DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Ohio sets November vote on legalizing marijuana

issue 2 is the one people are complaining about. it essentially monopolizes the weed business, ran by the state.

issue 3 is just for the legalization of medical and recreational.

Issue 2. http://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Initiated_Monopolies_Amendment,_Issue_2_%282015%29

From the link: "Lawmakers crafted the amendment in response to the Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Issue 3, which would create 10 facilities with exclusive rights to commercially grow the drug.[2] Should both issues be approved, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted has stated that Issue 2 would invalidate Issue 3. That claim, however, is denied by Issue 3 supporters.[3]"

Sounds like if issue 2 passes, the vote on issue 3, marijuana legalization, could be null and void.

http://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Initiated_Monopolies_Amendment,_Issue_2_%282015%29

Don't know why that link isn't working.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2015/2-language.pdf

http://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Initiated_Monopolies_Amendment,_Issue_2_%282015%29


Maybe it wasn't working because I did it wrong?

I am voting yes on 2, and no on 3.


We don't need Constitutional monopolies in this state. We have one for gambling, where a few get rich, and everyone else is shut out. Issue 3 would do the same. Is it any wonder that the Hanni family is dumping a ton of money into this issue, as they stand to receive one of the 10 allowed businesses?

I feel that if we vote yes on 2, then an actually responsible state issue on marijuana can be brought for a vote. There is no need to create monopolies in which the politically connected are the only ones who ultimately benefit and profit.

hold on

dude voting that way would ruin everything.

have you seen the going rate for an ounce?

Because marijuana is illegal in Ohio, there are no reliable cost estimates. However, a report by the Office of Budget and Management and Department of Taxation cited a going price of $270 an ounce, based on information from the State Highway Patrol and drug-enforcement agencies.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/10/25/pot-monopolies-101.html

and you're saying i shouldn't take that? it's 240 on the street. i'll easy pony up 30 more dollars.

and on top of that, we as citizens can grow our own plants.


what you'd be voting for would push legalization back further.

if we vote yes on 2, it's gonna take forever to get it back on the ballot.

they're opening up over 1,000 shops. thats even more revenue for the states, plus less crap i gotta deal with from the cops.

No on 2, yes on 3!!

I will vote against Constitutional monopolies that exclusively pay off political cronies.

As far as cost ..... frankly, I don't care about how much it costs someone to get high. Sorry, but that is not among the top 100 most important issues in my life. Maybe that's insensitive of me ..... but I just don't care what it costs someone to get a buzz.

As far as timing .... they are putting that idiotic "Homeowners bill of rights" back on the ballot again in Mahoning County ...... for the 4th election in a row. If they can get something like that on 4 ballots in a row, an issue that has been rejected handily in 3 elections so far .... then I doubt that getting pot on the ballot again would be all that hard.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but isn't it four separate groups on the ballot? If it is four separate groups (and you can get a license to grow your own) how in the world is that a monopoly?

I'd be just fine if everyone of those damn weeds got burned up and shriveled away. Those who don't need dope and getting high to survive will get by just fine.

I say NO period. Stay sober and find a better way to enjoy your life than giving control of your body to a chemical.

It is more of an oligopoly, but I still wholeheartedly disagree with having it as an amendment where only 10 groups will be allowed to grow for profit. It astounds me how many liberals will vote for this yet decry the evil rich person - these 10 groups will make millions without the possibility of anyone else getting in on this business. I wish I could be a part of one of the groups - I'd vote for issue 3 then!

The legalization of weed and getting many PoC out of jail is far more important than worrying about the wealthy. The wealthy already have the infrastructure in place and while profit the most no matter what. This allows us to achieve legalization and then worry about stateside monopolies instead of the other option. Just because we're liberals doesn't mean we don't understand pragmatic stratagem.

So what about those who can genuinely benefit from the substance? It's been proven to help with mental disorders and various other nervous system disorders as well.

because the benefit outweighs that.

we understand it's a problem. but it's for the first 4 years.

on top of that, sorry columbus if i don't wanna risk going to jail over this anymore.

besides, i can grow my own plants. i wouldn't be going to those shops all that much.

I really don't care all that much if this passes or not, however I really dislike the that it will be a part of the state constitution, which is why I will likely not vote for it (I still haven't made up my mind). I did not vote for the Casinos even though I wanted them, hated the state constitution part of it.

I understand the benefits, especially the medical side, which is what has me most torn on this. I also agree with CHS on the people in prison for terms that way outweigh the crime - they should be released. I could care less about the people who smoke for the high, it isn't like it is difficult to find weed.

On the flip side, I really hate the fact that it is oligopoly and that it is going to part of the state constitution. I feel it is better for you than alcohol, but at the same time understand the concerns of legalization and how it will make it easier (though probably not much, lol) for kids to get it. I'm not a big believer in the "gateway drug" argument either, but I do know if my son were smoking weed I would not be happy at all.

Soon to be released autobiography.

Farmer Swish
An American Love Story

hey look bro, i feel you. there's a part of us as parents that we don't want our kids doing stuff.

hell you even said, even in slight jest, you don't want your son getting the car addiction habit you got. i don't really like the idea of my daughters smoking.

but, and this is just my opinion, man would i be happy as as hell if it was weed. i've never seen weed destroy a family, but i've sure seen alcohol and other legal prescription drugs sure do it.

it being an monopoly or oligopoly or whatever is a truly valid concern. but man i rather have these people who got caught smoking or simply just being in possession of weed out of jail. i rather see the people that truly do need it for medical purposes to not have to look behind their shoulder anymore.

it still gives more freedom to the people, at the end of the day.

would you buy the book if i was on the front cover in a straw hat and overalls?

You don't have to be lonely...!

at farmersonly.com!!!!

We really need to create a new legal mechanism that allows the people to vote on laws, while not changing our constitution.

I was thinking you and your wife posing like the American Gothic portrait.

Razor I have a question for you bro. Would you vote to make all opioid drugs Illegal even for medical reasons?

I'm not razor, but I will address this.

For legitimate, testable ad verifiable physical issues, then I can see medical marijuana. However, in every state that has "medical marijuana" it seems that it is an absolute joke.

"I feel depressed, so I need some pot". This garbage is what ruins it ..... the abuses and super-abuses.

As far as growing at home ..... that sounds all well and good, but what happens when a minor child gets his hands on dad's supply, snips a few buds, (or however you do it)and smokes it up, even though it's illegal for him to do so.

Too many holes in the proposal for me to vote for it. When you add in the fact that politically connected families, like the Hannis, will be the ones to own these "monopoly" fields .... and there is no way I will vote for it.

If they want to have a more well controlled law, then I'll consider it. this one has too many holes that I consider to be foolish, and the politically connected are the ones who benefit the most.

Vote Yes on 2, and No on 3.

You have to realize by now that "medical marijuana" was NEVER intended to be purely for medicinal purposes, right? It was never about medicine - that was just the palatable face they put on it for the campaign to get it passed.

I know that is what they call it, but what it truly was is the Trojan Horse to get some form of legalized pot in the door. It then opened the door to the expanded trend we see happening today.



As for issues 2 & 3 -- the ONLY way I'd for vote 3 is if 2 passes.
My one and only problem with Issue 3 is what Issue 2 addresses -- the fact that Issue 3 was crafted to establish under a State constitutional amendment an economic monopoly over an entire industry. The group behind Issue 3 will get a cut (and partial ownership in) from each of the 10 monopoly grow houses.

Yes, people can grow their own - up to a very small amount.
My issue is this: If it's legal, it's LEGAL. No limitations. If it's legal, I should be able to grow all I want. Kinda like tomatoes. I have the option of getting them at the store, but I can also grow all I can handle and then some if I want to. THAT is how marijuana should be.

People that are voting for Issue 3 are simply so desperate and giddy to have it legalized, I don't think they realize that they're completely screwing themselves over with their own short-sightedness.


Hell.... you can grow all the tobacco you want. You don't need any permits to do so. THAT is how marijuana should be.

It is either legal, or it is not.

But guess what all the laws that ban the other drugs are jokes as well. Millions upon millions of people abuse opiods, as well as other legal drugs yet nobody complains much about that. But POT OMG that's the devils drug I was lucky enough to not need it when I went through chemo. Of course I turned down all pain meds after all four of my surgeries this year. No pain meds and up and walking 2 miles 12 hours after the surgeries. Now with that being said, if Im was puking my guts out, or not eating I would have been puffing away (even in the hospital) weather it was legal or not, and kicking anybody's ass who tried to stop me. Should I be locked up for that?

Spot on why I am leaning not voting for it, though it isn't a monopoly but rather an oligopoly. I love the medical uses for it as well as getting people out of jail that shouldn't be in for so long due to overly harsh drug laws for minor offenses.

The only way I'd be happy is if I was part of one of the 10 groups allowed to grow it! Chaching! The Dispatch ran an article a month or so ago about each of the 10 investors.

Can you link that article? I'm voting for 3 for my sons, but after what purp said I might just vote for 2 also.
What a weird situation. I don't understand why they had to have a monopoly to begin with.

They're going to make a lot of money in marijuana regardless. They've already invested in the infrastructure and they're smart businessmen. If this wasn't an oligopoly they'd still make oodles of noodles. They will make a lot of money until four years when that part gets amended. Is it really worth another year of kids not being able to get their medicine for and people to be thrown in jail to vote against them getting some more money? If you want their money that badly then vote Bernie in 2016. He'll at least tax them.

Here you go:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/09/02/investors-in-legal-pot-are-diverse-lot.html

It maddens me how this is going down. All of the libby's on here saying "it's cool", "no worries", when they have been against stuff like this for years. The rich get richer, but it's OK now. Nuts IMO. I almost want to vote against it just be cause of the sheer lunacy that liberals are OK with the rich getting richer when they hate the rich. Batty.

Make it so if I want to invest in a pot farm I can. I'm fine with it then. Allowing 10 people (just like they allowed 2 companies with the casinos) to control the entire industry is absolutely insane.

/offsoapbox

People don't understand that. Well, the minority of people that are in favor of legalizing pot don't understand that.

Many people are under the assumption of "yeah, make it legal, then I don't have to worry about cops"......but they fail to realize they still have to worry about work.

But, of course, the way the system is moving, worrying about work isn't that big of a deal. The main worry is "why can't I start out making $80,000 a year?"

Because the value of human lives value to us over money makes us batty? I think that makes us consistent. At the end of the day Frostee Rucker will be rich no matter what. Does it really matter that he'll be $300 billion dollars richer? No. Does it matter that people cannot get medical treatment this year because of this? YES. Humans over money. The basic statement.

So, the crop will be controlled by a few. How are the prices set? Could it not end up like all of the hated drug companies that "overcharge", but have millions, possibly billions invested in creating a drug? But these few companies won't price fix and overcharge? Thus bill stinks, it needs to be done right. Think I've made my decision to vote for 2, not 3.

More editorials on Issue 3:

Editorial: Reject Issue 3. Promoters will benefit. Ohio won’t
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/...-ohio/73141306/

There may come a time when Ohioans will vote on a pot legalization measure that fits the state. It won’t happen this year. Ballot Issue 3 is a bad idea for Ohio.

Issue 3 would alter the state constitution to legalize marijuana. But the measure comes with serious additional baggage. It would award the commanding heights of this new sector of the economy – the manufacturing of Ohio-legal pot – to those investors who spent millions on their campaign to put the issue on the ballot. It would shield their rich reward by constitutionally enshrining their right to the market and fixing in place the tax rate they would pay.

The ballot measure comes dressed in the trappings of the benefits of legalizing marijuana, and it is certainly an audacious proposal. But its promoters’ display of benevolent inventiveness is self-serving.

Ohioans should reject Issue 3.

That vote, however, should not be the end of the conversation about the kind of pot laws Ohio should have. The trend lines are clear. The Reefer Madness era has run its course. Both sides agree that our state’s pot laws will change, and probably sooner rather than later. An increasing number of political leaders are recognizing that Ohio’s marijuana laws have been deployed in a discriminatory fashion. There is proven value in marijuana’s medicinal use, as well. Statewide legalization in Oregon and Colorado are still experiments in progress. But so far the results seem positive overall. Issue 3 should be voted down not necessarily because it legalizes marijuana, but because of how it does so.

Pro-marijuana groups should learn much from the campaign waged by ResponsibleOhio, the group that formed to get Issue 3 on the ballot and now calls itself Yes on 3 Ohio. Too often, pro-pot groups are richer in screeds than practical proposals a majority of Ohioans can support and realistic paths to passage. ResponsibleOhio’s campaign shows there is great value in uniting forces and taking the temperature of Ohio voters. But in the future pro-pot groups should consider putting forth proposals that provide incremental change to the state’s laws on marijuana. The all-or-nothing approach might be ideologically satisfying but it is politically difficult.

ResponsibleOhio painstakingly attempted to split the difference between Ohioans’ feelings about marijuana and the need to please its investors. The balancing act reveals Issue 3’s greatest flaw: It doesn’t put the public first. The proposal might have seemed like good gamble for its promoters, but it is a bad deal for Ohioans.



Ohio Marijuana Monopoly Madness: ResponsibleOhio and Its Foes | NewsLanc.com
http://newslanc.com/2015/07/26/ohio-marijuana-monopoly-madness-responsibleohio-and-its-foes/

Ohio may about to legalize marijuana, but not the way other states have done it. A constitutional amendment that would go before voters in November would create a virtual monopoly on commercial marijuana grows for the entire state. That’s not sitting well with a number of Ohioans, including the Republican state legislature and a good number of Buckeye State legalization and medical marijuana activists. It’s also leaving major national drug reform organizations deeply ambivalent.

The ResponsibleOhio initiative is almost certain to qualify for the ballot any day now. Its well-financed campaign has handed in more than 700,000 signatures to state officials, nearly twice the 305,000 valid voter signatures needed. Those officials have until later this week to verify the signatures. [Update: Monday, state officials said the initiative was 29,000 signatures short, but ResponsibleOhio has another 10 days to make up the shortfall and it says it will challenge the disqualified signatures at the state Supreme Court.]
ResponsibleOhio

The initiative allows adults 21 and over to grow and possess limited amounts of marijuana and calls for a system of regulated and taxed marijuana production and sales. It even has provisions for medical marijuana. None of that is controversial.

But under ResponsibleOhio’s initiative, commercial marijuana production can only take place at 10 sites in the state. The sites have already been allocated to 10 sets of investors, who have kicked in $1.7 million for the campaign so far and are prepared to spend $20 million or more convincing the public to vote for it.

The investors include a number of Ohio business interests — real estate developers, venture capital firms, philanthropists, with nary a Cheech or a Chong among them — as well as some home state big names who could sway public opinion. These include NBA legend Oscar “Big O” Robertson, Cincinnati-based fashion designer Nanette Lepore, and former Cincinnati Bengals and Cleveland Browns defensive end Frostee Rucker (now with the Arizona Cardinals).

In return for their hoped-for voter-granted monopoly, the investor groups would pay a $100,000 fee and a 15% tax on their gross revenues, as well as other commercial fees. Critics have charged that the plan freezes out all but the initial investor groups, but ResponsibleOhio counters that there will be plenty of commercial opportunities in making and selling marijuana products.

While this written-in monopoly may seem strange to many, it’s not going to seem so strange to Ohio voters. In 2009, they legalized gambling by approving a constitutional amendment that specified sites for four casinos owned by the companies backing the amendment.

ResponsibleOhio looks to have deep enough pockets to put on a full-scale, multi-million-dollar advertising campaign. Estimates are that to win in California next year, legalizers will have to spend $10 million or so in advertising, but ResponsibleOhio is talking about spending $20 million in a much smaller media market, and it doesn’t have to go begging for donors.

The momentum is there. The entire country is riding a wave of increasing support for marijuana legalization, and Ohio is no exception. An April Quinnipiac University poll last month had support at 53% (it also had narrow majorities for legalization in swing states Florida and Pennsylvania), up two points from the same poll a year earlier.

Strange Bedfellows

But ResponsibleOhio is facing a head-on challenge from the legislature, attacks from legalizers left out in the cold, and a more general discomfort with constitutionally-mandated monopolies.

Late last month, the legislature approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would bar any addition to the state constitution that created “a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel” to distribute a federally controlled substance. The proposed amendment specifies that if it passes, any initiative that conflicted with it — i.e. the ResponsibleOhio initiative — “shall not take effect.”

If both initiatives passed, rest assured that lengthy legal battles would ensue, but in the meantime, marijuana legalization in Ohio would be dead in the water. While legislative leaders paid lip service to concerns about anti-competitiveness, the amendment is clearly designed to stop legalization and is the instrument of a body that has steadfastly refused to consider legalization for nearly 20 years.
That didn’t stop some legalization supporters — and ResponsibleOhio foes — from applauding the move, and even encouraging it.

“We don’t support the ResponsibleOhio initiative because we don’t believe it achieves the goals of legalization, said Sri Kavuru, president of Ohioans to End Prohibition (OTEP), which is campaigning to get its own legalization initiative on the 2016 ballot. “I testified in favor of the anti-monopoly amendment, and I believe it will pass and get more votes than ResponsibleOhio,” he told AlterNet.

The forthrightly named Citizens Against ResponsibleOhio doesn’t mind siding with the Republican legislature, either, said the group’s leader, Aaron Weaver.

“It is very interesting that all these different parties have come together with the same purpose in mind, to stop the hijacking of our constitution by private interests,” Weaver said. “It’s very strange indeed, but the collaboration of different groups for a mutually beneficial and moral purpose, I think, is a good thing.”

“The current system is actually better than their plan. It gives them a monopoly where only these 10 groups get the right to cultivate commercially, and that’s bad policy for the state,” Kavuru argued. “It creates an environment that allows a black market to thrive, and it doesn’t eliminate arrests. The purpose of legalization is supposed to be to get rid of criminal arrests.”

The ResponsibleOhio initiative would increase penalties on some cultivators and would leave people under 21 subject to arrest, Kavuru charged. He also attacked its medical marijuana provisions.

“It doesn’t actually give any protection for patients and only says a commission ‘may’ implement a medical program,” he said. Everything for recreational is ’shall.’”

Ohio Families CANN is also not satisfied with ResponsibleOhio’s initiative, said Nicole Scholten, a spokesperson for the group, which seeks access to marijuana to treat sick children.

“We are wary of ResponsibleOhio’s approach,” she said. “We are not convinced it would yield the type and volume of medical cannabis that would be effective for our children. Legalization does not equal sustainable medicine. The medicine that would help our kids requires specific strains of cannabis and vast quantities. ResponsibleOhio’s plan to have only ten grow sites is problematic. There is no guarantee these businesses would devote the grow space to the kind and volume of cannabis we need.”

But another patient-activist organization that has tried unsuccessfully for years to get an initiative on the ballot, the Ohio Rights Group, is less negative. Its executive director, Jack Pardee, noted that the legislature has refused for nearly 20 years to even discuss marijuana legalization bills.

“We’ve been having a debate in our community about the merits of what the legislature is trying to do with this thing and, in my opinion, it has nothing to do with protecting Ohioans from economic forces,” Pardee said. “ResponsibleOhio isn’t perfect, but it has a lot of the pieces that ending prohibition needs to be successful.”

National Drug Reform Groups Ambivalent

The divisions among Ohio activists are somewhat reflected by the national groups that have so far been the big players in marijuana legalization. None of them are directly involved with ResponsibleOhio — it certainly doesn’t need their fundraising abilities — but they are watching with great interest and concern.

“It doesn’t resemble our initiatives,” said Marijuana Policy Project spokesperson Mason Tvert. “We have not proposed such laws in the past, and it’s not the type of law we would draft,” he told AlterNet.

“It’s up to Ohio voters to decide if this is the kind of system they want to replace marijuana prohibition with,” said Tvert. “It would get the job done, but we think marijuana should be treated like alcohol, and there should be a system where there can be a lot of competition and different businesses out there producing this product.”

And he had a word of advice to Ohio activists opposing ResponsibleOhio.

“If they want to end marijuana prohibition, they need to weigh their opposition to this initiative against the possibility of having to wait longer for a better initiative,” Tvert said.

“A lot of legalizers, we feel like the movement has been hijacked by the money people,” said Keith Stroup, founder and currently counsel for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. “But the bottom line for NORML is that we want to legalize marijuana,” he told AlterNet.

“While we’d have a preference for the little or medium-sized guy, we’re not that concerned about who gets rich off it,” the movement veteran said. “We’re about not treating marijuana users like criminals, and we can speed that process along by three or four or five years because some rich investors run their own initiative, if it actually legalizes pot smoking and dispensaries where they can buy, if they qualify for the ballot, we will support it even if it’s not perfect.”

Stroup took great umbrage with the legislature’s move to block the initiative.

“That’s a bad faith move by the legislature,” he growled. “The reason we have the initiative process is because legislatures were not responsive to the will of the people, and now we have a case where the people are going around the legislature, and the legislature is going to try to go around the people.”

Stroup prophesied high-stakes litigation if ResponsibleOhio wins at the ballot box, but its victory is nullified by passage of the legislature’s initiative.

“That undermines the basic purpose of initiatives, and we have at least one legal opinion that nothing in that resolution would in any way affect the initiative if it were to pass,” he said. “I hope the courts act in that case.”

“We’ve fought for a long time to end marijuana prohibition for civil rights, social justice, public health, and public safety reasons, and to create a legal market,” said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, “But to then have some folks come along trying to create a constitutionally-mandated oligopoly kind of sticks in everybody’s craw.”

DPA has worked and is working on legalization in a number of states, and was consulted in the drafting of the ResponsibleOhio initiative, but is not endorsing it. Nadelmann’s ambivalence was indicative of the mixed feelings the measure is arousing among activists.

“The fact is, we have investors putting up $20 or $30 million to win this thing in a state that will be the center of national political attention next year — no one else is going to do it in Ohio. There is a possibility the oligopoly provision could get knocked out. The best outcome would be for this initiative to win, and then get that knocked out,” he said.

“Aside from the oligopoly provision, it’s actually pretty good,” Nadelmann continued. And after criticism of an earlier draft, “they were actually pretty solicitous, they added home grow, medical marijuana protections, and the distribution model is pretty good.”

Who Will Be in the Driver’s Seat?

But the ResponsibleOhio move also signals the emergence of monied interests whose deep pockets could leave activists and the drug reform movement on the sidelines — and who may not share the same interests dear to the hearts of reformers.

“There’s something similar going on in Michigan,” Nadelmann noted, referring to an as-yet-to-filed initiative from the Michigan Responsibility Council, one of three groups planning legalization initiatives in the state right now. “And look at Arizona, there’s a lot of industry funding there, and there’s been hard negotiations between MPP and those guys.”

“The influence of DPA, MPP, and other activists is going to diminish rapidly,” he predicted. “This is going to be increasingly driven by industry, and a lot of competing interests within the industry. And as this evolves into legislative processes, other forces are going to come into play and certain players will be able to make their demands felt. Social justice concerns could get knocked out.”

If Not ResponsibleOhio, Who, and When?

The unhappy Ohio legalization activists and other ResponsibleOhio critics say that if and when it is defeated, they can move forward with their own legalization plans. Given the legislature’s recalcitrance, that means they would have to run their own initiative campaign.

They haven’t been able to do that so far, and while some, such as OTEP’s Kavuru, say they can do it now, others aren’t so sure.

“We have access to a lot of money,” Kavuru said. “And we have a real solid political team. We’re in negotiations right now for significant funding, and it’s much easier to raise money for a recreational initiative than a medical one, because people are also looking at it as an investment.”

But ResponsibleOhio is here and now, and if it goes down, it remains to be seen if anyone else can actually get on the ballot.

“If this is defeated this year, I doubt any major funders would step in to play a role in 2016,” said NORML’s Stroup. “I understand. The people in Ohio feel they were doing a great grassroots effort and hear these rich guys came along and bought the space. But the Ohio activists so far haven’t shown they can get the funding to do good surveys, let alone pay for signatures or a professional campaign. This year may be our chance to take a conservative state like Ohio and leapfrog it ahead on legalization. I’m not real comfortable with ResponsibleOhio, but I just want it legalized.”

The fun is just beginning in Ohio.

I would have no problems with pot being used at medicine if it was as strictly regulated as opioids. The fact is that it's not. I also don't support it being homegrown period.

The fact is that this law is being rushed to be passed so people can spend their days being high. Plain and simple.

I find it disgusting that this generation will sell the soul of their children if it bring in the almighty dollar with absolutely no regard for the immense harm it's going to cause society from it.

Swish says he has never seen pot destroy a family and I call BS on that. I have personally seen pot destroy many families. I've personally witnessed it completely change the personalities of people I knew. I have personally seen it become a gateway drug for other even more addictive drugs when they stopped getting the buzz they wanted from weed after building too much of a tolerance to it.

The physical harm that inhaling toxic smoke does to your lungs is well proven. Yet I hear people making the flat out stupid statement that weed is harmless. Pot should NEVER be legalized and tobacco should be banned too. When you have scientifically proven studies on the harm smoke does to the lungs there is no sane way you can justify allowing poison to be sold to people as OK. It's just ridiculous!

Don't look now but opioids can't be that regulated as we have millions of people in this country hooked on them, and they don't seem to have to much trouble getting them. I can understand people not wanting pot to be legal, even if I don't agree with them. If people want to smoke themselves silly 7 days a week I think they should have the right to. If they want to drink themselves into a coma seven days a week IMO they have the right to. If they want to eat 5 gallons of ice cream, two family size bags of chips, and 20 deep fried sticks of butter for dinner every night they have a right to.

They still have to compete with the black market. But prices will be inflated a bit. According to Swish you can get an Oz for 270, which is actually under the standard 300 zone that most people my age get. But we have to remember what's more important... Some drug addict getting jipped 30 bucks an oz or them being thrown in prison for an oz.

Yup...stick to giving everyone a form of legal heroin for their pain. Even the NFL seems ok with it instead of allowing THC. No harm there right?

How many joints does an oz. make? Dang, $270 bucks?

Also, if the law passes, people can grow 4 (think it's 4 plants). How many oz. per "typical" plant?

well 28 grams in an Oz. I usually roll up ~.5 joints, so that's ~56 joints doing that math. An Oz is a crapton of weed and could easily last a seasoned smoker for a few weeks.

Your second part has a lot of variables, but at least more than an oz.