As American as Apple Pie...laced with cannabis.
I have never smoked pot. Not once. But I think it should be legalized. And taxed.
So why am I against Ohio Issue 3, which would allow for the production, ownership, and sale of marijuana and marijuana-related products in Ohio?
Three reasons:
1) It’s Un-American
Okay, that’s probably not what you were expecting. To be clear, I’m not referring to the smoking of pot itself – which, as a recreational activity that leads to the ingestion of fatty snack foods, is a very American pursuit indeed. I mean the proposed amendment is distinctly opposed to what this country stands for.
Read more below the orange cloud of corporate pesticide that’ll be spraying your pot if Issue 3 passes.
The most fundamental tenet of our country and its government is that – to quote the Declaration of Independence – “all men are created equal.” That is, that everyone is equal before the law and the government and nobody should be given rights that others don’t enjoy. Similarly, no person or group of people should be deprived of rights that are enjoyed by others.
And yet, the Constitutional amendment proposed by Issue 3 would do exactly that: give exclusive rights to a small group of people. In fact, it even says so in the text: the Issue would “Endow exclusive rights for commercial marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction to self-designated landowners” of predetermined parcels of land. Why shouldn’t the farmer living next door to one of these land parcels have the right to cultivate marijuana for sale as well?
The (misleading) TV ads in favor of Issue 3 would have you think that “additional [marijuana production] sites can be added.” Not true. According to the text of the amendment, one additional site may be added, only after four years, and even then, only if the ten current sites can’t keep up with demand and do not think they are “likely to do so in the ensuing year.” (Section F, paragraph 5)
But considering that the amendment also gives the sites the ability to expand as needed (Section F, paragraph 2), it’s doubtful that this condition will ever be met. If demand increases, all that will happen is the ten sites will expand, along with the ten investors’ wallets. Everybody else can go pound sand.
That’s un-American* and I’m opposed to it.
2) It doesn’t belong in the Constitution
So, the State Constitution is supposed to contain the most fundamental and essential tenets of our government. It’s not supposed to delve into minutiae and details: that’s what laws and policies are for. Unfortunately, someone must have forgotten to clue in the proponents of Issue 3.
The amendment created by Issue 3 is more than 6,500 words long. To put that into context, it’s longer than the entirety of the Ohio Constitution’s Preamble and Articles 1, 3, and 5 put together. In other words, if it passes, the Ohio Constitution would have more to say on the subject of pot than on the basic rights of citizens, the powers of the Governor, and how politicians are elected…combined. Does that sound appropriate? It isn’t.
If the amendment simply read something like, “Effective December 1, 2016, the cultivation and use of marijuana shall be legal in the state of Ohio,” I’d be all for it. And in fact, that’s all the Constitution needs to say…and the legislature would then have a year to figure out the particulars.
On a related note, if this was really all about the poor, suffering children who need medicinal marijuana, like the “Yes on 3” ads imply, that’s all the amendment would say. And if you ask me, it’s kind of sleazy to exploit the serious medical conditions of small children to line your own pockets.
And so we get a 6,500-word monstrosity spelling out tax rates and fees and zoning requirements. Can we really say that a 15% tax on the production of marijuana is one of our most fundamental beliefs as citizens? What if the tax ends up being too low? Or too high? Or if some weird zoning issue crops up down the line? Too bad! Can’t change it without amending the Constitution…which is exactly what the Issue 3 backers are hoping.
3) It’s bad for business
Marijuana cultivation, processing, distribution, and sale is a big business…currently, a big illegal business. And it could be a huge legal industry in the state of Ohio: one that could encourage entrepreneurship and provide opportunity to a lot of people.
But not if they can’t get in on the action. Which, if Issue 3 passes, they can’t.
Because, under the proposed amendment, only the ten big-money investors will be able to produce the stuff for sale, reaping the big rewards. Everyone else can grow a little bit of their own, but not sell it. The Issue 3 proponents have a ready answer to this: “Well, just open a shop!” Which sounds good, but if you think about it, is kind of absurd.
Let’s imagine what life in Ohio would be like if these rules were applied to another controlled substance: alcohol. What if the State of Ohio declared that there could be only ten production sites for any kind of alcohol in Ohio, and you couldn’t import any from elsewhere? Well, the big corporations like Anheuser-Busch/InBev, Miller-Coors, and Jim Beam would be the ones snapping up the sites. If we were lucky, we might still have Christian Moerlein and Great Lakes. And the craft beverages produced out of state? The Yuenglings, the Dogfish Heads, the Knob Creek bourbons of the world? Nope! And forget about anything imported, like Stoli or Guinness!
But that’s okay, the backers would say: you can always become a home brewer and brew your own – just don’t even think about selling it! And so all the great beer that’s been flowing out of Cincinnati’s craft breweries in the last few years? Gone. Watershed Distillery outside of Columbus, which makes a smooth bourbon? Gone. Jackie O’s, Thirsty Dog, Fat Head’s, MadTree? Gone, gone, gone. But hey, aspiring craft brewers and distillers of Ohio, that’s okay: you can open a liquor store! It’s apparently the exact same thing!
Which brings up another problem: supply and demand. With (initially, at least) limited space, and high demand, are those ten growing sites really going to spend time cultivating a wide variety of plants, to cater to every individual’s taste? Or are they just going to mass-produce whatever variety they can churn out the cheapest, and spray the snot out of it with chemical pesticides to “protect their investment” from bugs and germs? Well, what would you do if you had absolutely no competition from small artisan growers, organic sources, or producers in warmer climates better-suited for growing?
Sorry, Ohio: you’ll be drinking nothing but Natty Light from here on out…and like it!
The Bottom Line
If this Issue, with all its baggage, could still pass, then I am confident that a “clean” marijuana amendment could do the same, especially in a Presidential election year like 2016.
I want to see marijuana use legalized in Ohio. I want my friends who responsibly indulge to be able to do so without fear of going to prison. I want suffering people to have access to the most effective treatments, including cannabis. I want ordinary Ohioans who don’t have millions already in the bank to be able to participate in an emerging, lucrative industry.
But not like this. Vote no on Issue 3.
*Note: To be clear, I’m not saying the ten investors are somehow un-American because they’re trying to make money. I’m saying that for us to amend the Constitution to allow them to do so would be un-American.
Tue Nov 03, 2015 at 12:37 PM PT: Wow! More than 100 comments - all of which I've read and practically all of which were civil - and over 37,000 Facebook shares! Thank you all for your attention to this important issue!
Here is some additional food for thought: http://virallysuppressed.com/...