Voters should think long, hard before saying yes to legalization of marijuana

Considering the millions of dollars being spent by the advocates of marijuana legalization in Ohio, we had no doubt about their success in placing on the November general election ballot an amendment to Ohio’s constitution that would, in effect, create a drug cartel.

Earlier this month, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced that ResponsibleOhio, the group pushing to make the drug legal, had submitted enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. It has been designated Issue No. 3. Husted certified 320,267 signatures on the petitions circulated by Responsible-Ohio. A total of 305,591 were required by law.

Though certification may be seen as a victory for proponents of legalization, the voices of opposition are now being heard – loudly and clearly. That’s exactly what’s needed to overcome the heavily financed full-court press being put on by the 10 investor groups – correctly dubbed a “drug cartel” by Ohio Auditor David Yost.

The coalition opposed to the legalization is made up of children’s health organizations, business groups and county prosecutors, among others. The campaign has a simple but powerful message for the voters of Ohio: Legalization “would allow for the wide-open sale of marijuana and marijuana- infused products, like cookies and candy, and other edibles, which can easily fall into the hands of innocent kids and others, possibly causing irrevocable harm.” Those were the words of the president of the Ohio Children’s Hospitals Association, Nick Lashutka.

Compare them to the comment from Ian James, executive director of ResponsibleOhio, after the secretary of state had certified the signatures on the petitions:

“Drug dealers don’t care about doing what’s best for our state and its citizens. By reforming marijuana laws in November, we’ll provide compassionate care to sick Ohioans, bring money back to our local communities and establish a new industry with limitless economic development opportunities.”

It’s clear that the advocates and opponents of legalization of marijuana have different priorities.

That should make for a lively debate.

VINDICATOR ALIGNS WITH OPPONENTS

It should come as no surprise to our readers that we fully embrace the arguments put forth by opponents of State Issue 3, the foremost of which is that the amendment will cement in Ohio’s constitution a billion-dollar marijuana monopoly for a small group of wealthy investors. It gives them exclusive rights to marijuana profits in the state and insulates them from any business competition or acts of the General Assembly.

In addition, the preferential tax rates established by the investors would be written into the constitution and could not be changed by the Legislature. By contrast, lawmakers have the power to set the rates on beer, wine and tobacco.

Every adult 21 or over will have the right to possess as much as 9 ounces of marijuana (500 average-sized marijuana joints) and could possess four flowering marijuana plants at home.

There would be more than 1,100 retail marijuana stores, which opponents point out are more locations than Starbucks or McDonald’s and almost three times the number of state liquor stores.

The anti-legalization coalition is growing – with good reason. Republican and Democratic elected officials, children’s health advocates, hospitals, doctors, addiction counselors, faith leaders, mental-health professionals, parents, educators, law-enforcement officials, farmers, chambers of commerce and leading business groups see nothing but trouble for the state of Ohio if the evil weed were legally, and readily, available.

While we are adamantly opposed to State Issue 3, we strongly support the constitutional amendment issue on the ballot in November that would ban monopolies and the cartel from being added to the constitution. The amendment is the brainchild of state Auditor Yost, who has voiced strong opposition to ResponsibleOhio’s amendment because it would give 10 investment groups exclusive control of the 10 mega marijuana farms.

We would hope that the debate leading up to the Nov. 3 general election includes not only a discussion of the anti-monopoly issue, but also this question that has not received a great deal of attention: Is marijuana a “gateway drug”?