities can add to it. Not for these cats.

And they Constitutionally mandate that marijuana "testing stations" must be established... where? Oh, coincidentally adjacent to half a dozen Ohio colleges - "but not limited to those".

Oh control of the entire process will be taken away from government and given to a special marijuana promotion..oops, sorry... regulation board composed of seven persons: a lawyer, a pot grower, a pot retailer, a patient advocate, a physician, a "sworn Ohio law enforcement officer, and a "public member".

One of the duties of the commission will be to establish and fund (from the taxes) "marijuana innovation and business incubator established hereunder"

Regardless of the pro/con positions on marijuana, this is a bad law creating a monopoly that does not exist for any other retail product in the state of Ohio. If marijuana is to be grown and sold in Ohio, why restrict it to a few fat cats? Why compromise the state's ability to regulate taxation in a manner that is not permitted for e.g. tobacco and alcohol.

The other amendment, Issue 2, would ban the creation of Constitutional monopolies etc. Obviously, those opposed to marijuana as well as monopolies in principal and in general have created this one in the hope that if 3 passes, 2 will also pass (and over-rule 3).

What's the opinion of the board members here? I can kinda shrug on the pot issue itself - but I can't stand the monopoly so will be voting against 3 and for 2

So if 3 passes and 2 also passes, does that mean that growing marijuana would be legalized but the "designer" monopoly portions of 3 would be invalidated?

I believe it's all smoke and mirrors.

Lord Jim wrote:So if 3 passes and 2 also passes, does that mean that growing marijuana would be legalized but the "designer" monopoly portions of 3 would be invalidated?

I don't think so, LJ. 2 bans any constitutional amendment that would create a monopoly. That is an integral and nonseverable part of 3. So all of 3 goes

The 3 sponsors do not want legalized marijuana in general - they want to own it all

Sounds like an urban legend.


yrs,
rubato

Well it isn't. You should see the spate of "Yes on 3; no on 2" ads here

Anything useful to contribute?

yep.

if the small farmer is not allowed to grow weed, legalization will only benefit the few, the connected, the assholes, and it s benefit to the nation as a whole will be virtually nil.

the average user will continue to pay exorbitant prices, or do without.

the wide and valuable uses of the fibre will not be realized and only the 'cats" will purr....

boutique weed sucks.

the way weed is being legalized sucks

I never thought that I would see the day when pot seeds were hard to come by..., but I have.

boo, boo, boo......

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Well it isn't. You should see the spate of "Yes on 3; no on 2" ads here

Anything useful to contribute?

How do bills get on the ballot, there?


It sounds like implausible bullshit. A 'constitutional amendment' is written to give a perpetual license to the owners of 10 properties? And then how does such thing get onto the ballot? You have a political party backing this? Really? Enough voters signed a petition for such a dopey law, really? And no one read it meanwhile?

Not only that, but they've written in a maximum 15% state tax (unalterable by any legal means)

I've never heard of a law which was unalterable by 'any legal means'. Have you? Even the U.S. Constitution can be changed.


yrs,
rubato

WaPo says its legit but I can't see it getting far once the press publicises what the laws say.





yrs,
rubato

It sounds like implausible bullshit. A 'constitutional amendment' is written to give a perpetual license to the owners of 10 properties? And then how does such thing get onto the ballot? You have a political party backing this? Really? Enough voters signed a petition for such a dopey law, really? And no one read it meanwhile?

Rube, here in California, we have "designer" ballot initiatives that are set up to sound high-minded (no pun intended) that are really backed by special interest groups intending to achieve their own narrow business objectives, in virtually every election cycle...(they send out paid petition name gathers, and then qualify it for the ballot)

Ballot initiatives that create state Constitutional changes...this has been going on as long as I've been living out here....

Perhaps if you expanded your information gathering sphere beyond http://delong.typepad.com/ and vox.com, you might be aware of this...

yrs,

rube's bitch

Thanks for that link bsg.

Perhaps "by any legal means" was an exaggeration, rubato. By writing it into the Constitution, the flat tax (which is a "not to exceed" figure) can of course only be changed by another Constitutional amendment. If you really believed, as you seem to have done until enlightened, that changing the Ohio Constitution to create a potopoly (oligopoly, as bsg's link says) is scoffable, unlikely, and an urban legend - then what must you think of the chances of getting a tax increase on the ballot? Ever.

No, the government structures of Ohio will be powerless to change the tax other than to decrease it. Again, such protections as the dope kings are seeking do not apply to alcohol and tobacco.

And the media has been reporting on the issues, rubato. Even the humble Kent newspaper had useful pull-out section on all three proposed changes to the Constitution with summary of content; arguments pro and con from the principles; and the actual initiative language in full.

So, well done on being so dismissive and accusing me of posting urban legend and implausible bullshit.

you know....

Kasich could really make some points on this.

he is against weed legalization (how is that workin' out for you john?), but he just came out big for states rights.

now if he were to keep both positions, against weed, but leaving it to the states, which I could definitely be on board with...

....and (italics), if he would come out against these ballot initiatives, and vow to veto anything that shut the small farmer out of the weed cycle... he would score bigtime.

the southern support that he needs would just blossom.

states rights and (italics) the small farmer?

it s a can t lose southern strategy.... except that trump, from new York city, is rapidly locking up the southern vote.

vote Kasich.

Out here in the wild cannabis west, the newly legal shops popping up are finding out something about the federal tax code that they should have known before they planted their first seed. The deductions allowed for illegal drugs -- defined as illegal under federal law -- are extremely limited and most actual expenses, rent and payroll among them, are not allowed. Thus, the federal tax man is taking the lion's share. No state can fix that.

Also out here in the wild proposition west, we had a similar special interest group try to get a casino built at a defunct dog-racing stadium. It never stood a chance once it was clear that a few individuals would make a bundle while sharing a modest cut with the local and state government. Of course, the opponents included the nearest tribal casinos who did a lot to educate the voters. Of course, one of those tribes just bought the property so that they don't have to go through this again . . . unless they're the one who wants to put a casino there.

We just need a latter day Joe Conforte and we will give Nevada a run for its money.

My, oh my! $12 million spent by the monopotists and their issue 3 went down in smoke-em-if-got-em by 2-1 margin. They'll try again with perhaps less emphasis on giving just 10 fat-cats the right to grow and control the market. (As if they care about medical marijuana and freedom - it's the yankee dollar that drives them).

Big finger in yer face, you capitalist pigs!

I voted - yes on a redistricting committee (repubs and dems must both agree to any new lines or there's no changes); yes on the law banning monopolies and no on growing dope to support the millionaires.

well, as an ardent supporter of legal pot, I must say that I am glad of the results.

besides the monopoly angle, the individual was only allowed four plants.

I suppose some expert marijuana grower could produce a lot of pot with 4 plants, but i, as a no frills gardener, could not.

I don t want to have to give 4 plants my constant attention and build some fancy grow system.

I just want to throw a couple of dozen seeds in the dirt and give them the same attention as my tomatoe plants get.