OH-BGSU/Zogby: Marijuana legalization too close to call in Ohio

[Mr. Reactionary]

Can someone please explain what their problem with the monopoly clause is?

It's crony capitalism. Pot is "legal" as long as you buy it from the crony legalized cartels. 

A lot of States do that with liquor. I feel like this is just an excuse for no voters.
Legal > Semi-Legal through State monopoly > Illegal

[TJ in Oregon]

I want to know if the anti-gerrymandering measure is ahead.

it almost certainly is, Bandit. there is literally no organized opposition. i can't even find a "No on Issue 1" website. The dems, GOP, and even the greens support it. i don't know of a single newspaper editorial against it. there's no nascient tea party/patriot opposition to my knowledge. it'd be shocked if it didn't pass.

The only way I could see it failing is if people vote against it because it's too complicated for them to understand without background research. Like the judicial retirement age referendum, people may vote no out of uncertainty. I don't think they will though for this and it will probably pass comfortably.

[The Mikado]

I doubt this will pass, but I really don't feel that the monopoly is that big an issue, considering several states with highly-praised medicinal marijuana laws have even fewer sites than this does and no one had an issue with it.

[warandwar]

I love pot and Issue 3 feels gross to me.

The fixation to change the way pot is bought infuriates me. You text a number, meet in a indescript place, exchange awkward words, pay and leave. Then, you share it with your friends. Buying it at a store feels so weird to me. My vision would be like a CSA:have a farmer's co-op grow it, and then have county/city level delivery to a central place (or even home delivery), where you pick up your order (made in advance).

[bagelman]

I love pot and Issue 3 feels gross to me.

The fixation to change the way pot is bought infuriates me. You text a number, meet in a indescript place, exchange awkward words, pay and leave. Then, you share it with your friends. Buying it at a store feels so weird to me. My vision would be like a CSA:have a farmer's co-op grow it, and then have county/city level delivery to a central place (or even home delivery), where you pick up your order (made in advance).

The kind of people you have to interact with in that situation is not only the reason why there is support for issue 3 despite its flaws but also the reason why conservatives support tougher laws against crime and cameras on street corners. Buying it at the store is legitimate, buying it from a gangster is not and never will be. It also carries risks like the seller, typically a second hand seller connected to the mafia or the illegal cartels, adding other ingredients to make it more addictive or stronger/more dangerous for their profit, bringing weapons, or that trick they do where it suddenly costs more in person than on the phone. Stores on the other hand are public places that you don't need some special connection to access.

The fixation to change the way pot is bought is reasonable, the way it stands now you always have to "know" someone, and that someone isn't always a nice honest and upstanding businessman. At one point I was morbidly curious enough to ask "who do I have to know" and of course the response was something along the lines of "you're either in or out, and you're out" (I don't actually remember but being in HS I think they were somehow trying to hurt my feelings).

[muon2]

I doubt this will pass, but I really don't feel that the monopoly is that big an issue, considering several states with highly-praised medicinal marijuana laws have even fewer sites than this does and no one had an issue with it.

I agree that the monopoly issue is not a big deal for states. Here's what I posted on the IP board.

I read the text of Issues 2 and 3. What happens if both 2 and 3 are approved, and then the feds move marijuana from schedule I to schedule II as has been requested both in petitions and by the American Medical Association? That would seem to make Issue 2 moot since it only applies to cartels for schedule I substances, so Issue 3 could go ahead as written.

On a second point, states have lots of regulations creating monopolies in areas like the siting of power plants, hospitals and waste stations. It's not unusual for cities or counties to have a fixed pool of licenses for liquor sales or taxis that create oligopolies. Why is creating a fixed set of medical marijuana cultivation centers different than creating a fixed set of hospital locations or liquor licenses?

The ballot controversy isn't about the dispensaries since there would be over 1000 permitted by the amendment. The feared cartel is for the cultivation centers. In IL the cultivation centers are limited in number, regulated and sited much like a waste transfer station would be sited. Waste stations have a maze of state and federal pollution regs to comply with. Given the federally restricted nature of marijuana, it didn't strike me as unusual or unwise for a state to regulate the cultivation centers, too.

Cultivation is widely dispersed in CA as well, and again, so far as I am aware, it has not been an issue.

I looked at the current state of CA law as passed and signed in Sept.

Large scale cultivators in CA (10k sq ft+) are limited in number as set by the CA Dept of Food and Ag. That looks like the IL law and the proposal in OH. It looks like those large scale cultivators in CA also are barred from other aspects of the process such as manufacturing and distribution.

The difference I see in CA compared to IL and the OH proposal is that CA has a class of license for small growers. But even in CA the small growers are very limited as to the number dispensaries they can serve. It looks highly structured and regulated in CA to me.

[Bojack Horseman]

So I've read that there are actually people saying that they plan to vote yes on both Issue 2 and Issue 3, saying that Issue 2 would invalidate only the monopoly portion of the marijuana ballot measure, but not the entire measure, leaving marijuana itself legal. Sec. Jon Husted says that it would invalidate every word of Issue 3, keeping marijuana illegal, despite Issue 2 only dealing with state-sanctioned monopolies. If this is the case, then that'll be a fun one to watch at the Ohio Supreme Court.

[tpfkaw]

If this is the case, then that'll be a fun one to watch at the Ohio Supreme Court.

Which is 6-1 Republican. Don't hold your breath.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I'm so confused. So what are us Legalizers hoping will pass, 2 or 3?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Marijuana initiatives tend to follow the same polling pattern as gay marriage initiatives did: The pro vote deteriorates from the start of campaigning , and undecideds break heavily for voting No.

Tell that to the four states and DC that already legalized by ballot measures.

[ElectionsGuy]

I'm so confused. So what are us Legalizers hoping will pass, 2 or 3?

3. Passing 2 would cancel 3.

[Badger]

Marijuana initiatives tend to follow the same polling pattern as gay marriage initiatives did: The pro vote deteriorates from the start of campaigning , and undecideds break heavily for voting No.

Tell that to the four states and DC that already legalized by ballot measures.

In each case support dropped over the campaign and undecideds broke for No. Yes won because it started way ahead in the polls in each state.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

What time do polls close in Ohio?  Come on, No!!

[Badger]

What time do polls close in Ohio?  Come on, No!!

Right now.

[CapoteMonster]

Hamilton county voting extended thanks to an injecture by Responsible Ohio.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I'm so confused. So what are us Legalizers hoping will pass, 2 or 3?

3. Passing 2 would cancel 3.

Thanks, I am hoping for the best!

[warandwar]

I love pot and Issue 3 feels gross to me.

The fixation to change the way pot is bought infuriates me. You text a number, meet in a indescript place, exchange awkward words, pay and leave. Then, you share it with your friends. Buying it at a store feels so weird to me. My vision would be like a CSA:have a farmer's co-op grow it, and then have county/city level delivery to a central place (or even home delivery), where you pick up your order (made in advance).

The kind of people you have to interact with in that situation is not only the reason why there is support for issue 3 despite its flaws but also the reason why conservatives support tougher laws against crime and cameras on street corners. Buying it at the store is legitimate, buying it from a gangster is not and never will be. It also carries risks like the seller, typically a second hand seller connected to the mafia or the illegal cartels, adding other ingredients to make it more addictive or stronger/more dangerous for their profit, bringing weapons, or that trick they do where it suddenly costs more in person than on the phone. Stores on the other hand are public places that you don't need some special connection to access.

The fixation to change the way pot is bought is reasonable, the way it stands now you always have to "know" someone, and that someone isn't always a nice honest and upstanding businessman. At one point I was morbidly curious enough to ask "who do I have to know" and of course the response was something along the lines of "you're either in or out, and you're out" (I don't actually remember but being in HS I think they were somehow trying to hurt my feelings).

Have you ever bought weed? Because I've sold it.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

16% in and no leads about 2-to-1.

[ElectionsGuy]

2 is 55/45 and 3 is 34/66. Not happening. 1 is easily passing.

[Hydera]

16% in and no leads about 2-to-1.

I knew stoners were going to forget to vote.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

AP has called it for no on marijuana legalization!

[bagelman]

1 has called in favor and 3 has failed...by a larger margin than I expected. Only one too early or close to call so far is 2, which has dropped to 53/47.

[ElectionsGuy]

What a stupid way to try and legalize marijuana. Do it right next time, people!

[Badger]

Marijuana initiatives tend to follow the same polling pattern as gay marriage initiatives did: The pro vote deteriorates from the start of campaigning , and undecideds break heavily for voting No.

Consequently , based on this poll, and another Akron U. poll last week that showed the vote tied at 46%, i predict yes finishes in the mid to low 40's, with an outside chance a "shy No" vote and unexpectedly low turnout makes it a total rout for the No side.

And the latter was correct, apparently.

[/]

What % of voting Democrats do you think opposed this because of the monopoly?