Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ohio wisely votes no on a bad marijuana law.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ohio wisely votes no on a bad marijuana law.

    Yesterday Ohio voters by a 65 to 35 % margin voted down issue three that would have legalized marijuana in Ohio.

    Regardless of how you feel about the legalization of marijuana this was a bad law.

    The key problem was that 10 groups of investors would have exclusive rights to commercial production of marijuana in Ohio. Not surprisingly this group spent the lions share of money on this issue. By some reports they spent $20 million on their campaign which failed.

    I'm glad my fellow voters in Ohio turned down a law that would have given control of this to a small group of investors.
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Beatrice Evelyn Hall
    Updated for the 21st century... except if you are criticizing islam, that scares the $hii+e out of me!

  • #2
    Legal marijuana, a cartel monopoly, and crony capitalism... All you'd need for a trifecta of government corruption was Democrat / Progressive backing!

    Comment


    • #3
      All they need is for West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana or Michigan to legalise Pot. Then the Potheads will get their supply out of state and bring it home.

      Pruitt
      Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

      Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

      by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

      Comment


      • #4
        Colorado is having second thoughts about it, and many employers will terminate someone immediately for a positive urine test whether they have a prescription or not.
        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Colorado is having second thoughts about it, and many employers will terminate someone immediately for a positive urine test whether they have a prescription or not.
          If the law had passed employees could still ban use by their employees.
          "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Beatrice Evelyn Hall
          Updated for the 21st century... except if you are criticizing islam, that scares the $hii+e out of me!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            Legal marijuana, a cartel monopoly, and crony capitalism... All you'd need for a trifecta of government corruption was Democrat / Progressive backing!
            You couldn't say this law was backed or opposed by either party. There were democrats and republicans on both side of the issue.

            But it did smack of crony capitalism.
            "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Beatrice Evelyn Hall
            Updated for the 21st century... except if you are criticizing islam, that scares the $hii+e out of me!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 17thfabn View Post
              You couldn't say this law was backed or opposed by either party. There were democrats and republicans on both side of the issue.

              But it did smack of crony capitalism.
              I didn't say it was. I said it would have made the prefect storm (trifecta being substituted) if the Democrats / Progressives were pushing for it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                I didn't say it was. I said it would have made the prefect storm (trifecta being substituted) if the Democrats / Progressives were pushing for it.
                But since they weren't, why bring it up?

                Try making one post here without slamming the Left. You actually might like it.
                Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 17thfabn View Post
                  You couldn't say this law was backed or opposed by either party. There were democrats and republicans on both side of the issue.

                  But it did smack of crony capitalism.
                  It sure did. But I'll bet it's on the ballot next year in a different form.
                  Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by R. Evans View Post
                    But since they weren't, why bring it up?

                    Try making one post here without slamming the Left. You actually might like it.
                    Because Progressives and the Left have been heavily behind most of the other legalization efforts. Here they actually opposed it because of the crass crony capitalism. Here's the list of investors that would have had a monopoly on growing it in Ohio:

                    The named investors are:
                    •Rick Kirk, owner of a construction company in Columbus;
                    •Mr. Robertson, who a graduate of the University of Cincinnati;
                    •Nanette Lepore, a fashion entrepreneur originally from Youngstown;
                    •Barbara Gould, Cincinnati community leader;
                    •Frostee Rucker, professional football player who formerly played with the Cincinnati Bengals and Cleveland Browns;
                    •Frank Wood, CEO of Secret Communications LLC private venture capital company who lives in Cincinnati;
                    •Sir Alan Mooney, a stockbroker and board member of the Ohio Council of Churches;
                    •William J. Foster, owner of A-1 Quality Logistical Solutions, of Cincinnati;
                    •William “Cheney” Pruett, president and CEO of DMP Investments;
                    •John Humphrey, chief financial officer of DMP Investments; and,
                    •Bobby George, managing member of Corporate Management Group, described as a leader in finance, land development, business management and marketing, event planning, hospitality and entertainment and consulting, and based in Lakewood, Ohio.

                    Had the legislation been more like it has been in other states the Left would have been almost giddy to get behind it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by R. Evans View Post
                      But I'll bet it's on the ballot next year in a different form.
                      ''Responsible Ohio '' the group pushing the amendment has said they will try again.

                      Stripping out the crony capitalism would help.

                      Time is on their side. I haven't seen a breakdown on vote results by age groups, but I would bet the younger the demographic the more it was in favor of legal pot.

                      And there is talk of trying for medical marijuana 1st.
                      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Beatrice Evelyn Hall
                      Updated for the 21st century... except if you are criticizing islam, that scares the $hii+e out of me!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Until Federal Laws are changed, those that grow and use it legally under State laws still risk arrest and seizure of their property by the Feds.
                        “Breaking News,”

                        “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          Because Progressives and the Left have been heavily behind most of the other legalization efforts. Here they actually opposed it because of the crass crony capitalism. Here's the list of investors that would have had a monopoly on growing it in Ohio:

                          The named investors are:
                          •Rick Kirk, owner of a construction company in Columbus;
                          •Mr. Robertson, who a graduate of the University of Cincinnati;
                          •Nanette Lepore, a fashion entrepreneur originally from Youngstown;
                          •Barbara Gould, Cincinnati community leader;
                          •Frostee Rucker, professional football player who formerly played with the Cincinnati Bengals and Cleveland Browns;
                          •Frank Wood, CEO of Secret Communications LLC private venture capital company who lives in Cincinnati;
                          •Sir Alan Mooney, a stockbroker and board member of the Ohio Council of Churches;
                          •William J. Foster, owner of A-1 Quality Logistical Solutions, of Cincinnati;
                          •William “Cheney” Pruett, president and CEO of DMP Investments;
                          •John Humphrey, chief financial officer of DMP Investments; and,
                          •Bobby George, managing member of Corporate Management Group, described as a leader in finance, land development, business management and marketing, event planning, hospitality and entertainment and consulting, and based in Lakewood, Ohio.

                          Had the legislation been more like it has been in other states the Left would have been almost giddy to get behind it.
                          I don't understand??? How will they have/get a monopoly?

                          Are they going to learn to grow it, start dealing with cartels, or are they growing it already . Connections are everything .
                          SPORTS FREAK/ PANZERBLITZ COMMANDER/ CC2 COMMANDER

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
                            Until Federal Laws are changed, those that grow and use it legally under State laws still risk arrest and seizure of their property by the Feds.
                            That's true. But there are already several states that have legal marijuana and the federal government hasn't interfered with them.

                            I'm not a lawyer, but maybe its because they don't deal in interstate commerce? In theory federal government shouldn't be involved in trade that is only with in one state?

                            Of course when another administration comes in in 2017 the federal government might take action.
                            "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Beatrice Evelyn Hall
                            Updated for the 21st century... except if you are criticizing islam, that scares the $hii+e out of me!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by dgfred View Post
                              I don't understand??? How will they have/get a monopoly?

                              Are they going to learn to grow it, start dealing with cartels, or are they growing it already . Connections are everything .
                              The way the law was written ten companies would have exclusive rights to grow for commercial purposes marijuana. Individuals would be permitted to to have 3 plants for personal use if they pay for a license. I believe the license would cost $50.

                              SO technically it would be an oligopoly, not a monopoly.
                              "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Beatrice Evelyn Hall
                              Updated for the 21st century... except if you are criticizing islam, that scares the $hii+e out of me!

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X