Wow, the best you can come up with against medical arguments is to go off into left field? Though high mortality activities like using a motorcycle or skydiving don't have high survival rates from accidents enough to worry about. Fewer people are hurt much less killed during hunting than people just walking down the street.
I think it would be great if healthcare providers required some weekly exercise and relaxation. People would be healthier and happier for it. 2 hours a day is a bit much though. I'd be thrilled with even 3 times a week for 30-60 minutes.
Someone else mentioned alcohol being legal should justify making all the drugs legal. I say just make alcohol illegal along with all the other harmful recreational drugs being used outside your own home. I do think what you do in the privacy of your own home is nobody else's business so long as your not putting children at risk. What you do once you get behind a 2000 pound sledgehammer of a murder weapon called a car though is a different story.
I been living out here in left field for years buddy. It's pretty comfy As far as survival rates for motorcycle accidents I have to disagree with you (I have not taken the time however to look up any stats so I could be wrong) I am also going to assume that if you approve of Insurance companies having the right to force people to exercise and to relax then you think it's ok for them to also tell you what you can and can not eat or drink? You do realize not even God puts those kind of restrictions on people.
All insurance is a form of Gambling. The insurers will demand anything they want to offer to cover your bet. There are many, and I mean MANY examples of them denying high risk clients or making the rates so high as to make it stupid for them to have ins.
I'd surely be happy if someone got lazy americans off their potato arses and doing something to improve their health because lord knows they are not doing it themselves.
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
All insurance is a form of Gambling. The insurers will demand anything they want to offer to cover your bet. There are many, and I mean MANY examples of them denying high risk clients or making the rates so high as to make it stupid for them to have ins.
It's never stupid to have insurance. (Unless your paying 4,000 per month or more in premiums) I am closing in on 3/4's of a million dollars in medical bills in the last 10 1/2 months. BTW not one single claim has gone unpaid. I had to ummm debate with them loudly twice so far, but I won those disagreements.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Voted no on issues 2 and 3... a monopoly isn't freedom even if it's the freedom to do something that adults should be able to enjoy IMO. Conversely, there was legal language in the anti-monopoly amendment that I found troubling, and just said nap to that as well.
i voted!! no on 2, yes on 3!!! special message to YTown and 40!!!
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Sorry 40, I voted no on 2 and yes on 3. (Thought you lived in Montana, don't know why)
Anyway, I found out a few days ago that the kid who started speaking was using a hemp oil that is already legal here in Ohio so I had to ask myself-do I vote for this?
For the sake of people like swish, I did.
My opinion on the monopoly and those people getting 'rich'. They're already rich, voting against them on that basis is only hurting people who could benefit from it and the 'monopoly' only lasts 4 years so why make those who could benefit from it wait?
We'll see what happens tonight!
WE DON'T NEED A QB BEFORE WE GET A LINE THAT CAN PROTECT HIM my two cents...
Ted, it's crazy because i read up on 3....the monopoly is simply the supplier. so 10 people have the rights to grow the weed.
but there's gonna be 1,100 dispensaries out there. for the sake of the people, i really don't give a damn who is getting the license initially to mass produce, as it's going to change later down the road anyway.
issue 2 is pretty much a measure to block legalization. the idiotic commercials they run about "marijuana candy" had me rolling in laughter. like the plague was coming back.
you're so right man. they was gonna be rich regardless. but people who need it to help with mental and pain issues, as well as just giving rights back to the people, there's no way i wasn't gonna vote anything buy yes on 3.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Only hesitation I had was Frostee Rucker, as he plays for the Cardinals and we just lost to them! haha
Seriously, when did anyone on the right care about anyone getting 'rich' before now?
I can appreciate the monopoly argument, but this is medicinally too important in my opinion.
Trump tricked everybody on the right into voting against their own pockets.
hilarious.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
From what I've heard, if issue 3 doesn't pass, marijuana will already be on the ballot again next year in a bill that doesn't have only 10 suppliers.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
I can't believe what I'm reading! You lefties want to create a monopoly that bars the "undocumented workers" from making a living at something that the Mexican's actually do very well? It's just dripping with hypocrisy.
Ted, it's crazy because i read up on 3....the monopoly is simply the supplier. so 10 people have the rights to grow the weed.
but there's gonna be 1,100 dispensaries out there. for the sake of the people, i really don't give a damn who is getting the license initially to mass produce, as it's going to change later down the road anyway.
issue 2 is pretty much a measure to block legalization. the idiotic commercials they run about "marijuana candy" had me rolling in laughter. like the plague was coming back.
you're so right man. they was gonna be rich regardless. but people who need it to help with mental and pain issues, as well as just giving rights back to the people, there's no way i wasn't gonna vote anything buy yes on 3.
I couldn't in good conscience legalize marijuana with how the bill was presented. This is just going to make marijuana distribution as screwed up as alcohol distribution already is.
That said, if it passes I won't cry over it. I just had to vote no because as presented this is the state trying to maximize taxes on a previously controlled substance by making it only slightly less controlled. Like cigarettes and alcohol.
Wow, the best you can come up with against medical arguments is to go off into left field? Though high mortality activities like using a motorcycle or skydiving don't have high survival rates from accidents enough to worry about. Fewer people are hurt much less killed during hunting than people just walking down the street.
I think it would be great if healthcare providers required some weekly exercise and relaxation. People would be healthier and happier for it. 2 hours a day is a bit much though. I'd be thrilled with even 3 times a week for 30-60 minutes.
Someone else mentioned alcohol being legal should justify making all the drugs legal. I say just make alcohol illegal along with all the other harmful recreational drugs being used outside your own home. I do think what you do in the privacy of your own home is nobody else's business so long as your not putting children at risk. What you do once you get behind a 2000 pound sledgehammer of a murder weapon called a car though is a different story.
(I have not taken the time however to look up any stats so I could be wrong)
Definitely trying to be like "Arts and Crafts" Romo tonight if this thing passes.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
doing more reading, looks like voting yes on 2 would end voter based issues, and make it so that only law makers would be allowed to bring this up on legislation.
and it doesn't change the already existing anti-monopoly laws we have.
wow, whoever voted on 2 is basically saying take rights away from voters.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
From what I've heard, if issue 3 doesn't pass, marijuana will already be on the ballot again next year in a bill that doesn't have only 10 suppliers.
That I might vote for.
I don't like that the politically connected, (like the sister of our State Senator) are the only ones who will wind up owning these pot farms if this bad ballot initiative passes. This is a way to take the politically connected and make millionaires or billionaires out of them.
I voted yes on 2, and no on 3. I didn't see the article that was posted earlier, and I haven't yet read it ... so maybe I'll regret that vote .... who knows?
I have voted, for the 5th time now, against the so-called "community bill of rights", that actually takes away the rights of members of the community. It is ridiculous that these type of garbage ballot initiatives should be allowed on the ballot for 5 elections in a row. Sorry, but if a ballot initiative loses 2 or 3 elections in a 3 year period, it should be sidelined for 3 years. There is no need to put the same crap on the ballot election after election after election, just hoping that enough people fall asleep for it to pass.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
This also means no more voter initiatives. It all has to be done by legislations.
So congrats on taking more rights away from voters guys.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
It's super early, they haven't counted cuyahoga and other countries yet.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
This also means no more voter initiatives. It all has to be done by legislations.
So congrats on taking more rights away from voters guys.
That's not really what issue 2 says - because voters can always overrule issue 2 for any particular bill (they just need to vote yes twice instead of once).
I think the actual effect is that it becomes a bigger deal in the public eye when constitutional amendments try to make monopolies.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
But whatever. We missed out on being historic, and actually taking care of people.
Eh, won't change a thing I guess. Still gonna burn it. But it would've been nice to see that revenue go to the state.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
This also means no more voter initiatives. It all has to be done by legislations.
So congrats on taking more rights away from voters guys.
That's not really what issue 2 says - because voters can always overrule issue 2 for any particular bill (they just need to vote yes twice instead of once).
I think the actual effect is that it becomes a bigger deal in the public eye when constitutional amendments try to make monopolies.
And it only pertains to creating monopolies. You can still have amendment making voter initiatives, you just can't sneak screw the public (that power is reserved for officially elected scumbags).
That's not really what issue 2 says - because voters can always overrule issue 2 for any particular bill (they just need to vote yes twice instead of once).
I think the actual effect is that it becomes a bigger deal in the public eye when constitutional amendments try to make monopolies.
Voting twice for the same thing is equally stupid. I had to do that twice today, once for the marijuana provision and once for the Summit County Census District Remappings. Adding language to the state constitution to "ban monopolies" is just fodder for legal tomfoolery. Now anytime someone does something the opposition can scream "but monopolies!" and try to tie the issue up in court.
Issue 3 was plain old crony capitalism and they didn't even hide it very well. And remember, Ohio has mostly decriminalized marijuana possession for personal use, so I would hold out for full decriminalization, not state sponsored cronyism.
Voted no on the issues, with new founded ideals that we should ban all this moronic provisions into our laws as constitutional amendments. Voted yes on 1 however.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio voters rejected a ballot proposal Tuesday that would have legalized both recreational and medical marijuana in a single stroke — a vote-getting strategy that was being watched as a potential test case for the nation.
Failure of the proposed state constitutional amendment followed an expensive campaign, a legal fight over its ballot wording, an investigation into petition signatures — and, predominantly, a counter campaign against a network of 10 exclusive growing sites it would have created. It was the only marijuana legalization question on the 2015 statewide ballots.
About 65 percent of voters opposed the measure, compared to 35 percent in favor.
Issue 3 would have allowed adults 21 and older to use, purchase or grow certain amounts of marijuana and allowed others to use it as medicine. The growing facilities were to be controlled by private investors, leading opponents to label it a "marijuana monopoly."
That featured heavily in opposition campaigns and a separate ballot question to prevent monopolies from being inserted into Ohio's constitution for the economic benefits of a few.
Campaign director Ian James assured supporters at a downtown Columbus gathering that the fight was not over, calling Tuesday's defeat "a bump in the road."
"We need to not only address compassionate care for the chronically ill, we need to also remain vigilant in protecting direct democracy," he said. "Because when the Statehouse refuses to deal with the voters, the voters have to make them deal to make sure that their voices are heard."
After his remarks, the anti-monopoly measure passed.
Ethan Nadelmann, founder and director of the Drug Policy Alliance, the nation's leading drug policy reform organization, said defeat of the pot proposal is "relatively insignificant" because of its unconventional call for "a constitutionally mandated oligopoly over an agricultural product."
"This Ohio vote has been sort of a side-show that no one else was either worried about or excited about elsewhere in the country," he said.
Two older voters in downtown Cincinnati who said they support legalization of marijuana both said they voted against Issue 3 because they didn't like the "monopoly" element creating exclusive growing sites.
"I can't believe I voted 'no' when it was finally on the ballot," said Marty Dvorchak, 62, of the northern Cincinnati suburb of Fairfield. "I think it's ridiculous that marijuana is illegal. The war on drugs has been a failure. But I don't think 10 people (growers) should have a monopoly."
Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska, along with the District of Columbia, have legalized recreational marijuana. Medical marijuana is now legal in about half of states.
Gov. John Kasich, a Republican presidential candidate, praised the state's decision.
"At a time when too many families are being torn apart by drug abuse, Ohioans said no to easy access to drugs and instead chose a path that helps strengthen our families and communities," he said in a statement.
The pro-legalization ResponsibleOhio campaign included several famous faces, including boy band star Nick Lachey and basketball great Oscar Robertson. The campaign had spent $12 million as of its most recent campaign filing and reported raising about the same amount.
"Issue 3 was nothing more and nothing less than a business plan to seize control of the recreational marijuana market in Ohio," Curt Steiner, director of Ohioans Against Marijuana Monopolies, said in election night remarks. "Issue 3 was designed and built primarily to garner massive and exclusive profits for a small group of self-selected wealthy investors."
___
AP writers Dan Sewell in Cincinnati and Ann Sanner in Columbus contributed to this report.
___
This story has been corrected to show Ohio is the only state with a ballot question Tuesday on legalizing marijuana, not the only state with a pot-related question.
Wow, the best you can come up with against medical arguments is to go off into left field? Though high mortality activities like using a motorcycle or skydiving don't have high survival rates from accidents enough to worry about. Fewer people are hurt much less killed during hunting than people just walking down the street.
I think it would be great if healthcare providers required some weekly exercise and relaxation. People would be healthier and happier for it. 2 hours a day is a bit much though. I'd be thrilled with even 3 times a week for 30-60 minutes.
Someone else mentioned alcohol being legal should justify making all the drugs legal. I say just make alcohol illegal along with all the other harmful recreational drugs being used outside your own home. I do think what you do in the privacy of your own home is nobody else's business so long as your not putting children at risk. What you do once you get behind a 2000 pound sledgehammer of a murder weapon called a car though is a different story.
(I have not taken the time however to look up any stats so I could be wrong)
Yes Pee-wee...
What color did you go with today?
I think you should go with the Blue. It would match that little blue pill you should be taking because it's obvious from your photo's what Sargent Schultz was talking about all those years when he said
There is something that bugs me about all of this. Many of the people who voted NO on this did so because they don't want to see ten investers get rich. Well those ten are already Rich. So what voting NO did was deny those who could get medical help that they need and deserve are being told to suffer just because some folks don't want 10 rich people to get Richer. Because 10 Rich people getting richer was so disgusting to you that you are willing to tell innocent people to suck it up and suffer. Among those who now have to suffer longer are Children, brothers, sisters, parents, men and woman who served there country to protect us. How would you feel if you had to go look your loved one in the eyes and tell them you voted for them to suffer because you didn't want 10 rich people to get richer This is a sad day in Ohio
There is something that bugs me about all of this. Many of the people who voted NO on this did so because they don't want to see ten investers get rich. Well those ten are already Rich. So what voting NO did was deny those who could get medical help that they need and deserve are being told to suffer just because some folks don't want 10 rich people to get Richer. Because 10 Rich people getting richer was so disgusting to you that you are willing to tell innocent people to suck it up and suffer. Among those who now have to suffer longer are Children, brothers, sisters, parents, men and woman who served there country to protect us. How would you feel if you had to go look your loved one in the eyes and tell them you voted for them to suffer because you didn't want 10 rich people to get richer This is a sad day in Ohio
It has nothing to do with 10 people getting rich. It has everything to do with those 10 being the only ones allowed to grow and sell.
If this had anything to do with medical marijuana, which it didn't, then make medical marijuana legal and allow it to come from anywhere.
This was just like the lottery scam. Burn me once...
As far as survival rates for motorcycle accidents I have to disagree with you (I have not taken the time however to look up any stats so I could be wrong) I am also going to assume that if you approve of Insurance companies having the right to force people to exercise and to relax then you think it's ok for them to also tell you what you can and can not eat or drink? You do realize not even God puts those kind of restrictions on people. 
twice so far, but I won those disagreements.
Because 10 Rich people getting richer was so disgusting to you that you are willing to tell innocent people to suck it up and suffer. Among those who now have to suffer longer are Children, brothers, sisters, parents, men and woman who served there country to protect us. How would you feel if you had to go look your loved one in the eyes and tell them you voted for them to suffer because you didn't want 10 rich people to get richer 
This is a sad day in Ohio