# MaryJane............



## OSUdaddy

Used it when I was in high school, college and into my late 20's Never had a bad experience nor did any of my toking friends. 

Drove under the influence of it and actually thought I drove safer, and slower, than I normally did when sober. I cannot say the same when driving under the influence of alcohol as a young punk.

I will vote to legalize the drug and vote yes on issue 3.

What are your thoughts?

BTW: I am 64 years old.


----------



## Dovans

Hmmmm I am thinking of voting no only because I was a pretty big stoner in my time. If I had it, I smoked it. I think it did interfere with my well being. I also blame my failing memory and maybe my depression episodes on smokin pot. If I do vote yes, it would be to only put a dent in the drug cartels. Making pot legal in Col. and Cal seems to have put a serious dent in the cartels pocket book


----------



## Saugeye Tom

Rolling the same way. Make some money for the state.....less crime....no smoke for me though...53 is too late to start again


----------



## AtticaFish

Doesn't matter to me i guess. 2 guys were smoking it up right behind me tonight while i fished. Smelled like they were smoking some cheap a$$ stuff. haha


----------



## wallen34

The drug doesn't matter to me but the issue does. I am feeling like voting no on three while yes on two. This stops the creation of an oligopoly.


----------



## glasseyes

I would vote for it if for medical use only. It is a drug, this society doesn't need another feel good drug . And to justify it for the economical reasons does not make it any better. At60 I have a very fuzzy memory of those years and as I grew up I matured. It will be a definite no vote for me


----------



## FISHIN 2

While I've mended my waysover the years , I will vote yes on 3, no on 2, don't need 500 dispenseries for sure. You can go thru life with a good attitude if ya like without the stupor if chosen !!


----------



## crappiedude

I will vote to legalize it.
The "war on drugs" is a waste of time and money and has not made a difference in availability. Those who want to use it now can get it whenever they want. I don't think making it legal will make much difference in usage, it only removes the criminal element.
I used it for a very short time when I was younger and now that I'm almost 64 I don't plan on going back to using.


----------



## Flowie

I would vote in support of legalization, 

I don't see why anyone should have access to alcohol legally and yet be denied access to marijuana medicinal or recreational.

Any time you put a prohibition on something the majority wants, it just creates a profitable black market.


----------



## nixmkt

Believe it should be legalized but don’t believe Issue 3 is the way to do it. Backers state that it is not a monopoly because it allows for more than 10 growers later if those 10 can’t meet demand.  Now how likely is that to occur? They will ramp up production to whatever level it takes to protect their investment.

Thought casino gambling should have been legalized but didn’t believe the Issue that allowed it was the way to do it then either.

Believe monopolies should not be allowed but not sure about Issue 2 yet. Need to find out more about the process of who and how they would have control over what would be allowed on the ballot in the future if Issue 2 would pass.


----------



## supercanoe

Yes on issue 3. It is better to legalize, regulate, and tax it than to keep it a black market.


----------



## triton175

wallen34 said:


> The drug doesn't matter to me but the issue does. I am feeling like voting no on three while yes on two. This stops the creation of an oligopoly.


You are correct. This whole vote is about the monopoly making lots of money. If it were just to legalize pot, I wouldn't care at all but they're just selecting those that will profit from it.


----------



## snag

I, ll b voting early next week and it will be yes on 3 and no on 2. It's going to be on the street no matter what the outcome, so make it legal and never know I might need it for medicinal purposes down the road, I used it back in nam and when I came home and no problems with it, I'd like to grow a few plants . And I'm turning 67 soon..


----------



## Nightcrawler666

I will be voting yes on both issues. I don't support the idea of big business cornering the market. But, legalizing it is the main step. I'm not going to suddenly start buying at a dispensary under normal circumstances...just looking to not be hassled.


----------



## beaver

I'll be voting no on 3, and I haven't looked into 2 enough to give an opinion yet. I'm a huge fan of personal liberties, and a huge hater of more regulations and more government intervention.


----------



## sherman51

I tried it but didn't inhale, LOL. I tried it and didn't like it, but had many friends in the marine corps that smoked it. and I've never seen people on it get violent like on booze. I wouldnt use it and wouldn't allow it in my home. but now anyone can get it on just about any street corner. so I say make it legal and tax the crap out of it, then use part of the tax money to fight meth and heroin and other drugs in the us.
sherman


----------



## Nightcrawler666

Skippy said:


> I can't believe what I'm reading. JUST where do you think all the meth and crack heads started with????? Oh you say. That won't happen to me or one of MY LOVE ONES.. BULLSHIT. It will and it does more times then you or I can even think of. Do any of you want to work around someone who's half zoned out?? What about you or a loved one driving down the road?? What happens when that one pipe full just doesen't give you that buzz your looking for?? Light up another then another. What about that big truck coming down the highway or even a pickup or car. What about a drug test in order to get a job or even keep your job???
> 
> There's a few states that do allow it but if you read up about them there all wishing they never passed allowing it.
> In this day an age it's just too easy for any younger person to be led astray, per-pressure into trying something just a little stronger. And that will happen..Know dought about it.
> 
> I have grand children and most of you have kids or grand children.. If you would open your eyes and look or even think of what the ramifications of this will do !!!!!! Scores of doctors teachers and law enforcement are against this. Yea, your right. There's NO way they can all be right.


I can't tell if this is satirical or not...if so, well done. If not...well... relax dude.


----------



## OSUdaddy

Reefer Madness!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## creekcrawler

Legalize it. Don't criticize it.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## nixmkt

nixmkt said:


> Believe monopolies should not be allowed but not sure about Issue 2 yet. Need to find out more about the process of who and how they would have control over what would be allowed on the ballot in the future if Issue 2 would pass.



Have a little better idea after reading the newspaper supplement explanations and arguments for and against the proposed amendments. Issue 2 doesn’t appear to prevent future proposals from getting on the ballot, just requires another step to getting them passed if they are determined to violate the prohibitions of Issue 2 by the bipartisan Ohio Ballot Board, so no more concerns about that for me. Would like to see it pass.

Issue 3 definitely sets up a monopoly, oligarchy, cartel, or whatever you want to call it for the 10 proposed grow site facility owners. Only 1 other site could be added if the initial 10 don’t meet demand. Still believe marijuana should be legalized, just don’t believe Issue 3 is the way to do it.



.


----------



## cheezemm2

nixmkt said:


> Have a little better idea after reading the newspaper supplement explanations and arguments for and against the proposed amendments. Issue 2 doesn’t appear to prevent future proposals from getting on the ballot, just requires another step to getting them passed if they are determined to violate the prohibitions of Issue 2 by the bipartisan Ohio Ballot Board, so no more concerns about that for me. Would like to see it pass.
> 
> Issue 3 definitely sets up a monopoly, oligarchy, cartel, or whatever you want to call it for the 10 proposed grow site facility owners. Only 1 other site could be added if the initial 10 don’t meet demand. Still believe marijuana should be legalized, just don’t believe Issue 3 is the way to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> .


I just hope everyone realizes that bumping the constitution to allow an oligarchy is just the beginning...this is a great pull the wool over the sheep's eyes. You are setting the precedent for a lot of control for big businesses, specifically IN OHIO. I don't want big business in my state's constitution. But, so many people blindly want to legalize marijuana because they think this is the only shot we have.

Some of the investors (link below) in our Ohio farms...make sure you put some diamonds on those golden toilets!

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/09/02/investors-in-legal-pot-are-diverse-lot.html

Yep, that's right, you'll be smoking Nick Lachey's joint (remember that really annoying boy band called 98 degrees?)


----------



## Bassthumb

In my youth I did every hard drug under the sun before trying marijuana. So the gateway drug argument doesn't resonate with me. Alcohol is far more destructive and just as likely to lead to other harder drugs. I'm of the opinion all drugs should be legal on the basis of liberty. War on drugs is an obvious failure and actually creates crime. If everything was legal tomorrow prices would plummet and drug cartels would be mostly out of business instantly. Drugs would be produced locally except maybe for cocaine from south america and heroin from Asia mid east, but who knows maybe the could grow coca and poppy in greenhouses here, not sure. Legalization is smart and does way more good than harm. As to politicians being bought and theiving business men stacking the deck to own dispensers....what's new? As long as marijuana is legal to own good will come of it. I think of that guy who has never tried a drug going through chemotherapy puking his guts out getting prescribed some marijuana to ease his nausea and get that appetite back, being able to actually keep some food down. That is a good thing. Lastly, just watch after the state and this per ordained legal dispenser cartel get going enforcement against sideline non legal sellers will skyrocket. As with every single other thing that happens in our country, it truly is all about the money.


----------



## RedJada

First thing Monday morning, I'm buying some Frito-Lay stock.


----------



## Pan Fisherman

As a former pothead I would like to see it legalized under the right circumstances. I am in 100 percent support of medical usage as my dad has MS and pot is proven to be one of if not the best medicines out there for that condition. As to the gateway drug argument I know as a former pothead that if pot was legal when I was smoking there would of been no reason to search out other illegal drugs but at that point in my life in my eyes I was already breaking the law with pot so why not get adventurous.


----------



## sherman51

Skippy said:


> I can't believe what I'm reading. JUST where do you think all the meth and crack heads started with????? Oh you say. That won't happen to me or one of MY LOVE ONES.. BULLSHIT. It will and it does more times then you or I can even think of. Do any of you want to work around someone who's half zoned out?? What about you or a loved one driving down the road?? What happens when that one pipe full just doesen't give you that buzz your looking for?? Light up another then another. What about that big truck coming down the highway or even a pickup or car. What about a drug test in order to get a job or even keep your job???
> 
> There's a few states that do allow it but if you read up about them there all wishing they never passed allowing it.
> In this day an age it's just too easy for any younger person to be led astray, per-pressure into trying something just a little stronger. And that will happen..Know dought about it.
> 
> I have grand children and most of you have kids or grand children.. If you would open your eyes and look or even think of what the ramifications of this will do !!!!!! Scores of doctors teachers and law enforcement are against this. Yea, your right. There's NO way they can all be right.


it really doesn't matter if its legal or not, its still out there for anyone to use it. its a losing battle to try and stop the use of it. just like booze if its illegal there just going to buy illegal booze. and you have drunks driving down our roads every day but booze is big money for our government in taxes so there not going to ban booze because it just wont work. I would not want to work along side a drunk or someone with a buzz. but in real life you have both. the factory where I worked had more guys on pot than I care to admit. and I think they were safer than the ones that was drunk. there's just no way to stop pot use in this country so why not regulate its use and tax it.

as for minors using it they would have a harder time getting it if it was legal and regulated like booze. but just like anything else if minors wants something they'll find a way to get it. but now you have sellers that don't care who they sell to. if it was legal it would put an end to the corner dealers.

I am 64 and know a few people that has used pot since they were young and have never tried anything stronger than there pot. so pot don't always make people use stronger drugs.

and don't get me wrong im not condoning using drugs or booze while driving or working. but the people that do are going to do so if its legal or not. but I think it could be better controlled for our under age generation if its legal.
sherman


----------



## Eye Licker

Marijuana is not a gateway drug.Going to a drug dealer who is willing to sell you anything he or she can is how people get exposed to other drugs!


----------



## Slatebar

I will vote No on both issues.. If they would change it to where it had to be grown and processed in Ohio and give ALL Ohio farmers and processors an equal shot at it or even manage it like a tobacco base I would probably vote yes on that.


----------



## hardwaterfan

imo marijuana should be legalized. legal or not, i dont/wont smoke it. but i know what its all about and i think its absurd.....ridiculous...wrong.....that alcohol is legal and pot is not. alcohol is so far, far more debilitating and destructive. id rank alcohol right up there with the most powerful drugs around.

just like alcohol, just dont smoke at work and dont smoke and drive and id be fine with it.


----------



## Deep Trouble

Alcohol is far more harmful to society. Period. No reason for alcohol to be legal while pot isn't.


----------



## promag

Skippy said:


> I can't believe what I'm reading. JUST where do you think all the meth and crack heads started with????? Oh you say. That won't happen to me or one of MY LOVE ONES.. BULLSHIT. It will and it does more times then you or I can even think of. Do any of you want to work around someone who's half zoned out?? What about you or a loved one driving down the road?? What happens when that one pipe full just doesen't give you that buzz your looking for?? Light up another then another. What about that big truck coming down the highway or even a pickup or car. What about a drug test in order to get a job or even keep your job???
> 
> There's a few states that do allow it but if you read up about them there all wishing they never passed allowing it.
> In this day an age it's just too easy for any younger person to be led astray, per-pressure into trying something just a little stronger. And that will happen..Know dought about it.
> 
> I have grand children and most of you have kids or grand children.. If you would open your eyes and look or even think of what the ramifications of this will do !!!!!! Scores of doctors teachers and law enforcement are against this. Yea, your right. There's NO way they can all be right.


The biggest problem with marijuana when it's not legal is that the consumer places his trust in the seller for "the good high" in which the seller can cut that with anything they want in which can cause the buyer to have adverse effects from said batch they purchased... I would say leagalize it but who can trust the government to produce a pure product?.. Its all the same ether way.


----------



## randymcfishnsfun2

Vote yes! As far as pot being the gateway drug... lol, give me a break! What about alcohol? I don't know anyone that hasn't made a bad decision when drinking. Have you ever seen an epileptic child? It's heart breaking and terrifying. Believe me, I have first hand experience. Pot will never go away. It's easier for teens to get than alcohol! Why not stop the money flow to Mexico? Let's put it into our communities!


----------



## Slatebar

It is bad for our first responders also... lol


----------



## Gottagofishn

I'm afraid I will vote for it as well. While I think all drug use causes nothing but negative results, most folks will use if they are so inclined.
I recently read that 56% of the inmates in our prisons are drug related. We have 5% of the worlds population and 25% of of the inmates. The war on drugs is not working. Might as well get a few jobs out of it and maybe find another hobby for the legal system.


----------



## ducman491

A few thoughts and I don't smoke nor ever have so take this for what it's worth.

1) I feel like it's a gateway drug primarily because it's illegal and you buy it from a guy who will sell you anything he has for you to get high and keep coming back. It's good business. 

2) Legalizing it will have a minimal impact on illegal sales and the cartels because until your street dealer has to pay taxes, licenses, overhead, salaries, 401k etc he will likely be able to sell it cheaper than the legal dispensaries. 

3) Legalizing it will not miraculously make all the potheads that are vegging out on their couch Titans of Industry. They will still be worthless and the people who can smoke and be productive, will still be productive. 

4) I want it to be legal just so I don't have to listen to some dreadlocked moron in a NORML t shirt with a copy of High Times rolled up in his back pocket tell me about the medical benefits of it or what great rope hemp makes. Who are you kidding? You want to get stoned in public and that's the end of your discussion. 

It's not a harmless drug. Worse than alcohol? I don't know, I don't drink either.


----------



## angler69

cheezemm2 said:


> I just hope everyone realizes that bumping the constitution to allow an oligarchy is just the beginning...this is a great pull the wool over the sheep's eyes. You are setting the precedent for a lot of control for big businesses, specifically IN OHIO. I don't want big business in my state's constitution. But, so many people blindly want to legalize marijuana because they think this is the only shot we have.
> 
> Some of the investors (link below) in our Ohio farms...make sure you put some diamonds on those golden toilets!
> 
> http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/09/02/investors-in-legal-pot-are-diverse-lot.html
> 
> Yep, that's right, you'll be smoking Nick Lachey's joint (remember that really annoying boy band called 98 degrees?)



I think you may have something but I will add that bumping the constitution just for BIG business. It won't stop there EVERYTHING in the Constitution will be fair game so to Speak. Slippery slope....


----------



## bucksfan

Skippy said:


> I can't believe what I'm reading. JUST where do you think all the meth and crack heads started with????? Oh you say. That won't happen to me or one of MY LOVE ONES.. BULLSHIT. It will and it does more times then you or I can even think of. Do any of you want to work around someone who's half zoned out?? What about you or a loved one driving down the road?? What happens when that one pipe full just doesen't give you that buzz your looking for?? Light up another then another. What about that big truck coming down the highway or even a pickup or car. What about a drug test in order to get a job or even keep your job???
> 
> There's a few states that do allow it but if you read up about them there all wishing they never passed allowing it.
> In this day an age it's just too easy for any younger person to be led astray, per-pressure into trying something just a little stronger. And that will happen..Know dought about it.
> 
> I have grand children and most of you have kids or grand children.. If you would open your eyes and look or even think of what the ramifications of this will do !!!!!! Scores of doctors teachers and law enforcement are against this. Yea, your right. There's NO way they can all be right.


In college I do not remember a single pot head graduate. In fact, I know of a few who were homeless!!
Pot is not harmess!! But can be very useful for end of life mood, appetite and pain.


----------



## OSUdaddy

bucksfan said:


> In college I do not remember a single pot head graduate. In fact, I know of a few who were homeless!!
> Pot is not harmess!! But can be very useful for end of life mood, appetite and pain.


I guess you did not know these folks:

http://elitedaily.com/money/entrepreneurship/successful-potheads-time/

http://matadornetwork.com/nights/41-successful-stoners-time/

BTW: Did you drink in college or high school?


----------



## MIGHTY

I'm kind of curious to know if some crime rates will be effected if it's legalized. I don't smoke it but I could care less if it's legalized or not. Mostly just curious to see if any of the crimes involving those super terribly "evil" instruments known as guns will go down, which is what I'm more concerned with.


----------



## ezbite

i wont tell my experince with it, its none of your business...

but i am voting for it.


----------



## supercanoe

Pot is not a "gateway" drug. I know this because I spent 4 years studying the effects of drugs on the human body and mind to get my psychology degree. I have also known many people over the years who smoked pot at some point in their life. The majority of them are successful and intelligent people who never tried any other drugs.


----------



## Nightcrawler666

All I can say is I know a lot of people that have a high level of education and are very successful that still use it recreationally. I'm talking about doctors, professors, entrepreneurs and lawyers even. Best part about it for them, no one suspects it and they have the money to afford the best, most cared for, organic green that you could hope to find. I think a lot of people would be shocked at the number of people they regularly associate with that go home and roast a bone at the end of the day.


----------



## nightranger

surprise people,everybody that wants it,has it and your government didn,t get a dime for it(and no monopoly should either)it should be legal for many reasons-1 its been overhyped and not as bad as they would like you to believe.2-the war on drugs is a BIG financial loss for us taxpayers(as well as a war on our brethren)3-if the state doesn,t profit and regulate,the cartels will. 4-not allowing your law abiding citizens to grow their own,allows it to be a PROFIT MAKER for somebody.if legal pot is only sold in expensive dispenseries,THERE WILL BE A BLACK MARKET(weed that is not 100% bug free is deemed "non-medicinal")IT WILL BE SOLD ON THE BLACK MARKET.NO ONE WILL BURN DOZENS OF MATURE PLANTS BECAUSE OF A FEW MICROSCOPIC MITES.it,s on sale all over Michigan-out of the back door(NO TAX MONEY THERE)LESS THAN 25% OF ALL COMMERCIALLY GROWN POT CAN BE KEPT INSECT FREE.when the plant matures,it produces very smelly,and very tacky oils to attract pollen for reproduction(insects are magnetically attracted to these smells/oils) medical grade marijuana is VERY DIFFICULT TO PRODUCE, hence the price tag.BLACK MARKETT=NO TAX MONEY.


----------



## Problem child

please stop referring to "weed" as a drug... Its a plant with psychoactive properties... a "drug" is what big pharmas and your doctor poison you with...


----------



## Stars-n-Stripers

Nightcrawler666 said:


> All I can say is I know a lot of people that have a high level of education and are very successful that still use it recreationally. I'm talking about *doctors, professors, entrepreneurs and lawyers *even. Best part about it for them, no one suspects it and they have the money to afford the best, most cared for, organic green that you could hope to find. I think a lot of people would be shocked at the number of people they regularly associate with that go home and roast a bone at the end of the day.


Same here. 

Minimal use in _high _school (pun intended), hadn't had any in probably 30 yrs, couple years ago after a golf tournament win, joined a friend in celebrating, he's an attorney and frequent user due to serious ocular problems, and I'll tell you what, due to hybridization, it is WAY more potent now, so you won't have to use as much.  So I got that going for me, which is nice. 

If it doesn't pass, and God forbid I ever contract cancer, or know someone that does and they want it, I WILL get it for them. After seeing the effects of chemo /cancer on some loved ones, nobody should have to suffer like that.


----------



## FSHNERIE

Legalize it, Tax it. I agree. Its not for me so I wont partake


----------



## buckeyebowman

Some interesting, thoughtful comments here, and some really dumb ones! 

Pot is a "gateway" drug only in that you are buying from a dealer in illegal drugs. For dealers pot is kind of a hassle. It's bulky, hard to transport, and easily spotted. It also has about the lowest profit margin for them, so, of course they are looking to "upsell" you to something else. 

Then there's the argument that the illegal dealers will still be out there selling cheaper. Just last week I heard a news story about the pot dispensaries in Colorado setting a new sales record. Are the illegal dealers in Colorado also setting records? I kind of doubt it. Why would a user take the risk when you can walk out of a legal dispensary with a receipt, and no cop can give you the skunk eye. 

As for the argument that pot users are nothing but low life, useless, stoners I beg to differ. Back in the day I used to indulge, AND SO DID THE VAST MAJORITY OF MY FRIENDS! And you know what? We all worked! We all paid taxes. We all owned vehicles and property! In fact, we avoided those who embodied the "hopeless stoner" profile! We were just regular folk who enjoyed smoking reefer on occasion. As far as the really smart people who get high, anybody here have Progressive auto insurance? It might interest you to know that Peter B. Lewis, the former CEO of Pregressive, used pot and contributed heavily to to MPP ( the Marijuana Policy Project) as well as California Prop 19 for the legalization and taxation of pot. 

I can understand the reticence to create a "monopoly", but what else is new. Are we going to close up the casinos and racinos? Let's face it, Ohio didn't get casinos until the "right" people were in position to make the money. So, we now have a racino in the Mahoning Valley which I can go to at my discretion. 

And as for those advocating a continuation of the so called "war on drugs", all I can say is pull your heads out of the sand! No American war has been so spectacularly unsuccessful as this. We have spent countless billions of taxpayer dollars to accomplish what? To enrich drug cartels? These days it functions mainly as an employment opportunity!


----------



## Flowie

Skippy said:


> I can't believe what I'm reading. JUST where do you think all the meth and crack heads started with?????


I think they started out with alcohol..and increasingly prescription painkillers they find in grammas medicine cabinet.
Look at the cdc statistics for drugs of abuse, the biggest addictionepidemic is being prescribed by doctors.

Im a medical technologist and in 20 years Ive had very few patients stoned on marijuana in the ER...wish I could say the same thing for Alcohol. In fact back when I worked third shift right out of college we dreaded friday night because we were guaranteed to see at least 4 or 5 people drunk, out of control, refusing to allow blood to be drawn, bleeding all over the place from the accident or fight they were just in. I see no reason for alcohol to be legal and marijuana to be illegal from a medical standpoint..none at all.


----------



## sherman51

the oil companies and the tobacco companies has a monopoly on there products. so why shouldn't there be a monopoly on pot? its still better than buying it off the street. and you don't know what your getting when you buy off street dealers.
sherman


----------



## KaGee

Here is some interesting information from Colorado

 half of Americans still regard as a social evil.
nearly $6 million in pot revenues have been distributed to local governments. But the cost of increased law enforcement, drugged-driving incidents, fatal crashes, loss of productivity and a huge spike in gang-related crime bring into question the cost-benefit of those dollars.
Other symptoms of Colorado’s pot culture include increased use among teens, resulting in educational problems in middle schools and high schools, a spike in “edibles”-related emergency room visits, consumption by children and pets resulting in illness and death

the notion that prisons filled with minor drug offenders would be relieved of overcrowding—a selling point of legalizing marijuana—has been blown to smithereens.
The agricultural implications of the cannabis industry, it seems, were not a consideration at the time it became a legal crop. With cannabis still illegal under federal law, a dearth of information about what pests attack cannabis and what pesticides can be used safely on the plants has resulted in confusion and, in some cases, dangerous growing practices.
More of this here: http://www.newsweek.com/unexpected-side-effects-legalizing-weed-339931


----------



## Roscoe

Grow it Organically. No Pesticides. I don't remember any bugs bothering the flowers,but Spider Mites can be a problem.If ya grow your own you know what ya got.

It should never be around kids in any way. If they see you do it they will too.It can destroy young peoples brains.


Roscoe


----------



## Spaniel235

ICYMI.....the growers will be taxed at a rate not to exceed 15% and the retailers no more than 5%....that is written in the ballot language.....I'm being taxed at a rate of 28% regardless....and that's not state or city taxes....


----------



## Nightcrawler666

Young kids getting ahold of edibles is no difference than Rx pills, firearms and/or alcohol. If you have them accessible and your kid gets into it without your knowledge, you're a poor parent. Period.


----------



## snag

Nightcrawler666 said:


> Young kids getting ahold of edibles is no difference than Rx pills, firearms and/or alcohol. If you have them accessible and your kid gets into it without your knowledge, you're a poor parent. Period.



That's true if a under Age teen wants something they aren't legally allowed , they will find a way to get it, when I grew up we could always find a older fella to get us beer if we wanted it , it's no different now . If u got the money it can be bought .


----------



## Bucket Mouth

Isn't it crazy that people can be caged up for possession of illegal vegetation? How in the world does vegetation become illegal in the first place? I won't pretend to tell people how to live their lives or what to do with themselves, unlike most narcissistic gubment types.

Prohibition doesn't work, and it never will. Freedom of choice and freedom of association are beautiful things, everyone should use them more frequently.


----------



## Bassthumb

Opium and coca are vegetation too. I understand what your saying as I think all drugs should be legal, but that vegetation argument won't hold for most.


----------



## Bassthumb

Also a question, does this law allow for growing a personal use amount?


----------



## Nightcrawler666

Bassthumb said:


> Also a question, does this law allow for growing a personal use amount?


It would allow for up to 4 "flowering" plants.


----------



## OSUdaddy

Bassthumb said:


> Also a question, does this law allow for growing a personal use amount?


Yes. I believe 2 plants.


----------



## GasFish26

What about the fact that you can be locked up for possessing cocaine(coca leaves) or heroin(poppy seed plant)

The argument of it being vegetation doesn't really make sense to me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buick Riviera

Help me out here. What will happen if everyone votes yes on 3 and no on 2. Thanks.


----------



## nixmkt

Buick Riviera said:


> Help me out here. What will happen if everyone votes yes on 3 and no on 2. Thanks.



????  That's what the backers of Issue 3 want. Issue 3 would take effect. The potential conflict will be if both Issues 2 & 3 pass since one clause of Issue 2 specifically voids Issue 3. Supposedly if both pass, whichever one receives more yes votes would prevail. More than likely though it would end up in court.



.


----------



## Mr. A

nixmkt said:


> Believe it should be legalized but don’t believe Issue 3 is the way to do it. Backers state that it is not a monopoly because it allows for more than 10 growers later if those 10 can’t meet demand. Now how likely is that to occur? They will ramp up production to whatever level it takes to protect their investment.
> 
> Thought casino gambling should have been legalized but didn’t believe the Issue that allowed it was the way to do it then either.
> 
> Believe monopolies should not be allowed but not sure about Issue 2 yet. Need to find out more about the process of who and how they would have control over what would be allowed on the ballot in the future if Issue 2 would pass.


+1, total agreement here....


----------



## Bucket Mouth

GasFish26 said:


> What about the fact that you can be locked up for possessing cocaine(coca leaves) or heroin(poppy seed plant)
> 
> The argument of it being vegetation doesn't really make sense to me
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



That's an expanded arguement. Look at the original recipe of coca cola and the historical use of poppy/opiates. You'll find prohibition doesn't work in either of those two cases either, as evidenced by the massive usage and the fact that a certain alphabet agency has its fingers in the importation of both. 

Either way, a plant that grows wild has been made illegal. That is why it is illegal vegetation.

If you own your own body (which you do), no one should be allowed to tell you what to put in it. That includes salt, fat, pop, McDonalds, whatever. The chitty of New York has already tried to ban some of this stuff so don't say it can't/won't happen. To say that someone can cage a human for a non violent "offense" opens a dangerous door. That has manifested itself into millions of prisoners locked up for ingesting something into their own body. Crazy.

My original comment was meant to be focused on the OP's question.


----------



## bucksfan

OSUdaddy said:


> I guess you did not know these folks:
> 
> http://elitedaily.com/money/entrepreneurship/successful-potheads-time/
> 
> http://matadornetwork.com/nights/41-successful-stoners-time/
> 
> BTW: Did you drink in college or high school?


No.


----------



## ezbite

GasFish26 said:


> What about the fact that you can be locked up for possessing cocaine(coca leaves) or heroin(poppy seed plant)
> 
> The argument of it being vegetation doesn't really make sense to me
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Coke and heroin have to be made using a process, pot.. Just dry it and smoke it.


----------



## acklac7

promag said:


> The biggest problem with marijuana when it's not legal is that the consumer places his trust in the seller for "the good high" in which the seller can cut that with anything they want in which can cause the buyer to have adverse effects from said batch they purchased... I would say leagalize it but who can trust the government to produce a pure product?.. Its all the same ether way.


I'm debating on making a detailed, point-by-point post here in the next couple days.

That said, Marijuana doesn't get cut (Or "stepped on") period. This process is almost exclusively applicable in the synthetic/processed Narcotics trade.

Rarely, often in much less favourable parts of town, you'll find people that dip sub-par M.J. in formaldehyde. Personally, I've never, ever heard of it being distributed on even a moderate basis. It's more of a personal preferance type deal.


----------



## acklac7

KaGee said:


> Here is some interesting information from Colorado
> 
> half of Americans still regard as a social evil.
> nearly $6 million in pot revenues have been distributed to local governments. But the cost of increased law enforcement, drugged-driving incidents, fatal crashes, loss of productivity and a huge spike in gang-related crime bring into question the cost-benefit of those dollars.
> Other symptoms of Colorado’s pot culture include increased use among teens, resulting in educational problems in middle schools and high schools, a spike in “edibles”-related emergency room visits, consumption by children and pets resulting in illness and death
> 
> the notion that prisons filled with minor drug offenders would be relieved of overcrowding—a selling point of legalizing marijuana—has been blown to smithereens.
> The agricultural implications of the cannabis industry, it seems, were not a consideration at the time it became a legal crop. With cannabis still illegal under federal law, a dearth of information about what pests attack cannabis and what pesticides can be used safely on the plants has resulted in confusion and, in some cases, dangerous growing practices.
> More of this here: http://www.newsweek.com/unexpected-side-effects-legalizing-weed-339931


I can see druged driving offenses going up, but only because someone didn't realize what it was going to do to them on their first try.

That said the article is full of absolute crap. Show me the statistics that show increased use among teens since the law took effect. I've got news for you, finding Marijuana, on a regular basis, has been, and still is, 10x easier when in your High School / College years. Honest to god it can be harder to get alcohol in high school than Mary Jane.

At any rate I wouldn't trust a word that article says, or at least take thier findings with a big gram of salt


----------



## DLarrick

Do you ban sugar because it makes people fat? Can you call a snickers bar a gateway to binge eating at all your meals and getting morbidly obese. What about the overweight guy who can barely get in his car but is still allowed to drive? Should we stop him from driving because he probably cant pick his foot up fast enough to move it to the break…..there are plenty of things I could list of people do this and that but that’s one of the biggest issue. Let people make their own decisions. The fact that you think just because someone smokes pot is going to become a meth head. Completely not the case. Most meth or crack heads had a prescription drug from a doctor feel good who gives it out for any ailment that people say they have. Once they can’t get that from the doc they go to the street and find out how cheap it can be. I say legalize it and tax it. and for the people who think that all people who smoke are just lazy…ban video games too. get more people outside instead of sitting on the couch all day. I know plenty of people that smoke that are very productive members of society and you would never know they did it unless they told you.


----------



## Gottagofishn

Well... I originally thought I would vote for issue 3. After reading through the issue I am sure I will vote no on the issue. While I don't think any good comes out of smoking pot, I think the penalties that exist for it are terrible as well. The problem I have with issue 3 is the way it is structured. If the issue just made it legal without specifying "the 10 growers" I don't think I would have a problem with it. You know.... let us capitalists battle over it, the American way.... As it is, it doesn't feel right.


----------



## ShakeDown

As citizen: No on 3, yes on 2. I support legalization 100%, but not like it's currently proposed. 

As site admin: Please watch the language. Already shut one post down as a result. The fact that you could toss a coin and consider this post "political" in itself dances the line, but please don't push it over with language...I personally enjoy reading everyone's rational whether I agree or not, just keep it within the bumpers please


----------



## Bassthumb

ezbite said:


> Coke and heroin have to be made using a process, pot.. Just dry it and smoke it.


Pot has just as much of a purification process as coca and poppy. It is not just grow and dry. Quality is determined by preparation skill and method.


----------



## Bassthumb

I don't have a problem with the 10 growers, bc you are still not forced to buy from them. You can grow your own or still legally own what you source elsewhere. It is a monopoly and money grab.....I only would vote against if pot sourced from them was the only legal way.


----------



## GasFish26

And you can make alcohol pretty easy with a kit and a few ingredients 

Pretty natural stuff... Still have to be of age to partake in this country

I agree we do have a lot of rules on what we can consume


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Saugeyefisher

Im in the group thats for leagalization.
And have to say its no more a gateway drug then alcohol.
As a kid i did way more stupit stuff while drinking,then i did while "tokeing"...
Ive also been addicted to opiats. Pot doesnt compare to the hard stuff at all.
No physical/harmfull withdrawl from pot.
Like said before though its hard to "lace" pot an not notice. But edibles i can see being "laced" or tampered with.but most pot dealers aint going to waste money doing that. It doesnt make since unless its being done with something physicaly addicting,to bring a customer back...
Gottagofishing,i agree 100% on the laws on pot being way to harsh. If anything de criminalize it... how many drunk driveing offences do you have to have before loosing your driveing privileges? In most counties if you get caught walking down the street with a joint in your pocket you automatically lose them for,i think its 6 months. So there fore you probaly lose your job. It doesnt make since to me at all.
I hope to see some sort of change myself.
Its proven its self medicly to,and with zero physical withdrawl. Doctors prescribe addicting meds like candy. Its insane the amount of people i know addicted to some sort of pill,wether it be pain pills,nerve pills,prednisone. All these pills are physically addicting and some are harmfull sometimes even fatal to stop takeing cold turkey. Why not try a non addicting aproach first,like pot? Most of the heroin addicts started with prescription pain meds like vicadin,percacet.


----------



## Bassthumb

Phenomanol point saugeye, legal pain meds oxy, perc, Vic are the #1 "gateway drug" to heroin. I've taken every drug under the sun at one point and the one I loved the most was given just before surgery for a hernia....diladud. Surgery was completely enjoyable. Coke, meth, pot, ecstasy.....all fun but no where near the power of an opiate. Haven't done anything in many years but glad I saw what they all were about first hand. Imo the only drugs that have long term redeemable qualities are pot and ecstacy. Ecstacy not addictive at all but part of me thinks everyone should try it a few times. Pot has very few bad qualities and real medicinal value. No on 2, yes on 3.


----------



## Skippy

My post was deleted but I would like to thank everyone who did like it. "Matt"


----------



## Stars-n-Stripers

ShakeDown said:


> As citizen: No on 3, yes on 2. I support legalization 100%, but not like it's currently proposed.
> 
> As site admin: Please watch the language. Already shut one post down as a result. The fact that you could toss a coin and consider this post "political" in itself dances the line, but please don't push it over with language...I personally enjoy reading everyone's rational whether I agree or not, just keep it within the bumpers please


I don't know enough about the specifics of the issues Shake, you seem to be the opposite of what I've been seeing, why no on 3 yes on 2?

All the commercials I'm seeing are saying yes on 3, have to wonder who's $$ is behind those.


----------



## ShakeDown

In a nutshell, 2 prevents laws being written into Ohio's constitution that would give single groups, entities, individuals financial advantage over everyone else (ie, monopolies). The way 3 is written, it gives a small group of investors control over the marijuana industry in the state if it passes (a monopoly)..basically creating a handful of overnight millionaires without any other citizens having a shot at their piece of the pie.


----------



## Mr. A

ShakeDown said:


> In a nutshell, 2 prevents laws being written into Ohio's constitution that would give single groups, entities, individuals financial advantage over everyone else (ie, monopolies). The way 3 is written, it gives a small group of investors control over the marijuana industry in the state if it passes (a monopoly)..basically creating a handful of overnight millionaires without any other citizens having a shot at their piece of the pie.


Bingo! They argue it is not a monopoly because it does say that others can grow pot if the original 10 cannot meet demand. However, those 10 will simply expand as necessary to protect their interests and keep other from getting in. 

I would rather see 2 pass first, then I'd vote to legalize.


----------



## Stars-n-Stripers

ShakeDown said:


> In a nutshell, 2 prevents laws being written into Ohio's constitution that would give single groups, entities, individuals financial advantage over everyone else (ie, monopolies). The way 3 is written, it gives a small group of investors control over the marijuana industry in the state if it passes (a monopoly)..basically creating a handful of overnight millionaires without any other citizens having a shot at their piece of the pie.


Interesting. Makes one wonder if enough confusion is created, if either of them will pass, or if, due to all the advertising behind it, 3 will pass overwhelmingly.


----------



## butchers.

Legalize it and forget it. Opium has been around since the early to mid 1800's. The devil's weed has been around since when, when was the time you heard of 1 any smoking peyote(sp). The native amreicans and a tribe from mexico are the ones right now who can do it. now that I have said my peace,,,i believe i'll go roll 1 up. Good day


----------



## nixmkt

nixmkt said:


> ... Backers state that it is not a monopoly because it allows for more than 10 growers later if those 10 can’t meet demand. Now how likely is that to occur? They will ramp up production to whatever level it takes to protect their investment. ...





Mr. A said:


> Bingo! They argue it is not a monopoly because it does say that others can grow pot if the original 10 cannot meet demand. However, those 10 will simply expand as necessary to protect their interests and keep other from getting in. ...



And after reading more about it, that argument is just purely misleading by the backers of Issue 3 to trick voters because it only allows for ONE additional grow facility that could be added after four years if the initial 10 can’t meet demand. Even if that 1 extra was added it would still be the same basic monopoly for the original 10.



.


----------



## Saugeyefisher

butchers. said:


> Legalize it and forget it. Opium has been around since the early to mid 1800's. The devil's weed has been around since when, when was the time you heard of 1 any smoking peyote(sp). The native amreicans and a tribe from mexico are the ones right now who can do it. now that I have said my peace,,,i believe i'll go roll 1 up. Good day


Lol you lost me at smokeing peyote???


----------



## ShakeDown

Even if they opt to expand in 4 years, it's a 100k non refundable app fee with no guarantees. That just solidifies their control.

The monopoly aspect freaks me out a little. Started out with the casinos and I don't think it's in anyone's best interest for it to continue. It's a much bigger picture than weed in the long run...a slippery trend to continue giving too much control to one entity.


----------



## Snakecharmer

Stars-n-Stripers said:


> I don't know enough about the specifics of the issues Shake, you seem to be the opposite of what I've been seeing, why no on 3 yes on 2?
> 
> All the commercials I'm seeing are saying yes on 3,* have to wonder who's $$ is behind those.[/*QUOTE]
> The 10 who get to sell the pot..........


----------



## Snakecharmer

ShakeDown said:


> Even if they opt to expand in 4 years, it's a 100k non refundable app fee with no guarantees. That just solidifies their control.
> 
> The monopoly aspect freaks me out a little. Started out with the casinos and I don't think it's in anyone's best interest for it to continue. It's a much bigger picture than weed in the long run...a slippery trend to continue giving too much control to one entity.


Plus they also slipped in language so that they can only be taxed at a relatively low level like 20% or something.

Yes on 2....No on 3..


----------



## OSUdaddy

After reading through this thread and links provided by some I am feeling better educated on the issues and have changed my mind............no on 3 and yes on 2. Legalize it, sure, but only after after doing away with laws allowing monopolies on growing and selling.

Thanks to all for your thoughtful comments in this thread........keep them coming.


----------



## smith276

Yes on 2, no on 3. Nothing wrong with it


----------



## streamstalker

Vote 3 on Issue No.


----------



## Saugeyefisher

streamstalker said:


> Vote 3 on Ierr h?ssue No.


Ummm,arnt we supposed to wait for it to be leagle,little early huh?


----------



## cheezemm2

Do not put legal language in the constitution to only allow sale of an item from a select group of wealthy investors....ever. It's a dangerous precedent that really side steps a lot of fundamental business rules/regs.

What a lot of people should be asking is, "Do you really want your marijuana supply being controlled by people who are already misleading you?"

If it were to be legalized, I'd rather everyone just grow their own and give the investors nothing.

Still yes on 2, no on 3 for me until it's structured right.


----------



## Bucket Mouth

It's funny how "horrible" this illegal vegetation is until TPTB need tax money. Then they figure out a way to tax said vegetation, and oila!!!! It's now ok - let's put it on the ballot! Let the people "think" they are deciding!

It's all a joke. Peel the layers of the onion back to discover the real root of the problem.


----------



## All Thumbs

so many valid points, both pro and con. this thread has been enlightening in many respects.

gateway drug? not the drug itself but the illegality of it and dealing with the sellers and the other illegal drugs they also sell is the open gate.

drive out the cartels? put a hurt on them yes, but sadly the high cost of buying legal pot will still create a demand for black market pot. (research MI and CO)

using pot is not harmful? it can be, just like drinking a bottle of Jack everyday. using this and every other drug comes with responsibilities that most people will use but not all.

creates an oligopoly or monopoly? yes but is this breaking news? a first in ohio?

I do not think it will pass but I am voting yes on 3, no on 2. we can change the bad things about this later but if it fails, I do not think it will ever be offered again.

all thumbs


----------



## butchers.

Saugeyefisher said:


> Lol you lost me at smokeing peyote???


Peyote is a herb that certain indian tribes use in their rituals, but it is so tightly gaurded that they are the only ones to use it. The way I understand it is that it is like LSD. They make a trek out in the desert in Mexico when this time of year comes around and off they go, out into the desert to find this plant, and from what I seen on National Geographic television, they had a pretty good time. I wish I had more time to research this subject out.


----------



## nixmkt

All Thumbs said:


> ...we can change the bad things about this later but if it fails, I do not think it will ever be offered again. ...



That is wishful thinking. Will be much easier to get it offered again in some form than it will be to change the bad things about this later with it being put into the constitution.


----------



## butchers.

All Thumbs said:


> so many valid points, both pro and con. this thread has been enlightening in many respect
> 
> drive out the cartels? put a hurt on them yes, but sadly the high cost of buying legal pot will still create a demand for black market pot. (research MI and CO)
> 
> using pot is not harmful? it can be, just like drinking a bottle of Jack everyday. using this and every other drug comes with responsibilities that most people will use but not a
> 
> all thumbs


The one thing i noticed that it will create a "black market", reason being that when you trim the plants you do not waste anything. These trimmings can be sold just the same as the good stuff. But the "black market" hopefully be controlled by the growers them selves. They say you can grow only so much,,,I'll believe that when I see it. I had a friend that built grow houses out in california. Well, when they weren't building they were trimming plants. Now does the government really think for a minute that these waste by products are being thrown into dumpster some where? This guy was telling me that some of the other people were being paid with the trimmings to the tune of anywhere from 5lb's to 10lb's at a shot. Thats pretty good money if you ask me.


----------



## I Fish

I don't understand the now or never idea. Unless something catastrophic happens, there will be other elections. If 3 does fail, it means nothing will change, as in, this isn't some giant problem that needs fixed right this minute. In a lot of ways it's small potatoes, but, man how much attention it's getting. 

I'm definitely no on 3, and 2 still seems kinda sketchy. I can easily see the reasons against 2. I abhor the notion of passing any law or changes to the constitution, knowing it is wrong, thinking it will get fixed later.


----------



## K gonefishin

butchers. said:


> Peyote is a herb that certain indian tribes use in their rituals, but it is so tightly gaurded that they are the only ones to use it. The way I understand it is that it is like LSD. They make a trek out in the desert in Mexico when this time of year comes around and off they go, out into the desert to find this plant, and from what I seen on National Geographic television, they had a pretty good time. I wish I had more time to research this subject out.


It's a cactus .


----------



## laynhardwood

Vote no on 3 wait till a better plan is in place. Why should people be allowed to corner a market? It's B.S.to think so many stoners are just going to blindly vote yes on this. I don't smoke but I have and I think issue 3 is a bad thing. If people wait till it's a free market on growing then voting yes is a good idea. Don't vote Yes on 3 it's a trap.


----------



## Flowie

Bassthumb said:


> Opium and coca are vegetation too. I understand what your saying as I think all drugs should be legal, but that vegetation argument won't hold for most.


Both opium and coca must be processed with harsh chemicals prior to consumption.


----------



## Weekender#1

When Issue 3 passes, I look forward to reading the garden section of this site next spring. All the gardens there and now 4 flowering plants allowed in each, I hope we can have a contest for the plants our members are going to grow. After all it is a outdoor sport. Some of that medicine will be a sight to see, here !

Vote No on 2 and Yes on 3.


----------



## Nightcrawler666

Weekender#1 said:


> When Issue 3 passes, I look forward to reading the garden section of this site next spring. All the gardens there and now 4 flowering plants allowed in each, I hope we can have a contest for the plants our members are going to grow. After all it is a outdoor sport. Some of that medicine will be a sight to see, here !
> 
> Vote No on 2 and Yes on 3.


I agree, it would be awesome to see. There are special provisions to consider when growing your own. I believe it has to be in a confined/locked area that is not easily accessible. (I assume to deter underage persons from accessing the plants.) 

That's why they invented spare bedrooms...


----------



## ostbucks98

Who in the world really cares about the so called "monopoly"? 
So many people smoke pot recreationally now and its everywhere and its illegal. Can you imagine how much weed is gonna be available once its legal? 

I mean seriously how many people are gonna get their weed at an inflated cost from one of these suppliers. People who smoke it now can get as much as they want when they want it.


----------



## CPK

ostbucks98 said:


> Who in the world really cares about the so called "monopoly"?
> So many people smoke pot recreationally now and its everywhere and its illegal. Can you imagine how much weed is gonna be available once its legal?
> 
> I mean seriously how many people are gonna get their weed at an inflated cost from one of these suppliers. People who smoke it now can get as much as they want when they want it.


Bingo!


----------



## Nightcrawler666

It's gonna be a buyers market. Who's got the best, the cheapest and most convenient?


----------



## Spike Dog

I wonder how Ohio's legalization will affect Indiana? Indiana is an old school red state, we can't even buy beer on Sunday...


----------



## laynhardwood

Weekender#1 said:


> When Issue 3 passes, I look forward to reading the garden section of this site next spring. All the gardens there and now 4 flowering plants allowed in each, I hope we can have a contest for the plants our members are going to grow. After all it is a outdoor sport. Some of that medicine will be a sight to see, here !
> 
> Vote No on 2 and Yes on 3.


This is what I'm talking about. People don't even know the rules but blindly vote yes because it sounds cool. You can not grow weed outside in a garden unless it is in a locked greenhouse. I understand everyone is anxious to legally smoke weed in the privacy of their house. I just hope everyone knows what they are voting for.


----------



## pokie

I am very interested in this topic and have done a fair amount of research on it. Here is what I think...

As far as the monopoly aspect of the conversation, I do not think issue 3 creates one. To me the word monopoly or "mono"-poly means 1. All 10 original growers and 1 more (if the original 10 can not keep up with production) will be in competition with each other and will not allow 1 grower to "corner the market". Further more, Issue 3 allows for people to grow 4 flowering plants themselves and have in possession up to 8 ounces of marijuana. This possibly creates thousands of growers that can legally grow pot (not 1 as a monopoly implies). 

These ten companies that have been formed have invested MILLIONS of dollars to get marijuana legalized and deserve to get a return on their investment. If the law was written that individuals could not grow, I would NOT be in favor of it passing. 

Don't forget that there are many ways to make money in the industry other than being one of the 10 or 11 growers. You can open a dispensary. Invent a product that helps in the growing of marijuana or extracting the THC. Existing businesses can add products to their already existing product line...you get the idea, the business opportunities are endless. Trust me when I tell you that 99% of the people out there do not have the means or the expertise to be one of the growers. There are much better ways to profit from legalized marijuana then to grow it commercially to sell to dispensaries.

In fact, I like the idea of limiting the number of growers so that they can be closely regulated and taxed properly so the beneficiaries of the tax dollars will get maximum compensation.

As you can tell I am in favor of issue 3 and will be voting yes. I will be voting no on issue 2.

I hope this will make some of you look at the issues a little differently...

Just my opinion.


----------



## Ant

coca can be chewed in leaf form.You can smoke opium straight from the sap of the poppy.


----------



## Buick Riviera

Issue 2 langjuage: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2015/2-language.pdf

Issue 3 language: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2015/3-language.pdf

Thanks for all the informative posts. Personally, voting yes on both 2 & 3 and letting the Supreme Court sort it out.


----------



## Flowie

Ant said:


> coca can be chewed in leaf form.You can smoke opium straight from the sap of the poppy.


Yes on one..but it is nowhere near as psychoactive.
And technically yes on two, but it is more soluble and potent when precipiated with an acid...which is what the producers of opium do. Duh.


----------



## Snakecharmer

pokie said:


> These ten companies that have been formed have invested MILLIONS of dollars to get marijuana legalized and deserve to get a return on their investment. If the law was written that individuals could not grow, I would NOT be in favor of it passing.
> 
> Don't forget that there are many ways to make money in the industry other than being one of the 10 or 11 growers. You can open a dispensary. Invent a product that helps in the growing of marijuana or extracting the THC. Open a restaurant or club...you get the idea, the business opportunities are endless. Trust me when I tell you that 99% of the people out there do not have the means or the expertise to be one of the growers. There are much better ways to profit from legalized marijuana then to grow it commercially to sell to dispensaries.
> 
> In fact, I like the idea of limiting the number of growers so that they can be closely regulated and taxed properly so the beneficiaries of the tax dollars will get maximum compensation.
> 
> As you can tell I am in favor of issue 3 and will be voting yes. I will be voting no on issue 2.
> 
> I hope this will make some of you look at the issues a little differently...
> 
> Just my opinion.


 And what about the maximum tax rate of 15%? I know a couple that have a Ohio license to make distilled spirits. 50% tax rate on the 1st dollar......

And M.J. stores only have a 5% tax. Most counties have a higher sales tax than that. I wish I only 5% tax cap on my income...

And I wonder what the personal growing license costs? You need one to grow your 4 plants.


Yes on 2 No on 3.


----------



## pokie

Snakecharmer said:


> And what about the maximum tax rate of 15%? I know a couple that have a Ohio license to make distilled spirits. 50% tax rate on the 1st dollar......
> 
> And M.J. stores only have a 5% tax. Most counties have a higher sales tax than that. I wish I only 5% tax cap on my income...
> 
> And I wonder what the personal growing license costs? You need one to grow your 4 plants.
> 
> 
> Yes on 2 No on 3.


All found money that will be used to benefit the community that was never there before.

These ten companies are going to make a lot of money if this passes but so is the entire State of Ohio.

I think I read $50 for a license to grow. 

I don't think anyone can argue that legalization of marijuana would not be beneficial economically.

By the way... The only way you will have any chance to get you personal taxes lowered would be to vote for something that would bolster taxes. More tax money (raised through issue 3) would make it possible for our personal taxes to be lowered. You might want to rethink which way you want to vote on issue 3 and 2 if you want that to happen.


----------



## Pan Fisherman

It bothers me knowing that because of issue three alot of people are going to vote no on two. I know there are alot of people in this state that can benefit greatly from issue two I also know there are going to be those that abuse the system but that comes with everything anymore. I am a proud supporter of legalizing marijuana but for me issue three has more loopholes and grey areas than normal for us to vote on. The tax rate is just laughable when considering your other so called "sin taxes" not to mention all the other backhanded hidden stuff I've learned from the creation of this thread. So my plead is to get issue two passed for those it would benefit and lets hold off for what can be a much better bill on three. Let's face it if we get two passed the actual legalization won't go away but if they both fail we might be in trouble.
Yes on 2 no on 3


----------



## Ant

Well here we go.I hate to bring this up but Im against any form of prohibition on any drugs.I think the money can be better spent on the health care side,So i am a yes on 3.The job of the government isnt to protect one from ones self.Ending prohibition would free up alot of prison money for addiction treatment.Ive had 3 good friends die from heroin all realy good people before that nasty crap got to them.I just wish they could have got help before and i think thats where our money could be better spent.


----------



## nixmkt

pokie said:


> ...These ten companies that have been formed have invested MILLIONS of dollars to get marijuana legalized and deserve to get a return on their investment. ...



No doubt they should but not with all the special advantages they’ve set up for themselves and not for perpetuity as provided in Issue 3. That argument would have much greater validity if the commercial grower market was to be opened up with certainty to a much larger degree after a restricted time period that would allow those original 10 to earn a reasonable return on their investment. Then after the market would be opened up, the original 10 should still have a profit advantage over any newcomers due to their experience in the market up to that point.




pokie said:


> All found money that will be used to benefit the community that was never there before.
> These ten companies are going to make a lot of money if this passes but so is the entire State of Ohio....



True. But if it was set up better the found money to benefit the community and the money the entire state would make would be significantly greater than the amounts Issue 3 would provide. Why settle for an unfair smaller amount just because it is a new source of revenue?


----------



## nixmkt

Ant said:


> Well here we go.I hate to bring this up but Im against any form of prohibition on any drugs.I think the money can be better spent on the health care side,So i am a yes on 3.The job of the government isnt to protect one from ones self.Ending prohibition would free up alot of prison money for addiction treatment.Ive had 3 good friends die from heroin all realy good people before that nasty crap got to them.I just wish they could have got help before and i think thats where our money could be better spent.



No problem in bringing it up but ending prohibition on all drugs is a topic for a different discussion. Many in this discussion though including myself have noted they believe marijuana should be legalized but just don’t believe Issue 3 is a good way to do it. Issue 3 is not the last chance at legalization. The tide is turning and legalization will come up again, likely in a much better format, if Issue 3 does not pass,


----------



## Snakecharmer

Ant said:


> Well here we go.I hate to bring this up but Im against any form of prohibition on any drugs.I think the money can be better spent on the health care side,So i am a yes on 3.The job of the government isnt to protect one from ones self.Ending prohibition would free up alot of prison money for addiction treatment.Ive had 3 good friends die from heroin all realy good people before that nasty crap got to them.I just wish they could have got help before and i think thats where our money could be better spent.


You're against the prohibition of Heroin but lost three friends to it? That makes no sense to me. Sorry for your loss.


----------



## FOSR

When I was writing an article involvong the chemistry of the human nervous system, I was surprised to learn that the human body naturally makes and uses cannabinoid chemicals - no wonder that stuff clicks with so many people.


----------



## flounder

I am voting no on 3 for this reason. The proposed amendment removes all zoning control from local governments so, in theory, you could end up with a city block full of nothing but marijuana business in a place like the short north in Columbus. If local businesses can regulate bars and restaurants why not marijuana businesses? I think it gives the marijuana business an unfair advantage when it comes to purchasing property for said business.

Here's the amendment language regarding zoning:

18. Providing that marijuana establishments shall be subject to all applicable state and local laws and regulations related to health, safety and building codes, including signage, but providing that no zoning, land use law, or subdivision or agricultural regulation shall prohibit the development or operation of marijuana establishments, provided that no such establishment shall be located in a district zoned exclusively residential as of 1/1/15 for MGCE facilities or the date that a license application is first filed for a MPM facility, MMD, or RMS.


----------



## Ant

Snakecharmer If treatment had been easier to obtain they may have kicked the addiction.That being said I dont know if they would have or not.But I sure wish they could have had the chance.It cost out of pocket around$ 20,000 for a 30 day program.What does it cost to incarcerate someone for that time?I dont know but maybe that money could have helped with treatment.Just my thoughts.


----------



## Snakecharmer

Ant said:


> Snakecharmer If treatment had been easier to obtain they may have kicked the addiction.That being said I dont know if they would have or not.But I sure wish they could have had the chance.It cost out of pocket around$ 20,000 for a 30 day program.What does it cost to incarcerate someone for that time?I dont know but maybe that money could have helped with treatment.Just my thoughts.


Would have been nice if amendment 3 had put is an addition 5% of the revenue goes right for drug rehab programs for the addicted instead of the pockets of the 10 LLC's....


----------



## Ant

True that


----------



## Pan Fisherman

Snakecharmer said:


> Would have been nice if amendment 3 had put is an addition 5% of the revenue goes right for drug rehab programs for the addicted instead of the pockets of the 10 LLC's....


This is a perfect example of what language could be added to a later vote if we don't rush into this thing blindly


----------



## acklac7

I'm Pro-legalization, but still undecided.

Do people actually think were going to get another shot at this? Seems to me its going to be a long, long time untill this issue comes up again.


----------



## pokie

All good information and interesting perspectives to take in to account before voting. I am not 100% decided yet and will continue to read and educate myself so I can make the best decision possible. Sounds like there should be a good turn out at the polls which will be a good thing. 

Everyone show up and vote!

Tight lines- Pokie


----------



## Snakecharmer

acklac7 said:


> I'm Pro-legalization, but still undecided.
> 
> Do people actually think were going to get another shot at this? Seems to me its going to be a long, long time untill this issue comes up again.


It took the casinos a couple tries. 1990 Spitzer Casino in Lorain - NO. 1996 Riverboats -NO. 2006Horse Track Slots -NO and 2008 Wilmington Casino - NO.


----------



## nixmkt

acklac7 said:


> ...Do people actually think were going to get another shot at this? ...



Most definitely. Polls have shown an ever increasing trend toward favoring legalization in some form. Consider opinions expressed in this thread for one example. Haven’t done any type of tally but seems those that favor legalization by Issue 3 along with those like me that favor legalization but not by the set-up of Issue 3 and those like you that favor legalization but are undecided yet about Issue 3 far outnumber those that oppose legalization overall.

If Issue 3 doesn’t pass and the Legislature doesn’t come up with something, others will see the potential profits the backers of Issue 3 envisioned and come out with other proposals, likely improving on the provisions in Issue 3, until some type of legalization occurs.


----------



## cincinnati

Does anyone think that a small group of 10 growers couldn't collude to manipulate pricing? (Big oil, big pharma, etc?) Any doubt that they couldn't manage to keep others from legally entering the business? (Lobbyists?) 

Legally regulated sales may put a dent in illegal sales but most drug dealers probably aren't paying premium wage & benefits, so they'll still be able to cut overhead & undersell the government outlets. Government operation only drives overhead upward. Examples abound.

The Ohio casino issue is the perfect example of how doggedly investors will persist to secure a piece of the action if there's money to be made. There'll be plenty of money made in legal pot sales but why rush to hand the exclusive rights over to 10 guys who had the financial wherewithal to be @ the front of the line?

If I'm king, anyone can grow for personal use & anyone who wants to sell can register, buy the license & file taxes each year. Let the free market "weed" them out.

I'm voting no on both because no law is better than a bad law.


----------



## Bassthumb

Monopolization kills competition in almost every industry out there today. When's the last time someone you know started up a bank? Or a hardware store, God knows wherever you built it you'd be about 10 miles from a Walmart. Perfect benevolent legislation doesn't get passed. Politicians are crooks and get their pockets lined and elections won with money from people that buy legislative influence that makes them money through favorable business conditions. It doesn't work any other way, this is nothing new. The pro pot movement probably saw this and constructed this deal to get funds from the wealthy prospective pot farm owners to further the movement. Looks like it worked. In a sea of injustice and corruption this deal is a drop of rain. Puff puff pass it.


----------



## Mr. A

pokie said:


> I am very interested in this topic and have done a fair amount of research on it. Here is what I think...
> 
> As far as the monopoly aspect of the conversation, I do not think issue 3 creates one. To me the word monopoly or "mono"-poly means 1. All 10 original growers and 1 more (if the original 10 can not keep up with production) will be in competition with each other and will not allow 1 grower to "corner the market". Further more, Issue 3 allows for people to grow 4 flowering plants themselves and have in possession up to 8 ounces of marijuana. This possibly creates thousands of growers that can legally grow pot (not 1 as a monopoly implies).
> 
> These ten companies that have been formed have invested MILLIONS of dollars to get marijuana legalized and deserve to get a return on their investment. If the law was written that individuals could not grow, I would NOT be in favor of it passing.
> 
> Don't forget that there are many ways to make money in the industry other than being one of the 10 or 11 growers. You can open a dispensary. Invent a product that helps in the growing of marijuana or extracting the THC. Open a restaurant or club...you get the idea, the business opportunities are endless. Trust me when I tell you that 99% of the people out there do not have the means or the expertise to be one of the growers. There are much better ways to profit from legalized marijuana then to grow it commercially to sell to dispensaries.
> 
> In fact, I like the idea of limiting the number of growers so that they can be closely regulated and taxed properly so the beneficiaries of the tax dollars will get maximum compensation.
> 
> As you can tell I am in favor of issue 3 and will be voting yes. I will be voting no on issue 2.
> 
> I hope this will make some of you look at the issues a little differently...
> 
> Just my opinion.



Issue 3 wording starts with creating an exclusive right for 10 predetermined growers. Those 10 land owners pooled their resources to be 1 entity asking for exclusive rights. Monopoly. They may have invested their money to get it passed, but that's the chance they took. If a specific number of licenses were issued, that needed to be renewed every so often, I'd go for that. And those 10 landowners would still make a killing.


----------



## Snakecharmer

cincinnati said:


> Does anyone think that a small group of 10 growers couldn't collude to manipulate pricing? (Big oil, big pharma, etc?) Any doubt that they couldn't manage to keep others from legally entering the business? (Lobbyists?)
> 
> Legally regulated sales may put a dent in illegal sales but most drug dealers probably aren't paying premium wage & benefits, so they'll still be able to cut overhead & undersell the government outlets. Government operation only drives overhead upward. Examples abound.
> 
> The Ohio casino issue is the perfect example of how doggedly investors will persist to secure a piece of the action if there's money to be made. There'll be plenty of money made in legal pot sales but why rush to hand the exclusive rights over to 10 guys who had the financial wherewithal to be @ the front of the line?
> 
> If I'm king, anyone can grow for personal use & anyone who wants to sell can register, buy the license & file taxes each year. Let the free market "weed" them out.
> 
> I'm voting no on both because no law is better than a bad law.


I'm interested in your rationale against #2.


----------



## ostbucks98

I dont even smoke weed and i know of atleast 20 people i can buy some off of or hell they would probably just give it to me. You really care about a monopoly??? Lmao...crying about a WEED monopoly...lol


----------



## buckeyebowman

ostbucks98 said:


> I dont even smoke weed and i know of atleast 20 people i can buy some off of or hell they would probably just give it to me. You really care about a monopoly??? Lmao...crying about a WEED monopoly...lol


Where were these people when E-Check was being debated? Not only did the state legislature guarantee them a monopoly, they guaranteed them a profit! BTW, is E-Check still around? It never made it to my part of the state (thank God!), and I haven't heard much about it lately.


----------



## laynhardwood

It's free now unless you fail three times. It is the same old thing I think all the weed smokers are quiet unless a conversation deals with weed. I live in Lorain county and e check is basically a joke.


----------



## cincinnati

E-check dead in southwest Ohio. Lots of fancy brick garages for sale/rent.


----------



## Lundy

pokie said:


> These ten companies that have been formed have invested MILLIONS of dollars to get marijuana legalized and *deserve* to get a return on their investment.


"deserve"? I don't think so.

The may or may not realize a return on their investment but deserving should have nothing to do with what ever the outcome.

Personally I don't care what happens either way with the legalization, it will have no impact on me or my family but the 10 company plan in Issue 3 is a huge farce. Anyone should be able to grow and market. We have a FDA for that very reason. No one tells me I can only purchase my tomatoes or corn or chickens or steaks or beer or cars, or guns or computers, or gasoline, or cigarettes, or clothes, or fishing lures,etc, etc, etc from only one of 10 designated growers or manufacturers. If this was enacted in the beer industry there would be NO micro breweries, they would not be permitted.

Seems like so many are so excited at the prospect of legalization that they willing to close their eyes to everything else to achieve the end.


----------



## Roscoe

acklac7 said:


> I'm Pro-legalization, but still undecided.
> 
> Do people actually think were going to get another shot at this? Seems to me its going to be a long, long time untill this issue comes up again.


I tend to agree with you. This might be the only chance for awhile. Get what you can.


Roscoe


----------



## ostbucks98

I think that most weed smokers dont care who the ten commercial companies are because they wont be buying from them.


----------



## pokie

[QUOTE="Lundy, post: 2

Maybe I should have said "deserve the opportunity". 

Personally I don't care what happens either way with the legalization, it will have no impact on me or my family but the 10 company plan in Issue 3 is a huge farce. Anyone should be able to grow and market. We have a FDA for that very reason. No one tells me I can only purchase my tomatoes or corn or chickens or steaks or beer or cars, or guns or computers, or gasoline, or cigarettes, or clothes, or fishing lures,etc, etc, etc from only one of 10 designated growers or manufacturers. If this was enacted in the beer industry there would be NO micro breweries, they would not be permitted.

I don't want anything that you stated above. I LOVE Microbrews and corn!!!!  But like I said earlier, I wouldn't mind the numbers of growers to be limited. Casinos exist in Ohio and this hasn't happened. I don't think it will happen if Ohio had a limited number of growers in this industry. 

Not closing my eyes...actually trying to look at the issue from many different angles and viewpoints. Thanks for sharing yours...



Seems like so many are so excited at the prospect of legalization that they willing to close their eyes to everything else to achieve the end.[/QUOTE]legalization, it will have no


----------



## nixmkt

Lundy said:


> "deserve"? I don't think so.
> 
> The may or may not realize a return on their investment but deserving should have nothing to do with what ever the outcome....



Don’t believe “deserve” in the context of the response was that bad and “deserve the opportunity” is even better. As noted earlier, believe that someone putting up money toward getting such an issue on the ballot is justified in crafting the proposal to provide a reasonable return on their investment if it would pass. But also believe that the backers of Issue 3 have drastically overreached in crafting Issue 3 to be wildly monetarily rewarding for themselves many times over compared to the proposed benefits to society and the strict limitations it imposes for society to control or adjust those backer’s continuing rewards.




Lundy said:


> ...Seems like so many are so excited at the prospect of legalization that they willing to close their eyes to everything else to achieve the end.



And afraid that is why it could pass. As has been indicated in this discussion, many only care about their own individual pleasures and satisfactions. As long as they will be able to have their weed without fear of getting arrested, they’re not concerned with the overall picture and don’t want to be bothered with contemplating any of those other type of potential problems. But when complications do show up down the road, they will be astonished and saying “How did this happen????”.



.


----------



## KaGee

Lundy said:


> Seems like so many are so excited at the prospect of legalization that they willing to close their eyes to everything else to achieve the end.


Truth!


----------



## ostbucks98

The ten companies will probably be out of business in a couple years regardless.


----------



## Snakecharmer

ostbucks98 said:


> The ten companies will probably be out of business in a couple years regardless.


And if that happens, does that mean there will not be a legal company to sell MJ?


----------



## ducman491

nixmkt said:


> But when complications do show up down the road, they will be astonished and saying “How did this happen????”.
> 
> .


There are so many things that have been passed in this country in the last few years that in a 10 years people are going to say what the hell happened. The people responsible will absolutely not take the blame for it.


----------



## buckeyebowman

ducman491 said:


> There are so many things that have been passed in this country in the last few years that in a 10 years people are going to say what the hell happened. The people responsible will absolutely not take the blame for it.


The people who will be responsible for it, should it pass, would be the voters who voted for it. And you're right! They will never take responsibility for their own actions!


----------



## ducman491

I'm talking about things that we as voters didn't get to vote on but it would take us too far down the political road to expand.


----------



## geoffoquinn

If pot is a gateway drug somebody better tell Willy Nelson one of these days he's going to be in trouble. Yes on 3! There will be 10 companies in the beginning but the state can issue as many commercial permits as it wishes.


----------



## nixmkt

geoffoquinn said:


> ...There will be 10 companies in the beginning but the state can issue as many commercial permits as it wishes.



How so? The language of Issue 3 only allows for those initial 10 with the possibility of only 1 more after four years if those initial 10 can't meet demand. If there are any provisions in Issue 3 to allow any others EVER, what and where are those provisions?


----------



## nixmkt

Buick Riviera said:


> Issue 2 langjuage: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2015/2-language.pdf
> 
> Issue 3 language: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2015/3-language.pdf
> 
> Thanks for all the informative posts. Personally, voting yes on both 2 & 3 and letting the Supreme Court sort it out.



While informative and helpful, those links only have the actual ballot language. This link has the Ballot Language, Explanations, Arguments For and Against, and the Full Text of Issues 1, 2 & 3. Hopefully it will be even more helpful.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2015/2015IssuesReport.pdf


----------



## laynhardwood

Lundy said:


> "deserve"? I don't think so.
> 
> The may or may not realize a return on their investment but deserving should have nothing to do with what ever the outcome.
> 
> Personally I don't care what happens either way with the legalization, it will have no impact on me or my family but the 10 company plan in Issue 3 is a huge farce. Anyone should be able to grow and market. We have a FDA for that very reason. No one tells me I can only purchase my tomatoes or corn or chickens or steaks or beer or cars, or guns or computers, or gasoline, or cigarettes, or clothes, or fishing lures,etc, etc, etc from only one of 10 designated growers or manufacturers. If this was enacted in the beer industry there would be NO micro breweries, they would not be permitted.
> 
> Seems like so many are so excited at the prospect of legalization that they willing to close their eyes to everything else to achieve the end.


Well said sir you know what your talking about


----------



## streamstalker

I don't have to read past the first three words of the ballot language to know how I am voting: 
*
GRANTS A MONOPOLY*


----------



## FISHIN216

Just lol at all these people crying about a WEED monopoly. Smoked for years. I can't believe how many people I meet and I'm talking older respectable intelligent adults who toke regularly. Let's just end the madness. Could care less about the rich getting richer. In the long run it does not effect my life. But if i did decide to smoke a joint in my living room it could. If you don't see the problem with that you are the problem. Also never tried hard drugs and never had a "dealer" try to push any other drug on me. Yes on 3 No on 2


----------



## glasseyes

That is probably why the issue will pass, sad to say but the pot smokers could care less about anything else this issue could mean, they just want to smoke their WEED.


----------



## ostbucks98

Because they are gonna keep smoking weed regardless. Why not make it legal? The people who grow pot are still gonna grow pot. And 10 companies are not a monopoly...fyi.


How many times have you seen a dry township vote and approve for an establishment to have a liquor license? Usually the vote is to allow only one place and most of the time passes


----------



## Saugeyefisher

glasseyes said:


> That is probably why the issue will pass, sad to say but the pot smokers could care less about anything else this issue could mean, they just want to smoke their WEED.


 so not tue glass eyes... have you read all the posts? Theres plenty on here alone that wanna see leagleization but not the way its trying to be voted in now.
Just like any subject on ogf,people are divided in there desision.


----------



## pokie

There are plenty of important reasons why voters want to see issue 3 pass besides "potheads wanting to smoke their weed". Let me remind you of a few of them.

1. Medical purposes -People in need of this drug will be able to access it to improve the quality of their lives. Do you want to have to tell a child or parent or patient that something that it proven to help them is not available legally?
2. Economic purposes- It is hard to argue that legalization will not be significantly beneficial to our economy.
3. Personal freedoms- This will be a huge step in the right direction
4. Decriminalization- Our society and law enforcement can focus on more important things. We can open up a lot of space and money in our prisons.

It is proving that it takes a special interest group to write a ballot initiative to get this done. Our legislature has failed us and will continue to fail us on the legalization of marijuana. If they wanted to propose something better they could have but have not up to this point! 

If issue 3 does not pass I hope the State of Ohio takes notes and structure a better deal SOON for its citizens or another special interest group writes a "better" proposal.

It is obvious what the people want! Get it done Ohio. The people can't and don't want to wait any longer!

Yes on 3 No on 2!


----------



## glasseyes

Yes I have read the posts, I had made a comment earlier and stand by it, it,s still a drug, nothing good comes from it . There will be no argument here that will convince me that it is good for ones health as being used for recreational use. I do understand for medical reasons there are some good uses, but as with all drugs there will be side effects. I would vote yes for medical use only. I know most or all here don't agree with my moral reasons for saying no to the drug and that's their choice, I'm just voicing my opinion like others and still believe that those that enjoy their weed really don't care about the issues that go along with it.


----------



## pokie

glasseyes said:


> Yes I have read the posts, I had made a comment earlier and stand by it, it,s still a drug, nothing good comes from it . There will be no argument here that will convince me that it is good for ones health as being used for recreational use. I do understand for medical reasons there are some good uses, but as with all drugs there will be side effects. I would vote yes for medical use only. I know most or all here don't agree with my moral reasons for saying no to the drug and that's their choice, I'm just voicing my opinion like others and still believe that those that enjoy their weed really don't care about the issues that go along with it. As long


I respect your opinion and everyone else that has offered one. It can only be beneficial to discuss the topic and understand the different views.

Tight lines


----------



## nixmkt

pokie said:


> I respect your opinion and everyone else that has offered one. It can only be beneficial to discuss the topic and understand the opposing views. ...



So true! The more points that are presented provide for a better conclusion.


----------



## KaGee

pokie said:


> There are plenty of important reasons why voters want to see issue 3 pass besides "potheads wanting to smoke their weed". Let me remind you of a few of them.
> 
> 1. Medical purposes -People in need of this drug will be able to access it to improve the quality of their lives. Do you want to have to tell a child or parent or patient that something that it proven to help them is not available legally?
> 2. Economic purposes- It is hard to argue that legalization will not be significantly beneficial to our economy.
> 3. Personal freedoms- This will be a huge step in the right direction
> 4. Decriminalization- Our society and law enforcement can focus on more important things. We can open up a lot of space and money in our prisons.


1. In Colorado, medical sales are less than half. Easy access to "edibles" has led to increased fatalities due to over dose. Children have died as a result.
2. Who benefits? Colorado has to now defend itself in lawsuits filed by adjoining states at great cost.
3. How? You will still be limited in the amount of the substance in your possession and how many plants you can grow.
4. Another straw dog. Prisons in Colorado are still as populated and law enforcement is more overloaded due to increased gang activity and the black market. "Legal" pot is way more expensive, illegal dealers are thriving.

Toledo voters recently voted to decriminalize possession under a certain amount. It will have to withstand a court challenge most likely.


----------



## nixmkt

ostbucks98 said:


> Because they are gonna keep smoking weed regardless. Why not make it legal? ...



“Why not make it legal?” is an oversimplification. Many of those objecting to Issue 3 do want to make it legal only not by the provisions of Issue 3. Issue 3 just has way too many inadequacies, complications, potentials problems, etc., several of which have already been mentioned. Myself and others are merely saying it will be better to wait a little longer and make it legal in a manner that is much more beneficial overall. Issue 3 should be a wake-up call for the Legislature to come up with some form of legalization without the pitfalls of Issue 3, but it likely may take another ballot initiative. Issue 3 is not the last chance option to make it legal. Just the first.



.


----------



## pokie

nixmkt said:


> “Why not make it legal?” is an oversimplification. Many of those objecting to Issue 3 do want to make it legal only not by the provisions of Issue 3. Issue 3 just has way too many inadequacies, complications, potentials problems, etc., several of which have already been mentioned. Myself and others are merely saying it will be better to wait a little longer and make it legal in a manner that is much more beneficial overall. Issue 3 should be a wake-up call for the Legislature to come up with some form of legalization without the pitfalls of Issue 3, but it likely may take another ballot initiative. Issue 3 is not the last chance option to make it legal. Just the first.
> 
> 
> 
> .


It's a complicated issue isn't it 

The thing that I am having a hard time getting over is the fact that the 10 LLC's will be written into the Ohio Constitution. Not the fact that it is 10 but that they are specifically named. This is the 1 "pitfall" that my sway my vote. 

Like I said in an earlier post I am not 100% decided.

My purpose in these posts is to educate myself and provide different viewpoints for discussion. Let the individual cast their final vote for what works for them. 

For now... still yes on 3 and no on 2


----------



## goolies

I'm leaning towards no on 3 and no on 2. I believe personal use of Marijuana should be legal, but not at the expense of making 10 LLC's rich. I also believe the federal government needs to ease the banking regulations in regards to this industry. Having these companies do business strictly in cash provides too many opportunities for criminal activity.


----------



## boatnut

I have not read all the threads, but based on my limited research, I will probably vote yes on 2 and no on 3. I'm against monopolies not pot. We need a better way to do it then 3.


----------



## pokie

goolies said:


> I'm leaning towards no on 3 and no on 2. I believe personal use of Marijuana should be legal, but not at the expense of making 10 LLC's rich. I also believe the federal government needs to ease the banking regulations in regards to this industry. Having these companies do business strictly in cash provides too many opportunities for criminal activity.


Very good point about the federal banking regulations. One that has not been mentioned a lot in this thread.


----------



## goolies

Payroll, taxes, and B2B transactions are all in cash. That is a lot of cash.


----------



## Slatebar

It seems to me that this has JobsOhio written all over it.. They got control of our alcohol and what else no one will ever know. So why not turn the pot over to them too.


----------



## kayak1979

Just legalize it so we have less people going crazy trying synthetic marijuana like K2 or spice etc.

Do a search in YouTube for "Old man freaks out on synthetic cannabis" and you'll see what I'm talking about.


----------



## perpetrator

The Govt has a patent on cannabis as a therapeutic, they have been sending it to a few select patients under the Federal Investigative New Drug Program for around 30 + years,it's grown , rolled , packaged and sent from the University of Mississippi. ......but yet they want to keep it from the rest of the people.
Cannabis used to be prescribed by doctors up until the late 1930s,it was listed in the US parmacopia as well. William Randolph Hurst, a owner of paper mills and newspaper printing, was going to have to spend a boatload of money to convert from paper to hemp fibers for his business conjured up the propaganda that blacks and Mexicans were smoking Marijuana and rapeing white women,so it was put forth to the people to vote against Marijuana, it passed,the people did not realize Marijuana and hemp was basically the same thing,therfore Hurst got his wish and paper has been a staple ever since and Marijuana has been illegal circa 1937........research it folks cannabis is not as bad as yall think it is..dont believe thier hype !! It does far more god than bad.


----------



## buckeyebowman

I was just reminded about the old quote often attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but that may be apocryphal. It goes like this; "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." I think the same could be said about marijuana. 

Think about it in a bio-physiological context. Why are there receptor cells in our brains that are accommodating to the psychoactive compounds in cannabinoids and opioids? Not to mention alcohol, cocaine, amphetamines, sedatives, etc., etc., etc.! Why are they there in the first place?

There are cultures in this world where they have found out that the secretions of the skins of certain toads will get you high. Man! You have to be pretty desperate for a buzz to resort to that! When you think about it, from the development of beer brewing and wine making in ancient Egypt some 5,000 years ago, a large segment of mankind has been in search of an intoxicating experience.

As Hugh Johnson wrote in his seminal work, "The World Atlas of Wine" the initial interest in wine was not for how it tasted, or how well it aged, or for how it accompanied certain foods, but for it's alcohol and the effect it induced! As he put it, it was for "a relief from care!" 

Well, just how much relief from care one needs seems to be a large part of the issue here. If you wish to be completely "care less" you're going to have a problem in the larger society. If you wish to simply "decompress" after a hard days work, probably no one will squeak.


----------



## laynhardwood

Yes on 2 no on 3


----------



## nixmkt

Saw t.v. ads tonight by the backers of Issue 3 that claim Ohio will lose jobs to adjoining states if Issue 3 does not pass. That appears to be just pure distortion and misleading characterization of the actual situation. Can anyone provide any clarification, justification or explanation that it isn’t?


----------



## geoffoquinn

I'm switching my stance on issue 3. No on 3 and 2! There are better initiatives to come in 16'


----------



## Ant

Just remember the pot is gona be there no matter how you vote!


----------



## buckeyebowman

KaGee said:


> 1. In Colorado, medical sales are less than half. Easy access to "edibles" has led to increased fatalities due to over dose. Children have died as a result.
> 2. Who benefits? Colorado has to now defend itself in lawsuits filed by adjoining states at great cost.
> 3. How? You will still be limited in the amount of the substance in your possession and how many plants you can grow.
> 4. Another straw dog. Prisons in Colorado are still as populated and law enforcement is more overloaded due to increased gang activity and the black market. "Legal" pot is way more expensive, illegal dealers are thriving.
> 
> Toledo voters recently voted to decriminalize possession under a certain amount. It will have to withstand a court challenge most likely.


1. OK, so there ARE medical sales. And the fact that they are less than half is really not surprising. If you could instantly analyze everyone's health in Colorado, I think that you would find the vast majority of them are not ill! The vast majority of them are not suffering from chronic pain, or the nausea and lack of appetite from chemotherapy. The vast majority of people just aren't sick, no matter what Big Pharma tries to tell us! And let's not overlook their role in this. They have an axe to grind. As far as edibles go, I don't think the dispensaries should sell those, just the basic plant material. If the purchaser wants to make brownies, that's on them.

2.Who are these states that are suing Colorado, and what are they suing for? A little more detail would help. One question I haven't seen answered is, if Issue 3 passes, can out of staters come to Ohio and purchase pot? I would hope not. You should have to present a valid Ohio ID to purchase. But given how some people screech about presenting a valid ID for such an important thing as casting a ballot, one has to wonder!

3. Again, not surprising. Are you growing for personal use? If so, how many plants do you need?

4. Of course the effect on the prison population would not be immediate, nor should it be. What is the increased gang activity about? Could it be like dogs fighting over scraps? As far as the "black market" goes, welcome to our current reality! Kind of amazing how Colorado set a record for legal sales, and yet the illegal dealers are thriving? Colorado must have the most booming economy on the entire planet! Of course, illegal dealers only sell pot, right? And just what was the price of illegal pot before it was available legally?



geoffoquinn said:


> I'm switching my stance on issue 3. No on 3 and 2! There are better initiatives to come in 16'


I'm interested to know what these "better initiatives" are. While I'm pro-legalization, I'm not completely sold on Issue 3, and I can't see any way I'd vote yes on 2. It just seems to be the way things get done now. And it's by no means something all that new. Do any of you "anti-monopoly" folks have cable? And do you have any choice in who you get your cable service from?


----------



## KaGee

buckeyebowman said:


> ...Who are these states that are suing Colorado, and what are they suing for? A little more detail would help.
> 
> ... Of course the effect on the prison population would not be immediate, nor should it be. What is the increased gang activity about? Could it be like dogs fighting over scraps? As far as the "black market" goes, welcome to our current reality! Kind of amazing how Colorado set a record for legal sales, and yet the illegal dealers are thriving? Colorado must have the most booming economy on the entire planet! Of course, illegal dealers only sell pot, right? And just what was the price of illegal pot before it was available legally?


The information I gave is readily accessible via Google search to anyone who truly wants to know.


----------



## Stars-n-Stripers

Well looky there, Nick Lachey, front and center on the "why it would be good for Ohio" commercials, would be part of the ownership monopoly. I'm definitely voting against it now.

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/this-tuesday-nick-lachey-stands-to-become-one-of-182527751.html


----------



## laynhardwood

Stars-n-Stripers said:


> Well looky there, Nick Lachey, front and center on the "why it would be good for Ohio" commercials, would be part of the ownership monopoly. I'm definitely voting against it now.
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/this-tuesday-nick-lachey-stands-to-become-one-of-182527751.html


That's like the nail in the coffin


----------



## Fishin Finatic

FYI:
The amendment would create 10 Marijuana Growth, Cultivation and Extraction (MGCE) facilities. These 10 facilities would have exclusive rights to commercial production. Each MGCE facility has at least one investor, some of whom are local celebrities: 

Former 98 Degrees singer Nick Lachey
Former Cincinnati Bengals defensive end Frostee Rucker
Dayton pain specialist Suresh Gupta
WEBN radio host Frank Wood
Barbara Gould, a philanthropist based in Indian Hill
University of Cincinnati basketball star Oscar Robertson
Paul Heldman, former general counsel of The Kroger Co.
Woody Taft, a descendant of President William Howard Taft

Ian James, the head of the ResponsibleOhio campaign in support of the amendment, required each investor to give $2 million to the campaign to get Issue 3 on the ballot. He also hired real estate agents to find 10 properties capable of industrial indoor marijuana production. Cincinnati financier James Gould played a large role in investor recruiting.


----------



## Lundy

A group of investors that would have a monopoly, as THEY wrote the initiative, on pot production and marketing are anxiously watching the vote to find out if they become over night multi, multi millionaires.

Is this a pot legalization initiative by investors that see the need for legalization for reasons other than personal financial gain or a money driven group seizing an opportunity. Follow the money!

Had this been written without the restrictions on growers and marketing I'm guessing it would have been much more about the legalization of pot it self and probably would stand a much better chance of passing.

Has Nick Lachey EVER made any statement about the need to legalize pot in Ohio prior to becoming an investor that would make millions and millions is it passes?


----------



## laynhardwood

Lundy said:


> A group of investors that would have a monopoly, as THEY wrote the initiative, on pot production and marketing are anxiously watching the vote to find out if they become over night multi, multi millionaires.
> 
> Is this a pot legalization initiative by investors that see the need for legalization for reasons other than personal financial gain or a money driven group seizing an opportunity. Follow the money!
> 
> Had this been written without the restrictions on growers and marketing I'm guessing it would have been much more about the legalization of pot it self and probably would stand a much better chance of passing.
> 
> Has Nick Lachey EVER made any statement about the need to legalize pot in Ohio prior to becoming an investor that would make millions and millions is it passes?


It's ridiculous and people will just blindly vote thinking it's only about the legalization of pot.


----------



## K gonefishin

KaGee said:


> The information I gave is readily accessible via Google search to anyone who truly wants to know.


I read it on the internet so it must be true! My favorite part was kids oding on edibles...Yeah okay.


----------



## streamstalker

laynhardwood said:


> Yes on 2 no on 3


NO on both. Issue 2 is just another law protecting the people from themselves.


----------



## kayak1979

Obviously everyone here needs an illegal smile


----------



## laynhardwood

Children's hospitals have seen a spike in dealing with kids eating edibles and it's a scary thought. If it was your child one is too many don't act like just because it's only a small amount of children it's no big deal. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_2...sees-surge-kids-accidentally-eating-marijuana edibles are being mistakenly eaten by small children.


----------



## Ant

Well Laynhardwood .If you watch younguns you wont have that problem


----------



## laynhardwood

What does young guns have to do with kids eating mislabeled edible marijuana


----------



## laynhardwood

I'm not against marijuana at all. I am against it falling into the wrong hands aka children. I smoked for over 15 years before I stopped. I am against changing the states constitution to allow some rich people to monopolize a marijuana growing industry that should be a free market after all that's what this country is based on. I think it should be legal but at what cost?


----------



## beaver

He means if you watch and educate your kids, they don't get into your stash of edibles. I keep beer in my fridge and guns in my house. I have 4 young children. I've never worried about them consuming alcohol or having a firearm accident. When they were little, I kept an eye on them. When they got a little older, I educated tbem.

I don't smoke or use Marijuana but I'm not against it. I'm against the wording of issue 3 though. Legalize it, no need for restrictions.


----------



## Big Chief

Is 10 a monopoly?? I wish there were 10 different pick up trucks I could buy?? I am currently looking to buy a new one, but there's only 3-4 different makers!! Hmmmm
We live with all kinds of monopoly but now 10 smoke joints is absurd!! No on 2 yes on 3


----------



## OnTheFly

Issue 3 is sketch. Money grubers wrote it. I am all for the idea but this is the absolute wrong way to go about it.


----------



## OnTheFly

Manufacturing cars and growing plants... slighty different barriers to entry and business models. Probably not the best comparison.


----------



## beaver

More government = more problems. I really can't fathom how we as a society can't grasp that.


----------



## Dovans

Just read my union newsletter and they are telling me to vote no on issue 2 and vote yes on issue 3. Unions never wrong.. so theres my vote


----------



## laynhardwood

beaver said:


> He means if you watch and educate your kids, they don't get into your stash of edibles. I keep beer in my fridge and guns in my house. I have 4 young children. I've never worried about them consuming alcohol or having a firearm accident. When they were little, I kept an eye on them. When they got a little older, I educated tbem.
> 
> I don't smoke or use Marijuana but I'm not against it. I'm against the wording of issue 3 though. Legalize it, no need for restrictions.


Your naive to think accidents don't happen those kids didn't purposely eat edibles. The edibles look like suckers or hard candy not a can of beer clearly labeled. Your telling me your little kids would see a sucker and think oh that's dads weed better find something else to snack on


----------



## Pan Fisherman

Big Chief said:


> Is 10 a monopoly?? I wish there were 10 different pick up trucks I could buy?? I am currently looking to buy a new one, but there's only 3-4 different makers!! Hmmmm
> We live with all kinds of monopoly but now 10 smoke joints is absurd!! No on 2 yes on 3


The problem is it's not 10 companies its only one with 10 growers...


----------



## laynhardwood

Big Chief said:


> Is 10 a monopoly?? I wish there were 10 different pick up trucks I could buy?? I am currently looking to buy a new one, but there's only 3-4 different makers!! Hmmmm
> We live with all kinds of monopoly but now 10 smoke joints is absurd!! No on 2 yes on 3


If another car company wanted to open up it could that's a free market. Just because there are only a limited number of choices doesn't mean that's all that's possible. In the old days there used to be hundreds of auto manufactures they just didn't make it because they could not compete. Anybody who wants to start an automobile company could but it is a tough business to get into but it is a free market. The difference is simple only ten growers are ever going to be allowed not anybody can grow and legally sell. If you want to open a grow house you won't even have the option. You could however start your own line of trucks legally.


----------



## All Thumbs

the kids are already eating the detergent pacs/pods, soon we won't be able to wash clothes. down to monopolies but go ahead and shop for a good cable company. I was around when Ma Bell was broke up because it was a monopoly, never had a phone bill that cheap again.

Yes these investors are looking for a good return on their money, but they could be also thinking that this is a good thing for ohio and giving more support than most of us are doing. I do not understand this thing about Nick Lachey and automatically voting against the cause. I googled him and he is not a known child molester nor a "Rupert Murdoch" or "Bernie Madoff". he does not support Hitler or no ties to "Charlie Manson" except being from Cincinnati, I am just wondering if i should vote no also because of former Cincinnati Bengals defensive end Frostee Rucker being an investor and I have hated the Bengals forever, that makes sense. I have now joined the 1% that do not know what we are talking about (but express it loud and long) and voting by using anything but my brain.


----------



## nixmkt

All Thumbs said:


> the kids are already eating the detergent pacs/pods, soon we won't be able to wash clothes. ...



That comment is just overly sarcastic and way too dismissive. Not being allowed to wash clothes will never happen but even the most watched-over children sometimes still have accidents. Hopefully though, similar to prescription medications, those detergent pods/pacs will be available in childproof packaging to help reduce those accidents. And just like prescriptions, you would still be able to obtain them without childproof packaging if you don’t have little children around to be concerned about.


----------



## nixmkt

All Thumbs said:


> ...down to monopolies but go ahead and shop for a good cable company. I was around when Ma Bell was broke up because it was a monopoly, never had a phone bill that cheap again.
> ... I have now joined the 1% that do not know what we are talking about (but express it loud and long) and voting by using anything but my brain.



Do you really know what you are talking about? Have you read the ENTIRE text of Issue 3? A link to that is in post #150. Even if you don’t care about the monopoly, how about the many other potential problems with Issue 3? What about the special low tax rates that Snakecharmer noted in post #112? Or how about the local zoning control restrictions that flounder noted in post #120? How can you not be concerned about Issue 3 being written into the state Constitution and being extremely difficult, to the point of almost next to impossible to change or correct when any problems actually do come up later? Issue 3 is just not a good way to get legalization.



.


----------



## CPK

I'd love to see this so-called proof that people are 'overdosing' on thc edibles in Colorado...... Actual proof. Not hey I google searched and saw this...


----------



## nixmkt

CPK said:


> I'd love to see this so-called proof that people are 'overdosing' on thc edibles in Colorado...... Actual proof. Not hey I google searched and saw this...



Laynhardwood provided a link in post #186 to a Denver Post newspaper article about it. How much further proof do you need?


----------



## Lundy

All Thumbs said:


> . I have now joined the 1% that do not know what we are talking about (but express it loud and long) and voting by using anything but my brain.


I would agree


----------



## beaver

Yes I think a small child would see a sucker and eat it. However, as a responsible parent, I wouldn't have it laying around where a kid could get to it. 

I'm a huge fan of personal liberties and consequences. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. It's that simple. 

I'm not really sure how you can overdose on Marijuana, but oh well. You can overdose on a lot of things that we all regularly keep and use around the house. It's called being responsible. If you aren't responsible and you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. It's life, stuff happens, deal with it. 

Nothing is ever going to be perfect, that's a guarantee. That stands even more true when the government is involved.


----------



## glasseyes

I just think its kind of ironic to mention being responsible and the use of pot in the same paragraph, of course I'm completely against the use of it to start with.


----------



## beaver

Let me guess, you're also completely against alchohol , fireaems, fast cars, cleaning chemicals, etc. Because if not, that's a pretty hypocritical statement. All of the above mentioned can cause a lot of damage if not used responsibly, yet are a staple of day to day life for responsible adults. 

I don't use it, and won't use it if it becomes legal. However, who am I to tell someone else that they cant or shouldnt?


----------



## glasseyes

Ya I know my comment was a little hypocritical but I guess the way things have been going in this country and the more and more liberal things become it just makes me crazy to think what my grand kids are going to have to face 20-30 years from now. I know 40 years ago if someone was to tell me what it would be like in the year 2015 I would never have believed them .
Point is drugs are not good in this manner for ones health alcohol for that matter either, no I don't do either . I did as a youngster but grew out of it and matured. And I do not mind one bit giving advice to another on the harm they might do to themselves by doing such things. Just because its legal does not mean its good for you. I've had family members that were addicts and a father that was an alcoholic . I know first hand what they do. I really don't care that people say that pot does not lead to stronger drugs, that may be true for some but for a lot of others it happens. Anyway the whole argument for why people want it legal is either they like to smoke it and get high or they are on the economical side to gain from it, all the rest of the arguments for it are just excuses for those two things. If not then just to vote this idiotic thing to be legal to say it gives someone the right to do harm to their self makes no sense at all.


----------



## beaver

It does make sense because it's personal liberty. People have the right to make those choices. I can drink a beer or two with dinner occasionally and enjoy them without destroying my body, just like their are people who can use pot occasionally without being addicts. Why should people be told that they can responsibly use personal liberty because other irresponsible people can't control themselves. It's all about being responsible for your own actions. 

I used smokeless tobacco for years. I knew that it wasnt good for me, but that was my choice. When I had kids, I made a choice to quit using it, and I did. Now that doesn't mean that I'm going to vote for a law to take someone else's right to do so away, and it also doesn't mean I'm going to feel sorry for them when their health is effected by it. 

Unless they're living under a rock, there is nobody around that doesn't know that abusing alchohol, tobacco, drugs, etc. Is bad for you. So therefore, if they conciously make the choice to abuse such products, they have to deal with the consequences.


----------



## CPK

nixmkt said:


> Laynhardwood provided a link in post #186 to a Denver Post newspaper article about it. How much further proof do you need?


Please tell me how many kids have actually died from overdosing on thc.... The article doesn't say anything about fatalities. Said one kid had a little trouble breathing. 
Now on the other hand how many times have we heard of kids actually dying from consuming too much caffeine. 

Please show me proof of a direct fatality involving overdose of thc. Anywhere in history. Any age. You cannot find it I promise.


----------



## ostbucks98

Weed is a pretty effective pain killer for many as well.


----------



## beaver

That's a good point. As I have stated earlier, I'm not a recreational user and have no intention to be. However, given the choice of a synthetic narcotic pain medication or a natural plant, if I ever needed it I'd take the plant every time.


----------



## KaGee

CPK said:


> Please tell me how many kids have actually died from overdosing on thc.... The article doesn't say anything about fatalities. Said one kid had a little trouble breathing.
> Now on the other hand how many times have we heard of kids actually dying from consuming too much caffeine.
> 
> Please show me proof of a direct fatality involving overdose of thc. Anywhere in history. Any age. You cannot find it I promise.


This took me less than a minute to find...


> According to the _*Arizona Department of Health Services*_, in a study that examines all deaths in Arizona of children under the age of 18, a disturbing number of child deaths resulted from substance use. It was linked to the deaths of 128 of Arizona's children in 2013.
> 
> Guess which substance was the most prevalent? Not alcohol, not methamphetamine (although they were close seconds), but marijuana.* In 2013, marijuana use was associated with the tragic and needless deaths of 62 children in Arizona.*


http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2015/06/15/safe-pot-tell-kids-died/71267330/
Written by Sheila Polk, the Yavapai County AZ Attorney.


----------



## beaver

How exactly was it "associated" with those deaths?


----------



## CPK

Associated could mean killed by intoxicated driver. Cmon.


----------



## CPK

Look at this. From a .gov website. Teens.drugabuse.gov 
Also took me less than a minute to find. The level of thc ng/ml needed to actually die from a thc overdose is astronomical. For the ignorant, that is the tetrahydrocannabinol nanograms per mL. This is what is tested for during a standard drug test. There is no way that you could stay awake long enough to consume the needed amount for an actual overdose death. I know that facts and science scare people that resort to google to fuel their arguments.


----------



## glasseyes

KaGee, I don't think it would make any difference what kind of proof you could find and show . Those that want this drug legalized will vote for it no matter what.


----------



## KaGee

Denial.... it's more than a river in Egypt.


----------



## CPK

http://dailycurrant.com/2014/01/02/...-37-in-colorado-on-first-day-of-legalization/

Check out this article that can be found on Google also. 37 people died of weed overdose the first day it was legal haha I'm sure.


----------



## CPK

glasseyes said:


> KaGee, I don't think it would make any difference what kind of proof you could find and show . Those that want this drug legalized will vote for it no matter what.


This statement could hold true for both sides of any issue ever brought to ballot.


----------



## KaGee

beaver said:


> How exactly was it "associated" with those deaths?


From: http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/owch/pdf/cfr/20th-annual-child-fatality-review-report-nov-2013.pdf


> There were 121 deaths associated with substance use in 2012, a decrease from
> the215 deaths associated with substance use in 2011.
> A child’s death would be considered “associated with substance use” if the child or the child’s parent or caretaker, or the person responsible for the incident leading to the death,
> abused substances. Deaths associated with substances included illegal drugs, prescription
> drugs and/or alcohol. Alcohol is the most commonly used substance associated with a
> child's death in Arizona, followed by marijuana use and methamphetamine use.
> Substance abuse was associated with deaths of children due to accidents,
> homicide, suicide,and maltreatment


It's posted on the internet, it must be true.


----------



## CPK

Still not from overdose. It's undeniable that there will be deaths associated with it. There was a thread on here the other day with some figures about people dying while fishing. We should make driving with a child in the car illegal because there are a lot of deaths associated with vehicles and kids.


----------



## CPK

So those can see the table explaining the 121 deaths that you quoted...


----------



## FAB

The problems as I see them

The concern is much more than what can this drug do to you it is also the following:

1. The federal government has not legalized the sale or use of the drug and as such it remains a scheduled substance on the feds books.

2. If you are involved in any form of interstate transportation subject to the over site of the NTSB, the ICC or the FRA. then you are subject to testing for the drug in the event of an accident, event or notable occurrence which may violate any rule.

3. If your employer has established a drug free work place (which most have) and you are subject to random test, or a test as the result of an accident or reportable injury. Then you will still be held accountable for the positive test and most likely terminated.

4. If you are involved in a traffic accident and tested with a positive result then it is most likely your insurance rates will become unbearable.

We know that unlike alcohol , this drug remains detectable in your system for a longer period of time ( up to 3 weeks) The test has no use level like alcohol, it is simply affirmative or negative results for most of the examples listed above.

The fact that it may become legal to buy does not deny the rights of these organizations to penalize you for the use.

Now I am certain there will be many court challenges to the sanctions for the use of an otherwise state legal drug, however a lot of people are going to be without a paycheck until their case is settled. And then given the distaste already expressed by the legal system for this issue I suspect that most will not turn out as they hoped.


----------



## nixmkt

CPK said:


> Please tell me how many kids have actually died from overdosing on thc.... The article doesn't say anything about fatalities. Said one kid had a little trouble breathing.
> Now on the other hand how many times have we heard of kids actually dying from consuming too much caffeine.
> 
> Please show me proof of a direct fatality involving overdose of thc. Anywhere in history. Any age. You cannot find it I promise.



Wow! Why do the kids have to actually die from accidental ingestion in order for you to consider it something serious? Believe most parents would consider their young child requiring admission to the hospital intensive-care unit due to needing a respirator in order to breathe or for extreme sedation or agitation a very serious problem. Despite what you may think, that almost surely has to be a very traumatic experience for any child and the parents too.


----------



## glasseyes

this just keeps getting better and better. I have not researched any of the facts about the drug, I really have no need to. I stay away from putting anything in my body that I consider to be harmful to the effect of what Pot, alcohol, tobacco, will do or has been know to do. As I had said earlier I played around with all these things as a young man and as I matured I educated myself on them and found out what harm can result from it. I know lots of people really don't care about the harm they can do to themselves just look at the disease that smoking has caused over the years and people know it will kill them but still they puff away. Kind of hard to figure it out . Again I don't think it would matter what proof of any harm that smoking pot would cause, as long as they can get high , they don't care. This thread kind of proves that.


----------



## beaver

My point is is doesn't matter what kind of harm it does, that's a personal choice. If your neighbor smokes pot, how does that affect you? 

As far as the related deaths, with that logic, I can relate every single death in the United States to something that probably really didn't actually cause or take part in that death. If I was against soda pop, I'm sure that I could put together some bs article showing how soda pop related deaths are on the rise in places that allow 72 ounce fountain drinks. Although, those stats would probably be the same if there was no soda pop.


----------



## beaver

Im not arguing the fact that inhaling smoke of any kind is probably not great for your lungs. I'm arguing the point that that is someone's personal choice and they can deal with the consequences. 

Just like seat belts. I believe that they can make the difference between a fatal crash and a bad day, but I don't believe that there should be a law telling me that I have to wear one. If I wreck and die without a seatbelt, then who does that directly affect? Me and only me. It doesn't affect any other driver or passenger on the highway. Do you honestly think the government cares that much about our safety? No, it's all about the money.


----------



## nixmkt

beaver said:


> ...Just like seat belts. I believe that they can make the difference between a fatal crash and a bad day, but I don't believe that there should be a law telling me that I have to wear one. If I wreck and die without a seatbelt, then who does that directly affect? Me and only me. It doesn't affect any other driver or passenger on the highway....



Sorry but that’s where your logic falls apart, especially if you are only injured and require expensive treatment. It doesn’t only affect you but many, many others. Everyone else ends up paying the bills for the resulting costs of your personal choice in higher insurance rates, hospital bills, taxes, etc.


----------



## beaver

Right, people not wearing seatbelts is the issue there... 

With that logic, let's make it Mandatory for everyone to exercise an hour a day, follow a balanced diet, cut out the sugar, etc.


----------



## nixmkt

beaver said:


> Right, people not wearing seatbelts is the issue there... .



No, people not wearing seatbelts is not the issue here - but you are the one that brought it up and made the comparison.


----------



## beaver

I said issue "there" , not issue "here". Obviously the issue here is Marijuana.

The issue there is the fact that you claimed that the reason seat belt laws are important is because they hurt everyone else's insurance rates. I would be willing to bet that people not wearing seatbelts have an extremely small effect on that compared to other unecessary health issues. 

My comparison was the aspect of personal liberty. It is my opinion that one should have the right to choose to do or it so things such as use Marijuana and wear seatbelts. Whatever consequences result from those choices should be the responsibility of the person making those choices. 

As a society, we've became too dependent on others to make choices for us.


----------



## All Thumbs

to wear a seatbelt or not is no longer my choice, which really twists my panties. I am allowed to "not" wear a motorcycle helmet or for that matter a bicycle helmet for now. that is good. my daughter is tested for nicotine at her workplace and will be terminated if tested positive. we are becoming a super restrictive society on personal choices. sunny side up eggs were banned in New Jersey (1992) but repealed quickly. new York tried to ban "large sugary drinks" but lost in higher court. why are "we" even wasting money on litigation on the most basic of personal choices?

I do support legal marijuana, both medicinal and recreational. I personally do not indulge in marijuana or even alcohol for that matter but this issue is long overdue and if enough states ratify it, the federal government will have to address it.

each of us have our opinions on these matters and I thank this forum for letting me express some of mine because I am really too lazy to "march", "stage protests", "write letters/emails", too poor to donate money. my only option is to vote. I hope everyone votes and I really don't care if you vote for or vote against - just get out and vote - this is supposed to be what makes us (America) better than all the rest.


----------



## buckzye11

beaver said:


> As a society, we've became too dependent on others to make choices for us.


This statement says it all for me... About both the pros and cons of this whole debate. Thanks for the good read ogfers.


----------



## ducman491

beaver said:


> Whatever consequences result from those choices should be the responsibility of the person making those choices.
> 
> As a society, we've became too dependent on others to make choices for us.


This is the real problem in this country. Too many people not taking responsibility for their actions and blaming everyone but themselves.


----------



## kayak1979

I think a more valid issue today is smartphone usage in a vehicle, we're more likely to be harmed by someone distracted by technology than someone driving 45 mph driving straight as an arrow afraid they might fart.


----------



## kayak1979

And I no way am I endorsing the driving a vehicle impaired by anything, I am simply stating something concerning us now.


----------



## Big Chief

Whether it passes or not?? I'll burn a fattie Tuesday night!!


----------



## buckeyebowman

beaver said:


> It does make sense because it's personal liberty. People have the right to make those choices. I can drink a beer or two with dinner occasionally and enjoy them without destroying my body, just like their are people who can use pot occasionally without being addicts. Why should people be told that they can responsibly use personal liberty because other irresponsible people can't control themselves. It's all about  being responsible for your own actions.
> 
> I used smokeless tobacco for years. I knew that it wasnt good for me, but that was my choice. When I had kids, I made a choice to quit using it, and I did. Now that doesn't mean that I'm going to vote for a law to take someone else's right to do so away, and it also doesn't mean I'm going to feel sorry for them when their health is effected by it.
> 
> Unless they're living under a rock, there is nobody around that doesn't know that abusing alchohol, tobacco, drugs, etc. Is bad for you. So therefore, if they conciously make the choice to abuse such products, they have to deal with the consequences.


Well said, beaver. If you really stop and think about it, being pro-legalization is actually the conservative position. Less government regulation and involvement in our lives. Leave people alone! Unfortunately we've woven quite a tangled web since FDR. Pluck one strand of the government web and many others vibrate. 

Considering the fact that the penal system is a growth industry in this country it's not surprising that the government, in general, is against the idea. And the fact that an article about child deaths "associated" with marijuana was written by a state's attorney rather than a medical examiner or coroner smacks of job protection. Thar's money in them thar pot busts!

It's much like the "racism" industry. The people griping the loudest about racial inequality are exactly the ones who don't want it to end. They make too much money off it!

The crux of the issue doesn't seem to be legalization at all, but if Issue 3 is the proper way to go about it. Tomorrow is voting day and I still haven't made up my mind. It will happen when I'm faced with the ballot!


----------



## PapawSmith

buckeyebowman said:


> Well said, beaver. If you really stop and think about it, being pro-legalization is actually the conservative position. Less government regulation and involvement in our lives. Leave people alone! Unfortunately we've woven quite a tangled web since FDR. Pluck one strand of the government web and many others vibrate.
> 
> Considering the fact that the penal system is a growth industry in this country it's not surprising that the government, in general, is against the idea. And the fact that an article about child deaths "associated" with marijuana was written by a state's attorney rather than a medical examiner or coroner smacks of job protection. Thar's money in them thar pot busts!
> 
> It's much like the "racism" industry. The people griping the loudest about racial inequality are exactly the ones who don't want it to end. They make too much money off it!
> 
> The crux of the issue doesn't seem to be legalization at all, but if Issue 3 is the proper way to go about it. Tomorrow is voting day and I still haven't made up my mind. It will happen when I'm faced with the ballot!


Best comment I have seen so far. Irony here is that the folks that we normally see that hate the big business and all of their money are "all in" for giving this entire industry to a coordinated group of individuals that have separated themselves into 10 groups of "competitive" businesses, ready to control 100% of this new statewide domestic industry. Don't be fooled, this gang of ten groups of four investors is really 40 millionaires that spent a lot of time and money to best figure out which state they were most likely to strike gold in. They control what you buy, what you pay for it, how much plants cost if you wish to grow your own, and there can NEVER be any competitors to what they do unless one or more of them fail and they collectively choose a replacement. Very nice, a bunch of millionaires have written a new law, new business rules, and new requirements for limited inclusion that will guarantee themselves more millions in protected revenue and because you want to smoke some dope you are all for it. They also have written some really nice exclusions from all of the standard Federal, State, and Local taxes that you and I, and all other businesses, are subject to. But that is all cool, because you can smoke a fattie whenever you want? Nice, and that is all that that matters.

I really could not care less if pot is legal or not. I have had my history with it as have most others so I'm not judgmental of the users, just their sense on this issue as it is written. I say pass on this legislation and try to put forth a bill next election cycle that makes more sense. If marijuana is going to be legal, because it is an agricultural product, it should be open for opportunities by those that have a history in agriculture. The farm families of this state deserve an opportunity to benefit from this emerging industry, not out of state investors and resident silver spooners. That is who has drawn up this entire package that they wish to become law that will bring them windfalls of revenue.
I cannot believe how many people have commented here that have clearly not taken five minutes to google search "issue 3 Ohio" and read what it actually says and who it benefits.

And for the comment by Dovans, (I hope it was in jest) the unions are actually all for this because the coalition of greedy bastards that put this BS issue together offered to the SEIU that they will allow union workers at their facilities in exchange for their support. Boom, that means 600 or so new sources of union dues and, of course, SEIU support. 

Wake up folks and see what this is issue is all about. It is not about you being allowed to smoke weed, it is really about a bunch of guys that want you to have to buy their weed.


----------



## laynhardwood

PapawSmith said:


> Best comment I have seen so far. Irony here is that the folks that we normally see that hate the big business and all of their money are "all in" for giving this entire industry to a coordinated group of individuals that have separated themselves into 10 groups of "competitive" businesses, ready to control 100% of this new statewide domestic industry. Don't be fooled, this gang of ten groups of four investors is really 40 millionaires that spent a lot of time and money to best figure out which state they were most likely to strike gold in. They control what you buy, what you pay for it, how much plants cost if you wish to grow your own, and there can NEVER be any competitors to what they do unless one or more of them fail and they collectively choose a replacement. Very nice, a bunch of millionaires have written a new law, new business rules, and new requirements for limited inclusion that will guarantee themselves more millions in protected revenue and because you want to smoke some dope you are all for it. They also have written some really nice exclusions from all of the standard Federal, State, and Local taxes that you and I, and all other businesses, are subject to. But that is all cool, because you can smoke a fattie whenever you want? Nice, and that is all that that matters.
> 
> I really could not care less if pot is legal or not. I have had my history with it as have most others so I'm not judgmental of the users, just their sense on this issue as it is written. I say pass on this legislation and try to put forth a bill next election cycle that makes more sense. If marijuana is going to be legal, because it is an agricultural product, it should be open for opportunities by those that have a history in agriculture. The farm families of this state deserve an opportunity to benefit from this emerging industry, not out of state investors and resident silver spooners. That is who has drawn up this entire package that they wish to become law that will bring them windfalls of revenue.
> I cannot believe how many people have commented here that have clearly not taken five minutes to google search "issue 3 Ohio" and read what it actually says and who it benefits.
> 
> And for the comment by Dovans, (I hope it was in jest) the unions are actually all for this because the coalition of greedy bastards that put this BS issue together offered to the SEIU that they will allow union workers at their facilities in exchange for their support. Boom, that means 600 or so new sources of union dues and, of course, SEIU support.
> 
> Wake up folks and see what this is issue is all about. It is not about you being allowed to smoke weed, it is really about a bunch of guys that want you to have to buy their weed.


It's a terrible proposition like I stated many posts ago. Issue 3 is not good for anyone but the investors.


----------



## Snakecharmer

Almost over.... Be careful what you wish for.....


----------



## nixmkt

ShakeDown said:


> ...The fact that you could toss a coin and consider this post "political" in itself dances the line, but please don't push it over...



Made it to election day!  Thanks to the OGF staff for allowing this to run. Thanks also to everyone that contributed comments and for keeping them within the parameters for the thread to remain open. It has been an interesting and worthwhile discussion.


----------



## beaver

I agree. It's going to be interesting to see the results.


----------



## OSUdaddy

Stars-n-Stripers said:


> Well looky there, Nick Lachey, front and center on the "why it would be good for Ohio" commercials, would be part of the ownership monopoly. I'm definitely voting against it now.
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/this-tuesday-nick-lachey-stands-to-become-one-of-182527751.html


Interesting. Oscar Robinson is also doing commercials in favor of Issue 3. I am definitely out on both issues now.


----------



## Roscoe

I just voted. There was some confusion about Isse 2 people couldn't understand.They got it worked out.


Roscoe


----------



## Ruminator

Issue 2 Is Another Power Grab.

I've been reading alot about both Issue 2 and 3.

In each their own way they are trying to grab power from us, the citizens of Ohio.

As written, neither one is good for us Ohioans in the long run. 
Issue 2 will complicate how we can bring initiatives forward.

I've kept up with this thread, like many others. There are many good posts in here stating the negatives of how Issue 3 is written. I agree. 
Legalization is coming, and maybe properly so, but this is definitely not how we want to see it happen.

At watchdog.org you can read more about Issue 2. Its not long and well worth the read.

"In a news release, 1851 Center executive director Maurice Thompson said the proposed constitutional amendment “would prohibit tax reform without stopping monopolies or marijuana legalization as promised.”

Thompson noted Issue 2 would make citizen-driven ballot initiatives jump extra hurdles but wouldn’t deter the Ohio General Assembly from creating public monopolies or putting private-sector monopoly proposals on the ballot.

“Issue 2 simply proposes that legislators should have a monopoly on the power to create monopolies,” he wrote in an 1851 Center policy brief."

While the General Assembly was crafting a resolution to add anti-monopoly language to the Ohio Constitution, Thompson testified against the original draft of the amendment.

“The language was made worse, intentionally, after I pointed out the potential impact of the first draft,” Thompson said in an email to Ohio Watchdog.

The General Assembly, Thompson said, “wants Ohioans to fund their campaigns, not initiatives, and is intent on getting rid of the initiative” through Issue 2 and the separate Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission."

You can read more at:

http://watchdog.org/244976/law-center-ohio-issue2/

.


----------



## fishingguy

I voted yes on 3 and no on 2. The state did it's best to confuse the h out of people. Finger's crossed!


----------



## glasseyes

my vote of yes on 2 and no on 3 takes care of that vote


----------



## ostbucks98

As issue 3 was up and down with most people.I dont know anyone who was for issue 2.


----------



## streamstalker

I voted no and no. I have a friend of over 30 years who makes his living working on political campaigns, and he was working for Issue 3. He said they figured a lot of people would say they aren't voting for it but would actually vote yes when they got in the booth. The polls have it a close race, so that might be the tipping point.

It will be interesting to see how the voting numbers stack up against your typical off year election. I have never before heard so much buzz  over a ballot issue. The sad thing is that Issue 1 is probably more important than either of them, and you don't hear a damn thing about it.


----------



## Lundy

streamstalker said:


> The sad thing is that Issue 1 is probably more important than either of them, and you don't hear a damn thing about it.


Is that the bipartisan plan to provide redistricting for the marijuana retail outlet stores?


----------



## Saugeyefisher

I voted no on two and no on three....
Lets see what happens in 2016...


----------



## Saugeyefisher

Would love to see leagleization,but as others have stated. Not this way.


----------



## OSUdaddy

Saugeyefisher said:


> Would love to see leagleization,but as others have stated. Not this way.


Indeed! 

Both my wife and I voted no on 2 and 3.


----------



## Roscoe

I believe it's gonna be a split decision. Very close. I think in favor of legalize will win out.


Roscoe


----------



## streamstalker

Not too many "yes" on 3 voters are reporting back. I'll bet they are voting tomorrow.


----------



## laynhardwood

I voted yes on 2 no on 3


----------



## snag

The polls in certain areas of Hamilton county had voting machine glitches , so they are now staying open 90 more minutes tonight, so a issue 3 tally will be a bit later now. Just saw this on our local news.


----------



## kayak1979

Yes on 3, no on 2


----------



## buckeyebowman

FAB said:


> The problems as I see them.
> 
> We know that unlike alcohol , this drug remains detectable in your system for a longer period of time ( up to 3 weeks) The test has no use level like alcohol, it is simply affirmative or negative results for most of the examples listed above.
> 
> The fact that it may become legal to buy does not deny the rights of these organizations to penalize you for the use.


You made many good points FAB, but I shortened the post to concentrate on one segment. 

As far as your other points go, you're exactly right. Heck, alcohol is legal but if you drink at work or show up drunk to work, you will have a headache and NOT have a job in short order! This issue in no way affects workplace rules, or countermands federal law. 

The presence of levels of cannabinoids in a person's system can be checked but it has to be at least through a urine test or possibly a blood test. I'm not sure if a hair sample can provide the same. And a quantitative analysis will be more expensive than a qualitative one. This was one of the reasons that some NFL players, as well as the NFLPA, were kicking about the NFL's marijuana policy. The NFL's level of cannabinoids that would lead to suspension was about 30 times more stringent than the World Anti Doping Agency's, which tests Olympic athletes.

I'm sure that some NFL players use marijuana recreationally, but many of them also use it for pain relief. So, the NFL modified their rule, but they're still not up to the WADA level. 

Anyway, voter turnout has been reported as light, which invalidates the fears of some who envisioned legions of long haired stoners trooping to the polls! 

When it came right down to it, I voted no on both 2 and 3, and it was the first 5 words of Issue 3's ballot language that sealed the deal. It read, "Issue 3 creates a monopoly".


----------



## Dovans

Appears at this time Issue 3 is headed for defeat..


----------



## Snakecharmer

Smoke em if you got em.........

(Flash back from my Army days)

I noticed that a few people changed from their initial position on Issue 2 and 3 as our little discussion wore on. Whether they were influenced by opinions on here or just became more informed of the issues based on their own research, this is how a democracy should work. Thanks everyone for the civil dialogue.


----------



## laynhardwood

Legalization will happen sooner than later, but issue 3 was just not the best way.


----------



## Ruminator

I voted: #2- No , #3- No.

Here is the rest of the post from earlier I didn't post yet:

Personally I can't see any longer a reasonable argument against medical use of marijuana.

And looking out a little further, its just a matter of time until using pot will be legal nationwide, both medicinally and recreationally.


Consider:

- the erosion of our nation's underpinnings in morals and values and the hopelessness that leads to in people's lives
- the phenomenal emotional cost of divorce on everyone involved in 30%-40% of our nations marriages

- the removal of the vast majority of good paying jobs from the middle class in our society, and more people having no jobs at all, or wearing themselves out working multiple jobs;

- the growing despondency and hopelessness in our society requires something for people to ease their personal pain.

- We've been seeing results of all of this throughout society, but especially in the growing hopelessness our youth are feeling as they strike outwardly at others, or simply give up and kill themselves. Suicide is the #1 killer of our youth!


Until a real form of "Soma" is developed chemically, marijuana is likely to be seen as one of the best options legally offered to our society.

As has been stated before by a list of other members; wrapped into this issue is another almost invisible giant of a problem. We really don't want to just disregard the political results wrapped up in this.

By eliminating fair competition in a complete potential sector of our state's economy, Issue 3 is trying to use public sentiment, and reasoning that sounds good on the surface, to conduct an outright attack on our constitutional rights of business.

It is just a matter of time until using pot will be legal, medicinally and recreationally.

Final thought-

Of course these big-time investors want to create an unchallengeable, sustainable revenue stream. They are not stupid though...

They will obviously also want to protect it from illegal competition, and increase their market-share from day one.
So how long do you think it will take once there is a private legal source of marijuana before a major increase of cracking down on the illegal sources begins to occur?

You know you can count on that as sure as you are reading this. With the political connections involved, once legal sources exist they will want to reduce their competition.

And since the competition is illegal to start with- it'll be a slam dunk.

If so, one possible result of this could be that what's left of illegal sales, the street costs may well go up due to the increased pressures.

Be careful what you hope for!

This is not a good path to expanded legalized use of marijuana.

At 10:00pm it looked like all three issues were going to pass...
HEY! can you believe a quasi-political thread ran 14 pages without needing locked!!


----------



## Ruminator

11:23p - Issues 1&2 appear to be passing, and #3 is not.


----------



## Saugernut

Well it's dead for now, thank you to the voters.


----------



## flounder

Well, maybe not quite dead, medical looks like it may have a pulse.

This is probably the best way to go about it.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...tion/ohio-state-issues-2-and-3-marijuana.html

“After going through this process, myself and many of my colleagues realize there’s tremendous support for medical marijuana and something we should have a bigger discussion about,” said Rep. Ryan Smith, R-Bidwell, a leader in the House.

That could be in the form of a pilot program or some other narrowly written legislation, Smith said. He noted that Rep. Wes Retherford, R-Hamilton, already has proposed a medical marijuana bill.


----------



## glasseyes

I would support it for medical use, only.


----------



## beaver

I would support making it and all "drugs" legal. Then take the money saved from not housing all the non violent drug offenders that are incarcerated, and use that to fund raising the penalty of other crimes. I think it would lower the crime rate if someone was looking at 10 years for theft instead of 2 to 4. 

In reality, a drug dealer or user isn't hurting snyone. Yes they're selling a product that could possibly cause harm, but so does everyone else that sells anything. Regardless, it's ultimately up to the person buying or using the product. If they overdose, it's their fault. I don't blame budweiser for drunk driving or Copenhagen for throat cancer. 

The things that we all hate about junkies, are things we hate about everyone. Theft, assault, murder, etc. Are all things that we hate anyway, regardless of if it's a druggie or anyone. 

It all boils down to consequences of your own actions. If you are a drug user who cab afford your drug of choice, and manage to not commit crime while using it, then go for it. If you're a user that has to commit crime to afford your habit, then in my opinion you shouldn't be punished for the drug, you should be punished for the crime committed and punished heavily. 

It would also cut down on court costs from all the added charges that are bogus. All the false "war on drugs" budget money could be put to better use as well. 

I know it will never happen, and it makes me sound like a liberal hippie but it's a thought. It's amazing what can happen when you open your mind a little. I was one of the diehard anti drug ultra conservatives myself. Then I read into it and my opinion changed. 

Before anyone assumes, I am not a user and I don't want to be. I barely even drink and don't even use tobacco anymore. I have a little brother who I couldn't even tell you where he is now, who is a druggie for no reason. I don't know where he is or what he's doing and I don't care. He's had every opportunity to clean up and had been bailed out too many times. His actions, his consequences. I hope he straightens up where ever he is, but if not that's on him. So I'm not a drug endorsing junkie lover. I'm just a sensible freedom of personal liberty lover who endorses responsibility for our own actions.


----------



## Saugernut

Yeah I would NEVER be in favor of lowering prison sentences for drug dealers, I mean ever, oh wait did I say that already.


----------



## Stars-n-Stripers

Ruminator said:


> I voted: #2- No , #3- No.
> 
> Here is the rest of the post from earlier I didn't post yet:
> 
> *Personally I can't see any longer a reasonable argument against medical use of marijuana.*
> 
> And looking out a little further, its just a matter of time until using pot will be legal nationwide, both medicinally and recreationally.
> 
> 
> Consider:
> 
> - the erosion of our nation's underpinnings in morals and values and the hopelessness that leads to in people's lives
> - the phenomenal emotional cost of divorce on everyone involved in 30%-40% of our nations marriages
> 
> - the removal of the vast majority of good paying jobs from the middle class in our society, and more people having no jobs at all, or wearing themselves out working multiple jobs;
> 
> - the growing despondency and hopelessness in our society requires something for people to ease their personal pain.
> 
> - We've been seeing results of all of this throughout society, but especially in the growing hopelessness our youth are feeling as they strike outwardly at others, or simply give up and kill themselves. Suicide is the #1 killer of our youth!
> 
> 
> Until a real form of "Soma" is developed chemically, marijuana is likely to be seen as one of the best options legally offered to our society.
> 
> As has been stated before by a list of other members; wrapped into this issue is another almost invisible giant of a problem. We really don't want to just disregard the political results wrapped up in this.
> 
> By eliminating fair competition in a complete potential sector of our state's economy, Issue 3 is trying to use public sentiment, and reasoning that sounds good on the surface, to conduct an outright attack on our constitutional rights of business.
> 
> It is just a matter of time until using pot will be legal, medicinally and recreationally.
> 
> Final thought-
> 
> Of course these big-time investors want to create an unchallengeable, sustainable revenue stream. They are not stupid though...
> 
> They will obviously also want to protect it from illegal competition, and increase their market-share from day one.
> So how long do you think it will take once there is a private legal source of marijuana before a major increase of cracking down on the illegal sources begins to occur?
> 
> You know you can count on that as sure as you are reading this. With the political connections involved, once legal sources exist they will want to reduce their competition.
> 
> And since the competition is illegal to start with- it'll be a slam dunk.
> 
> If so, one possible result of this could be that what's left of illegal sales, the street costs may well go up due to the increased pressures.
> 
> Be careful what you hope for!
> 
> This is not a good path to expanded legalized use of marijuana.
> 
> At 10:00pm it looked like all three issues were going to pass...
> HEY! can you believe a quasi-political thread ran 14 pages without needing locked!!


Too long didn't read in entirety, but I did read that part. I've seen too many people suffer through cancer, god forbid I ever have to, trust me, I WILL find some to help me counter the effects.

Voted yes on 2, no on 3, take THAT Nick Lachey  PS - I hated your band.

more info just found on Yahoo News, 3 seems to have been voted down for the oligopoly reason:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/marijuana-legalization-just-failed-ohio-035403549.html


----------



## 9Left

Nice to see 3 didn't pass


----------



## T-180

Stars-n-Stripers said:


> Voted yes on 2, no on 3, take THAT Nick Lachey  PS - I hated your band.


Funny right there !! But, he truly cares about Ohio : )


----------



## fishingguy

Just so some of you understand. There are millions of people in Ohio and across the country that suffer from chronic pain. I am one of them. Our choices are- #1 use prescription pain killers and run the risk of dependency. #2 use alcohol and run the same risk. #3 suffer and fight your way through it, it gets old and quality of life suffers. #4 use cannabis, this is by far the best option for many. So those that celebrate their victory, just remember, there are many good people being forced to break this archaic law.


----------



## glasseyes

Like I said I will support pot for medicinal use , only. And I think this will happen.


----------



## fishingguy

I disagree glasseyes, this was pretty much the only chance. It will never be on the ballot again in my lifetime. So myself and millions others will abide by the majority. It totally sucks! And even if it comes up again in two, three years or more, we still have to deal with our issues for that amount of time. If you realized how much this could of helped millions of Americans, than maybe you could of had some compassion.


----------



## 9Left

fishingguy said:


> Just so some of you understand. There are millions of people in Ohio and across the country that suffer from chronic pain. I am one of them. Our choices are- #1 use prescription pain killers and run the risk of dependency. #2 use alcohol and run the same risk. #3 suffer and fight your way through it, it gets old and quality of life suffers. #4 use cannabis, this is by far the best option for many. So those that celebrate their victory, just remember, there are many good people being forced to break this archaic law.


If you read any of this thread you'd have seen that there's a bunchbif guys on here in your corner man , but voting for it, in the manner it was proposed , is ridiculous. There's gotta be a better way to legalize it


----------



## fishingguy

I have read the whole thread. It really doesn't matter to me how it passes, or what the wording of the law is. All I know is, it can help myself and so many more people. So I will continue to handle the pain the way I have been for awhile now, like I said, it sucks.


----------



## Stars-n-Stripers

Sorry for your pain. I hope and believe you are wrong, it will be brought up again soon. If you read that Yahoo link, the overwhelming reason it was voted down was the oligopoly.


----------



## goolies

IMO it will eventually get legalized in Ohio. There is way too much money to be made for it not to happen.


----------



## cincinnati

T-180 said:


> Funny right there !! But, he truly cares about Ohio : )


He cares so much that he's not even registered to vote!


----------



## Stars-n-Stripers

cincinnati said:


> He cares so much that he's not even registered to vote!


Are you serious?! I hadn't heard that. Now I hate his band even more. And I hope he's out his 2 million.


----------



## streamstalker

fishingguy said:


> I disagree glasseyes, this was pretty much the only chance. It will never be on the ballot again in my lifetime. So myself and millions others will abide by the majority. It totally sucks! And even if it comes up again in two, three years or more, we still have to deal with our issues for that amount of time. If you realized how much this could of helped millions of Americans, than maybe you could of had some compassion.


That is unfair of you to say people who voted against this bill lack compassion. The people who sponsored the bill did so based on greed, not compassion. And I'll bet if you really need it you can find a compassionate person to help you. I don't see too many people who are infirm and going to jail for marijuana. Medical marijuana is likely to happen sooner than you think:


> “Although Issue 3 was handily defeated, the debate and conversations about the issue have convinced House Speaker Cliff Rosenberger, R-Clarksville, and other state lawmakers who were staunchly opposed to legalization to now say it may be time to move ahead with medical marijuana," Dispatch reporter Alan Johnson writes.
> 
> “After going through this process, myself and many of my colleagues realize there’s tremendous support for medical marijuana and something we should have a bigger discussion about,” said Rep. Ryan Smith, R-Bidwell, a leader in the House. http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...ohio-politics-now-responsibleohio-defeat.html


----------



## laynhardwood

I don't know that anyone who voted against legalizing marijuana was trying to not show compassion. The changing of the states constitution to allow a marijuana monopoly to operate out of Ohio was just stupid. Ohioans are smarter than that and that's why it failed. I disagree I think it will be on the ballots again soon. First the medical aspect needs to become legal and then we will see what's happens with recreational usage.


----------



## nixmkt

fishingguy said:


> I disagree glasseyes, this was pretty much the only chance. It will never be on the ballot again in my lifetime. ...



You must be planning on going pretty quickly then. Read the article at the link In post #268. Issue 3 backers are already working on a new proposal and lawmakers have been working on medical legalization.


----------



## cincinnati

Stars-n-Stripers said:


> Are you serious?! I hadn't heard that. Now I hate his band even more. And I hope he's out his 2 million.


Reported on Channel 9 News last night!


----------



## Saugeyefisher

Fishinguy,i also deal with chronic pain,daily. And agree weed is a great alternative to releiving pain. Like you i decide to stay away from all the pain pills offered to. Ive been down that road,not again. And would also like to see it passed for recreational use.
But because of the way they went about it chose to vote no on 3.
I 100% made up my mind when i found out it would indeed go up again.
I didnt see many if any on here saying it shoukdnt be leaglized medicaly. I seen some on here say that people who want it leagleized dont care and will pass it anyways. That was100% wrong.
Guess im just sayin,hang in there man! I feel your pain literaly!


----------



## polebender

cincinnati said:


> He cares so much that he's not even registered to vote!


If he is registered, I would imagine he's registered in California since that is his primary residence.


----------



## buckeyebowman

goolies said:


> IMO it will eventually get legalized in Ohio. There is way too much money to be made for it not to happen.


Exactly! That's what happened with the casinos and racinos, the "right" people were finally on board and in position to make the money! 

And consider the biggest monopoly of all, the state's monopoly on alcohol sales, particularly high proof alcohol! To sell beer and wine, a retailer has to meet stringent requirements and, if allowed, purchase an annual license (which is not cheap) from the state. For high proof alcohol it's even more involved.

At one time there were true "state stores". Premises rented or owned by the state and staffed with state employees. Nowadays it's been opened up a bit with state "liquor agencies". Privately owned, but the state is still your wholesaler and banker. Oddly enough, the state will stock your store, once approved, with liquor at no up front charge! On "consignment" it's called. This is against the law for privately owned wholesalers of beer and wine! A competitive advantage for the state, wouldn't you say?

Also, the state will set you up with scanners which MUST be used on every bottle of high proof liquor sold. If the scanners go down, the agency is out of the liquor business! It can't just be "rung up" on the register. This is because, every night, the state extracts from that liquor agencies bank account, the amount of money from every bottle of liquor sold that day via EFT! Electronic Funds Transfer. 

It's obvious that the state's overarching concern is control! Control of the product and control of the money. Can you imagine that it would be any less for marijuana? If "medical only" use passes in the future it will probably be limited to 3 or 4 growers. The state will simply never open it up to just anyone. In that scenario 10 growers looks like a wide open field.


----------



## Ruminator

fishingguy said:


> Just so some of you understand. There are millions of people in Ohio and across the country that suffer from chronic pain. I am one of them. Our choices are- #1 use prescription pain killers and run the risk of dependency. #2 use alcohol and run the same risk. #3 suffer and fight your way through it, it gets old and quality of life suffers. #4 use cannabis, this is by far the best option for many. So those that celebrate their victory, just remember, there are many good people being forced to break this archaic law.


fishingguy I am very sorry that you have to deal with chronic pain and the accompanying struggles with it, truly I am!

But I can't help but see this issue (as it was presented to us) as something bigger than any and all of us. 
The consequences of our choices will potentially have to be paid not only by us, but our children and theirs to come.

Earlier in this thread someone posted that they felt the whole legalization of marijuana issue may develop with medical use first. I sincerely hope that this is the case and I can see it as more likely now.
And if approached in a beneficially fair manner to Ohioans, I will fully support it.


----------



## Pan Fisherman

buckeyebowman said:


> Exactly! That's what happened with the casinos and racinos, the "right" people were finally on board and in position to make the money!
> 
> And consider the biggest monopoly of all, the state's monopoly on alcohol sales, particularly high proof alcohol! To sell beer and wine, a retailer has to meet stringent requirements and, if allowed, purchase an annual license (which is not cheap) from the state. For high proof alcohol it's even more involved.
> 
> At one time there were true "state stores". Premises rented or owned by the state and staffed with state employees. Nowadays it's been opened up a bit with state "liquor agencies". Privately owned, but the state is still your wholesaler and banker. Oddly enough, the state will stock your store, once approved, with liquor at no up front charge! On "consignment" it's called. This is against the law for privately owned wholesalers of beer and wine! A competitive advantage for the state, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Also, the state will set you up with scanners which MUST be used on every bottle of high proof liquor sold. If the scanners go down, the agency is out of the liquor business! It can't just be "rung up" on the register. This is because, every night, the state extracts from that liquor agencies bank account, the amount of money from every bottle of liquor sold that day via EFT! Electronic Funds Transfer.
> 
> It's obvious that the state's overarching concern is control! Control of the product and control of the money. Can you imagine that it would be any less for marijuana? If "medical only" use passes in the future it will probably be limited to 3 or 4 growers. The state will simply never open it up to just anyone. In that scenario 10 growers looks like a wide open field.


I agree 100 percent that the state likes to overreach but at least if its the state running the show we will see some return as citizens but if it where voted in the way it was all the funds would of went and lined the pockets of people that don't even live here at a very minimal tax rate at that


----------



## glasseyes

fishingguy said:


> I disagree glasseyes, this was pretty much the only chance. It will never be on the ballot again in my lifetime. So myself and millions others will abide by the majority. It totally sucks! And even if it comes up again in two, three years or more, we still have to deal with our issues for that amount of time. If you realized how much this could of helped millions of Americans, than maybe you could of had some compassion.


You have no idea of my compassion, that's what I dislike about discussing things like this on a forum. At least for me it is hard sometimes to get across all the feelings you have on something , people read your emotions into an answer .
I also have chronic pain like some others and have been dealing with it for close to 20 years now. It causes many issues with just trying sometimes to deal with every day life and make something normal out of it. I wont go into details but I have learned to live with it and do all I can to control it. I doubt if I would use pot to deal with this pain but will not judge others who would. But for me to vote for something that my morals tell me is wrong just to serve my selfish need is no excuse to make pot legal for anything other than medicinal use. You have no right to question my compassion.


----------



## Slatebar

buckeyebowman said:


> Exactly! That's what happened with the casinos and racinos, the "right" people were finally on board and in position to make the money!
> 
> And consider the biggest monopoly of all, the state's monopoly on alcohol sales, particularly high proof alcohol! To sell beer and wine, a retailer has to meet stringent requirements and, if allowed, purchase an annual license (which is not cheap) from the state. For high proof alcohol it's even more involved.
> 
> At one time there were true "state stores". Premises rented or owned by the state and staffed with state employees. Nowadays it's been opened up a bit with state "liquor agencies". Privately owned, but the state is still your wholesaler and banker. Oddly enough, the state will stock your store, once approved, with liquor at no up front charge! On "consignment" it's called. This is against the law for privately owned wholesalers of beer and wine! A competitive advantage for the state, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Also, the state will set you up with scanners which MUST be used on every bottle of high proof liquor sold. If the scanners go down, the agency is out of the liquor business! It can't just be "rung up" on the register. This is because, every night, the state extracts from that liquor agencies bank account, the amount of money from every bottle of liquor sold that day via EFT! Electronic Funds Transfer.
> 
> It's obvious that the state's overarching concern is control! Control of the product and control of the money. Can you imagine that it would be any less for marijuana? If "medical only" use passes in the future it will probably be limited to 3 or 4 growers. The state will simply never open it up to just anyone. In that scenario 10 growers looks like a wide open field.


 I may be wrong but I think all the alcohol profits are now being turned over to JobsOhio.. The way I read it the state no longer gets a cent from alcohol....


----------



## T-180

I too deal with chronic pain , 24/7/365. Doctor tried to get me to go on permanent disability at 51, almost 4 years ago, & I have managed to at least make it this far. I have almost 35 years at my job & plan on finishing it out when I determine it & not take that route. It does absolutely suck & I know there are many out the suffering through as much & more than I and weed is a viable option. However, this constitutional amendment was not the way to do it and I voted as such.
I have always supported medical pot, but this bill was not about compassion or liberties, it was about greed. I also strongly believe that medical use will be legal within 3 years, this bill got the conversation started. I also don't think it's fair that people who voted against it be judged as non compassionate.


----------



## glasseyes

when people start to see only their personal issues and not the whole picture of how others are effected, then it also becomes a selfish issue for them to.


----------



## Snakecharmer

Slatebar said:


> I may be wrong but I think all the alcohol profits are now being turned over to JobsOhio.. The way I read it the state no longer gets a cent from alcohol....


Wrong....
*Ohio Liquor Tax*
_12th highest liquor tax_
The Ohio excise tax on liquor is *$9.34 per gallon*, higher then 76% of the other 50 states. Ohio's excise tax on Spirits is ranked #12 out of the 50 states. Because all liquor stores in Ohio are state-owned, excise taxes for hard alcohol sales are set by the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS). The Ohio liquor tax applies to all hard alcohol (alchoholic beverages other then beer and wine), and is already included in the purchase price by the retailer.

Other Taxing info:
http://www.tax-rates.org/ohio/excise-tax#LiquorTax


----------



## nixmkt

Slatebar said:


> I may be wrong but I think all the alcohol profits are now being turned over to JobsOhio.. The way I read it the state no longer gets a cent from alcohol....





Snakecharmer said:


> Wrong....



Believe both of you are partially right and partially wrong. Snakechermer, your info only notes what the tax is, not where it goes and liquor profits do go to JobsOhio now. Slatebar, appears the State gets money from the lease by JobsOhio for the liquor profits, so indirectly gets money from alcohol. Excerpts from a couple articles:

_JobsOhio is funded largely by its $1.5 billion, 25-year lease of state liquor operations, which delivered a $214 million profit in the past fiscal year.
_
_http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/06/06/jobsohio-adds-payroll-in-its-office.html_
_
JobsOhio is a non-profit private corporation created by the state to be an economic development arm. State lawmakers exempted the company from all public records laws.

It is funded through a lease on state liquor profits, revenue that historically had been public money. It used that lease agreement with the state to raise its own operating money through sale of bonds.
_
_http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/05/new_report_from_jobsohio_criti.html_


----------



## buckeyebowman

However the money gets there, the Ohio Department of Liquor Control (ODLC) has to have some way of funding itself. And liquor stores are no longer state owned, they used to be. They are now privately owned, so employee salaries, insurance, rent, building upkeep, etc. are no longer the state's concern. What the state "owns" is the liquor. I believe they now allow retailers a 6% gross profit on liquor sales. That's the last number I heard, and it was 5% before that. Doesn't sound like much, but when you don't have to come up with a dime to stock your store it works out.

Snakecharmer is right in that Ohio's liquor tax is one of the highest in the country. In Florida you can buy a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue for a little more than half what it costs here.


----------



## Queen Bee

creekcrawler said:


> Legalize it. Don't criticize it.
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


I'm with you creekcrawler love peace and happiness


----------

