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

'Ohio sets November vote on legalizing marijuana'

http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-sets-november-vote-legalizing-marijuana-005837244.html

By Kim Palmer
7 hours ago

CLEVELAND (Reuters) - Ohio voters will decide in November whether to legalize marijuana use for treating illnesses and for getting high.

Secretary of State Jon Husted said on Wednesday he had certified the group ResponsibleOhio had gathered enough valid signatures to place a constitutional amendment before voters in November.

The proposed amendment's language still needs approval by the Ohio Ballot Board, he said.

The measure would establish a Marijuana Control Commission charged with regulating the growth, sale and taxation of marijuana, similar to legalization plans approved by voters in four other U.S. states.

In November, Oregon and Alaska approved the use of marijuana for recreational purposes in state-regulated systems that will usher in retail pot shops similar to those already operating in Washington state and Colorado.

The District of Columbia has also voted to allow recreational-use marijuana but not retail shops.

About half of U.S. states allow marijuana for medical use.

The vote in Ohio, a heartland state known as a political bellwether in national elections, reflects the shifting landscape for a substance that remains illegal under federal law. Pro-marijuana groups hope to put similar measures before voters in six other U.S. states in 2016.

The Ohio amendment would designate 10 locations for the growing of marijuana and make it legal for people 21 or older to use and possess up to one ounce (28 grams) of the drug and grow up to four marijuana plants for personal use.

ResponsibleOhio handed in 305,591 signatures from half of the state's 88 counties.

The wording of the amendment has drawn criticism from some marijuana legalization supporters who say it creates a marijuana monopoly in the state.

Another ballot measure, an anti-monopoly proposal backed by state lawmakers in June, would effectively block the marijuana measure if passed in November because a citizen-initiated amendment takes 30 days longer to take effect than a legislative one.

(Reporting by Kim Palmer in Cleveland, Ohio; Editing by Eric M. Johnson and Mohammad Zargham)

just a matter of time

by Dawgs4 above:

"just a matter of time"

That's what they were saying in 1974.

The only thing I care about on this subject nowadays is that I hope "pot dealers" serving hard time have their sentences commuted. Immediately.

puff, puff, pass

The catch?

From the article:

"Another ballot measure, an anti-monopoly proposal backed by state lawmakers in June, would effectively block the marijuana measure if passed in November because a citizen-initiated amendment takes 30 days longer to take effect than a legislative one."

I challenge Swish to NOT comment in this thread, not once. Let's see if he can resist.

All states will be doing this at some time is my educated guess.

Wait, what??? You mean Swish might be able to burn a fat one while tailgating before the game??? SOunds like he's close to Heaven lol

Ballots and Referendums are grossly under used IMO. I think more laws and issues should be settled this way. I think it would get more people active in voting just by virtue of having more opportunities to do so. Something like this is totally appropriate for a referendum vs. a legislative body

Why not? I'm really curious what his stance on this is

Right, it's a big mystery that kept me up last night.

Weird you bring this up. Yesterday I was in Delta, Ohio - there's a HUGE construction project going on.

When I got to where I was going I asked a guy "what are they putting up on the corner of 109 and 20-A? He said "well, right now they call it a green house. They say they're going to grow tomatoes and other produce. But we all call it a "pot" house, because if marijuana becomes legal, we're pretty sure that's what they'll be growing."

That was just his opinion, of course.

But, tomatoes grow just fine here, outdoors. I suppose they could/would grow tomatoes year round in a green house?

Anyway, you would think a country guy like me would be able to tell you the size of the building. However, I WAS driving when looking at it. I'll say it's a minimum of 5 acres, probably closer to 10 acres of greenhouse. Actual, physical green house. Might even be more, truthfully.

And it sits on about a 100 acre field. Now, if the company (canadian company from my understanding) went out and bought 100 acres of farm ground, then put up a 10 acre greenhouse to grow tomatoes so they can grow them year round, well, that sounds foolish to me. Why not just plant the 100 acres with tomatoes during the "season"?

Saves money on the construction, saves money on utilities, etc. Obviously, on 100 acres you can grow 10 times as many tomatoes as you can in 10 acres.

Maybe this company is ahead of the curve, thinking pot will be legal?

As the article mentioned there will be 10 company's with licenses to grow marijuana in the State. Those 10 Companies are the reason why it's on the ballot, we already know the 10 companies. Dan Gilbert is actually invested in one.

I'll vote for the law, but I'm not happy about the 10 company part. I'd come close to voting "No" based on that. But, I don't think that part will be around for more than a year or two. I could even see the Legislators pass the anti-monopoly bill, voiding the law. That would probably mean we'd have to put the law up to vote again next year without the monopoly part. Marijuana legalization is starting to become a major discourse in young adults. Kinda cool, that they're politically active, but it sucks it's just about pot legalization and nothing else

Good luck guys. I can say things out here in Colorado were pretty chill before, but even more so because of legal weed. For the most part things are basically the same. All the scary stuff politicians tried to say would happen if it became legal were all a bunch of scare tactics. It's really not that big a deal. Honestly it comes up more from people out of state than the people who live here.

So, you live in Colorado? If so, how does it work - pot is legal, but are companies/businesses allowed to specify "we won't hire people that smoke marijuana?"

Just curious. I know a number of places here and there that, even though tobacco is legal, they are allowed to say "we won't hire you if you smoke of chew." Is that how it is with pot out there?

That's just cruel...

I can't speak for Colorado but in Oregon where it's also now legal, employers can still chose to not hire, or even fire, for marijuana use. It's a load of crap and something I feel needs to change. Just because I enjoy winding down in the evenings with something that stays detectable in my system for a month, instead of drinking, it shouldn't mean I lose my job. If it's legal it needs to be legal. In time I believe much of the stigma will fade and the rules will change. The cost to test will be seen as a useless financial burden to businesses.

by Victor above:

"It's really not that big a deal."

That's interesting and a little surprising. Tells me these "Nancy Reagan-like" jerks were well... jerks. "This is your brain..."

Legalized marijuana really is not a big deal.

It doesn’t make you stupid, infertile or criminalistic.

Until you are going for a coffee at work and a stoner runs over your face with his Fork truck.

Just like alcohol, just because it's legal doesn't mean you can be drunk at work. The legality of it doesn't and shouldn't allow an employee to work while intoxicated. Get real.

Some of the posters are arguing that work should not test or fire employees for being high at work. Try reading the posts and then you will get real.

As far as I can see it's no difference than it is with alcohol. I have yet to see a job posting disqualifying people if they use weed recreationally. Most employers are not gonna allow you to work under the influence of drugs or alcohol. With five military installations out here, it is frowned upon even if you are a civilian from what I hear. As far as people being subjected to increased testing, That's a good question, but I haven't heard of anything like that.

On a side note, you don't see people walking down the street getting high. My family is always out, especially in the parks and you don't see it or smell it there either.

Went back and read every post. Not one poster said that someone shouldn't be reprimanded for being high at work. Not one.
I do think that testing to obtain a job in the first place should be done away with. Either you are qualified to do a job, or you aren't. Whether or not you had a beer, or a toke, the night before is none of an employers business. Now if it can be proved that you come into work drunk or high, that's a separate matter.

employers can still chose to not hire, or even fire, for marijuana use. It's a load of crap and something I feel needs to change.

Those are your words.

You couldn't be more wrong. What they're saying is that weed can stay in your blood stream and system for up to 30 days. Long after the person is no longer high.

I highly doubt anyone would object if a fair test was used which could decide if you were actually high at work. I haven't smoked weed for some years now. I enjoyed it in the evenings and on week-ends. But I didn't get high before or during work.

That's the actual objection people have in terms of drug testing.

Oi. Reading comprehension was never your strength. Why should I be surprised by your banter?

If you have drugs in your system after hitting me with a fork truck, I will sue the Company to the bone. It is the Company's duty to keep me save at work and failed when they allowed a stoner to run over my face.

And you would probably get away with it. Even if the guy hadn't smoked a joint in a week and wasn't high at all.

That's the problem.

And my lawyer would call the Company Doctor to the stand and ask him if he feels it is acceptable for an employee to drive said fork truck with ANY amount of drugs in his system.

Now it is MY fork truck.

Maybe your gardener could use it around your house.

Actually, the Gardener is gone and the house is sold. The wife and I have decided to spend the rest of our days as renters, traveling to and fro, without a care in the world except for straightening out people on this site. Getting too old to keep a house anyway.

Well enjoy this time in your life. We were fine before you got here so if you have other things to do, don't worry. lol

Maybe you should have replied with cute quotes?

by 40YEARS above:

"...a stoner runs over your face with his Fork truck."

Well, that's stupid and criminal (driving impaired) (and especially causing bodily injury)

And how many of you stoners want to be facing brain surgery when your surgeon has been smoking all weekend?

But hey man, it's monday man...

I'm not gonna take "weed is dangerous" advice coming from somebody who smokes cigs And drinks.

I tried my hardest to fulfill Lemmy's challenge, but once again you say some of the dumbest things where I can't stay quiet.

Oh boy. Who is going to tell him?

hmmmm the stoner would be relaxed and ready to operate. The boozer would be hung over and might have the shakes. I would go with the stoner bro

Might just want to think about that some more. Hint (neither)

j/c

For all 'pro-mj' voters:

If you value a true free market, you might want to think twice about a 'yes' vote this year. As I understand it, the licenses for cultivation have already been promised to about 10 major corporate-type players (BigAg, deep-pocket consortiums, etc) who will own the game if the vote passes.

That may not be an issue for some, but others might want to consider holding out to force a more favorable market environment. I personally have no prob with legalization... but under what conditions?

Monoplies are never a good thing.
SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL FARMERS!



p.s. Conspiracy theorists: connect the dots between my post and archbold's earlier on this page.