COLUMBUS, Ohio – Ohio voters rejected a first-of-its-kind proposal Tuesday that would have legalized both medical and recreational marijuana, following an expensive campaign, a legal fight over its ballot wording and an investigation into the proposal’s petition signatures.
At the same time, voters approved a legislative redistricting overhaul that had been a priority of both political parties. Issue 1 revises the system for drawing Ohio’s 33 state Senate and 99 state House districts. By giving the minority party a larger say, the proposal is intended to reduce gerrymandering of district boundaries for partisan purposes.
ALL ELECTION RESULTS
The constitutional amendment known as Issue 3 was targeted by a separate ballot issue — Tuesday’s Issue 2 — that took aim at its network of 10 exclusive growing sites controlled by the campaign’s deep-pocketed private investors. That issue banning monopolies from Ohio’s constitution was leading with 53 percent of the statewide vote with about half of precincts reporting.
The marijuana question, Issue 3, would have allowed adults 21 and older to grow, possess and use pot recreationally and made cannabis available for medical uses in the same vote, a unique approach nationally.
State Issue 1
Issue 1 creates a process for drawing legislative districts to discourage dominant parties from setting boundaries that strongly favor themselves by requiring that the other major party agree to the map. (read more)
| YES | 2,025,467 |
| NO | 808,999 |
State Issue 2
Issue 2 raises a barrier for issues, including Issue 3, that create monopolies or grant special tax conditions by requiring that voters agree to waive the rules before voting on the issue itself. (read more)
| YES | 1,553,357 |
| NO | 1,451,520 |
State Issue 3
“Issue 3 permits commercial production and sale of marijuana by what amounts to a monopoly in 10 locations around the state, It allows individuals to grow limited amounts for personal use.”
Detail:-
- Endow exclusive rights for commercial marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction to self-designated landowners who own ten predetermined parcels of land in Butler, Clermont, Franklin, Hamilton, Licking, Lorain, Lucas, Delaware, Stark, and Summit Counties. One additional location may be allowed for in four years only if existing facilities cannot meet consumer demand.
- Permit retail sale of recreational marijuana at approximately 1,100 locations statewide. Such retail establishments must have a state license that may be obtained only if the electors of the precinct where the store will be located approve the use of the location for such purpose at a local option election.
- Legalize the production of marijuana-infused products, including edible products, concentrates, sprays, ointments and tinctures by marijuana product manufacturing facilities.
- Allow each person, 21 years of age or older, to, grow, cultivate, use, possess, and share up to eight ounces of usable homegrown marijuana plus four flowering marijuana plants if the person holds a valid state license. Allow each person, 21 years of age or older, to purchase, possess, transport, use, and share up to 1 ounce of marijuana for recreational use. Authorize the use of medical marijuana by any person, regardless of age, who has a certification for a debilitating medical condition.
- Prohibit marijuana establishments within 1,000 feet of a house of worship, public library, public or chartered elementary or secondary school, state-licensed day-care center, or public playground, however: after a certain date, a new day-care, library, etc., cannot force a preexisting marijuana establishment to relocate by opening a new location within 1,000 feet of the business.
- Prohibit any local or state law, including zoning laws, from being applied to prohibit the development or operation of marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction facilities, retail marijuana stores, and medical marijuana dispensaries unless the area is zoned exclusively residential as of January 1, 2015 or as of the date that an application for a license is first filed for a marijuana establishment.
- Create a special tax rate limited to 15% on gross revenue of each marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction facility and marijuana product manufacturing facility and a special tax rate limited to 5% on gross revenue of each retail marijuana store. Revenues from the tax go to a municipal and township government fund, a strong county fund, and the marijuana control commission fund.
- Create a marijuana incubator in Cuyahoga County to promote growth and development of the marijuana industry and locate marijuana testing facilities near colleges and universities in Athens, Cuyahoga, Lorain, Mahoning, Scioto and Wood Counties, at a minimum.
- Limit the ability of the legislature and local governments from regulating the manufacture, sales, distribution, and use of marijuana and marijuana products. Create a new state government agency called the marijuana control commission (with limited authority) to regulate the industry, comprised of seven Ohio residents appointed by the Governor, including a physician, a law enforcement officer, an administrative law attorney, a patient advocate, a resident experienced in owning, developing, managing and operating businesses, a resident with experience in the legal marijuana industry, and a member of the public
| YES | 1,094,289 |
| NO | 1,958,802 |
Some who voted “no” didn’t like that a small group of investors would have exclusive rights to grow pot commercially.
“I can’t believe I voted no when it was finally on the ballot,” said Marty Dvorchak, 62, of the northern Cincinnati suburb of Fairfield. “I think it’s ridiculous that marijuana is illegal.”
University of Cincinnati student Natalie McClorey, 22, said she also didn’t like the exclusive arrangement — but voted yes because it’s progress. She said she thought most students would vote the same — if they vote.
In a last-minute legal scuffle, a judge ordered polls in Cincinnati and surrounding Hamilton County to remain open for an extra 90 minutes — leading to a delay in reported results statewide.
A few precincts in southwest Ohio’s Hamilton County reported problems getting voters their ballots because of poll workers’ unfamiliarity with a new electronic check-in system being used for the first time. The marijuana legalization campaign, ResponsibleOhio, sought the extension citing those problems.
Cheryl Davis, 46, who voted in Cleveland, said she uses marijuana to help alleviate chronic pain in her back and voted in favor of legalization. Marijuana “helps me be comfortable in my daily living,” she said.
State lawmakers mounted the separate anti-monopoly initiative, Issue 2, in an effort to target the marijuana proposal’s network of exclusive growing sites and undercut legalization. It would prohibit monopolies, oligopolies and cartels that deliver economic gain to individuals from being inserted into Ohio’s constitution.
Timothy Shearer, 47, said he voted “yes” on legalization and “no” on the anti-monopoly measure. He said he didn’t believe opponents’ arguments that legalization would increase risks to drug addiction, saying he believes harder drugs cause more problems.
“I’ll be honest, I’ve never been a user. I’m a military guy,” he said. “But I think you should have a right to choose.”
Beth Zielenski, 40, a West Chester mother of one, said she voted “no” because a lot of things need to be worked out on marijuana regulation, particularly with edible pot products, before it’s legalized.
Introduction
The measure specified the legal use, cultivation and sale of marijuana in Ohio.
Who could have used marijuana?
- Anyone 21 years or older with a license purchased from the Ohio Marijuana Control Commission, similar to a fishing license, would have been able to use, possess, grow, cultivate and share up to eight ounces of homegrown marijuana and four flowering marijuana plants.
- Anyone 21 years or older (with or without a license) would have been able to purchase, possess, transport, use and share up to one ounce of marijuana.
- Anyone with a certified debilitating medical condition would have been able to use medicinal marijuana.
What were MGCE facilities?
The amendment would have created 10 Marijuana Growth, Cultivation and Extraction (MGCE) facilities. These 10 facilities would have had exclusive rights to commercial production; it was this aspect of the amendment that led the Ohio General Assembly to add the competing Issue 2 to the ballot.
The MGCE facilities would have ran independently to prevent collusion, as required by the Sherman Antitrust Act. There would have been no vertical integration of marijuana businesses, meaning that those who cultivated the plants could not also sell directly to the public.[2]
Property owners agreed to let the 300 people that each facility expects to employ unionize and collectively bargain.[3]
Each MGCE facility had at least one investor, some of whom are local celebrities:[2]
- Former 98 Degrees singer Nick Lachey
- Former Cincinnati Bengals defensive end Frostee Rucker
- Dayton pain specialist Suresh Gupta
- WEBN radio host Frank Wood
- Barbara Gould, a philanthropist based in Indian Hill
- University of Cincinnati basketball star Oscar Robertson
- Paul Heldman, former general counsel of The Kroger Co.
- Woody Taft, a descendant of President William Howard Taft
Ian James, the head of the ResponsibleOhio campaign in support of the amendment, required each investor to give $2 million to the campaign to get Issue 3 on the ballot. He also hired real estate agents to find 10 properties capable of industrial indoor marijuana production. Cincinnati financier James Gould played a large role in investor recruiting.
How would the Ohio marijuana industry have worked?
Regulation
The measure would have created an Ohio Marijuana Control Commission to regulate industrial and homegrown marijuana production, the chemical content of marijuana products, retail sales and marijuana taxation. The commission would have also acted as a clearinghouse for scientific research on marijuana and created a marijuana innovation and business incubator in Cuyahoga County.
Stores, dispensaries and manufacturing
Retail marijuana stores would have only been allowed to sell marijuana from MGCE facilities and marijuana-infused products from licensed manufacturing facilities. Stores would not have been allowed to sell marijuana or infused products for less than what the store paid for it.
The total number of marijuana retail stores in Ohio would have been limited by a ratio of one store for every 10,000 Ohioans. With Ohio’s population at 11,594,163 in 2014, the amendment would have allowed for a maximum of 1,159 stores.
Marijuana stores would have not been allowed to be located within 1,000 feet of a house of worship, public library, public or chartered elementary or secondary school, state-licensed day care center or public playground. A store’s location would have also needed to be approved by voters in the precinct in which the store would be located.
Medical marijuana would have only been sold by licensed not-for-profit dispensaries to individuals with a doctor’s note. The Ohio Marijuana Control Commission would have issued regulatory rules for these dispensaries and fund necessary operating costs.
Only licensed Marijuana Product Manufacturing, or MPM, facilities would have been able to manufacture, process and package marijuana-infused products. The facilities would have also manufactured marijuana accessories and sell marijuana-infused products made only from marijuana purchased from licensed MGCE facilities. The control commission would have regulated parts of the process such as the chemical content or potency of marijuana-infused products.
Taxes
Along with general business taxes, fees and assessments, marijuana production facility gross revenue would have been taxed by a flat 15 percent rate, and marijuana retail stores would have been taxed by a flat 5 percent rate.
The tax revenue would have been split up in three ways:
- 55 percent to the Municipal and Township Government Stabilization Fund
- 30 percent to the Strong County Fund
- 15 percent to the Marijuana Control Commission Fund
Ohio Marijuana Legalization Initiative Issue 3, November (2015)
No comments:
Post a Comment