El Karacho1647545492 Posted August 13, 2015 Report Share Posted August 13, 2015 Link to info on ResponsibleOhio and why they are so bad? -Marc http://againstro.org/ there's a link to their criticism of RO's amendment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirks5oh Posted August 13, 2015 Report Share Posted August 13, 2015 Even if smoking pot is legal, employers can still fire you if they have a no drug use policy yep. "the world needs ditch diggers too" ---caddyshack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Gump 9 Posted August 13, 2015 Report Share Posted August 13, 2015 It's still a federal offense so it'll still be a cluster fuck. If you're the dispensary it'll b strictly cash only business. Not only the buying needs to be cash only, but paying rent, utilities, taxes......all cash. No bank will want to touch you. You're a walking target for robbery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pntbll309 Posted August 13, 2015 Report Share Posted August 13, 2015 Yes. If you don't buy from a licensed vendor then the punishment will be alot steeper, in the order of a felony... Having lived in Colorado when it became legal for medial and rec, your statement is absolutely wrong. They can't legalize it in any manner without having some reform to the possession laws. And how are they going to track who you purchased your weed from short of packaging? The issue with legalizing marijuana is the ignorance of almost everyone involved. The people who are for it and against it in the same. Sure in Colorado we turned a nice tax revenue for it but had nothing to show for it even years after. Crimes should go down in theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Bastard Posted August 13, 2015 Report Share Posted August 13, 2015 It's still a federal offense so it'll still be a cluster fuck. If you're the dispensary it'll b strictly cash only business. Not only the buying needs to be cash only, but paying rent, utilities, taxes......all cash. No bank will want to touch you. You're a walking target for robbery. This is just hearsay, but I thought I had heard that the feds were easing up in the states where it is legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Gump 9 Posted August 14, 2015 Report Share Posted August 14, 2015 This is just hearsay, but I thought I had heard that the feds were easing up in the states where it is legal. Those are facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBQdDude Posted August 14, 2015 Report Share Posted August 14, 2015 Isn't there a Ohio constitution monopoly on those casinos? Or am I thinking of that wrong? It is also the same group pushing this that did the casinos. The full amendment is on line go read and make an EDUCATED choice. Just look at how the casinos turned out. As far as medical goes they are going to get a raw deal on this language. I am voting no on that and the bill the reps are putting out to block the way they are going about this. The feds are kicking around declassifying it and letting the states deal with the mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unfunnyryan Posted August 15, 2015 Report Share Posted August 15, 2015 It's still a federal offense so it'll still be a cluster fuck. If you're the dispensary it'll b strictly cash only business. Not only the buying needs to be cash only, but paying rent, utilities, taxes......all cash. No bank will want to touch you. You're a walking target for robbery. Robbery, by the police http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/the-chutzpah-of-a-police-union-in-orange-county-california/400502/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHIEF Posted August 15, 2015 Report Share Posted August 15, 2015 Robbery, by the police http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/the-chutzpah-of-a-police-union-in-orange-county-california/400502/ Piggers gon pig. They said the video doesn't represent them. Clearly it does. Overbearing wannabe heros and another black eye for law enforcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRTurbo04 Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 Maybe they should smoke less and learn to drive more ramed into the back of that suv. http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll162/04srturbo/20150818_071949_zpsznhkpmgb.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbs3000 Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 not sure that could get more poetic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffro Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 All I'm hearing on the radio now is about seminars on growing and making money on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Bastard Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 All I'm hearing on the radio now is about seminars on growing and making money on it. And if this bill passes it will still be illegal. Get rich scheme LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/09/what_you_need_to_know_about_is.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gergwheel1647545492 Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 Based on what I have read, I will for sure be voting for this. Allows you to grow up to 4 plants and you are allowed to carry 8 ounces on you. With 4 plants that produce an average of 40 grams in 10 weeks you could have about 5 ounces for 10 weeks. That seems like plenty of pot for 1-2 people depending on how much you are smoking. Please correct me if i am wrong on any of this information, but based on this it makes no sense to vote no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 Based on what I have read, I will for sure be voting for this. Allows you to grow up to 4 plants and you are allowed to carry 8 ounces on you. With 4 plants that produce an average of 40 grams in 10 weeks you could have about 5 ounces for 10 weeks. That seems like plenty of pot for 1-2 people depending on how much you are smoking. Please correct me if i am wrong on any of this information, but based on this it makes no sense to vote no. The issue I have with it is it monopolizes the production side. Why keep the 1% the 1%? Why not regulate it like alcohol for example? Correct me if I am wrong, but can't anybody that is creative enough to come up with the funds, and has the skill set start a microbrewery? So why should Joe Schmo be able to get licensed, and grow and sell pot to local dispensaries? Why only 10 companies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gergwheel1647545492 Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 The issue I have with it is it monopolizes the production side. Why keep the 1% the 1%? Why not regulate it like alcohol for example? Correct me if I am wrong, but can't anybody that is creative enough to come up with the funds, and has the skill set start a microbrewery? So why should Joe Schmo be able to get licensed, and grow and sell pot to local dispensaries? Why only 10 companies? that is literally the ONLY downside i see. if that keeps all my friends that smoke out of jail then i am more than willing to allow this to pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitgeist57 Posted October 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 The problem I have with voting in a monopoly on any industry in 2015 is: 1) there will still be federal issues with the cannabis industry, no matter how many states ratify growth/usage. 2) That "personal plant" language smacks so hard of pandering to a lower-class that I find it insulting. Talk about a bait-and-switch after it generates enough votes to allow the corporations in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickey4271647545519 Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 Based on what I have read, I will for sure be voting for this. Allows you to grow up to 4 plants and you are allowed to carry 8 ounces on you. With 4 plants that produce an average of 40 grams in 10 weeks you could have about 5 ounces for 10 weeks. That seems like plenty of pot for 1-2 people depending on how much you are smoking. Please correct me if i am wrong on any of this information, but based on this it makes no sense to vote no. The plants also have to be bought through the monopoly as well. Let's not forget they want to make this an amendment to the state constitution, which for me is 100% reason to vote NO on 3. I'll also be voting yes on 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 Living in Colorado now (Denver) its not that big of a deal ... Don't you guys have a huge upcurve in people moving to the state? Matter of time before you run out of jobs and munchies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 that is literally the ONLY downside i see. if that keeps all my friends that smoke out of jail then i am more than willing to allow this to pass. Do you know how much weed your friends can currently have and NOT go to jail? Under current law, they can have up to 100g, no jail time, no criminal record, and a $150, even if they get caught. I personally don't know anybody that has been caught with small amounts of pot and faced any of those consequences, and I know a lot of people that smoke a lot of pot. The problem I have with voting in a monopoly on any industry in 2015 is: 1) there will still be federal issues with the cannabis industry, no matter how many states ratify growth/usage. 2) That "personal plant" language smacks so hard of pandering to a lower-class that I find it insulting. Talk about a bait-and-switch after it generates enough votes to allow the corporations in. Yup. The plants also have to be bought through the monopoly as well. Let's not forget they want to make this an amendment to the state constitution, which for me is 100% reason to vote NO on 3. I'll also be voting yes on 2. Yup! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattKatz Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 And in doing so youll Never see the law change for many years. We have other monopolies in the state now....I don't see you boycotting electric, Nat Gas or Cable.....and don't try the "you have a choice" with those....because you might....but they are all the same paying the SAME place with your payments....That's a Monopoly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 ^So that justifies voluntarily creating more monopolies? Two wrongs...or in this case, 17 million wrongs don't make a right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jewtoys Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 The issue I have with it is it monopolizes the production side. Why keep the 1% the 1%? Why not regulate it like alcohol for example? Correct me if I am wrong, but can't anybody that is creative enough to come up with the funds, and has the skill set start a microbrewery? So why should Joe Schmo be able to get licensed, and grow and sell pot to local dispensaries? Why only 10 companies? The funds involved to start a brewery have a high level of entry, not to mention all the different state laws that make competing with the bigger guys incredibly tough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 The funds involved to start a brewery have a high level of entry, not to mention all the different state laws that make competing with the bigger guys incredibly tough. But under the law, you can still compete...correct? Are there any laws that state, "OH can only have 10 breweries, and those breweries can only be Company 1, 2, 3...10.?" 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.