Pubdate: Tue, 10 Nov 2015
Source: Signal, The (Santa Clarita, CA)
Copyright: 2015 The Signal
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/942n6o2y
Website: http://www.the-signal.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4221
Author: Dick Polman, Cagle Cartoons

WHY LEGAL POT WENT DOWN IN OHIO

The Signal charges $100 for each letter endorsing a political 
candidate. Letters must be no longer than 250 words. Longer 
endorsements both print and digital will be charged standard 
political advertising rates. Please call Jennifer at 661-287-5564 for 
those rates.

The off-off-year elections have yielded some noteworthy results - 
Chris Christie's Jersey legislature has gotten bluer, Kentucky has 
gotten considerably redder - but election night's most fascinating 
tally was posted in Ohio, where voters refused to rebrand their state 
as Ohigho.

At first glance, it would appear that the marijuana legalization 
movement was dealt a crushing blow. A ballot measure that would've 
made Ohio the fifth legal state got clobbered by a nearly 2-1 margin.

That might sound puzzling, given the fact that nearly 60 percent of 
Americans want weed to be legal, and that at least five more states 
will try to go that route in 2016.

What explains the landslide loss in bellwether swing-state Ohio?

Crony capitalism and strange bedfellows.

In other words, the politics of pot can be very nuanced. A motley 
coalition of foes coalesced to kill legalization.

The usual anti-drug groups - and the older, whiter voters that 
typically dominate low-turnout off-offyear elections - were joined on 
the "No" side by pot legalization people who hated this particular 
ballot measure. Because there was something transparently sleazy 
about the whole thing.

It was, in fact, a new iteration of pay-for-play politics. A tiny 
group of rich investors put up roughly $25 million to get the measure 
on the ballot and advertise for its passage.

If it had passed, they alone would've reaped the economic windfall - 
estimated at $1 billion a year - because they alone would've grown 
the marijuana on 10 predetermined farms that they alone would've owned.

That's what a lot of legal marijuana activists have been dreading all 
along - a corporate takeover, a movement co-opted by crony capitalists.

Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, recently 
warned, "The values of Woodstock have been eclipsed by the values of 
Wall Street. ... For anyone who Include your name, address and phone 
number Anonymous letters are not printed Keep it less than 300 words 
Candidate endorsement letters are $100 for up to 250 words thinks 
legalization is about pot anymore, they need to look at Ohio and see 
it's not about pot, it's about money."

Marijuana legalization is inevitable - albeit slowly, state by state 
- - but most legalization leaders want it done the right way.

Ohio has no regulatory regime because it has no experience with 
medical marijuana; the ballot measure would've legalized weed 
medically as well as recreationally - a perfect scenario for the 
corporate investors.

Pot reformers say that big farms are more likely to cultivate the 
crop with the help of pesticides and other common agricultural 
chemicals. Fairly or not, these fears helped fuel the "No" vote in Ohio.

Another pro-legalization reformer, Tom Angell of Marijuana Majority, 
applauds the Ohio defeat: "Voters won't tolerate this issue being 
taken over by greedy special interests.

"Our ongoing national movement to end marijuana prohibition is 
focused on civil rights, health and public safety, not profits for 
small groups of investors."

Which is precisely why so many reformers detested the Ohio effort. 
They thought it was bad politics - that the ballot measure played 
into the hands of the anti-pot leaders, who could then claim that 
greedy corporate interests are trying to hook Ohio's kids.

So much for this year. But there are plans for another Ohio ballot 
measure next year, this time without the crony capitalism, and its 
prospects for passage will be enhanced by the size of the 
presidential-year electorate.

And at least five states - or as many as a dozen - will put 
legalization to a vote because the social justice arguments are so 
strong (the people jailed for pot are disproportionately minorities), 
and because states can reap lots of tax revenue (just ask Colorado).

As pot legalization expert John Hudak of the Brookings Institution 
reportedly says, "Anyone who suggests that Ohio's (2015) decision 
tells us anything about the success or failure of initiatives in 2016 
is just blowing smoke."

But those thwarted Ohio investors - one of whom was a descendent of 
Ohio-born President William Howard Taft - will surely be followed by others.

A company called Privateer Holdings, birthed in the Silicon Valley, 
has already persuaded Bob Marley's family to license the dead reggae 
star's name and image for a national marijuana brand.

And a tech millionaire named Jamen Shively has spoken publicly about 
creating a pot shop chain modeled on Starbucks. (No doubt with better 
munchies.)

So with billions of bucks on the table, how long can the reformers 
freeze out the suits?

newspaper syndicate.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom