|
66% against at 26% reporting in seems pretty bad, though it depends which precincts. Also are any of the elections at a higher level than mayor? What a dumb year to pick. I assumed there were at least some state level elections.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
This is why you put it on the ballot in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Yeah I mean that's the obvious choice (probably wouldn't have gotten this monopoly thing through, though), but even a regular midterm election like in 2014 probably stands a better chance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Teflon Don posted:This is why you put it on the ballot in 2016. And also maybe don't make it a goddamn monopoly
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:And also maybe don't make it a goddamn monopoly Yeah, it's kind of a bummer that it looks like it won't pass, but would you want to know that there is a 1/10 chance that you are buying weed from Jessica Simpson's ex husband? That risk is just too big to take.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
For / Against has held steady at 35/65 as the vote count rose from 30% to 45% Its not happening this year. It was a lovely bill anyway; the worse news is the anti-monopoly amendment looks to squeak by in. The summary of that bill looks good but doesn't mention the fact that buried in the text of the amendment is a provision preventing legalization of a Schedule 1 substance by referendum. That means any legalization campaign in 2016 even without the cartel aspect would be unconstitutional. Ohio just lost the ability to legalize til the federal government reschedules cannabis. lol if you think that's gonna happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
It's also overwhelmingly failing in every county. Yadoppsi posted:For / Against has held steady at 35/65 as the vote count rose from 30% to 45% Its not happening this year. It was a lovely bill anyway; the worse news is the anti-monopoly amendment looks to squeak by in. The summary of that bill looks good but doesn't mention the fact that buried in the text of the amendment is a provision preventing legalization of a Schedule 1 substance by referendum. That means any legalization campaign in 2016 even without the cartel aspect would be unconstitutional. Are you sure? It clearly invalidates this marijuana vote (although I wonder how courts would view voters who said yes to both...), but I'm not sure how to interpret the 'monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel' language. quote:· Prohibit from taking effect any proposed constitutional amendment appearing on the November 3,
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
The monopoly issue didn't matter in the least -- it's the sort of thing that could have been done away with by an another referendum a couple of years later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Xandu posted:66% against at 26% reporting in seems pretty bad, though it depends which precincts. My county ballot was school board, auditor, some other poo poo, a couple tax levy renewals, and then the anti-gerrymandering proposal (which is passing by an enormous margin and is not nearly as strong as it could be but is a great step forward) and the two marijuana proposals. It was a really dumb choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Xandu posted:It's also overwhelmingly failing in every county. I find that to be pretty dubious too because that process hasn't been setup to call issue 3 a cartel yet. Not that it matters because issue three got sunk. It's pretty lovely to me that newspapers were telling people to vote yes on 2 if they oppose 3.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Are you sure? It clearly invalidates this marijuana vote (although I wonder how courts would view voters who said yes to both...), but I'm not sure how to interpret the 'monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel' language. Its up to the Ballet Board to interpret whether a petition is creating a "monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel" ie, the people appointed by the Secretary of State, a drug warrior and all around Kaisch lackey Jon Husted. Take a look at Washington Initiative 502, its "Part III establishes a license system for marijuana producers, processors, and retailers. Initial licenses shall be $250 with an annual renewal fee of $1000." But the number of license eligible to be granted is limited and that makes sense, just like you wouldn't want to give out a liquor licenses to ever store on the block. If 502 passed here in Ohio would the fact that only a limited number of people could start producing, processing, and selling mean Husted thinks it creates a cartel? I cant wait to find out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
You think that's bad, Guam passed a medical marijuana referendum, and sent it to its Public Health agency to come up with the rules/regs. The proposed cost for a license to grow? $35,000. The proposed cost for a license to distribute? $35,000. Keep in mind Guam is a small island with strict laws against importation, so there is really no option to do just one or the other, you're looking at a $70,000 entry fee. For an island of 160,000, of whom less than ~1000 would qualify under the unusually strict rules, and probably less than half of that would bother purchasing. Price per ounce for any potential company to be profitable - roughly a gillion dollars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
Fees for licensing have always been a back door way to keep things de facto illegal. Why should the licensing process have a fee associated with it at all? Don't taxes already pay for the government to govern?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
Well, that was a shitshow. Good job Ohio, you've proven to be a fuckup once again. http://youtu.be/e7SuBBpLX-A
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Not to be too pessimistic but I think that it could take upwards of a third of a century or more for pot to become legal in most states. This is a result of the inherent production cycle of marijuana itself. The urgent issue that led to prohibition of alcohol getting repealed in the US was the simple fact that alcohol was so easy to produce and had a good return on the little investment required such that it made a lot of decent people into criminals and conspirators and policing everyone became a logistical and financial nightmare for the state that risked making the law into a joke. Marijuana on the other hand is substantially way harder to produce. It isn't exactly feasible to grow it indoors without expending a lot of energy, and the amount harvested from such efforts doesn't scale well into enough product to make some sort of living out of -- it's basically a hobbyist thing. Since the means of production is easier to control and suppress, policing pot producers and sellers doesn't put that much stress on state resources, so it's easier to dismiss claims like "the drug war has failed." A lot of people might say it's actually worked in helping keep drugs a culturally taboo thing. The day when a politician can say "citizens should have the right to recreational use of marijuana" and have it be as controversial as "I support a woman's right to choose" is the day change will be upon us nationwide. Bernie Sanders doesn't count because the dude is on his last hurrah and will be basically gone after this presidential election cycle. Of course there' also the possibility that several more major states will vote to legalize it a la Colorado which could lead to decriminalization on the federal level, but it's alarming that all the successful legalization efforts so far were the result of ballot initiatives and half the states don't have that way of doing things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 09:40
|
|
|
I dislike saying this, but perhaps this was not the proper way of doing such a thing for this group or for marijuana legilization as a whole. Let's face facts here. The country had to be dragged kicking and screaming to pass healthcare reform despite attempts dating back to at least the 30's for such a thing to occur. If ACA had been done as a ballot wide initiative in say any given "purple" or "red" state, do you think it gets past? gently caress no. Same with Same Sex Marriage which had to go through the supreme court to finally become the law of the land. I noticed a lot of old angry white people coming to the polls to vote this thing down. Those are the people that vote. They hate pot, and they hate the entire concept of it. The better way to have done this would have been to fund a Super PAC group, toss money at various politicians and then have some guy bring it up in the senate for a vote. I dislike even saying this, it's a dirty, rotten way of doing things. But...again, until more old angry people die off? Thing is not getting passed. As an ohio resident and someone who has partaken once in a while I'm very disheartened by all of this. It's so frustrating because it just seems like common sense that it should be legalized.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 09:51
|
|
|
All the people on the various comments and Reddit threads I've read seriously believe that it'll be on the 2016 ballot now 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 11:26
|
|
|
 Temporarily embarrassed kingpins?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 12:40
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:All the people on the various comments and Reddit threads I've read seriously believe that it'll be on the 2016 ballot now Guys, there is another group trying to get on next years ballot! *ignores the same group falling very short to the required signatures this year* Good thing we voted on that anti-monopoly amendment. That totally won't be used to arbitrarily make any ballot measure that the state government disagrees with have two questions instead of one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
wilderthanmild posted:Guys, there is another group trying to get on next years ballot! *ignores the same group falling very short to the required signatures this year* I've never wanted to move more than now. Not because of the pot, I can keep smoking that just fine, but because I can't believe Ohio voters are so dumb they bought into voting 'against pot' twice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I've never wanted to move more than now. Not because of the pot, I can keep smoking that just fine, but because I can't believe Ohio voters are so dumb they bought into voting 'against pot' twice. The amount of people on reddit thinking Issue 2 passing is a good thing is very surprising. The best part is all they keep posting is did you actually read the amendment?!?!? and then posting the loving ballot text instead of the amendment text. I also keep seeing "What can words like monopoly and cartel mean other than what we already know they mean?", ignoring that most legal documents define important terms like this and that there are other words like "license". For example, the marijuana amendment in Colorado included, among many other definitions, a full definition of the word Marijuana. There's a reason that lots of groups not interested in, or even opposed to, marijuana legalization were speaking out against 2. For example, this also spelled the death of single payer in Ohio unless the new amendment is repealed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
I can't really wrap my head around what issue 2 actually does or why it's good/bad. Can someone explain it like I'm 5 or whatever? e: also issue 3 on the ballot literally says "grants a monopoly"; how is that even fair to word it that way? Boris Galerkin fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Nov 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:I can't really wrap my head around what issue 2 actually does or why it's good/bad. Can someone explain it like I'm 5 or whatever? Essentially gives the Ohio ballot board power to determine that any ballot initiative constitutes preferential economic treatment and therefore put a 2nd question on the ballot about whether or not that initiative does so. Both must pass for the initiative to pass. I use the phrase preferential economic treatment, as they used a laundry list of words without providing any definitions in the proposed amendment. The fear is that with the lack of definitions, and the fact that the ballot board has no accountability except to the Secretary of State who appoints them, it will be applied as loosely as possible to any amendment that the secretary of state disagrees with.(Example: marijuana legalization or single payer) I guess in theory you could challenge their decision to apply the 2nd question in court, but that would likely take long enough that it would get pushed to an odd election year. Boris Galerkin posted:e: also issue 3 on the ballot literally says "grants a monopoly"; how is that even fair to word it that way? It's kind a true, though oligopoly would have been the correct word. It would have granted an oligopoly on who owned the land on which weed was grown. It's not very good, but it was the same thing as our casino amendment and our liquor system. wilderthanmild fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Nov 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 14:03
|
|
|
Whoever came up with the idea of only letting a handful of companies do it, is a colossal turd, that or allowing the ballot to call it a monopoly hah!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
The only reason this got on the ballot was that the handful of companies financed a massive signature drive, and the language of the ballot proposals is decided by the Ballot Board of Ohio which under Sec of State Jon Husted has become a very partisan organization. Edit: I know this is Ohio but a lot of out-of-state posters haven't been paying attention to whats been happening wrt legalization in Ohio other than the fact it was being voted on yesterday :/ Yadoppsi fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Nov 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Wait how is that issue 2 thing going to block a 2016 attempt? Don't later amendments supersede earlier ones anyway? What's more, the only part that mentions controlled substances is the section that specifically refers to the November 3, 2015 election, which wouldn't apply to the 2016 election clearly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Wait how is that issue 2 thing going to block a 2016 attempt? Don't later amendments supersede earlier ones anyway? What's more, the only part that mentions controlled substances is the section that specifically refers to the November 3, 2015 election, which wouldn't apply to the 2016 election clearly. I'm guessing the guy who posted about that was one of the 10 weed oligarchs in a last ditch attempt to keep his cash cow alive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Mexico recognized it as a right under personal freedom http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/mexico-supreme-court-opens-door-recreational-marijuana-use-n457471 Sets precedent for laws now
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:I noticed a lot of old angry white people coming to the polls to vote this thing down. Those are the people that vote. They hate pot, and they hate the entire concept of it. Putting this thing on a not-even-a-midterm ballot was pretty stupid. The only people voting are senior citizens and white suburban dorks who can't be reasoned with and "just don't like the idea."
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Human Tornada posted:Putting this thing on a not-even-a-midterm ballot was pretty stupid. The only people voting are senior citizens and white suburban dorks who can't be reasoned with and "just don't like the idea." I've worked elections of this type. There's a lot of older people who come out and vote against tax levies (a stupid, stupid system for funding things IMO) just mainly out of spite. "Well my kid went to private school. I DON'T WANT MY TAX DOLLARS GOING TOWARDS "THAT" SCHOOL!" FYGM to the nth degree. That's literally what it's all about though. That's the reasoning. Hell that was an argument I heard in regards to not legalizing it for recreational use. ("It will lead to MY TAX DOLLARS HAVING TO FUND MORE PRISON CELLS AND REHAB CLINICS BECAUSE OF THIS! WHAT A WASTE OF MY MONEY!"). Now for a presidential election? You'd have had a shot. Especially in 2008 and 2012 when our state went towards Obama and that was able to successfully push minority/younger voters to the polls. But you ain't getting it when Ethel and Joe  are waiting in line to vote it down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Wait how is that issue 2 thing going to block a 2016 attempt? Don't later amendments supersede earlier ones anyway? What's more, the only part that mentions controlled substances is the section that specifically refers to the November 3, 2015 election, which wouldn't apply to the 2016 election clearly. See my explanation 3 posts above yours. It doesn't completely block one, but it will certainly be used to gently caress with anything the Ohio Sec. of State doesn't like. wilderthanmild fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
wilderthanmild posted:See my explanation 3 posts above yours. It doesn't completely block one, but it will certainly be used to gently caress with anything the Ohio Sec. of State doesn't like. For reference the text is: quote:(B)(1) Restraint of trade or commerce being injurious to this state and its citizens, the power of the initiative shall not be used to pass an amendment to this constitution that would grant or create a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel, specify or determine a tax rate, or confer a commercial interest, commercial right, or commercial license to any person, nonpublic entity, or group of persons or nonpublic entities, or any combination thereof, however organized, that is not then available to other similarly situated persons or nonpublic entities. The text doesn't appear to be all that ambiguous. If they run with the same amendment as this time then that would certainly run afoul of it, but if they run a generic legalization amendment I don't see any wiggle room to try to claim it violates section 1 at all. The key text is "that is not then available to other similarly situated persons or nonpublic entities," it doesn't matter how you define monopoly, oligopoly, cartel, etc., so long as it isn't restricted to some particular group it doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:The text doesn't appear to be all that ambiguous. If they run with the same amendment as this time then that would certainly run afoul of it, but if they run a generic legalization amendment I don't see any wiggle room to try to claim it violates section 1 at all. The key text is "that is not then available to other similarly situated persons or nonpublic entities," it doesn't matter how you define monopoly, oligopoly, cartel, etc., so long as it isn't restricted to some particular group it doesn't matter. You could say "that's ridiculous", but it's completely up to them to decide what "similar" persons or non-public entities and what a "cartel" is. They could have, of course, actually written solid definitions for these things like most legal documents do, but they didn't for a reason. I'd love to be wrong about this, especially because it already passed, but I would be genuinely surprised if anything related to marijuana legalization gets through without the second question or having to fight it in court. wilderthanmild fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
With my reading, any legalization will also most likely result in a separate tax for marijuana which automatically makes it applicable to issue 2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Boywhiz88 posted:Mexico recognized it as a right under personal freedom Between this and recent statements coming out of Canada, hopefully the US takes a hint from the two countries that we share land borders with. But I won't get too excited considering that there are still dry counties in Texas in tyool 2015.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
In a Nutshell did a pretty good persuasive video on addiction, and they have one on the war on drugs coming up. I usually prefer their more objective science videos, but I thought I'd share. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
The NY Times ran a decent Op-Ed on legalization http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/opinion/the-push-for-legal-marijuana-spreads.htmlThe NY Times posted:Laws banning the growing, distribution and possession of marijuana have caused tremendous damage to society, with billions spent on imprisoning people for violating pointlessly harsh laws. Yet research shows that marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, and can be used to treat medical conditions like chronic pain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
wilderthanmild posted:"Similar" is extremely open ended. Are all businesses by default similar? All the grocery stores near me are definitely "similar", but only some have liquor licenses. Does that mean that the liquor laws in Ohio have created a liquor cartel? Without any kind of bar for what is "similarly situated", anything that even so much as mentions licensing, even just specifying that the state will license growers or stores, will probably be considered to be creating an "oligopoly" or "cartel". With the crazy logic that licensing some stores or people to sell marijuana and not others would establish a "cartel". It doesn't even need to truly satisfy the requirements, because as I also pointed out before, I think their goal is likely to force whoever is pushing any initiative to litigate and stall to push any ballot measure to an off year where a legalization amendment has a much lower chance of passing. At that point it is a win/win for them as I doubt anything passes with two questions and I doubt anything passes in an off year. I don't follow the logic at all. Let me break it down as I see it: quote:that would [grant or create a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel], [specify or determine a tax rate, or confer a (commercial interest, commercial right, or commercial license)] to [any person, nonpublic entity, or group of persons or nonpublic entities, or any combination thereof, however organized], that is not then available to other similarly situated [persons or nonpublic entities]. So after "grant or create a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel" there are two things here: "privileges", and "entities." Privileges are:
Entities are:
The amendment says you can grant a privilege to one entity without making it "available" to another "similarly situated" entity. The mere existence of some privilege isn't sufficient here, it must be denied to some group. A liquor licence doesn't run afoul of this because (presumably) any grocery store can apply for a liquor licence. And preventing, say, convenience stores from obtaining a licence is likewise fine as it isn't available to any other convenience store. It's specifically worded to prevent something like issue 3 which granted specific entities (like literally naming specific pieces of land) rights to produce that no other entity would have had access to, and it's specifically worded so as to permit a general licensing scheme where anyone meeting certain criteria can apply. In the off chance they try to apply the tortured logic you're suggesting I would imagine it would be a pretty open and shut court case. HappyHippo fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
The small Sioux tribe in South Dakota that planned to sell legal weed on their rez starting in January just backed down and burned their weed crop after their state's US Attorney did some muttering about how technically they could be raised. They're not giving up entirely, but they are delaying their rollout: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5641246ae4b0b24aee4b842e
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
All quiet on the legalization front... In random news I wasn't aware Vermont has a good chance of passing legalization through its legislature sometime soon: http://vtdigger.org/2015/09/22/sorrell-predicts-legislature-will-legalize-marijuana-in-2016/
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 04:57
|
|