Jacob Redmond
Well-Known Member
Backers of legalized marijuana for personal, medical, and commercial purposes vowed Tuesday to legally challenge ballot language they said is designed to scare voters into a "no" vote.
The Ohio Ballot Board voted 3-2 to insert phrases into the Nov. 3 ballot that suggest the proposed constitutional amendment would set up a monopoly for a chosen few.
The board meeting marked the first real battle in the campaign over legalizing marijuana as both sides jockeyed for position for wording they hoped would be more likely to sway voters' opinions their way. The next battle will be before the Ohio Supreme Court.
The board included phrases like "endow exclusive rights" and "special tax rate" to suggest preferential treatment for a newly legal marijuana industry that the amendment seeks to create. Republicans supported the language while Democrats opposed it.
ResponsibleOhio, the nonprofit organization behind the amendment, contends its proposal is not a monopoly and does not extend "exclusive" rights to its beneficiaries. Although the locations of 10 growing locations would be locked down in the constitution, they argue the amendment would leave the door open for a new state panel to designate more locations later if it determines demand exceeds supply.
The amendment also would allow for the limited ability of individuals to grow four marijuana plants for personal use.
"The attempt to say this is about just 10 sites for growth, cultivation, and extraction is just dead wrong," said Don McTigue, attorney for ResponsibleOhio.
The use of terms suggesting a monopoly or special treatment is seen as an advantage by opponents of the issue, particularly since the General Assembly has placed a separate competing amendment on the same ballot that would all but prohibit the writing of commercial monopolies into the constitution.
The opposition also plans to play up the monopoly angle in its ads, knowing that some who generally support legalizing pot don't like ResponsibleOhio's big business approach.
Issue 3 asks voters to allow those 21 and older to legally use marijuana and products made from it and to build a wholesale and retail merchandising system around the newly legal industry.
Elizabeth Smith, representing the newly formed coalition Ohioans Against Marijuana Monopolies, countered that the board's terminology is necessary.
"Ohio voters have an absolute right to know that they will be granting exclusive rights, a monopoly, for the growth and sale of recreational, and medical marijuana, and marijuana edibles, such as cookies, candies, and lollipops," she said.
Among other things, supporters of the amendment protested the board's reference to "recreational" use of pot for individuals when the language of their amendment refers to "personal" use.
Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted, the board's Republican chairman, said "recreational" is term commonly used to differentiate nonmedical use from medical use. But Mr. McTigue argued that it's a loaded term designed to elicit a "no" vote.
"We don't say [cigarette smokers] are engaged in recreational smoking of cigarettes," Mr. McTigue said. "This is here for purely political advantage."
The board also wrote the language that voters will see for Issue 2, the anti-monopoly amendment designed to undercut the marijuana question. Should both issues pass but the anti-monopoly gets more "yes" votes, Issue 2 would likely override the marijuana question.
It's less clear what would happen if both pass but Issue 3 draws more affirmative votes. Mr. Husted has suggested that the anti-monopoly amendment would take precedent even under that scenario because constitutional amendments placed on the ballot by the General Assembly take effect immediately upon passage while citizen-initiated issues do not.
Either way, the issue would again likely end up before the state Supreme Court.
News Moderator: Jacob Redmond 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Marijuana backers fight to change ballot language - Toledo Blade
Author: Jim Provance
Contact: jprovance@theblade.com
Photo Credit: Steve Dipaola/Reuters
Website: Home - Toledo Blade
The Ohio Ballot Board voted 3-2 to insert phrases into the Nov. 3 ballot that suggest the proposed constitutional amendment would set up a monopoly for a chosen few.
The board meeting marked the first real battle in the campaign over legalizing marijuana as both sides jockeyed for position for wording they hoped would be more likely to sway voters' opinions their way. The next battle will be before the Ohio Supreme Court.
The board included phrases like "endow exclusive rights" and "special tax rate" to suggest preferential treatment for a newly legal marijuana industry that the amendment seeks to create. Republicans supported the language while Democrats opposed it.
ResponsibleOhio, the nonprofit organization behind the amendment, contends its proposal is not a monopoly and does not extend "exclusive" rights to its beneficiaries. Although the locations of 10 growing locations would be locked down in the constitution, they argue the amendment would leave the door open for a new state panel to designate more locations later if it determines demand exceeds supply.
The amendment also would allow for the limited ability of individuals to grow four marijuana plants for personal use.
"The attempt to say this is about just 10 sites for growth, cultivation, and extraction is just dead wrong," said Don McTigue, attorney for ResponsibleOhio.
The use of terms suggesting a monopoly or special treatment is seen as an advantage by opponents of the issue, particularly since the General Assembly has placed a separate competing amendment on the same ballot that would all but prohibit the writing of commercial monopolies into the constitution.
The opposition also plans to play up the monopoly angle in its ads, knowing that some who generally support legalizing pot don't like ResponsibleOhio's big business approach.
Issue 3 asks voters to allow those 21 and older to legally use marijuana and products made from it and to build a wholesale and retail merchandising system around the newly legal industry.
Elizabeth Smith, representing the newly formed coalition Ohioans Against Marijuana Monopolies, countered that the board's terminology is necessary.
"Ohio voters have an absolute right to know that they will be granting exclusive rights, a monopoly, for the growth and sale of recreational, and medical marijuana, and marijuana edibles, such as cookies, candies, and lollipops," she said.
Among other things, supporters of the amendment protested the board's reference to "recreational" use of pot for individuals when the language of their amendment refers to "personal" use.
Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted, the board's Republican chairman, said "recreational" is term commonly used to differentiate nonmedical use from medical use. But Mr. McTigue argued that it's a loaded term designed to elicit a "no" vote.
"We don't say [cigarette smokers] are engaged in recreational smoking of cigarettes," Mr. McTigue said. "This is here for purely political advantage."
The board also wrote the language that voters will see for Issue 2, the anti-monopoly amendment designed to undercut the marijuana question. Should both issues pass but the anti-monopoly gets more "yes" votes, Issue 2 would likely override the marijuana question.
It's less clear what would happen if both pass but Issue 3 draws more affirmative votes. Mr. Husted has suggested that the anti-monopoly amendment would take precedent even under that scenario because constitutional amendments placed on the ballot by the General Assembly take effect immediately upon passage while citizen-initiated issues do not.
Either way, the issue would again likely end up before the state Supreme Court.
News Moderator: Jacob Redmond 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Marijuana backers fight to change ballot language - Toledo Blade
Author: Jim Provance
Contact: jprovance@theblade.com
Photo Credit: Steve Dipaola/Reuters
Website: Home - Toledo Blade
