Pubdate: Sun, 30 Aug 2015
Source: Columbus Dispatch (OH)
Copyright: 2015 The Columbus Dispatch
Contact:  http://www.dispatch.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/93

FIGHTING WORDS

Proponents of Marijuana Monopoly Find Plain Speaking Is Objectionable

At the moment, the struggle over Issue 3, the marijuana-legalization 
proposal destined for the November ballot, is a war about words, 
specifically, how the initiative will be described on the ballot.

ResponsibleOhio, the group that hopes Ohio voters will hand it a 
lucrative monopoly to grow marijuana, is incensed at being described 
as a "monopoly" and at having the non-medicinal use of dope described 
as "recreational." Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, who is 
crafting the ballot language for the issue, defends the use of both words.

The group has taken its objections to the Ohio Supreme Court.

But if the decision hinges on word definition alone, Husted seems 
likely to prevail. Issue 3, which is a proposed constitutional 
amendment, would grant the owners of 10 parcels of land the exclusive 
right to grow marijuana for sale in Ohio. No one else would be 
allowed to do this. So the investors in those 10 parcels would have 
exclusive control of the market.

Recreational is an accurate and necessary description to distinguish 
non-medicinal use of marijuana. Personal use, the phrase preferred by 
ResponsibleOhio, fails because it is vague. Personal use could cover 
both medicinal and non-medicinal use of marijuana. Whereas informing 
voters that Issue 3 would authorize medicinal and recreational use of 
marijuana makes it crystal clear that two separate forms of use would 
be authorized.

But ResponsibleOhio might have a better case when it comes to the way 
Husted wants to title Issue 3 and Issue 2, which is a competing 
proposed amendment that would outlaw Issue 3 and any other proposal 
that seeks to confer a financial benefit on a select group.

Husted has proposed to title Issue 3 this way: "Grants a monopoly for 
the commercial production and sale of marijuana for recreational and 
medicinal purposes."

Issue 2's proposed title is: "Anti-monopoly amendment; protects the 
initiative process from being used for personal economic benefit."

While "monopoly" is an objectively accurate word that describes the 
form of closed market the Issue 3 proponents seek, it also comes 
loaded with negative connotations. Husted clearly is counting on 
those negative connotations when he calls Issue 3 a monopoly 
amendment and Issue 2 an anti-monopoly amendment. Given that many 
voters will not take the time to read the more-detailed ballot 
descriptions, it seems likely that some simply will assume that being 
anti-monopoly puts them on the side of the angels and cast their 
ballot accordingly.

This raises a philosophical question: Should ballot issues be 
presented as stand-alone propositions, to be considered independently 
on their merits by voters, or is it appropriate for elections 
officials to use ballot language to create linkages - for good or ill 
- - between separate issues?

ResponsibleOhio probably will argue that this shows Husted putting 
his thumb on the scales.

But for ResponsibleOhio to criticize Husted for playing games with 
vocabulary is like the pot calling the kettle black. The name 
"ResponsibleOhio" is at least as misleading as anything Husted has proposed.

Misusing the Ohio Constitution to seek personal enrichment for a 
select few by creating conditions that will encourage more people to 
dope themselves with chemicals and perhaps sicken children with 
pot-infused edibles isn't responsible. Certainly not in Ohio.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom