‘Marijuana cartel’ would make out like drug lords

Here’s a question for the investors who are shelling out millions of dollars to persuade Ohio voters to approve a proposed constitutional amendment in November that would legalize the use of marijuana for medicinal and recreational use: Would you be as enthusiastic in your support if you weren’t guaranteed a huge return on your investment?

Jon Alison, a lawyer with the anti-marijuana Drug Free Action Alliance, is focusing public attention on the underlying reason the investor group is putting up about $20 million toward the campaign. The proponents go by the name ResponsibleOhio.

“What they want to put in our state constitution is centered on a singular theme and desire, and it is purely and simply, greed,” Allison said in a statement published by the Cincinnati Enquirer. He contended that the investors behind the marijuana-legalization effort are feigning interest in helping sick people.

INVESTOR-OWNED FARMS

The constitutional amendment would permit the development of 10 marijuana farms across Ohio that would be owned by the investors. Little wonder, then, that Ohio Auditor Dave Yost, who aims to short-circuit the marijuana amendment with a ballot issue that would prohibit monopolies and business interests being written into the Ohio Constitution, has labeled the monied interests a “marijuana cartel.”

How big is the pot of gold at the end of the drug-infused rainbow? Respon-sibleOhio projects Ohioans would annually purchase more than $2.2 billion in the legalized weed by 2020. According to an analysis by Gannett Ohio, that would be $271 for every resident older than 21 who could legally purchase the drug.

And yet, one prominent – by virtue of politics – backer of marijuana legalization totally ignored the monopolistic aspect of the proposal when she wrote a letter to the editor harshly criticizing a Vindicator editorial on the subject published July 21.

State Rep. Michele Lepore-Hagan, whose district includes the crime- infested city of Youngstown, said the editorial mischaracterized her position on the legalization of marijuana. She is unequivocally in support of it.

Here’s what Lepore-Hagan, who succeeded her husband, Robert F., in the House, wrote: “I have long supported the legalization of marijuana for medicinal and therapeutic use.” She pointed to a recent poll that showed 84 percent of Ohioans share her position. And Lepore-Hagan wrote that she supports the legalization of marijuana for personal use.

What prompted her outburst? In the editorial we noted that the state representative’s sister, a fashion designer in New York, is one of the investors, and added, “May we suggest that, at the very least, Nanette Lepore’s membership in the drug cartel raises questions about her sister’s objectivity as a state lawmaker.”

ADVICE TO LEPORE-HAGAN

We went on to argue that Lepore-Hagan represents a city with an unacceptably high crime rate related to drugs and a high addiction rate among her constituents. “While she says she is recusing herself from the debate, she should be leading the opposition to the legalization of marijuana,” we suggested.

To which she responded in her letter that the newspaper’s argument was baseless because she has not taken any official position on ResponsibleOhio’s proposed amendment and has recused herself from the debate over HJR 4 (the Yost initiative) based on the advice of the Legislative Ethics Commission.

To reiterate: the ResponsibleOhio amendment would legalize marijuana for medicinal and therapeutic use and would also allow the drug for personal use – which is the position Lepore-Hagan detailed in her letter to the editor.

As for the drug cartel that would be formed with the approval of the constitutional amendment, it is true that Lepore-Hagan did not address it specifically, but she did offer this insight: She believes the legalization under tightly regulated and highly taxed regimen is “in concept” the right choice for Ohio.

Seeing how ResponsibleOhio has pointed to regulation, governance and high taxation as the centerpieces of the amendment, the state lawmaker from Youngstown found a clever way of taking a position on the marijuana amendment – indirectly.

Her letter to the editor, under the guise of responding to a Vindicator editorial, was a clever way of expressing her support for the ResponsibleOhio amendment – without actually saying so.