2 things.

 

1. How is it a monopoly if you allow 10 growers?

 

I don't have a link, but I read a local news article yesterday that interviewed one of the individuals responsible for the wording on the ballot. My take is that he didn't want it to pass, but essentially his rationale was that they put down the word monopoly as they figured most voters would understand what that means. Apparently there was little faith that the average voter would recognize the word oligopoly or anything else.

The 10 grower thing might have been the dumbest wording ever used. Only in America.

 

Farmers, we will only allow 14 of you to grow soybeans. We will be drawing those names from a hat in a closed session.

 

I can't see anything wrong with that.

 

Greed makes people do the dumbest things.

Edited November 5, 201510 yr by TexasRanger
add word

2 things.

 

1. How is it a monopoly if you allow 10 growers?

2. I heard Nick Lachey owns a farm that would be one of the 10 growers. Not sure if that is true.

 

Technically, it is an oligopoly rather than a monopoly.

 

Yes, Nick Lachey is one of the investors and jointly owns one of the ten farms that would've been granted exclusive rights to grow marijuana commercially.

I was thinking there might be a charitable defense of the exclusive commercial licensing in that they might have feared even with the passage of an amendment legalizing marijuana the legislature could have simply refused to issue the licenses for growers and thus continue its prohibition. But, that doesn't seem to stack up. There are plenty of other ways to word the amendment that wouldn't have let the legislature maintain a backdoor prohibition and the language about 1,100 retail outlets doesn't seem pre-determined.

 

From scanning through the link CC posted it seems fairly blatant that the 10 commercial growing centers were designed to reward major supporters of the initiative. It said to be considered each investor had to donate $2M to the campaign. Maybe they thought this would be a way to get people to open up their wallets on behalf of the campaign because they would expect a windfall if the amendment passed. But, that's just such a gross way of doing things.

 

And the worst part of this is the exclusive commercial rights would have been part of the Ohio constitution. I could better understand if the idea was to start with granting 10 growing licenses then go from there at the legislature's discretion, but enshrining it in the constitution means if voters later decide to open up the market they'd have to again amend the constitution.

Or they may try to with just medicinal marijuana to start.

 

As someone who lives in Ohio there should be a vote separate on each. But this vote would of been a lot closer or passed if it didn't only make a few people rich. There were pro legalization groups who didn't support it.

Technically, it is an oligopoly rather than a monopoly.

 

Yes, Nick Lachey is one of the investors and jointly owns one of the ten farms that would've been granted exclusive rights to grow marijuana commercially.

 

Along with Oscar Robertson and the Taft family.

The 10 grower thing might have been the dumbest wording ever used. Only in America.

 

Farmers, we will only allow 14 of you to grow soybeans. We will be drawing those names from a hat in a closed session.

 

I can't see anything wrong with that.

 

Greed makes people do the dumbest things.

 

Connecticut's law is similar. It only allows for 3 (I believe) growers.

Looking at the Enquirer's Issue 3 county-by-county Ohio map today, we can see that the yes votes were roughly 40 percent in urban areas and in the upper 20s in rural areas. These numbers were lower than I expected. I'm guessing the heroin "epidemic" sweeping Ohio and Kentucky was a significant factor among those voting no. Take away the constitutional amendment-muddled language-monopoly concerns, the issue still loses decisively, in my opinion.

Looking at the Enquirer's Issue 3 county-by-county Ohio map today, we can see that the yes votes were roughly 40 percent in urban areas and in the upper 20s in rural areas. These numbers were lower than I expected. I'm guessing the heroin "epidemic" sweeping Ohio and Kentucky was a significant factor among those voting no. Take away the constitutional amendment-muddled language-monopoly concerns, the issue still loses decisively, in my opinion.

 

Unfortunately, you may be right that people cannot distinguish between marijuana & heroin.

 

I think the initiative would've garnered A LOT more support without the monopoly language attached to it. I am a supporter of the legalization of marijuana, and I was conflicted on Issue 3 because of the language in the proposed amendment.

Unfortunately, you may be right that people cannot distinguish between marijuana & heroin.

 

I think the initiative would've garnered A LOT more support without the monopoly language attached to it. I am a supporter of the legalization of marijuana, and I was conflicted on Issue 3 because of the language in the proposed amendment.

The $64,000 question is what the vote would have been had we had a "clean" yes or no on legalization. I think even in its simplest form the issue still would have been voted down by a substantial margin. In my opinion, supporters of legalization underestimate the number of Ohioans who are against expanding the roster of intoxicating substances -- if "intoxicating" is the right term.

Most everyone I know voted for the anti-monopoly issue. I would push to get this wording on the ballot if KY ever tried to open gambling and only allow race tracks to profit. Racetracks, like the Lachey farmers, would be best positioned to get a head start and profit but you should not just hand them over the keys to the vault. Open markets and competition. Geez, all the liberals cry about the rich getting richer, well this would be the case here.