Jump to content

Vote Yes on Issue 3! and NO Issue 2!


DSM1290

Recommended Posts

If this bill doesn't get past it is going to be many, many years before it makes it on the ballot again. The only reason it made it this time is b/c of all the money behind it. And who cares about making rich richer that happens everyday at least this time the rest of us would get something out of it. And laws can be changed so it is a foot in the door if it sucks then fix it but you have to start somewhere.

 

 

http://i.imgur.com/A6yNhUQ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 4 weeks later...
The significant problem with Issue2 is the stifling of one's right to petition for tax reform.

Vote No on Issue 2

 

I'll admit I didn't really understand your post until I read this...

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/10/30/conservative-lawyer-sees-ill-effects-from-anti-monopoly-issue-2.html

 

Which makes sense... kinda. What i dont understand is, if issue 2 will change the process in which the state recognizes monopolies then whats wrong with the current process in which the state recognizes monopolies?

 

Also fuck issue 3, say no to that shit all day. Colorado has been the poster boy on how to effectively create a legalized cannibis industry in a state and last fiscal year collected $72 millinon in tax revenue from cannabis alone (compared with only $42 million from alcohol taxes). Personally I dont smoke and dont mind anyone who does, it is an eventuality in this generation that it will be legalized but it should be done right and with the publics best interest in mind, not 10 private companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll admit I didn't really understand your post until I read this...

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/10/30/conservative-lawyer-sees-ill-effects-from-anti-monopoly-issue-2.html

 

Which makes sense... kinda. What i dont understand is, if issue 2 will change the process in which the state recognizes monopolies then whats wrong with the current process in which the state recognizes monopolies?

 

Also fuck issue 3, say no to that shit all day. Colorado has been the poster boy on how to effectively create a legalized cannibis industry in a state and last fiscal year collected $72 millinon in tax revenue from cannabis alone (compared with only $42 million from alcohol taxes). Personally I dont smoke and dont mind anyone who does, it is an eventuality in this generation that it will be legalized but it should be done right and with the publics best interest in mind, not 10 private companies.

So after reading that article I'm still not seeing a reason to vote against issue 2. The 2 vote solution seems completely practical and doesn't limit our rights in any way.

Can someone clarify what they feel is the downside?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So after reading that article I'm still not seeing a reason to vote against issue 2. The 2 vote solution seems completely practical and doesn't limit our rights in any way.

Can someone clarify what they feel is the downside?

 

The only downside to issue 2 is it legally supercedes issue 3, so it's a death sentence for the investors' oligopoly.

 

Aka there is no downside. No on 2 no matter what. It's one of those laws that in 50 years when all this is forgotten, people will say "That's just common fucking sense, why do we need a law to spell that out?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only downside to issue 2 is it legally supercedes issue 3, so it's a death sentence for the investors' oligopoly.

 

Aka there is no downside. No on 2 no matter what. It's one of those laws that in 50 years when all this is forgotten, people will say "That's just common fucking sense, why do we need a law to spell that out?"

Did you mean to say no on 2? Also unfortunately it doesn't supercede 3 unless it has more votes this time around I believe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, personally I am very confused on all this mess. I think laws and wording to ALL Laws should have to be written in a way that normal people, with nothing more than a HS education can understand them and be able to make a vote where they understand what they are voting for. In reality, the way laws are written or proposed, IMO, is morally wrong and done so that it only benefits those that can read through the BS if they read it at all. I think reform to make things simpler is really what we need in this country.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO ON 2!!!

 

Nobody really cares if you get high, most companies already have a no drug policy, so if you think there are a ton of people who don't already use it will start you're nuts. Once the fad wears off the difference will be negligible just not as taboo as it is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO ON 2!!!

 

Nobody really cares if you get high, most companies already have a no drug policy, so if you think there are a ton of people who don't already use it will start you're nuts. Once the fad wears off the difference will be negligible just not as taboo as it is now.

 

Why should i vote no on 2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So after reading that article I'm still not seeing a reason to vote against issue 2. The 2 vote solution seems completely practical and doesn't limit our rights in any way.

Can someone clarify what they feel is the downside?

 

The downside that I kept seeing was that it puts more power into the hands of the ballot board on deciding what issues get to be voted on when it comes to the question of a monopoly/ oligopoly.

 

http://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Initiated_Monopolies_Amendment,_Issue_2_(2015)

 

http://www.ballotpedia.org is an excellent, non-partisan resource for voters. It explains every issue being voted on, the arguments for and against and the supporters to both sides and why.

 

Should both issue 2 and 3 pass, the Ohio AG says issue 2 will supersede issue 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: ^^^^ya beat me.

 

 

This is the text for 2:

 

The proposed amendment would:

• Prohibit any petitioner from using the Ohio Constitution to grant a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel for their exclusive financial benefit or to establish a preferential tax status.

• Prohibit any petitioner from using the Ohio Constitution to grant a commercial interest, right, or license that is not available to similarly situated persons or nonpublic entities.

• Require the bipartisan Ohio Ballot Board to determine if a proposed constitutional amendment violates the prohibitions above, and if it does, present two separate ballot questions to voters. Both ballot questions must receive a majority yes vote before the proposed amendment could take effect.

• Prohibit from taking effect any proposed constitutional amendment appearing on the November 3, 2015 General Election ballot that creates a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel for the sale, distribution, or other use of any federal Schedule I controlled substance.

• The Ohio Supreme Court has original, exclusive jurisdiction in any action related to the proposal.

If passed, the amendment will become effective immediately.

 

 

It sounds like current proposed amendments do not need the Ohio Ballot Board to step in and "say" if the proposed amendment "creates a monopoly, ect" but if 2 passes this board will forever review new amendments.... That seems like it could hurt a lot of future issues at a chance to get to the peoples vote......the Ballot Board would have this new power to stop it in its tracks..... At least that is how I am hearing it.

 

No on 2 sounds like a smart move, not even looking at it with regard to Issue 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The downside that I kept seeing was that it puts more power into the hands of the ballot board on deciding what issues get to be voted on when it comes to the question of a monopoly/ oligopoly.

 

Which I guess personally doesn't seem like a down side. It's not like they get to toss out or stop whats being voted on or change it in any way other then to take it from 1 question to 2 questions. In the example of making weed legal the current option says:

vote yes to allow marijuana to become legal in ohio, and that these 10 companies will be the only ones allowed to grow for distribution and distribute it.

 

The 2 question option would be:

1. should marijuana be legal in ohio y/n

2. should these 10 companies be allowed to be the only ones profiting from it. y/n

 

Now obviously this is a hastily done and simplistic example but that appears to be the gist of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...