Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MAKAVELI" data-source="post: 1910530" data-attributes="member: 43825"><a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/marijuana-legalization-just-failed-ohio-035403549.html" target="_blank">http://finance.yahoo.com/news/marijuana-legalization-just-failed-ohio-035403549.html</a>Marijuana legalization just failed in Ohio — and it may have nothing to do with attitudes about legalizationThe rejection, however, may have less to do with Ohioans attitudes about marijuana than one might think.The proposal, known as Issue 3, allowed adults 21 and older to use, purchase, and grow certain amounts of marijuana and established a regulatory and taxation scheme to handle the legalization.Embedded in the proposal, however, was a stipulation that would have given &quot;exclusive rights&quot; for commercial marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction to 10 predetermined parcels of land.The various owners of those land parcels were the proponents and funders of the initiative, known as Responsible Ohio. The group spent more than $12 million on ads, and The New York Times reports that its members spent $25 million on the campaign in total.The problems voters may have had with Issue 3 were best summed up by Case Western University School of Law professor Jonathan Adler in The Washington Post:Issue 3 would create a marijuana &quot;monopoly&quot; (actually, an oligopoly) consisting of 10 producers who would have their exclusive rights to engage in the commercial production of marijuana enshrined in the state constitution. The campaign in support of Issue 3 — so-called Responsible Ohio — is predictably supported by those who would hold these exclusive rights. This is crony capitalism at its worst.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MAKAVELI, post: 1910530, member: 43825"] [URL]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/marijuana-legalization-just-failed-ohio-035403549.html[/URL] Marijuana legalization just failed in Ohio — and it may have nothing to do with attitudes about legalization The rejection, however, may have less to do with Ohioans attitudes about marijuana than one might think. The proposal, known as Issue 3, allowed adults 21 and older to use, purchase, and grow certain amounts of marijuana and established a regulatory and taxation scheme to handle the legalization. Embedded in the proposal, however, was a stipulation that would have given "exclusive rights" for commercial marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction to 10 predetermined parcels of land. The various owners of those land parcels were the proponents and funders of the initiative, known as Responsible Ohio. The group spent more than $12 million on ads, and The New York Times reports that its members spent $25 million on the campaign in total. The problems voters may have had with Issue 3 were best summed up by Case Western University School of Law professor Jonathan Adler in The Washington Post: Issue 3 would create a marijuana "monopoly" (actually, an oligopoly) consisting of 10 producers who would have their exclusive rights to engage in the commercial production of marijuana enshrined in the state constitution. The campaign in support of Issue 3 — so-called Responsible Ohio — is predictably supported by those who would hold these exclusive rights. This is crony capitalism at its worst. [/QUOTE]

Verification