[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Issues 2 and 3 (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 10/14/2015 4:17:29 PM EDT
|
Been trying to figure out what the hell will happen if they both pass... which looks like it could happen.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/poll-ohio-headed-toward-constitutional-crisis-over/nn29m/ campaign to legalize marijuana in Ohio, but they don’t necessarily predict a near future where Ohioans can legally smoke joints and patients can use marijuana as medicine.
Ohio voters support Issue 3, the constitutional amendment to legalize marijuana use in the state, according to a new Kent State University poll. But they also support Issue 2, which would prohibit putting monopolies in the constitution and, say supporters, keep Issue 3 from going into effect if both amendments pass. I kinda support both of them but I don't want to see some cluster that keeps them both tied up in court for a long time. I don't see why Ohio just can't pass laws without putting everything on the Constitution. |
| I wonder the same thing. The lawyer in me says that both would stay on the books, and the courts would decline to enforce the part of Issue 2 that purports to exclude the marijuana monopoly. But the politicos aren't into the marijuana initiative at all, so they might urge the state supreme court to enforce all of Issue 2 and strike Issue 3. I certainly think that's what DeWine would do. |
|
According to this, the text is as follows:
Issue 2 Anti-monopoly amendment; protects the initiative process from being used for personal economic benefit Proposed Constitutional Amendment Proposed by Joint Resolution of the General Assembly Proposing to amend Section 1e of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Ohio. A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass. The proposed amendment would: Prohibit any petitioner from using the Ohio Constitution to grant a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel for their exclusive financial benefit or to establish a preferential tax status. Prohibit any petitioner from using the Ohio Constitution to grant a commercial interest, right, or license that is not available to similarly situated persons or nonpublic entities. Require the bipartisan Ohio Ballot Board to determine if a proposed constitutional amendment violates the prohibitions above, and if it does, present two separate ballot questions to voters. Both ballot questions must receive a majority yes vote before the proposed amendment could take effect. Prohibit from taking effect any proposed constitutional amendment appearing on the November 3, 2015 General Election ballot that creates a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel for the sale, distribution, or other use of any federal Schedule I controlled substance. The Ohio Supreme Court has original, exclusive jurisdiction in any action related to the proposal. If passed, the amendment will become effective immediately.[4] I assume the "or other use of any federal Schedule I controlled substance" would ding the personal use portion of Issue 3 instead of just the part that pertains to the 10 growing sites. |
|
The only reason why I will vote yes on 2 is because it puts some type of constitutional restriction on ballot iniatives at least as it pertains to business monopoly's. But IMO more needs to be done as far as eliminating or making it harder to put state constitutional amendments on the ballot, which seems to happen every election. Our federal constitution hasn't changed that much over its history and neither should our state constitution. Direct Democracy can be extremely dangerous! If you disagree with me, just look up Washington State Initiative i594 and you will know what Im talking about. 
|
|
Quoted:
Our federal constitution hasn't changed that much over its history and neither should our state constitution. Direct Democracy can be extremely dangerous! I don't see why the constitution is changed by direct vote but laws are not. It seems a passé idea that the Constitution provides a framework for government, and laws are a different layer altogether. |
|
Quoted:
I don't see why the constitution is changed by direct vote but laws are not. It seems a passé idea that the Constitution provides a framework for government, and laws are a different layer altogether. Quoted:
Quoted:
Our federal constitution hasn't changed that much over its history and neither should our state constitution. Direct Democracy can be extremely dangerous! I don't see why the constitution is changed by direct vote but laws are not. It seems a passé idea that the Constitution provides a framework for government, and laws are a different layer altogether. I believe "regular laws", not just constitutional amendments, can also put up for a vote in Ohio as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the infamous "smoking ban", was not a constitutional amendment but a statutory law which was put before and passed by the voters. Either way, its a major flaw that needs to be fixed. |
|
Once one of these ballot initiatives to change the state constitution passes, is it a harder process to have it removed or amended?
Even if it's not, changing the state constitution via the ballot box is not the proper process for doing so IMO. Regardless of how I've felt about whatever issue that's came up, I've always voted no on them for this reason. ETA:And will continue to do so. |
|
Quoted:
Once one of these ballot initiatives to change the state constitution passes, is it a harder process to have it removed or amended? Even if it's not, changing the state constitution via the ballot box is not the proper process for doing so IMO. Regardless of how I've felt about whatever issue that's came up, I've always voted no on them for this reason. ETA:And will continue to do so. Me too! |
|
Quoted:
Yep Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought it was stupid to put the casinos in the Constitution as well. Yep I voted against the casinos and will vote against "ResponsibleOhio" for the same reason. I'm Pro-Gambling and Anti-WOD, but monopolizing them is the worst way to go about it. |
| OP-If both pass, as long as there is a single lawyer left alive in the state, it will end up in court. But there is plenty of Clayton and Sherman Act case law established that Issue 3 will not be affected. But Issue 2 wont pass anyway, as good as its intentions are, its a giant poorly written run on sentence that is way too vague. It does on thing, restricts your right to vote, and Mike Curtin thinks that you're smart enough to vote for politicians, but not for issues. Ohio's Constitution is not the Magna Carta or the Ten Commandments, it's already full of shit. Gambling on several occasions, protections for soda tax, livestock, Civil War veterans pensions, and even bond issues that John F. Wolfe(Dispatch owner) used to put on a flower show for his wife and left Columbus with a $30000000 bill. If the legislature wanted to prevent Issue 3 from passing, then their best bet would have been to pass a medical mj bill on their own, but they chose to ignore the issue just as they have for the past 17 years. |
|
Quoted:
OP-If both pass, as long as there is a single lawyer left alive in the state, it will end up in court. But there is plenty of Clayton and Sherman Act case law established that Issue 3 will not be affected. But Issue 2 wont pass anyway, as good as its intentions are, its a giant poorly written run on sentence that is way too vague. It does on thing, restricts your right to vote, and Mike Curtin thinks that you're smart enough to vote for politicians, but not for issues. Ohio's Constitution is not the Magna Carta or the Ten Commandments, it's already full of shit. Gambling on several occasions, protections for soda tax, livestock, Civil War veterans pensions, and even bond issues that John F. Wolfe(Dispatch owner) used to put on a flower show for his wife and left Columbus with a $30000000 bill. If the legislature wanted to prevent Issue 3 from passing, then their best bet would have been to pass a medical mj bill on their own, but they chose to ignore the issue just as they have for the past 17 years. Somehow I think they will fight it to the point that a better MJ law will be on the ballot in 2016.... during the presidential election.
You think the motivated pot heads will vote for the conservatives for Clinton/Sanders as they also vote on marijuana? |
|
Quoted:
I voted against the casinos and will vote against "ResponsibleOhio" for the same reason. I'm Pro-Gambling and Anti-WOD, but monopolizing them is the worst way to go about it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought it was stupid to put the casinos in the Constitution as well. Yep I voted against the casinos and will vote against "ResponsibleOhio" for the same reason. I'm Pro-Gambling and Anti-WOD, but monopolizing them is the worst way to go about it. I just think our Constitution looks retarded with all this shit on it. 
|
|
Looking through my cloudy crystal ball 
2015 Constitutional amendment to legalize marijuana 2016 Constitutional amendment to close the "gun show loophole" 2017 Constitutional amendment to ban "high capacity magazines" 2018 Constitutional amendment to ban "assault weapons" ..........and on and on and on Yes the slope is covered with ice.
|
|
Quoted:
Looking through my cloudy crystal ball
2015 Constitutional amendment to legalize marijuana 2016 Constitutional amendment to close the "gun show loophole" 2017 Constitutional amendment to ban "high capacity magazines" 2018 Constitutional amendment to ban "assault weapons" ..........and on and on and on Yes the slope is covered with ice.
You must be high already |
|
Quoted:
I just voted Yes and No. The legislature can legalize marijuana anytime they want. Don't need to create a monopoly for a few self-chosen folks (like we did with the casinos). -- Chuck And they never will, which is why its being done this way. There is never going to be help from national organizations to fund a "grass-roots campaign" in a battle ground state when they can get 3x-4x-5x the return spending the same amount in more blue states. |
|
Quoted:
You must be high already Quoted:
Quoted:
Looking through my cloudy crystal ball
2015 Constitutional amendment to legalize marijuana 2016 Constitutional amendment to close the "gun show loophole" 2017 Constitutional amendment to ban "high capacity magazines" 2018 Constitutional amendment to ban "assault weapons" ..........and on and on and on Yes the slope is covered with ice.
You must be high already Your missing my point. |
|
Yes on 2, no on 3. I think if it becomes a legal crop, then any farmer should be able to grow it. Not just 10 large companies with deep pockets. I for one would love to grow hemp. I've read that it can produce more bio-diesel per acre than corn, makes excellent rope, etc. Heck, I've even read that our founders grew hemp for paper, etc. Or, if there's profit to be made, maybe I'd like to grow a few acres of pot. In the end, it's either legal for all of us to do, or it shouldn't be legal at all. And, I know that Issue 3 allows people to grow x number of plants, but I'm not looking to grow any for recreational use. If I'm growing it, legally, it will be for profit. |
|
Quoted:
Yes on 2, no on 3. I think if it becomes a legal crop, then any farmer should be able to grow it. Not just 10 large companies with deep pockets. I for one would love to grow hemp. I've read that it can produce more bio-diesel per acre than corn, makes excellent rope, etc. Heck, I've even read that our founders grew hemp for paper, etc. Or, if there's profit to be made, maybe I'd like to grow a few acres of pot. In the end, it's either legal for all of us to do, or it shouldn't be legal at all. And, I know that Issue 3 allows people to grow x number of plants, but I'm not looking to grow any for recreational use. If I'm growing it, legally, it will be for profit. My thoughts exactly. Either legal for all or legal for no one. Quite frankly, it should be legalized and treated just like whiskey. |
|
here's some more info for folks to read on these issues (there are 3 issues: 1, 2, and 3):
http://www.ohiolibertycoalition.org/3-issues-how-do-you-vote/ ...as for me, i'm voting yes on 2, no on 3! 
|
|
Quoted: here's some more info for folks to read on these issues (there are 3 issues: 1, 2, and 3): http://www.ohiolibertycoalition.org/3-issues-how-do-you-vote/ ...as for me, i'm voting yes on 2, no on 3! Nice! Can someone give me the laymen version of issue 1? |
|
Quoted:
Nice! Can someone give me the laymen version of issue 1? Quoted:
Quoted:
here's some more info for folks to read on these issues (there are 3 issues: 1, 2, and 3): http://www.ohiolibertycoalition.org/3-issues-how-do-you-vote/ ...as for me, i'm voting yes on 2, no on 3! Nice! Can someone give me the laymen version of issue 1? Here is some information on issue 1 as well as some discussion on the others : http://www.ccv.org/why-vote-no-on-ohio-state-issues/ http://www.ohiolibertycoalition.org/vote-no-on-ohio-issue-1-constitutional-convention/ |
Jon Husted accuses ResponsibleOhio of voter fraud |
|
Quoted: Yes on 2, no on 3. I think if it becomes a legal crop, then any farmer should be able to grow it. Not just 10 large companies with deep pockets. I for one would love to grow hemp. I've read that it can produce more bio-diesel per acre than corn, makes excellent rope, etc. Heck, I've even read that our founders grew hemp for paper, etc. Or, if there's profit to be made, maybe I'd like to grow a few acres of pot. In the end, it's either legal for all of us to do, or it shouldn't be legal at all. And, I know that Issue 3 allows people to grow x number of plants, but I'm not looking to grow any for recreational use. If I'm growing it, legally, it will be for profit. Probably a dumb question but would issue 2 passing make it legal to grow/use/have for personal use? Or does it just make it legal if it came from a 'certified' place and would need to be 'official' like current prescription only drugs? |
|
Quoted:
Jon Husted accuses ResponsibleOhio of voter fraudhttp://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/10/30/responsibleohio-voter-fraud-accusations.html He's been opposed to it from the beginning so I'mnot surprised. |
|
Quoted:
Jon Husted accuses ResponsibleOhio of voter fraudhttp://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/10/30/responsibleohio-voter-fraud-accusations.html ORC 3503.19 (B)(2)(c) Requires all completed voter reg forms to be turned in. That's politics at its best, go to a prosecutor when someone follows the law and you dont like the outcome. |
|
douche |
|
Quoted:
Looking through my cloudy crystal ball
2015 Constitutional amendment to legalize marijuana 2016 Constitutional amendment to close the "gun show loophole" 2017 Constitutional amendment to ban "high capacity magazines" 2018 Constitutional amendment to ban "assault weapons" ..........and on and on and on Yes the slope is covered with ice.
That doesnt make a lick of sense. Sorry but will be voting No on 2 and Yes on 3. People who want to smoke it already do, only difference is now people wont go to jail for doing so. Keep ppl out of jail, add a little tax revenue to the state and make some gang banger/drug dealing thugs get a real job because selling weed behind a dumpster in the back alley is no longer a profitable business. |
|
That doesnt make a lick of sense. Sorry but will be voting No on 2 and Yes on 3. People who want to smoke it already do, only difference is now people wont go to jail for doing so. Keep ppl out of jail, add a little tax revenue to the state and make some gang banger/drug dealing thugs get a real job because selling weed behind a dumpster in the back alley is no longer a profitable business. I'm not looking to get into a purse swinging match, but I would like to hear everyone thoughts on this. I don't understand the logic of "Oh lets make it legal, because I'm tired of dealing with it." Let's say it gets legal and we no longer pay for say 15000 arrest a year because of this. Money saved +1. now since it is still against federal law these growers/dispensers/sellers/pot businesses can not use the banks making them easy targets thus more than likely (I cant predict the future) increasing armed robbery. because where are they going to keep this money besides in a safe/at home. So now were dealing with paying for police to track down these people, and dealing with this new influx of crime. so that's a -1. I am not willing to trade a petty crime for a felony. now businesses are not going to be cheap because like everything else it would be fair to guess that the state will want to tax it right? Right. So now we have street dealers still selling because it is cheaper to buy because no tax (and other store markups to pay employees, other expenses). Also gives people the mentality of well yah I can break the law but if enough of us do it then maybe they will make it legal to save money. All in all I am not seeing any amazing improvements or money saved (If you research and don't just assume everything). so Yes on 2, No on 3....But I would like to hear everyone's opinions on the issue. |
|
Your comparisons don't really make sense because it's already a cash business. Nothing changes with that. And police are already out doing investigations of robberies and other crimes (including marijuana trafficking & consumption).
Don't get me wrong, i will be voting NO on 3, but it's out of principle. Nothing else. If anyone thinks marijuana should be illegal, to be consistent they must also believe alcohol should be, too. Some folks do, I'm sure, but I'm guessing most people who think marijuana should be illegal think booze is A-OK. Let people make their choices on what they consume and let those same people deal with the consequences of their actions. As far as 2, what I've seen is it is a hastily written amendment specifically written to try to counter Issue 3, no other considerations in mind. Is it going to de-regulate casino gambling in Ohio? Is it going to eliminate the three-tier system? No, and no. |
|
Quoted:
Your comparisons don't really make sense because it's already a cash business. Nothing changes with that. And police are already out doing investigations of robberies and other crimes (including marijuana trafficking & consumption). If we are talking about use of police resources/tax payer money it sure does change things. Because at the moment are dealers reporting they got robbed? No. So in the since of tax payer money, yes there is a change. Police are out doing investigations yes, but not for dealers getting robbed. |
| We are already paying for the police. They are already investigating robberies. If it's not one it's the other. If it's not a robbery from a pot dealer, it's the pot dealer itself. Legalizing a criminal activity does not increase criminal activity...it just shifts somewhere else. |
|
Quoted:
That doesnt make a lick of sense. Sorry but will be voting No on 2 and Yes on 3. People who want to smoke it already do, only difference is now people wont go to jail for doing so. Keep ppl out of jail, add a little tax revenue to the state and make some gang banger/drug dealing thugs get a real job because selling weed behind a dumpster in the back alley is no longer a profitable business. Quoted:
Quoted:
Looking through my cloudy crystal ball
2015 Constitutional amendment to legalize marijuana 2016 Constitutional amendment to close the "gun show loophole" 2017 Constitutional amendment to ban "high capacity magazines" 2018 Constitutional amendment to ban "assault weapons" ..........and on and on and on Yes the slope is covered with ice.
That doesnt make a lick of sense. Sorry but will be voting No on 2 and Yes on 3. People who want to smoke it already do, only difference is now people wont go to jail for doing so. Keep ppl out of jail, add a little tax revenue to the state and make some gang banger/drug dealing thugs get a real job because selling weed behind a dumpster in the back alley is no longer a profitable business. Your missing my point. First of all, I am for the legalization of marijuana, but there does not need to be a constitutional amendment in order to legalize it. This is something that could/should be done by removing certain provisions in the ORC via normal legislative process. What Im against, is the ballot initiative process in Ohio as it is too easy to put a proposed state constitutional amendments on the ballot. A constitution whether state or federal, is something that should not be tinkered with every election. Im sorry, but Im not going to vote to amend our state constitution in order to legalize some plants. If we don't put limitations on enacting constitutional amendments via the ballot box, then this is something that could ultimately bite us gun owners in the ass. Never underestimate the stupidity within the masses as majority rule can turn into mob rule. Now Spartikis if you want to vote to "legalize" marijuana, thats fine. But just remember that the same process to put Issue 3 before the voters, is the same process that Bloomburg and Moms Demand Action are currently using in other states,( with processes similar to Ohio's) to enact their gun control agenda as they recently did in Washington State with their "Universal Background Check" law. |
|
I hate the way they've gone about it. Our legislature has made a cluster fuck out of this issue through inaction. They could have passed legislation to legalize it and had total control of the process. Instead they left it to private entities with deep pockets to write the rules. Big shocker - those private entities are going to do what they can to protect those deep pockets.
Now I have to choose between some bastard amendment to the constitution that sets up a constitutionally-protected monopoly, or wait to see what they come up with next year that will have every stoner and hippie flock to the polls during a presidential election. I personally don't give two shits about weed. I've BTDT a long time ago. I haven't done it in well over a decade and won't start tomorrow. I also don't think it is my business or anyone else's business to tell someone else that they can or can not use it. If this were a vote for legal weed without the monopoly I'd vote yes and not give it a second thought. If next year weren't a presidential election I'd vote no for this monopoly business and not give it a second thought. However, next year IS a presidential election. Do I vote no, hoping that the legislature puts this to bed before the next election? Do I vote yes, nipping it in the bud now so it doesn't draw people to the polls next November? I still haven't decided. Either way, our legislature needs to start dealing with these issues so that we can stop polluting our constitution with shit like this. |
|
Call me old fashioned and I'm sure many other things, but I'm against legalizing marijuana. Growing up in the 70's I saw too many friends use it and become unproductive stoners, not to mention I do think it leads to a higher likelihood of using more powerful drugs. Yes, I do drink and I've seen bad results and lifestyles from that too. But legalizing more ways to encourage people to become unproductive slackers just doesn't seem to make sense to me. And if you really want to use it, I don't see people hurting to get access today anyway. Medical uses sure, have an exemption, but please...those pandering commercials on TV... just stop the bs.
So, that being said, how do I vote against it? And if it does pass, I don't see why there should be a monopoly either. Flame on. |
|
Quoted:
Make sure to get to the polls on Wednesday.  Quoted:
Quoted:
So, that being said, how do I vote against it? Make sure to get to the polls on Wednesday. Nice, not the first answer I expected, but good point. I plan to vote first thing in the morning, I always vote. I did a little searching and found this article and links at the bottom to help. The wording is so purposefully misleading. |
|
Quoted:
Call me old fashioned and I'm sure many other things, but I'm against legalizing marijuana. Growing up in the 70's I saw too many friends use it and become unproductive stoners, not to mention I do think it leads to a higher likelihood of using more powerful drugs. Yes, I do drink and I've seen bad results and lifestyles from that too. But legalizing more ways to encourage people to become unproductive slackers just doesn't seem to make sense to me. And if you really want to use it, I don't see people hurting to get access today anyway. Medical uses sure, have an exemption, but please...those pandering commercials on TV... just stop the bs. So, that being said, how do I vote against it? And if it does pass, I don't see why there should be a monopoly either. Flame on. Let 'em use all the mind bending drugs they want. Their life, their choice, they can face the consequences of their actions. Government does NOT exist to protect a person from himself I assume you would be fine with outlawing alcohol and tobacco products, and empty calorie unhealthy junk foods. |