Drug War Issues
Politics & Advocacy
The controversial Ohio marijuana legalization initiative has gone down to defeat, with voters rejecting it by a margin of 66% to 34%, according to early voting results. Local media outlets called the election minutes after vote counting began at 9:00pm. [Ed: The final split was 64% to 36%.]
ResponsibleOhio's multi-million dollar advertising campaign was no match for an opposition that included not only all the usual suspects -- law enforcement, state political figures, business groups -- but also some of the state's marijuana legalization activist community. Some Buckeye activists were infuriated by what they saw as a bunch of suits coming in to take over their movement and render them irrelevant. But others [Ed: more thoughtfully] felt the funder-purchased oligopoly was inappropriate.
Both marijuana movement people and the state's political establishment hammered hard on the initiative's "monopoly" provision, with the Republican-dominated legislature even placing its own initiative, Issue 2, on the ballot. Issue 2 would make constitutional monopolies like ResponsibleOhio's initiative unconstitutional. That set up a potential legal confrontation in the event that both initiatives passed, but that question is now moot. (Issue 2 was passing at press time.)
Initiative proponents argued that even though commercial cultivation opportunities were strictly circumscribed, there would be plenty of opportunities for others to get into the pot business in the state, too. Retail outlets and pot processing facilities would have been licensed, providing numerous opportunities for business startups.
The initiative also would have protected medical marijuana patients, and was supported by the Ohio Rights Group, a medical marijuana advocacy group
Marijuana reform activists who opposed the ResponsibleOhio initiative said they could do better. Now they will have the chance. But so far no grassroots legalization or even medical marijuana initiative has gotten major funding, and volunteer-driven initiatives rarely if ever make the ballot. The legislature has also not been interested to date. Ohio still has a road ahead of it to get to reform.
Permission to Reprint: This content is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license. Content of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.
Comments
Don't feel bad, it was never easy...
Hey ResponsibleOhio,
To the corporate investors: if you're concerned about your money, I feel bad for you, honestly. It's the first time I've ever seen Corporate America ever lift a finger for the legalization movement, and I hate to see you "punished" for trying to do good thing, even if it was motivated by self-interest.
If you feel bad because, you lost, remember: those of us in our fifties have been watching these initiatives go down in flames since we were in high school. We never thought they would win; it was a message that America was not united behind the Drug War. The doomed initiates let everyone know we were calling bullshit. But it was still a kick in the gut to see them lose so badly. "What is wrong with people?" I used to wonder. So, look at it this way: you've passed the hazing!
But if you are concerned about the people, mostly black, in Ohio, who will continue to be oppressed, arrested, violated,and killed in Ohio as a result of your loss then I encourage you to spend more big money on legalization efforts nationally. Because get real: it's a moral issue, that's what really matters. I hope you will show some love for the victims of the war on drugs, now that you feel the pain just a tiny bit. At least you aren't going to jail (right?)
Mark
A setback
We all know there were many problems with Ohio's initiative.. from the Joe Camel-esq character "Buddie," to the monopoly the bill would establish. Problem is, any defeat is a defeat.. this will be used by our opponents. Ohio was an important state for legalization, because our opponents can now argue "legalization is still only liberal left-wing policy that will never pass in moderate and conservative states." In other words they can point and say "see, it only passed in Colorado and Washington and Oregon and Alaska because those are crazy liberal "hippy states" out on the fringe of American civilization."
In reply to A setback by Uncle Bob (not verified)
re: A setback
To better articulate my worry: this is what I'm thinking. "Who's going to dare spend any significant amount of money trying to pass legalization in a red or swing state now?"
This was all about greed.
This was all about greed. Even the pot smokers said hell no. Go figure. I would have never voted for this myself. I'm tired of people with the money pulling all the strings. Good for Ohio. Hopefully, as planned, 1/4 of the US population will be living in states that quasi legalized marijuana. Until marijuana's schedule is changed, it ain't legal. We should start firing our political leaders that vote against us. Until then, our leaders will keep their head in the san and force us to drink alcohol.
In reply to This was all about greed. by wachicha (not verified)
I think it was more jealousy
20 years ago this initiative
Anonymous,I can only speak
Anonymous,
I can only speak for myself and for StoptheDrugWar.org, not the big groups like DPA or MPP. But as far as I was concerned, the initiative was doomed from the start. The huge 65-35 split reflects this.
One reason is that they chose to run it in 2015, which is an idiotic thing to do for a ballot measure that requires strong turnout by liberals and young people. Even the best-written and researched legalization initiative could probably not have passed this year, and certainly not in Ohio.
The second reason is that legislation an oligopoly for the benefit of the people who funded the legislation is terrible policy, and Ohioans didn't need Ethan to tell them that. It was going to fail for that reason too. We need a lot more than the pro-legalization diehards who are always going to be with us, if we are to get more than 50% of voters going our way at the polls. We also need to persuade people who agree with legalization in principle, but who place more importance on how it's implemented than on whether legalization happens in any given year. And we need to persuade some people who aren't in favor of legalization in principle, but who understand that things are moving that way and so would support moving forward with a legalization system that they think is a good one.
Given the likelihood that the initiative was doomed, regardless of what we did from here in the movement, I saw the choice as being whether we align ourselves with bad electoral policy and bad business policy, probably making ourselves look bad in the process, or whether we sit it out disassociate ourselves in order to minimize the damage that was going to be done. I respect the activists who decided to support the initiative, but I think DPA and MPP made the right decision in staying away. We are reliant on these groups to spearhead more initiatives next year and beyond -- initiatives that could actually pass -- and it could hurt those campaigns if they had tarnished their images by associating with bad policy.
The one group of people I disagreed with was those reform activists who actually opposed the initiative. I didn't think that reform activists should actually oppose and work to defeat a legalization initiative, even a flawed one. But yesterday I heard someone point out on an NPR program thaa t there were even some legalization advocates who opposed the initiative. That turns out to be a helpful fact that we can use to explain to people why the defeat in Ohio isn't really a rejection of legalization. And so now I'm glad that they did that.
My last point is that a bad initiative might lead to a bad implementation of legalization, with problems that people around the country would look at and think about. It could make it harder to pass legalization in other states. I don't know that that is what would happen, but there are some reasonable reasons to think that it's possible. I would have voted for it if I lived in Ohio, and if I had had the power to make the thing pass, I probably would have done so. But it's not clear to me whether it would have actually helped things overall. I think it might or might not have.
In reply to Anonymous,I can only speak by borden (not verified)
"I think DPA and MPP made the
"I think DPA and MPP made the right decision in staying away".
Drug Policy Alliance didn't just stay away, executive director Ethan Nadelmann (described by Rolling Stone as, "The driving force for the legalization of marijuana in America,") labeled a campaign that invested $25 million into ending marijuana prohibition in Ohio as "un-American," giving additional legitimacy to a faction of black market growers and dealers posing as reformers. Because of his influential position, that is a totally different game than merely questioning the wisdom of running an off-year legalization campaign. Nor did Ethan promise residents of Ohio that DPA would provide a better alternative in the near future - none of major reform groups have for that matter. And just to be fair to your blog readers in light of your defense of Ethan, it should be disclosed that he and DPA provide a grant of at least $15,000 every year to DRCNet StoptheDrugWar.org.
In reply to "I think DPA and MPP made the by Anonymousishere (not verified)
It's been $15,000 most years
It's been $15,000 most years for awhile, and this year we got an additional $7,500 for the international drug policy campaign. Congratulations on doing your research. But if you're intimating that that funding could be the reason I'm defending Ethan on this, that's just another case of speculation about people's motives without basis.
Regardless, Ethan didn't label the initiative in its entirety as un-American, and that's a careless way to describe Ethan's quotes. It's the oligopoly provision, with the oligarchs to be being the same people who funded the initiative, that he called un-American. He's right, and most Americans would agree with him. Reality check: Ohio voters didn't need Ethan to tell them about the oligolopy, they already knew about it. The sheer scale of the loss, 64-36%, shows they didn't like it. It's a fantasy to think that any actions by drug reform groups would have changed things.
In reply to It's been $15,000 most years by borden (not verified)
We have state governments
We have state governments across the country monopolize liquor sales (more conservative states will probably adopt the same system for recreational marijuana). Some medical marijuana states restrict the number of growers to fewer than ten, so it's not a foreign concept as you may think. In any case, the current Prohibition provision in Ohio allows the arrest and incarceration of anyone growing marijuana. Under the current Prohibition provision, it may be fewer than ten drug cartels supplying Ohio most of their marijuana and importing it from out of state, and 99.9% of Ohioans do not even know who these major suppliers are (much less get any tax revenue from them under the current Prohibition provision). The oligopoly provision would have been more malleable, contested in court and make our children/communities much safer (Remember when the latter used to be the selling point among reformers, not bitching about who would get rich or too rich or suits and ties taking over our movement?). If it was Massachusetts or some other liberal state, I may be pickier about this oligopoly provision, but we are talking about people who put up $25 million to campaign in a red-leaning state that has long been abandoned by Ethan's Drug Policy Alliance and other reform groups. You and Ethan can believe it un-American if you like, I say people who bring in the heavy artillery and invest $25 million to eliminate a totally unjust, un-American Prohibition provision should be rewarded with special growing privileges if they succeed. Perhaps in an ideal world, people would invest that much money and not expect anything in return, just peace on earth would be its own reward. However, billionaire Peter Lewis, who funds most of the Marijuana Policy Project's activities, lived his whole life in Ohio and never coughed up the dough for any legalization campaign in his home state.
In reply to We have state governments by Anonymousishere (not verified)
You're entitled to that
You're entitled to that opinion, and it's not off the charts. But there are two things that I think call out for acknowledgment. One is that there is something fundamentally different from a state awarding a small number of licenses like New York has done, but through an open and competitive application process, vs. the funders of an initiative setting things up the law itself to benefit themselves specifically. I do view the latter as having something un-American about it. It's more like what's happened in Russia, frankly. But even if you disagree with that, it's just not the same thing as awarding a small number of licenses through an open and competitive process.
The second thing is what I've been saying all along: This initiative was doomed from day one. The 64-36% split proves that. Those of us who stayed neutral, or even Ethan making that comment, were doing damage control. Even the activists who opposed the initiative outright (which I disagreed with at the time) ended up doing the issue a favor, because the fact that there were legalization activists who opposed it makes the best sound bite I can think of for why the loss doesn't reflect on legalization's momentum.
Ohio's Issue 3
Sorry, Phillip. You really dropped the ball on this one.
>>>"Passage of the initiative would have locked this legal marijuana cultivation "monopoly" into the state constitution."
PLEASE don't help the opponents by supporting their deception. - Issue 3 would have created 10 different growing territories, several times larger than all the growing site in Washington state. And there was provision to add more, if necessary. Most of these sites would have been subdivided by sale or lease to hundreds of different growers. Any person who was serious about being a commercial grower would have likely been able to do so.
Also, this arrangement would have just been temporary. The soon-to-arrive national marijuana market will sweep away all local arrangements.
Most of the whining about the growing was from the black-market growers who don't want ANY legalization. They are happy for things to continue just the way they are - riding on the government persecution of their "precious" customers. - This was a tiny aspect of Issue 3, anyway - compared to ending the monstrously destructive, fraudulent war on marijuana consumers.
>>>"Some Buckeye activists were infuriated by what they saw as a bunch of suits coming in to take over their movement and render them irrelevant."
No. R.O. was the ONLY action that had a hope of getting on the ballot until at least 2020. Those activists made themselves irrelevant by not joining in to support R.O. - Their real hysteria was thinking (erroneously) they would not be able to share in the profit from the new, legal market.
>>>"But others [Ed: more thoughtfully] felt the funder-purchased oligopoly was inappropriate."
More "inappropriate" than allowing hundreds of thousands of good Ohio citizens to be treated as "criminals" for several more years? - Clearly not.
The temporary growing arrangements were a minor, unimportant aspect. The primary issue was ending the insane, vicious war on marijuana consumers. The corrupt legislature and election officials, prohibitionist forces, and greedy, black-market growers worked together to deceive and distract voters into thinking it was about something else.
>>>"Issue 2 would make constitutional monopolies like ResponsibleOhio's Initiative unconstitutional. That set up a potential legal confrontation in the event that both initiatives passed, but that question is now moot."
No. Issue 2 is definitely not now moot. - Unless it is somehow removed/negated, it seriously robbed the people of their power in the initiative-making process. It will make it MUCH more difficult to pass an initiative in the future.
This was one of marijuana reform's darkest hours, surpassing even the traitorous campaign of the greedy growers against California's legalization attempt in 2010, Prop 19. - The major reform organizations sat on their hands while they watched the freedom of Ohio's marijuana consumers go down in flames. - For more details, see one of the few objective reform voices on this issue, Russ Belville.
Shame on all who worked against (or did nothing to help) consumer freedom in Ohio!.
In reply to Ohio's Issue 3 by JohnThomas (not verified)
You're fooling yourself,
You're fooling yourself, JohnThomas. It wasn't a "monopoly," but it was an oligopoly. There's some different between those two things, but not enough to invalidate Phil's description.
Reality check: This thing lost 64-36. Nothing that drug reform groups did or didn't do would have enabled it to pass -- certainly not in 2015 -- an insane year for trying to pass an initiative that relies on liberal turnout -- and probably not in any other year. There was a lot of attention focused on the initiative, and in my opinion the reporting on it was largely accurate -- voters knew what it was about, and they didn't like.
I think the big groups made the right choice by staying out. We are reliant on them to get more initiatives passed, next year and moving forward. Associating with this crazy thing that ResponsibleOhio just tried to might have damaged their reputations and made it harder for them to pass good initiatives that could actually pass.
Add new comment