Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Ohio voters soundly reject marijuana legalization initiative

Posted by Wayne G. Barber

Ohio voters soundly rejected a marijuana initiative Tuesday that would have legalized recreational and medicinal use of the drug, and would have limited commercial growing to a small group of investors who drafted and promoted the measure.
The initiative was failing 65% to 35%, with nearly 90% of precincts reporting.
“Issue 3 has been soundly defeated!” Ohioans Against Marijuana Monopolies crowed on Twitter.  “No marijuana monopolies in this state!”
Four other states and the District of Columbia have already legalized the recreational sale of marijuana, which is still a federal crime. Ohio would have been the first state in the Midwest to do so.
 But along with opposition from anti-drug groups and state elected officials, Ohio’s unorthodox initiative drew discomfort from some legalization supporters.

“This year's initiative failed because a greed-driven monopoly plan is wrong for the state of Ohio,” one competing pro-legalization group, Legalize Ohio 2016, said in a statement. “Some activists were let down tonight because they put their faith in a bad plan, but their efforts have brought us a step closer to legalizing marijuana in 2016.”
Opponents alleged that Issue 3 would have effectively set up a monopoly by limiting commercial marijuana growth to 10 preselected plots of land owned by the entrepreneurs behind the measure.
A group of 24 investors backing the measure included former NBA star Oscar Robertson, former boy-band celebrity Nick Lachey, and descendants of President William Howard Taft.
The “Responsible Ohio” legalization campaign was driven by political consultant Ian James, who acknowledged he would profit from the measure.
“The honest and most easy response is: I am going to profit from this,” James told the Center for Public Integrity in June. “If people are upset about me making money, I don’t know what to say other than that that’s part of the American process. To win and make this kind of change for social justice, it does cost a lot of money.”Source:  Contact Reporter

No comments:

Post a Comment