Marijuana legalization in Ohio also will legalize a monopoly of farm owners

The Ohio Supreme Court has spoken: Use of the word “monopoly” in the text of state Issue 3, the constitutional amendment on the Nov. 3 ballot to legalize marijuana, is not misleading, inaccurate or “persuasive in nature.”

The ruling goes to the heart of the debate about the recreational and medical use of marijuana should Ohioans decide that amending the constitution to enrich a few wealthy investors is good public policy.

As we have argued ad nauseam, the center point of the push to make the weed legal in Ohio is that some well-heeled folks will have the exclusive right to produce marijuana.

They will own the 10 mega farms that will be located in 10 counties, thus giving them huge returns on their investments.

The financial stakes are so high that the investors are spending $20 million in their campaign to turn Ohio into another Colorado.

The effort is being coordinated by a group called ResponsibleOhio, which went to the Supreme Court to challenge, among other things, use of the word “monopoly” in the description of its plan.

Proponents obviously are aware that even supporters of legalization have concerns about a small group of wealthy individuals becoming millionaires many times over.

A cartel

Indeed, we have insisted on the word “cartel” to describe them because they’re using Ohio’s constitution not only to guarantee exclusive rights, but to wrap themselves in the cloak of legal respectability.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruling Wednesday vindicated Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted and other members of the Ballot Board who determined that the word “monopoly” was appropriate.

“Today, the Supreme Court agreed with me, the dictionary, common sense and many news publications across our state that State Issue 3 would create a marijuana monopoly and that the voters deserve to be given that information before casting their ballots,” Husted said.

But while he was hailing that aspect of the ruling, the secretary of state did suffer a defeat of sorts when the court ruled that part of the ballot wording is misleading and ordered the Ballot Board to rewrite it.

The board met Friday to revise the language. ResponsibleOhio argued that certain descriptions were inaccurate and intentionally misleading to voters.

The court ordered the board to replace the paragraphs that focus on where and how retail stores can open, the amount of marijuana a person can grow and transport and the potential for additional growing facilities.

The full text of the constitutional amendment has nearly 6,000 words. It would allow anyone 21 and older to buy marijuana for recreational and medicinal use and grow four plants.

The ballot language was approved by a majority of the Ballot Board on Aug. 18. The secretary of state is the panel’s chairman.

Recreational use

We have been unwavering in our opposition to the legalization of marijuana in Ohio for a whole lot of reasons, foremost of which are the creation of the monopoly and the recreational use of the drug.

We also are especially concerned about all the other edible products, such as cookies, that will be infused with marijuana. The warnings by medical professionals and child advocacy groups about the dangers of children ingesting those cookies and other products must not be ignored.

Ohio voters should not be swayed by the name of the group pushing legalization – ResponsibleOhio – and, instead, listen to the voices of reason and caution.

The proponents of marijuana legalization are using a retired police officer as a major spokesman. He is seen in television commercials and on fliers arguing that it’s time to end the illegal drug trade.

But his pitch is now overshadowed by the Fraternal Order of Police, which has come out strongly against state Issue 3.

The voters of Ohio should pay close attention to what the FOP has to say.

We will address that issue in the not too distant future as we continue our campaign against legalization.