All or nothing? Ohio voters weigh in on marijuana legalization

Ohio voters face a unique proposition for marijuana legalization – make it legal for all uses or none at all.

John Minchillo/AP
Buddie, the mascot for the pro-marijuana legalization group ResponsibleOhio, greets college students in Oxford, Ohio, on Friday. A ballot proposal before Ohio voters would be the first in the Midwest to take marijuana use and sales from illegal to legal for both personal and medical use in a single vote.

 A Tuesday vote on marijuana in Ohio will legalize the drug for all uses or none in one go, but it is so close that it may come down to how weather impacts voter turnout.

Ohioans can vote on a measure to allow those age 21 and older to grow, possess, and use pot, making it the first Midwestern state to vote on marijuana legalization, and potentially the first state anywhere to legalize it for all uses in one go.

Supporters of legalization say Ohio could tip the scale in favor of legalization nationally and launched a $12 million campaign to make it happen. Marijuana use of all kinds is already legal in Alaska, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and the District of Columbia (with some restrictions), but Ohio has a larger population than these states.

A legalization vote is threatened from several sides. For one thing, opponents around the state include children’s hospitals and public safety advocates. For another, a proposed law on the ballot includes a plan to nullify any law that would create a monopoly. This is also a de facto “no” vote on legalization.

The measure itself could be difficult for voters to agree with, because in addition to marking a more dramatic shift than other states that have legalized marijuana – from possession being illegal to fully legalizing medical and recreational use – the measure includes the word “monopoly.” This dooms it to failure, said Ohio State University constitutional law professor Daniel Tokaji.

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or NORML, expressed support for the all-or-nothing bill with “some hesitancy” because of the monopoly issue. Ohio does not have enough growing sites right now to foster true competition.

Responsible Ohio, the political action group that brought the legalization plan to the ballot, has tried to counteract this, sending volunteers out to knock on a million doors before the election to urge supporters not to vote for the anti-monopoly issue.

Voters at an elementary school polling place in Cincinnati did not express excitement about the possibility of legalization; even many who voted for it expressed ambivalence.

Beth Zielenski found the prospect of legalization worrying in the current regulatory climate, she told the Associated Press. Timothy Shearer did vote for legalization, but told AP he did so because he is a “military guy” who values personal freedom, not because he wants to use marijuana. 

This report includes material from the Associated Press. 

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.