Ohio Ballot Measures (2015)

[muon2]

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

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

[muon2]

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

[muon2]

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

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

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

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

[muon2]

I think Marokai and I are in agreement on the nature of the ballot issues. However, as I posted earlier in the thread the empowering of monopolies/oligopolies is common at all levels of government and not confined to the Pubs. The Dems in power are just as likely to favor corporate cartels through regulatory mechanisms.

[muon2]

Interesting. I was under the impression that metro Cincy was fairly conservation, so I wonder what makes support for marijuana legalization relatively strong there.

I was under the impression that if metro Cincy wasn't conservative than it was at least more conservative than Cleveland, Columbus, and OU.

Weird.

It may be that legalization isn't a traditional liberal-conservative split, especially with the cartel language in the question. Consider that the Cinci region may simply have a more pro-business view to the issue: less opposition to the cartel language from the left and less opposition to use of cannabis from the right.

[muon2]

Athens seems like an area that would have lots of growers. They wouldn't be fond of the monopoly clause.

The amendment would have allowed anyone to grow up to four plants for personal use including sharing the product with others. The monopoly clause pertained to commercial growers with the intent to sell.