Our City Online

Messageboard

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 513 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Legalization of Marijuana in Ohio – News & Discussion #1100375
    ColumbusTime
    ColumbusTime
    Participant

    Absolutely not. Issue 2 puts a layer in that applies to all proposed initiatives. Part of that wording is:

    “confer a commercial interest, commercial right, or commercial license to any person, nonpublic entity, or group of persons or nonpublic entities, or any combination thereof, however organized, that is not then available to other similarly situated persons or nonpublic entities.”

    Every potential legalization initiative will, by definition, have to define specific groups of people or entities who will qualify for licenses, distribution opportunities, etc.

    For example, here’s the text from an alternative bill proposed by Legalize Ohio: “No person, nor Corporation, shall sell Marijuana, Marijuana Products, Marijuana Leaves,Marijuana Seeds, Marijuana Tissue Cultures, Marijuana Seedlings, Marijuana Plants, any natural product or byproduct of cultivating and harvesting Marijuana Plants, nor any natural byproduct of Manufacturing Marijuana Products, unless that person, or Corporation, has first procured appropriate Commercial Marijuana Entity licenses from the Division of Marijuana Control. ”

    I disagree with your assessment. You can have a broad legalization initiative that lets the legislature set the tax rate, lets the legislature define regulations for wholesale growing, etc. – the things that tripped up Issue 3 – and it will get on the ballot. You just can’t specify this group can do x, but no one else can.

    in reply to: Columbus Mayoral Race 2015 #1100322
    ColumbusTime
    ColumbusTime
    Participant

    Ginther owes the Koch brothers big-time. If the Kochs hadn’t poisoned Zach Scott, then Ginther would probably have lost on the traffic camera media buzz.

    tinfoil

    in reply to: Legalization of Marijuana in Ohio – News & Discussion #1100320
    ColumbusTime
    ColumbusTime
    Participant

    Issue 2 would disagree…and it will disagree with any imaginary, anti-greed, grass roots legalization initiative that the people who voted down issue 3 believe is in the future.

    Only with a dishonest reading of Issue 2.

    in reply to: Legalization of Marijuana in Ohio – News & Discussion #1100316
    ColumbusTime
    ColumbusTime
    Participant

    The same logic that kept rail supporters from backing a streetcar 10 years ago.

    How’d that work out?

    Great, actually.

    in reply to: Legalization of Marijuana in Ohio – News & Discussion #1100315
    ColumbusTime
    ColumbusTime
    Participant

    Name 1 group that can get an amendment on the ballot by next year ( I hope they have started already).

    Issue 3 backers are already saying they’ll change the wording and get it on the ballot next year.

    in reply to: Legalization of Marijuana in Ohio – News & Discussion #1100287
    ColumbusTime
    ColumbusTime
    Participant

    Ian James is a jerk. Thank goodness no one has to pay him to grow pot in their own home.

    In the Rolling Stone article this week he comes across as a pompous, whiny jerk.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-ohio-weed-war-20151023

    in reply to: Legalization of Marijuana in Ohio – News & Discussion #1100272
    ColumbusTime
    ColumbusTime
    Participant

    Not even close. What an ass kicking.

    in reply to: Legalization of Marijuana in Ohio – News & Discussion #1100182
    ColumbusTime
    ColumbusTime
    Participant

    Cheaper…unless you count the cost of incarceration, a criminal record and the potential inability to secure gainful employment for the rest of your life…. Even this stinking pile of a law is worth it just to decriminalize the situation and give people their lives back.

    Current Ohio law, possession of less than 100 grams is a minor misdemeanor, with a fine and no criminal record.

    Nice Obama false choices argument. Either spend tens of millions, or “materialize out of thin air.” No in-between. There are other pro-marijuana groups that likely would kick in, who are against the Issue 3 model.

    There have been numerous ballot initiatives that have been on the ballot without spending $12 million dollars. Why do you think they are spending that much? Because they know they stand to make much more than that if the law passes. Some of the initial 10 investors are selling “shares” of their initial investment to other investors, already making money of their initial investment.

    in reply to: Legalization of Marijuana in Ohio – News & Discussion #1100148
    ColumbusTime
    ColumbusTime
    Participant

    Sometimes you have to take what you can get when you can get it and keep pushing to make it better.

    Or more likely the monopoly/oligopoly/cartel lobbies for changes that make the law even more beneficial to them.

    So I’ll pretend to be naive and hold out for a better option than 3. Strip the language about the monopoly powers and try again in 2016, when turnout will be higher.

    In the meantime, if you partake, keep buying the old fashioned way. Its cheaper.

    in reply to: Columbus Mayoral Race 2015 #1100145
    ColumbusTime
    ColumbusTime
    Participant

    Beeker – you had to change your registration by Oct 5th to have it take effect for this election.

    Call the Franklin County Board of Elections and ask (614) 525-3100

    in reply to: Heroin Is Marion's Economy #1099962
    ColumbusTime
    ColumbusTime
    Participant

    Semi-related. Saw this on another messageboard, but not being discussed here. The Columbus area was on ’60 Minutes’ last night.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/heroin-in-the-heartland-60-minutes/

    Focuses on the heroin epidemic in the suburbs and small towns. Interviews with an addict from Worthington and some local parents from Pickerington, among others.

    in reply to: Legalization of Marijuana in Ohio – News & Discussion #1099961
    ColumbusTime
    ColumbusTime
    Participant

    Short-term monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing. Like I said, distilleries were done this way; it gives early entrants into the market an opportunity to recoup their initial building costs. Casinos also cost money to build and the market is theoretically untested (although, Casinos are pretty reliable money printers). But long-term you really should open up the market.

    I disagree. Make it open from the start so they don’t start lobbying officials to put in place barriers to market entry, or become big enough to buy out smaller competition from the get-go.

    in reply to: Legalization of Marijuana in Ohio – News & Discussion #1099960
    ColumbusTime
    ColumbusTime
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>lazyfish wrote:</div>
    because state protected cable monopolies, tobacco cartels, energy cartels, airlines and all the other investor protected monopolies we utilize are soooo different than a weed monopoly? Difference w/o distinction

    This is my complaint. Why are we attacking this monopoly while defending- or just plain ignoring – so many others? I think it all depends on who the media buzz is backing.

    The correct way to do this is just simple de-criminalization and sensible growing and distribution laws. OTOH, if they want to limit producers for some reason, like they wanted to limit the number of casinos, then they could issue a fixed number of growing licenses and let people bid on them. That’s what they should have done with casinos, issue 4 licenses and let the industry bid on the licenses which would be good for x-number of years.

    I don’t understand why, because there are some monopolies, we shouldn’t object to future monopolies. What type of logic is that? Have a law that decriminalizes and allows for personal growth, and then if it says there can be 10 wholesale growth/sale sites, put them out for open bid.

    in reply to: Legalization of Marijuana in Ohio – News & Discussion #1099631
    ColumbusTime
    ColumbusTime
    Participant

    If it didn’t have the ‘exclusive commercial rights’ language padding the pockets of the investors, I would vote for it. But it has that language, so I’ll be a no vote.

    in reply to: Fred Beekman Park #1098679
    ColumbusTime
    ColumbusTime
    Participant

    So they’re turning a giant grassy field into a turf field? That’s depressing.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 513 total)

Subscribe below: