43
Answers differ on Issue 3 marijuana monopoly question
By Marc Kovac
COLUMBUS
Does Issue 3 and its proposed framework for legalizing marijuana use in the state represent a monopoly for the private investors named in the amendment?
The answer to that question differs depending on whether you talk to a proponent or opponent.
The former, including ResponsibleOhio Executive Director Ian James, said there’s no monopoly, noting that the proposal would allow more growth sites in the future and home-grown plants for users.
“It can’t be a monopoly when anyone 21 or older can grow their own marijuana,” he said. “That’s not a monopoly. It’s certainly not a monopoly when the state can continue to add licenses to meet demand.”
The 10 initial investors in growth sites were needed to bring the amendment to fruition, James said. It takes a lot of money to qualify for the ballot – a couple of million dollars to gather the required signatures, and millions more to campaign for passage.
Specifying growth sites helped secure the backing needed to place the issue before voters and convince them to support it, he said.
“Anybody that thinks they can get to the ballot without money, they’re kidding themselves,” James said, adding later, “This is not a monopoly. It is a regulated industry.”
But opponents of Issue 3 say it’s a very clear monopoly, granting big-dollar-generating possibilities for the handful of investors who are included.
“If you look at any standard definition of monopoly, this is a monopoly ...,” said Curt Steiner, campaign director for Ohioans Against Marijuana Monopolies. “When you pick a limited number of people or companies to control access to the market, that’s a monopoly.”
Whether Issue 3 ultimately represents a monopoly could be decided by the court if voters also pass Issue 2, an amendment assembled by lawmakers before they broke for their summer recess.
That issue would prohibit the addition of business monopolies to the constitution, though it provides a means for groups backing such amendments to place their issues before voters, asking whether they would agree to suspend the anti-monopoly language.
Under the state constitution, when two issues with conflicting outcomes appear on the same ballot, the one receiving more votes supersedes the other.
There are several scenarios that could play out in next month’s general election for Issues 2 and 3.
Both could fail, or one could pass and the other fail, leaving no doubt about voters’ intentions.
Both could pass, in which case some say the one receiving the most votes would win.
Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted has offered a different opinion, saying Issue 2, as a lawmaker-initiated amendment proposal, would take effect immediately, effectively quashing Issue 3.
James said the way Issue 2 was written wouldn’t apply to Issue 3.
Regardless, if both issues pass, the outcome likely would be subject to a legal challenge.