Pubdate: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 Source: Columbus Dispatch (OH) Copyright: 2015 The Columbus Dispatch Contact: http://www.dispatch.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/93 ISSUE 2: YES ISSUE 3: NO Ohioans Should Prevent Opportunists From Hijacking State Constitution Regardless of where one stands on the merits of legalizing marijuana, there is a bigger issue on which those on opposite sides of the question ought to be able to agree: The Ohio Constitution should not be surrendered to any group of greedy opportunists out to get rich by creating a monopoly business for themselves. Regardless of where one stands on the merits of legalizing marijuana, there is a bigger issue on which those on opposite sides of the question ought to be able to agree: The Ohio Constitution should not be surrendered to any group of greedy opportunists out to get rich by creating a monopoly business for themselves. This is why The Dispatch urges readers to vote yes for Issue 2, which would bar deep-pocketed special interests from using the Ohio Constitution for self-dealing purposes, and to vote no on Issue 3, which would create a business monopoly for a small group of investors that, once enshrined in the constitution, would be very difficult to change. It simply is wrong, unfair and against the best interests of most Ohioans for wealthy outsiders to use the referendum process to cut themselves a sweetheart business deal. Even those who think marijuana use should be legal should recognize that Issue 3 is a bad deal for Ohioans. Why on earth should select business people be able to write state law that bars others from entering the market and sets their own favorable tax rates? What business wouldn't like to be able to keep everyone else out and decide how much it will pay in taxes? Business regulations and major changes in state law, especially when it would contradict federal law, should be dealt with by the legislature, not decided at the ballot box based on whoever has the money to mount a high-profile campaign. Gambling operators cut themselves a similar deal several years ago by spending big money to legalize casinos in Ohio. As with Issue 3, legalize is a tricky word: what it really means for these well-heeled business interests is "legal for me, but not for thee." Under Issue 3, even the bartering and trading of homegrown marijuana would be illegal. ResponsibleOhio, the group spending millions of dollars to push legalization in hopes of gaining a financial windfall, has tried hard to disguise what it really is doing, portraying itself as being on the side of "rights" and "freedoms" while misleading the public about Ohio's already-lenient marijuana laws. As Ohio Auditor Dave Yost points out, Ohio was one of the first states in the 1970s to decriminalize simple possession of marijuana. Someone can possess up to 100 grams, enough to make about 200 joints, and be hit with only a maximum fine of $150. That makes it a less-serious offense than littering in Ohio, Yost says. ResponsibleOhio tried hard to change the ballot language on Issue 3 to remove the word monopoly and to scuttle the term recreational use of marijuana in favor of personal use. After all, personal conjures up an adult exercising freedom of choice, doing something in private that doesn't affect others. And monopolies are the opposite of that: taking away others' freedom while granting special privileges to a select few. The Ohio Supreme Court wisely ruled that those terms accurately described the effect of Issue 3. When someone says an issue is about freedom, it's often really about money - especially if millions are being spent to influence votes. When Ohioans go to the polls, they should vote yes on Issue 2, and no on Issue 3 to ensure fairness for all and prevent misuse of the Ohio Constitution by special interests. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom