Please don’t read too much into yesterday’s elections. Even though we voted down Issue 3, which some called the “legal weed” issue, a lot of Ohioans still think we should quit wasting precious resources enforcing outdated, biased, irrational, inefficient weed prohibition and the resulting prison cycle. We just don’t think we need to amend the Ohio Constitution, or grant an Ohio Code-endorsed monopoly to a handful of “investors” (like we did with the casinos) to do it. We made that mistake once.
And even though we approved Issue 2, the so called “anti-monopoly” issue, we now know (or will soon learn) that Issue 2 actually paves the way for future monopolies by placing the decision into the hands of voters rather than the Ohio Supreme Court. Confused? Let me clarify before we move on. We rejected legal weed because it came with a monopoly, but then we paved the way for future monopolies by approving “anti-monopoly” legislation (Issue 2,) which will allow us to approve future monopolies proposed by future “investors.” Clear as mud, eh? Nice work legislating!
What have we learned from this nonsense? First, that clever and deceptive names for bills work. I can’t blame you for that. After all, we’re the ones who elected you. But don’t take too much from that either. You may recall that the prevailing sentiment during the last mid-term elections during which you came into power was “re-elect no one,” so all you had to do was show up and you were in. We Ohioans voted not based on your qualifications or willingness or ability to legislate, but solely on getting rid of the incumbents (as long as they were Democrats.) We got what we paid for with that strategy.
Instead of writing effective new laws or getting rid of outdated, costly, inefficient ones that have proven their lack of value over time, you sat back and let 10 weed investors (ResponsibleOhio) write proposed legislation, and then you sponsored it. Then, when you realized what you'd done, other folks ran out and created Issue 2, and you sponsored it too. What made it to the ballot yesterday was a mess of nonsense most folks didn’t even bother to try to fully understand. Who can blame them?
Issues 2 & 3 were in conflict with each other…how is a voter to make sense of them? Editorials across the state said “vote YES on 2, NO on 3 if you don't want your toddlers to eat weed-sicles” but they never bothered to mention that we didn’t need Issue 2 in order for the monopoly part of Issue 3 to be illegal. Others said “vote NO on 2 and YES on 3 if you want to end the costly and ineffective prohibition on weed” but they didn’t really mention that in order to do so, you’d be approving a monopoly for 10 investors, which was likely going to be struck down by the Ohio Supreme Court since Ohio has anti-trust/monopoly laws in place already, with or without Issue 2.
So here’s what we really said: (as if you care). We may still want old marijuana laws to be overturned, but we don’t want to do so by granting a grow-and-distribute monopoly to the 10 organizations who wrote these ridiculous laws like we did with the casino laws, nor do we want the monopoly part of that to become part of Ohio’s Constitution, even though casino owners were successful in that same effort. So we rejected that proposed monopoly even though it would have legalized weed. We’ll keep pestering you to get the weed part right and leave out the “grant a monopoly to our rich sponsors as a constitutional amendment” part, and if you continue to ignore us, we’ll elect someone else.
But on Issue 2, you really fooled us and now the result of that deception is part of Ohio’s Constitution. Rather than beefing up Ohio’s anti-trust/monopoly laws, (which is what we were really supporting when we shot down Issue 3...wondering how it ever happened with the casinos) or leaving well enough alone, we voted into law a means of violating existing anti-trust laws as long as the Secretary of State’s (un-elected) five-member committee puts the monopolistic issue on a ballot and voters approve it. Notice it doesn’t say we’ll allow a monopoly if there’s a sound, compelling, or even legal reason to do so, as determined by legal experts like Ohio’s Supreme Court, only that voters approve it. So your “anti-monopoly” law gives voters the power to create future monopolies. Hooray! Way to go Ohio voters! Here's how it could work: say Responsible Ohio wants to try again, since they know most Ohioans actually do support legalizing weed. They get the ear of the Secretary of State whose commission agrees to put their issue on the ballot AGAIN, only this time, instead of it being paired with Issue 2, it gets paired with what Issue 2 created: a twin proposal. Half of the twin proposal is a flat out repeat of Issue 3 - legalizing a weed monopoly...and weed. The other half is a ballot issue asking voters to decide whether or not to allow Issue 3's exception to Ohio's anti-trust laws. Voters would first have to approve the exception (thus approving the monopoly part in general) and then they could approve (or reject) the actual Issue 3. That's right, the "anti-monopoly"law sets up a process whereby voters can approve a new monopoly. Should that be in the voter's hands? Perhaps, but those same voters are the ones who couldn't even grasp that this anti-monopoly proposal codifies the approval of future monopolies! I think it was better off left to the Supreme Court. Either way, and yes I'm repeating it again, our approval of the "anti-monopoly" law establishes a procedure for future monopolies.
So, we rejected monopolies in Issue 3 (and killed a veiled attempt at legal weed in doing so)... sacrificing the long overdue decriminalization of marijuana because it was wrapped up in pro-rich and powerful legal monopoly bullshit. Then we approved Issue 2, which will allow us to create monopolies by ballot issue in the future, probably, I’m guessing here, because YOU called it an “anti-monopoly issue.”
How did we come to this last step before total Idiocracy? I’m gonna guess this is what happens when we choose legislators not based on their ability to legislate, but based only on the fact that they weren’t there before. Turns out that’s a worse qualification than “seems fun to have a beer with,” and now we’re stuck with the resulting mess. We are idiots for electing you.
PS to the Media: STOP saying Ohio voters rejected a proposal to legalize weed. We didn't...well, some of us probably did, but the vast majority of us didn't. We rejected a proposal to monopolize legal weed! Big difference. Most Ohioans support, at the very least, medicinal weed, and most Ohio cities have all but decriminalized weed, making minor possession a misdemeanor, and the penalty a fine, in many cases lower than that for a speeding or parking ticket. ...and yet the boogie man has been notably absent. High school and college kids no longer go to jail for having a joint. Baby steps...baby steps. For god's sake, don't make us sound any dumber than we are.
Sincerely,
An Ohio Voter
aka
LUTH
Out
