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