Ohioans said no to greed in 2015; greedy not fazed

Without a doubt, defeat in November of the marijuana legalization issue by more than 1 million votes makes it the top statewide political story of 2015. The defeat was even more significant than Gov. John Kasich running for the Republican nomination for president – and failing to break out of his single-digit poll numbers.

The push to legalize pot was about greed, pure and simple. Responsible-Ohio, the political action committee that led the campaign on behalf of the drug cartel that stood to financially benefit greatly from legalization, spent millions of dollars in an attempt to convince Ohioans that Issue 3 on the Nov. 3 ballot was all about altruism.

Indeed, the proponents attempted to tug at voters’ heartstrings by running television commercials that featured sick children. The message: Legalization will permit the use of the drug for medicinal purposes.

ResponsibleOhio also attempted to present the issue as a law-enforcement imperative, arguing that legalization would bring an end to the illegal drug trade in the state.

But the voters weren’t buying any of it, as evidenced by the 2,042,902 “no” vote, compared with the 1,166,692 votes in favor of the constitutional amendment.

The opponents were motivated by a simple fact: The amendment to permit the sale of marijuana for medicinal and recreational uses would have made a handful of so-called investors very, very rich.

It had been estimated that in five years, the sale of pot would have become a $2 billion business.

The plan cooked up by the proponents gave 10 investor groups a virtual monopoly with regard to the commercial production of the drug. Ten mega farms scattered throughout the state would have been owned and operated by the investor groups.

Big money

While individuals would have been permitted to grow marijuana for personal use, the big money was to have come from the large-scale production.

As the people of Ohio heard the arguments for and against legalization, they correctly concluded that enriching a few people at the expense of the greater good was bad public policy.

The outcome of the Nov. 3 balloting was just as significant as the overwhelming vote in 2011 to repeal the collective-bargaining reform law passed by the GOP controlled General Assembly and signed into law by Kasich. The law would have scaled back collective-bargaining rights of state employees who belong to unions.

It is noteworthy that on election night four years ago, the governor not only conceded defeat, but made it clear that he had heard the “voices” of the people.

“I understand their decision,” Kasich said. “And frankly, I respect what the people had to say in an effort like this. And as a result of that, it requires me to take a deep breath and to spend some time to reflect on what happened here.”

Now compare that comment with the one made by ResponsibleOhio Executive Director Ian James to the Cleveland Plain Dealer after the defeat of State Issue 3:

“Our goal remains the same – pass the Fresh Start Act and legalize marijuana as soon as November 2016.” Fresh Start would provide for the expungement of criminal records stemming from marijuana convictions – if possession of marijuana is no longer illegal.

Next month, the Ohio General Assembly will be asked to pass a citizen-initiated law that would put Fresh Start in motion. If the Legislature fails to enact the measure, Responsible- Ohio would have to collect an additional 91,677 signatures to place the issue on the November ballot. The group turned in 236,759 signatures on petitions to seek legislative action on Fresh Start, but only 91,677 were needed.

There should be no doubt in anybody’s mind what this is about. Simply put, it is a cynical attempt by the marijuana-legalization cartel to drum up support by holding out the promise of a person’s marijuana-related criminal record being wiped clean.

This year, Ohioans were put to the test with the pot legalization issue – and passed. In 2016, the pressure will be on lawmakers to confront the rich and influential individuals who refuse to take no for an answer.