Why Russ Belville Fights For Ohio Marijuana Legalization

[Jacob Redmond]

I'm somewhat of an outlier in the marijuana reform movement these days. Ohio has marijuana legalization on the ballot for 2015, and I'm one of the few high-profile (pardon the pun) legalization advocates pushing hard for its passage. Most of my colleagues are in a hold-their-nose-and-backhandedly-support-it public stance, and some are assiduously attacking the measure and angling for its defeat.

That's because they don't understand the nature of this war. This is not about marijuana and it is certainly not about entrepreneurship.

This is about freedom.

In 1971, the president of the United States declared war on people like me who use marijuana. People don't think of it that way, but when you look at how our liberties have been shredded in the War on Drugs, they should.

This war, in a nutshell, is the ability for authorities of the state to abrogate my rights because the drug I choose to use is contraband. The result is a society where my friends who choose to use alcohol, nicotine, and numerous prescription drugs that are far more harmful than my drug are afforded adult respect and accommodation, while my people are treated as criminals.

In 2014, I sat on the side of a Utah freeway while armed agents of the state rifled through my personal possessions and detained me for six hours until I could raise $1,200 because they detected marijuana. For twelve months, I've had to diligently pay $100 a month to ensure I don't have a permanent criminal record, while being extra cautious to avoid encounters with law enforcement who'd quickly discover I have a current criminal drug record in Utah. I take this shit personally.

So the way the war is won is by taking from the authorities, state by state, the ability to fuck with adults who use marijuana. When marijuana is not contraband, the whole game changes. We shift from being criminals seeking a high to consumers of a legal product seeking equal rights. We get businesses and money and tax revenue and lobbyists and politicians on our side.

Then we fight for cultivation rights. Then we fight to make the business model more equitable. But we've got to get it legal first, period.

The reason so many of these stoners against legalization feel confident in "wait 'til next year" is most of them don't get busted. There are 20 million-ish pot smokers, but 675,000-ish marijuana arrests. It's like what, 1 in 30 of us are going to get busted? Then, in Ohio, it's a ticket and driver's license loss, no arrest, so some people don't fear the risk of remaining criminals.

Sometimes that's attributable to those people being white, or older, or both, and being far less likely to be busted if they're careful. Why accept a less-than-perfect legalization, they'd think, when I've already got my hook-up; I smoke pretty much with impunity, and I am disgusted at the idea of know-nothing carpetbagger money guys who don't know their sativa from Shinola swooping in and stealing the industry from my pals who are cop-ducking risk-taking illicit marijuana growers who've kept me high all these years?

So, I get it. I'm not ignorant to the shitiness of the business plan, the opportunistic capitalistic ignorant (really, a superhero bud?) asshole behind the measure, and the karmic turd sandwich voting for Issue 3 will be.

But to me, this is war. And it's not us against the corporations or us against the rich, it's us against the prohibition that keeps us second-class citizens.

To me, it's not just Ohio, it's every goddamn state that is so much further behind Ohio, wishing they had a shot at imperfect legalization. States like Texas where women get raped in parking lots by cops who claim they smell marijuana in the women's vaginas. States like Missouri where a man serving life for pot finally gets released, but so many more men and women in so many more states are rotting behind bars. States that only inch closer to freedom on the wave of other states' successes.

I never again want to see the prohibitionists win another battle in this war. I understand being pissed off at how Ohio came to be voting on legalization before California. I understand hating what kind of legalization is being offered. But I don't understand voting against legalization because it helps rich people or corporations or thwarts the career dreams of marijuana growers when 7 out of 8 marijuana arrests are of marijuana consumers who paid to be arrested, while growers at least profited for their risk of arrest.

Legalization changes everything. Think of how powerful marijuana has been even as it has been federally prohibited and illegal in all fifty states. Literally over one trillion dollars spent to eradicate this plant and destroy the lives of the people who utilize it, and we ended up with a society that celebrates it in movies, TV and pop concerts.

But we're supposed to fear Ohio gifting commercial marijuana cultivation to ten entities? When it comes with legal pot shops, extraction companies, testing labs, processing facilities that anyone can own? When it means medical marijuana patients can get relief? When any adult can grow four plants and possess a half-pound at home? Really?

How is legalizing marijuana in Ohio in 2015 going to be worse than an Ohio where being caught with weed, at best, means cops can detain and harass you, take your weed, search your person and your car, give you a ticket, cost you money, take your driver's license, and mess with your job, housing, and educational prospects because you've gotten a minor misdemeanor for drug possession?

Win every battle. Do not give the opponent any quarter. Be as ruthless to our enemy as they have been to us. They will all be hoping that Ohio defeats legalization in 2015. They want to keep making easy ticket money, busting down home growers' doors, seizing people's assets over marijuana. They want to keep raking in cash for drug testing and prison and probation and parole. Don't give them a victory.

News Moderator: Jacob Redmond 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Why Russ Belville Fights for Ohio Marijuana Legalization
Author: Russ Belville
Contact: Contact HuffPo
Photo Credit: Russ Belville
Website: Huffington Post

 

[dingusmcgee]

if you want freedom, then federal repeal is the only solution. every other option, like whats been proposed here, is another form of prohibition. the deep pockets moving towards 'legalization' in OH are headed in the same direction as what happened in WA. Russ is just another common prohibitionist.

 

[ticobird]

@dingusmcgee

It is not factually true that "if you want freedom, then federal repeal is the only solution" because of a little something called the US Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment which reads as follows:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment 10 is what gives any state the ability to override a federal law that exceeds the purview of the federal government within that state. Having said that, I understand why you feel the way you do about the legalization of marijuana. I to would rather the whole issue be solved by removing the specific mention of marijuana from President Nixon's Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-84/pdf/STATUTE-84-Pg1236.pdf - Note: search the pdf for marihuana rather than marijuana. Unfortunately this most likely will not occur because an enlightened president deems it important enough to expend precious political capital on a perceived minor issue. Rather instead it will occur because of multiple grass root state efforts that pass legislation obeying the majority of a state's voting citizens. Possibly after enough states have legalized marijuana a sitting president will instruct the Attorney General to correct the matter but until then separate state legalization efforts are the only path to legalization.

Personally, I can visualize the day this occurs although I admit I do not know when it will happen. I do not know if it will take 10 states or 40 states going through the motions of legalizing marijuana before the rest of the country wakes up. Furthermore, even if marijuana is removed from the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 I can envision a few states doubling down on criminalizing the production, sale or even possession of marijuana but that will be the right of the voting population within those states.

 

[dingusmcgee]

then there little things known as the Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause which will maintain the federal prohibition despite the 10th Amendment. in any case, invoking the 10th really only supports the argument for continued prohibition of a substance that should never have been legally prohibited to begin with.

 

[DrRootswell]

There will be no " more equatable" distribution system in the future. Into forever this group of gangsters will own it all, Russ. It will be enshrined in the Constitution. Nothing will change " employer wise" they can still fire you if metabolites are detected. A piss test is the same thing as a Hitler era " loyalty oath". The " home growing" provision is a fraud. What is 4 " plants"? Is a " seedling" a plant, a " clone" a plant, rooted or not? Is a " germinated seed" a plant? It (home growing, which was NOT even in these greedy assholes first scheme), involves " licensure" which means that a regulatory body can come, and WILL come to make sure you are in " compliance" and look to the very articles on 420 magazine of the excesses and downright scary shit coming out of Michigan and Washington state by cops holding people up for money and property while " insuring compliance". I think maybe Jacob Redmond can point out many articles he has run on exactly this issue. Now they will not have to " break down doors" they will demand and receive the right to come in your house anytime they want. Do you have to have a " license" to brew up a batch of beer, if you happen to like beer and do not want to drink pisswater like Budweiser? Russ, I understand and sincerely appreciate your passion, and agree with you about the general wickedness of marijuana prohibition, after refusing a " consent search" at 1 am cops attacked me in my home simply because I refused their consent search ( ongoing " court" happening now ) and this Responsible Ohio plan does not aid our beleagured Constitution at all., but a shitty deal is really no deal at all. What would letting these assholes take the whole thing have to do with Utah, and you can believe, their plan means MORE traffic stops and searches as the cops look for the " forbidden" metabolites in you. Russ, I agree with you about the evils, but this Responsible Ohio plan is even more evil, and Ticobird, I got ya. I get ya. Russ to end a war by total capitulation. Wrong. Wrong Wrong. These Responsible Ohio guys are gold plated turds and Ian is a gold plated asshole planning on taking the sacrifices of others the last 50 years and turn it into personal gain for HIMSELF> Russ, you are SOOOOO wrong. The Responsible Ohio plan really stinks. dingusmcgee, I got ya also.

 

[ticobird]

@dingusmcgee

You are most likely correct when you state any US Constitutional challenge to the ResponsibleOhio Initiative 3 amendment will involve Article 1 and Article 6 of the US Constitution for many various reasons.

This is one of the reasons I feel the ResponsibleOhio Initiative 3 amendment while weak or deficient in certain respects should nevertheless be approved if we are to move this matter forward in the direction of legalization. It has been stated here and elsewhere that this amendment lacks the necessary language to satisfy everyone. I will just categorically state that this amendment or any highly debated amendment for that matter will never satisfy everybody. This is the nature of politics. It is mean and nasty and most people do not have the stomach for it. Admittedly I usually count myself in the camp that is curious about politics but I also really only exercise my vote after investigating the subject of what I'm voting for or against. I will not mince words about the topic of legalizing marijuana. I feel its time has come and it is up to us to make it happen. How we go about that effort is certainly up for debate but I would caution you to not get sidetracked by those who attempt to inject confusion and uncertainty into the effort not only because it is a common political tactic but because of what I just stated previously which is that many of the pro marijuana legalization people are not as politically savvy as they should be with regard to this divisive issue.

I've stated previously the ResponsibleOhio Initiative 3 is not perfect but it does allow for future adjustment (think fine tuning) in all matters concerning legalizing the growth, sale and possession of marijuana wholly within the state of Ohio.

 

[DrRootswell]

A reasonable compromise is to vote for both issues 2 and 3. Though 2 is really just a prohibition continuation thing dreamed up by Ohio's fear mongering politicians, voting yes for 3 will demonstrate numbers and 2 will prevent the cartel monopoly from benefitting personally. In other words, we get to have our voices heard, and thanks to the cartel greedy know nothings for putting up the money. hahahaha. Thanks, greedy chumps.

 

[ticobird]

Despite my belief that the ResponsibleOhio Ballot Issue 3 does not create a monopoly and deserves a 'YES' vote on its merits alone, I think voting 'NO' on Ballot Issue 2 is appropriate because the proposed constitutional amendment is too wide ranging which means that Ballot Issue 2 would eventually become an unwanted obstruction in some future unanticipated amending attempt to the Ohio constitution.
Here is a link to the text of Ballot Initiative 2. Ohio Initiated Monopolies Amendment, Issue 2 (2015) - Ballotpedia and here is the actual text:

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.

I will addressing the Issue 2 text point by point.

Point 1: Rather than go on about why I think the term 'monopoly' has negative connotations that make it bad to allow in a governing effort I will provide a link to a pretty good article describing why monopolies are sometimes necessary. Good and Bad Monopoly | Foundation for Economic Education It's a pretty good read and you might learn something after reading it.

Point 2: In a way Point 2 reinforces my thoughts on Point 1 in that it is sometimes the actual amending intent to restrict the granting of 'interest, right, or license' with respect to a governing principle.

Point 3: This item resembles the proverbial 'kitchen sink' in that it requires granting powers to the Ohio Ballot Board that do not currently exist. Point 3 could conceivably stand on its own merit if the voters think it is important enough to complicate an already complicated process although it could also present future unintended roadblocks to the Ohio constitutional amending process.

Point 4: At last, the intent of Ballot Issue 2 is laid bare. Why it was not listed as Point 1 is anybody's guess. I suppose the authors think that enough people read slow enough to just give up after a few minutes of reading (without reading Point 4) and hopefully understand the issue well enough to vote the way the authors intended.

Point 5: Actually I think I agree with this point although I am not a lawyer with the attending rigorous schooling required of someone to offer an opinion about its merits.

After my Point 5 comment, I hope some people will come to the forgone conclusion that we operate under a government that is granted powers by the people and that those powers can be adjusted at any time for any good reason.

 

[DrRootswell]

OK, Ticobird, how is this Issue 3 a good monopoly? It requires the coercive power of government to maintain its forever monopoly, with increased powers to punish those who oppose its monopolistic power? This is like the Capone example in the Foundation for Economic Education article, which is in fact pretty good. They the monopolists the cartel will not rise to the top by excellence or fair pricing, but exclusively rely on the coercive power of government to maintain their market position. Increased penalties for their competition are a foregone conclusion. So, again, how is restricting commercial production to 10 entities NOT a monopoly? Vote NO on Issue 3.

 

[DrRootswell]

What are you doing to move the concept of legalization forward in Alabama? Issue 3 is a bad idea. High prices, and the problems present, documented on 420, are many. Don't forget about Mr. Guzman, whose lower prices will always find a ready market. What does Issue 3 do to lower prices so that Mr. Guzman does not find it profitable to export marijuana to the US, which has to be one of the goals of any legalization plan? If Issue 3 passes , there will be no rising due to excellence, but rather enforced coercive mediocrity at artificially high prices. The " legal" markets in Colorado and Washington are already experiencing the fact that the store artificial high prices keep the " black market" flourishing. These articles have run on 420. Also, the " licensing" itself is very problematic, for those of us that wish for smaller government, not larger. There will have to be many " inspectors" with police powers of right to " inspect" day or night. Or the prohibitive cost of a " license" to begin with. Should you need a " license" to brew up a batch of beer to share with your friends? I do not think so, and in fact you can brew all the 50 gallon batches you want, last time I looked.

 

[ticobird]

I suppose my pro marijuana legalization viewpoint revolves around respecting other viewpoints which are in opposition to legalization.

My sincere belief is it is just a matter of time before marijuana legalization opponents realize that criminalizing the possession of something is synonymous with relinquishing the ability to positively guide every member of the public through the societal issue. By criminalizing the possession of something and to declare war on same is to hand over the initiative to those darker elements of our society we know of as criminals. Once criminals begin trafficking in whatever has been made illegal (you can be certain they will) they have essentially been given the upper hand and it then becomes the same anti-substance public who suffer by their misunderstanding of human nature for criminalizing it in the first place.

I realize we do not live in a utopia. I think most people realize that criminal laws have limits in their ability to fashion a more perfect society. Society is made up of all sorts of people with all sorts of desires. Society must choose wisely what is defined as criminal behavior. It has been a fact for millennia that it is normal human nature to want to occasionally alter our individual perception of reality in a recreational manner. This expectation is not abnormal and it sure is not something that needs society's condemnation but it can require society's conditional permission. Society is very well justified with the need to express itself as to the permissible ways members are allowed to recreate. It is this concept of a society's permission that allows me to finally state that questionable behavior (at least to some significant portion of society) does need a measure of oversight while not outright denying the behavior to the other members of the same society. When it can be demonstrated that allowing a behavior has more upside than downside then society's choice is easy. When an issue such as marijuana has had lies and exaggerations spread far and wide about it for as long as the past 80 years the effort to change course is very difficult. It is because of the misinformation about marijuana that we must as a society take incrementally small steps to change this course of prohibition - at least at first. I personally think the whole marijuana prohibition story will change dramatically after a few more individual state victories. It is these same societal permissions that give rise to things like semi-monopolistic allowed restrictions. The same sorts of restrictions are enforced with regard to other questionable substances such as alcohol and tobacco. Most people are totally unaware about the restrictions on the production of alcohol and tobacco products and I think a lot of misdirection is occurring in this regard with the efforts to legalize marijuana. The anti marijuana legalization forces are deliberately trying to confuse the issue of marijuana production with marijuana possession. Do not allow yourself to be confused. Marijuana production does need similar restrictions to what has been imposed on alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana possession does need similar restrictions to what has been imposed on alcohol and tobacco. The two matters are related of course. The difficulty is the legalization efforts must be addressed at the same time.

Vote 'NO' to Ohio Ballot Issue 2

Vote 'YES' to Ohio Ballot Issue 3

 

[DrRootswell]

nobody's confused. we simply do not want the state power enforced bad form of monopolistic control the issue dictates. Now you understand and at least concede " the semi-monopolistic" aspect where before you said "not monopoly". That is movement in your thinking. I read the article you cited, and it bolstered my thinking even more. This monopoly will exist by virtue of only coercive state power, punishing others for not obeying what should be market choices. Are you a fascist?

 

[DrRootswell]

Anyone can enter the alcohol beer and spirits industry which is easily seen in the phenomenon of craft beers and craft distillers who have revitalized areas of our cities that were abandoned industrial wastelands 10 years ago. So exactly what restrictions are you speaking of? It is relatively easy to enter the distillery or beer business. It would never be possible for any but the 10 denoted to enter the marketplace. You are a windy son of a gun to say so little. So please explain what restrictions you are talking about but paying excise tax on anticipated or actual production, renting leasing space, and setting up ( capitalizing) the equipment and human minds and labor? It is not by far a closed marketplace.

 

[ticobird]

I only used the term semi-monopolistic for lack of a faster way to describe my 'almost' agreement with your point about Ballot Issue 3. Without actually saying so because I've already stated it elsewhere, I passed over my belief the ballot issue language is flexible enough to be interpreted as not granting a monopoly because the language allows for marijuana production adjustment. This means that rather than granting a monopoly, Ballot Issue 3 provides needed restrictions for concerned marijuana legalization opponents to consider on the merits as compared to restrictions imposed on alcohol and tobacco production.

 

[DrRootswell]

There are no restrictions on alcohol and tobacco production. Tobacco quotas were eliminated in Kentucky years ago. There are alot fewer opponents to marijuana law change than there are to the forever monopoly of these cartelistas. The bitch is a vote against the cartel aspect is also going to be interpreted as a vote against law change. Just today when I saw the Ohio Bar Association was against Issue 3 I sent them a detailed email asking them what is their alternative, considering 53% of people favor changing laws in favor of legalization and 85% support medical so I will let you know what I hear. Governance without the consent of the governed is tyranny. That is the true fact.