Why Ohio voters rejected recreational and medical marijuana

About 65 percent of Ohio voters opposed the marijuana measure on Tuesday. Opponents said it would have created a private business monopoly among 10 growers.

(AP Photo/John Minchillo)
Voters wait in line to fill out paperwork before voting at the Schiller Recreation Center polling station on election day, Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2015, in Columbus, Ohio. Eligible Ohioans voted to reject a law making marijuana legal for both recreational and medical use.

Ohio voters rejected a ballot proposal Tuesday that would have legalized both recreational and medical marijuana in a single stroke — a vote-getting strategy that was being watched as a potential test case for the nation.

Failure of the proposed state constitutional amendment followed an expensive campaign, a legal fight over its ballot wording, an investigation into petition signatures — and, predominantly, a counter campaign against a network of 10 exclusive growing sites it would have created. It was the only marijuana legalization question on the 2015 statewide ballots.

About 65 percent of voters opposed the measure, compared to 35 percent in favor.

Issue 3 would have allowed adults 21 and older to use, purchase or grow certain amounts of marijuana and allowed others to use it as medicine. The growing facilities were to be controlled by private investors, leading opponents to label it a "marijuana monopoly."

That featured heavily in opposition campaigns and a separate ballot question to prevent monopolies from being inserted into Ohio's constitution for the economic benefits of a few.

Campaign director Ian James assured supporters at a downtown Columbus gathering that the fight was not over, calling Tuesday's defeat "a bump in the road."

"We need to not only address compassionate care for the chronically ill, we need to also remain vigilant in protecting direct democracy," he said. "Because when the Statehouse refuses to deal with the voters, the voters have to make them deal to make sure that their voices are heard."

After his remarks, the anti-monopoly measure passed.

Ethan Nadelmann, founder and director of the Drug Policy Alliance, the nation's leading drug policy reform organization, said defeat of the pot proposal is "relatively insignificant" because of its unconventional call for "a constitutionally mandated oligopoly over an agricultural product."

"This Ohio vote has been sort of a side-show that no one else was either worried about or excited about elsewhere in the country," he said.

Two older voters in downtown Cincinnati who said they support legalization of marijuana both said they voted against Issue 3 because they didn't like the "monopoly" element creating exclusive growing sites.

"I can't believe I voted 'no' when it was finally on the ballot," said Marty Dvorchak, 62, of the northern Cincinnati suburb of Fairfield. "I think it's ridiculous that marijuana is illegal. The war on drugs has been a failure. But I don't think 10 people (growers) should have a monopoly."

Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska, along with the District of Columbia, have legalized recreational marijuana. Medical marijuana is now legal in about half of states.

Gov. John Kasich, a Republican presidential candidate, praised the state's decision.

"At a time when too many families are being torn apart by drug abuse, Ohioans said no to easy access to drugs and instead chose a path that helps strengthen our families and communities," he said in a statement.

The pro-legalization ResponsibleOhio campaign included several famous faces, including boy band star Nick Lachey and basketball great Oscar Robertson. The campaign had spent $12 million as of its most recent campaign filing and reported raising about the same amount.

"Issue 3 was nothing more and nothing less than a business plan to seize control of the recreational marijuana market in Ohio," Curt Steiner, director of Ohioans Against Marijuana Monopolies, said in election night remarks. "Issue 3 was designed and built primarily to garner massive and exclusive profits for a small group of self-selected wealthy investors."

___

AP writers Dan Sewell in Cincinnati and Ann Sanner in Columbus contributed to this report.

___

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why Ohio voters rejected recreational and medical marijuana
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/1104/Why-Ohio-voters-rejected-recreational-and-medical-marijuana
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe