bloodninja420 Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 Ye or Ne?Amending the constitution via referendum to enshrine a private cartel is terrible policy and precedent.On the other hand, pot should obviously be legal. And if the legislature would ever get their act together to pass a bill, I can imagine the end-result looking much different than Issue 3. The vocal opponents of MJ do not seem to have a problem with state monopolies on other vices (e.g. the casinos; or wholesale liquor distribution.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 It's not a monopoly in the sense that the asshats are saying it is. It is 10 large growing area's...that the land owners will lease in sections to pot farmers. Those 10 area's are only protected for four years. After that the State can authorize more as much as they see fit. And 10 competitors in not a monopoly....not a wide open free market but not a monopoly. And pot can still be imported from other states. Make sure you vote no on the 'monopoly' amendment. Otherwise it will probably cancel out the pot amendment as it goes into effect before the pot one does due to shenanigans by the state legislature asshats. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drc32-0 Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 I'm all for legal marijuana,totally against issue 3.It should be total free market,I want the equivalent of micro brewerys,not just the Budweisers.Also with issue 3,if you want to grow your own you have to buy the plants from the big 10 growers.It 's all bad...vote it down and hope the next try is better. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaCinci Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 Legalize it...get the taxes. Ease the burden on the judicial system. People are going to do it regardless, might as well cash in on it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 I'm all for legal marijuana,totally against issue 3.It should be total free market,I want the equivalent of micro brewerys,not just the Budweisers.Also with issue 3,if you want to grow your own you have to buy the plants from the big 10 growers.It 's all bad...vote it down and hope the next try is better. There won't be a next time. It costs a FORTUNE to get an issue on the ballot, let alone campaign to get it passed. The people that paid for this to happen are going to recoup their investment for four years. Then it is wide open season. Let them make a buck for what they have done is how I voted on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jschaf Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 I'm all for legal marijuana,totally against issue 3.It should be total free market,I want the equivalent of micro brewerys,not just the Budweisers.Also with issue 3,if you want to grow your own you have to buy the plants from the big 10 growers.It 's all bad...vote it down and hope the next try is better.I had not heard that home growers would be required to buy their plants from those 10 capitalist bastards. Do you have proof of this? It could influence my vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaCinci Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 Tonik is right...if it fails, it will be a long time before it gets back on the ballot. People are too hung up on the "monopoly" and who can and can't grow etc. Which is preferable, having to buy from limited suppliers and maybe paying more or going to jail and/or paying fines because it's not legal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 I had not heard that home growers would be required to buy their plants from those 10 capitalist bastards. Do you have proof of this? It could influence my vote.How are they going to know where you bought your plant? Dna test? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drc32-0 Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 I had not heard that home growers would be required to buy their plants from those 10 capitalist bastards. Do you have proof of this? It could influence my vote.I read that in the Sunday October. 11 Columbus Dispatch.It was the League of Women Voters explanation of issue 3.I just read the text of the law on line and I didn't see it specifically state that you would have to buy the 4 plants from the 10 growers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drc32-0 Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) There won't be a next time. It costs a FORTUNE to get an issue on the ballot, let alone campaign to get it passed. The people that paid for this to happen are going to recoup their investment for four years. Then it is wide open season. Let them make a buck for what they have done is how I voted on it.I'll take my chances that it will come up again in a different form.There's too much money to be made to just let it go. Edited October 21, 2015 by drc32-0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jschaf Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 Ok. It probably won't influence my vote. Amsterdam has the best seeds (so I am told) Yes on 3 it is. Capitalists have a plan. Stoners don't. Good luck with the hope. I think it's gonna pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connie14 Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 Too bad the next federal administration will still have the ability to start re-enforcing federal laws on MJ. Need to get rid of the federal classification as a schedule 1 drug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 Too bad the next federal administration will still have the ability to start re-enforcing federal laws on MJ. Need to get rid of the federal classification as a schedule 1 drug.Agreed, but the more states they have to deal with, the more diluted and hopeless the federal efforts to stamp their foot down will be.Tonik and others are right - do NOT assume another measure like this will come again this decade. I'm a YES, even though the law won't affect me one bit because I'm too invested in my job, pilot's license and CHL to risk losing them over tokes. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zx3vfr Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Even if you had to buy the plant from a farm, you take a cutting, dip it in hormone and 3 weeks later you have more fully rooted plants 100% identical to the mother plant. Edited October 21, 2015 by zx3vfr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 I'm a YES, even though the law won't affect me one bit because I'm too invested in my job, pilot's license and CHL to risk losing them over tokes.Ditto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zx3vfr Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 Wait.... pot's illegal? No, it's really not. Unless you live in a town with a population of less than 5 and your brother who is also your father with your aunt who is also your sister is the police chief. I was caught a few years back. Not high, just a little bag and no papers. The cop dumped it out and it all blew away in the wind. End of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zx3vfr Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 I'll take my chances that it will come up again in a different form.There's too much money to be made to just let it go.Just vote yes. Norml has evemn endorsed it. It's a plan to keep everything regulated so we don't have another Colorado, where every one and their brother opens a pot farm or retail outlet. Plus you must also realize these people who already invested to get this on the ballot already have millions upon millions of dollars. They're going to take out any sherif, state congressperson, mayor etc etc that spoke out against issue 3. next time they are up for election.Plus our fuckwad congress wants to keep pot illegal so bad they put an issue on the ballot to try and keep it illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 It's a monopoly no matter what line of bullshit they are trying to feed. Remember all those internet cafes that populated every abandoned retail space in every town across the state? The ones that provided jobs and an actual chance for people to make money plus brought people into small towns and paid rent to countless buildings. They were shut down by the gambling monopoly that was voted in by the people. The same mess is being voted on here. Just as I was all for gambling in Ohio, I am also all for legalizing marijuana. I voted no on the gambling issues that were put forth and I will be voting no on issue 3 for the exact same reasons. I hope that issue 2 disbands the monopoly the casino's have so the good people of Ohio have an equal chance to conduct business in this state. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 I'll vote yes. If it doesn't pass now it won't happen in OH for a long time. The groups that got in on the ballot will focus on another state. It's obviously not perfect, but limited growers to 10 is better than limiting to zero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowdog Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 I am definitely voting YES...I originally didn't like the way it was presented due to not knowing about this "monopoly". The more i read the more i think this monopoly is just another way for the politicians to keep the backers of issue 3 out and try to revise this many years down the road to benefit them instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaCinci Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 The more i read the more i think this monopoly is just another way for the politicians to keep the backers of issue 3 out and try to revise this many years down the road to benefit them instead.This Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 I'm all for legal marijuana,totally against issue 3.It should be total free market,I want the equivalent of micro brewerys,not just the Budweisers.Also with issue 3,if you want to grow your own you have to buy the plants from the big 10 growers.It 's all bad...vote it down and hope the next try is better. While I agree with your sentiment, how confident are you that there will be a "next try" any time in the near future? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 If I can grow it in my house, then monopolize whatever the fuck you want. As if ANYBODY in charge really gives a good goddamn about the constitution. I'm tired of being the only asshole playing by the rules. The personal growing provision is very vague though. You have to obtain a "license" to grow, but I could not find where that procedure was outlined. Do you still support the issue if the personal grower license proves to be exceedingly difficult to obtain? I'm still undecided on Issue 3, or at least wavering in my leanings... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 but I could not find where that procedure was outlined. The procedure will be created by whatever state agency is in charge of this. Those kinds of details generally are not in the original law/amendment. If they are wacky the courts will clear it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motocat12 Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 I think it's bad form to sellout law changes for profit (red light cameras anyone?) ballot measures get expensive when they're controversial and more people need convinced to vote your way. If the monopoly wasn't in the law, fewer people would need convinced and the marketing fight would have been cheaper. Bankers, lawyers,and paid political activists are creating an industry. Ian James responsible ohio does it for a living... http://teamtsn.com/ ran this one for $6 million "The Strategy Network is a full-service political consultancy that specializes in grassroots efforts such as ballot campaigns(initiatives, referenda, constitutional amendments and bond measures).We can oversee all aspects of your effort, or tailor our services to more narrowly to fit your needs."http://energyindepth.org/ohio/ohio-taxpayers-beware-costly-ballot-initiatives-coming-yo-way-courtesy-national-ban-fracking-group/http://time.com/3921751/ohio-marijuana-ballot-measure/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.