Marijuana legalization amendment approved for Ohio's November ballot (Toledo, Dayton: sales, lawyers)

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by ksu sucks

A little Econ 101, as this seems to be a source of confusion/misinformation.

This amendment is not proposing a monopoly. Early on this term was thrown around recklessly. Some were (and are) upset that this amendment would restrict growing operations to 10 grow sites which are owned by the same 10 people who put forward the millions of dollars necessary to bring this amendment to the ballot. There is no single owner, hence there will be no monopoly.

To the extent that this amendment represents an oligopoly, it's relatively harmless. By the same logic all public services, public utilities, and cable/internet providers would be considered state-sponsored monopolies or oligopolies. I find it very odd that otherwise "liberal" voters randomly choose marijuana as the tipping point. I imagine their thought process is something like: woah woah, okay. You can legally restrict competition when it comes to my water, gas, electricity, internet, television, and most basic pillars of modern American life -- but weed?? You crossed the line there, my friend! No one thinks this way, and the number of people I see online arguing in exactly this fashion is odd.

Finally, it's important to make the distinction between grow sites and retail outlets. This amendment provides over 1,000 retail licenses to sell weed. These retail locations will not be owned by the same 10 people.

tl,dr: Ohio has a chance to make history. Do you really believe that the state and the feds will allow these 10 grow sites to last forever? Or even a decade? Federal legalization is coming soon. When it does, you'd better believe that Ohio will follow whatever precedent the feds set. Let these 10 dudes make their cash now. The FTC will handle them once the rest of the nation catches up.

Note: I've been noticing a lot of spam posts in multiple locations (Twitter, forums, Reddit) repeating the same lines and essentially begging people to wait a year for some other legalization bill(OTEC or something). It's important to realize that these other proposals don't have the cash to bring their ideas to fruition or else it would've happened by now. Not to mention I find this behavior highly suspicious. Most voters aren't familiar with the specifics of bills/amendments that haven't even become official yet. I'm not involved with anyone's campaign/initiative, but I get the feeling it's the same few people spamming different information outlets. I'd expect to see them in this thread soon enough.

To the bolded. You make a good point. I'm still on the fence, but I understand your argument, and am willing to give it some thought. It's silly though that the Feds haven't removed it from Schedule 1 status, and continue to promote prohibition, which has always been a failure. That much I'm sure we can agree on.

[rrtechno]

Originally Posted by ksu sucks

A little Econ 101, as this seems to be a source of confusion/misinformation.

This amendment is not proposing a monopoly. Early on this term was thrown around recklessly. Some were (and are) upset that this amendment would restrict growing operations to 10 grow sites which are owned by the same 10 people who put forward the millions of dollars necessary to bring this amendment to the ballot. There is no single owner, hence there will be no monopoly.

To the extent that this amendment represents an oligopoly, it's relatively harmless. By the same logic all public services, public utilities, and cable/internet providers would be considered state-sponsored monopolies or oligopolies. I find it very odd that otherwise "liberal" voters randomly choose marijuana as the tipping point. I imagine their thought process is something like: woah woah, okay. You can legally restrict competition when it comes to my water, gas, electricity, internet, television, and most basic pillars of modern American life -- but weed?? You crossed the line there, my friend! No one thinks this way, and the number of people I see online arguing in exactly this fashion is odd.

Finally, it's important to make the distinction between grow sites and retail outlets. This amendment provides over 1,000 retail licenses to sell weed. These retail locations will not be owned by the same 10 people.

tl,dr: Ohio has a chance to make history. Do you really believe that the state and the feds will allow these 10 grow sites to last forever? Or even a decade? Federal legalization is coming soon. When it does, you'd better believe that Ohio will follow whatever precedent the feds set. Let these 10 dudes make their cash now. The FTC will handle them once the rest of the nation catches up.

Note: I've been noticing a lot of spam posts in multiple locations (Twitter, forums, Reddit) repeating the same lines and essentially begging people to wait a year for some other legalization bill(OTEC or something). It's important to realize that these other proposals don't have the cash to bring their ideas to fruition or else it would've happened by now. Not to mention I find this behavior highly suspicious. Most voters aren't familiar with the specifics of bills/amendments that haven't even become official yet. I'm not involved with anyone's campaign/initiative, but I get the feeling it's the same few people spamming different information outlets. I'd expect to see them in this thread soon enough.

If it is passed and becomes an amendment to the constitution, it will take another amendment to change it. It isn't just a matter of the legislature passing a bill or some agency making a ruling.

[IDtheftV]

Originally Posted by Zen_master

I'm not an advocate for chronic drug use and frankly stoner culture is folly in my opinion.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, the debate always seems to drift in the direction of
"don't you realize how bad these drugs are for you/the family/society?"

The debate should be :

-- Is criminalization doing anything to keep chronic users from getting the drug?

-- Is decriminalization going to create a bunch of new drug addicts?

There is no debate about the harmful effects of abuse of the drug.
You can substitute alcohol or tobacco with marijuana and the debate doesn't change.

[Townes Van Zandt]

Originally Posted by IDtheftV

chronic users

LOL...I'm not sure this came out the way you expected it to.

History has shown that there is no way to prevent people from buying their drug of choice. Outlawing only creates a dangerous black market(eg alcohol prohibition, the war on drugs etc). The law doesn't render people physically incapable of making voluntary interactions.

Originally Posted by IDtheftV

-- Is decriminalization going to create a bunch of new drug addicts?

Are we still talking about weed? Because if you're referring to regular marijuana users as "addicts" I know a couple "addicts" with a college education and great careers..

Also this amendment would legalize marijuana, not decriminalize it. Ohio decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana a while ago.

[Townes Van Zandt]

Originally Posted by rrtechno

If it is passed and becomes an amendment to the constitution, it will take another amendment to change it. It isn't just a matter of the legislature passing a bill or some agency making a ruling.

My point was that federal legalization laws could very likely end up trumping state laws. It certainly wouldn't be without precedent.

[IDtheftV]

Originally Posted by ksu sucks

... there is no way to prevent people from buying their drug of choice. Outlawing only creates a dangerous black market(eg alcohol prohibition, the war on drugs etc). The law doesn't render people physically incapable of making voluntary interactions.

You can add guns to that list, BTW.

Originally Posted by ksu sucks

Are we still talking about weed? Because if you're referring to regular marijuana users as "addicts" I know a couple "addicts" with a college education and great careers.

I use the term "addict" loosely. Someone who drinks more than one soft drink per day would fall under that category as far as I'm concerned.

Also, I'm not just talking about weed. When the arguments you distilled ( heh ) down to the basics quoted above, are made about alcohol, tobacco, weed, are applied to heroin, cocaine, acid, ... guns ... they don't change.

However, lots of people will argue till their blue in the face that weed = OK and the "harder" drugs != OK.

Having the argument in this thread isn't really off topic since the topic is only that there was an amendment approved and not if one approves or disapproves of pot legalization ( both arguments would be on topic, also ). I'm not arguing for legalization of heroin, but arguing that the argument for legalizing pot is the same as the argument for legalizing heroin.

I'm for legalization even though I know that some people's lives get messed-up by excessive pot use and most people can treat weed like they do beer and not have their lives improved by using these drugs.

Also note that I consider cookies and ice cream to be essential drugs that I use in my life very frequently.

[Sruckus]

Originally Posted by IDtheftV

However, lots of people will argue till their blue in the face that weed = OK and the "harder" drugs != OK.

Having the argument in this thread isn't really off topic since the topic is only that there was an amendment approved and not if one approves or disapproves of pot legalization ( both arguments would be on topic, also ). I'm not arguing for legalization of heroin, but arguing that the argument for legalizing pot is the same as the argument for legalizing heroin.

I'm for legalization even though I know that some people's lives get messed-up by excessive pot use and most people can treat weed like they do beer and not have their lives improved by using these drugs.

Also note that I consider cookies and ice cream to be essential drugs that I use in my life very frequently.

Until there are legitimate and proven studies showing *any* harm from weed, the bolded isn't true. (Although, a large part of me does think we really should just let the addicts die and stop trying to be parents for those who want those drugs. It's costly). Alcohol, which is currently legal, actually has been proven to be harmful, weed has not.

As for your second point, that's merely addiction and dependence, something that can happen to anyone if that type of behavior is in your genes. My sister became very "addicted" to working out and bodybuilding and it grossly affected her health. I don't think people are going around saying lifting weights should be illegal.

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by Sruckus

Until there are legitimate and proven studies showing *any* harm from weed, the bolded isn't true. (Although, a large part of me does think we really should just let the addicts die and stop trying to be parents for those who want those drugs. It's costly). Alcohol, which is currently legal, actually has been proven to be harmful, weed has not.

As for your second point, that's merely addiction and dependence, something that can happen to anyone if that type of behavior is in your genes. My sister became very "addicted" to working out and bodybuilding and it grossly affected her health. I don't think people are going around saying lifting weights should be illegal.

As with all things... moderation is key.

[sheena12]

Originally Posted by Señor Slick

There are a lot of good things in this proposal. And the good things far outweigh the bad.

Glad to know. I will be voting for it.

[Zen_master]

Originally Posted by ksu sucks

LOL...I'm not sure this came out the way you expected it to.

History has shown that there is no way to prevent people from buying their drug of choice. Outlawing only creates a dangerous black market(eg alcohol prohibition, the war on drugs etc). The law doesn't render people physically incapable of making voluntary interactions.



Are we still talking about weed? Because if you're referring to regular marijuana users as "addicts" I know a couple "addicts" with a college education and great careers..

Also this amendment would legalize marijuana, not decriminalize it. Ohio decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana a while ago.

To be fair, I know a couple attorneys and even a doctor with drug habits (further up the hierarchy than weed). Some people can hide it better than others. I don't think the debate is... is weed bad for you? Or, are habitual users chronically impaired? But rather, does locking them up and ruining their prospects for a decent job/career due to a criminal record seem like best policy? My view is no and therefore I will support the legislation simply due to the decriminalization portion.