So someone help me with Ohio issue 1

[*michaelsean*]

Here is the text:
https://www.sos.state.oh.us/globalassets/ballotboard/2018/2018-11_issue1_certifiedballotlanguage.pdf

It seems like a pretty good idea to me, but then I see organizations like the Ohio Bar against it. Maybe my assumptions are wrong, but I would think the Ohio Bar is overall a liberal group especially when pertaining to crime and punishment. It makes me think I'm missing something.

[Goalpost]

It's a no vote to me.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-05-2018, 10:02 AM)Goalpost Wrote: It's a no vote to me.

OK it's decided.  I believe your reasoning has nudged me to the no side.

[Goalpost]

(11-05-2018, 10:10 AM)michaelsean Wrote: OK it's decided.  I believe your reasoning has nudged me to the no side.

Ha.  First off I think the bill is ginned up with the rehab part.  Rehab is already in place.  I also think there is no basis of quantity on these drugs. If you are in possession of enough drugs to say kill a couple hundred of people, it's a misdemeanor. 

[*michaelsean*]

(11-05-2018, 10:18 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Ha.  First off I think the bill is ginned up with the rehab part.  Rehab is already in place.  I also think there is no basis of quantity on these drugs. If you are in possession of enough drugs to say kill a couple hundred of people, it's a misdemeanor. 

I was just messing.  

no doubt it's pretty radical.  I mean these are some hard core drugs we are talking about.  I guess I'm at the point where if that's what you want to do, then it's on you.  But leave me out of your problems unless it's to go to rehab.  

[Au165]

(11-05-2018, 10:18 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Ha.  First off I think the bill is ginned up with the rehab part.  Rehab is already in place.  I also think there is no basis of quantity on these drugs. If you are in possession of enough drugs to say kill a couple hundred of people, it's a misdemeanor. 

I think that then falls under intent to distribute which isn't part of this amendment, but can see where that line is tough to see based on this text.

[Belsnickel]

(11-05-2018, 10:18 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Ha.  First off I think the bill is ginned up with the rehab part.  Rehab is already in place.  I also think there is no basis of quantity on these drugs. If you are in possession of enough drugs to say kill a couple hundred of people, it's a misdemeanor. 

If you have a quantity like that, though, it would likely be possession with intent to distribute, which this proposed amendment does not alter.

From what I can see as an outsider looking in on this, this appears to be an attempt to decrease the incarceration of those that are imprisoned only for using controlled substances. The incarceration of these individuals has been a major driver in prison overburdening and has shown little to no effectiveness in reducing drug abuse in the nation. The sentencing guidelines associated with crack in the latter part of the 20th century are definite examples of a failure in drug policy and how the criminal justice system created more of a problem than it was out to solve. Now, with the opioid epidemic, there is an attempt to learn from those shortcomings and try to get users help while focusing the efforts of our justice system on those distributing the drugs.

[Au165]

(11-05-2018, 11:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: If you have a quantity like that, though, it would likely be possession with intent to distribute, which this proposed amendment does not alter.

From what I can see as an outsider looking in on this, this appears to be an attempt to decrease the incarceration of those that are imprisoned only for using controlled substances. The incarceration of these individuals has been a major driver in prison overburdening and has shown little to no effectiveness in reducing drug abuse in the nation. The sentencing guidelines associated with crack in the latter part of the 20th century are definite examples of a failure in drug policy and how the criminal justice system created more of a problem than it was out to solve. Now, with the opioid epidemic, there is an attempt to learn from those shortcomings and try to get users help while focusing the efforts of our justice system on those distributing the drugs.

The forgotten issue often times is that felony conviction makes you almost unemployable which then forces the individual to find money in other ways. Obviously a failed drug test at hiring makes them unemployable as well, but this will at least give people who get cleaned up a chance. 

[Benton]

(11-05-2018, 09:42 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Here is the text:
https://www.sos.state.oh.us/globalassets/ballotboard/2018/2018-11_issue1_certifiedballotlanguage.pdf

It seems like a pretty good idea to me, but then I see organizations like the Ohio Bar against it.  Maybe my assumptions are wrong, but I would think the Ohio Bar is overall a liberal group especially when pertaining to crime and punishment.  It makes me think I'm missing something.

The Bar could be against it for a number of reasons. Maybe they don't think it's soft enough (although, honestly, I don't think bar associations are really all that liberal, they tend to just be in favor of the process, regardless of result).

(11-05-2018, 10:18 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Ha.  First off I think the bill is ginned up with the rehab part.  Rehab is already in place.  I also think there is no basis of quantity on these drugs. If you are in possession of enough drugs to say kill a couple hundred of people, it's a misdemeanor. 

How does it work in Ohio?

In Kentucky, we have drug courts, but those require a lot of volunteers working a lot of free hours. And even then it requires treatment centers having beds they're willing to donate, or the person having an insurance policy which covers treatment. Usually by the time an addiction makes it to court, the person doesn't have a job, let alone insurance.

We've got lots of rehab centers in Kentucky, but with little state funding, there's not a lot of addicts getting treated. From what I read in the link, this would try and allocate some dollars for that based off the money saved from incarcerating addicts (which is likely millions).

[NATI BENGALS]

Yes to reducing the number of non violent criminals in prisons

[fredtoast]

(11-05-2018, 10:18 AM)Goalpost Wrote:  If you are in possession of enough drugs to say kill a couple hundred of people, it's a misdemeanor. 

What difference does the amount possessed make?  People with money buy large quantities because it is cheaper.

As I understand it possession for resale would still be a felony.

[Millhouse]

(11-05-2018, 09:42 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Here is the text:
https://www.sos.state.oh.us/globalassets/ballotboard/2018/2018-11_issue1_certifiedballotlanguage.pdf

It seems like a pretty good idea to me, but then I see organizations like the Ohio Bar against it.  Maybe my assumptions are wrong, but I would think the Ohio Bar is overall a liberal group especially when pertaining to crime and punishment.  It makes me think I'm missing something.

One thing I read that ticked me off is that funding for the "Yes" campaign received $4.5 million of the $4.8 million from out of state billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and Soros.

And seeing how Facebook ticks me off by cutting off past news feeds I cant read anymore, I am definitely voting no on it.


https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/what-state-issue-the-ohio-ballot-this-fall/eCgoD0oNgI8gGOU0DMi1HJ/

[Au165]

(11-05-2018, 05:31 PM)Millhouse Wrote: One thing I read that ticked me off is that funding for the "Yes" campaign received $4.5 million of the $4.8 million from out of state billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and Soros.

And seeing how Facebook ticks me off by cutting off past news feeds I cant read anymore, I am definitely voting no on it.


https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/what-state-issue-the-ohio-ballot-this-fall/eCgoD0oNgI8gGOU0DMi1HJ/

So because Facebook makes you mad you want people to be felons for non violent crimes against themselves? Interesting.

[Millhouse]

(11-05-2018, 05:42 PM)Au165 Wrote: So because Facebook makes you mad you want people to be felons for non violent crimes against themselves? Interesting.

It was a joke...

But not a fan of this issue as it is written. I am also not a fan of the current system, but unless there are tougher measures to be drawn up for those that deal heroine & the other narcotics to go along with this issue, I see this as a win for the cartels.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-05-2018, 05:31 PM)Millhouse Wrote: One thing I read that ticked me off is that funding for the "Yes" campaign received $4.5 million of the $4.8 million from out of state billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and Soros.

And seeing how Facebook ticks me off by cutting off past news feeds I cant read anymore, I am definitely voting no on it.


https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/what-state-issue-the-ohio-ballot-this-fall/eCgoD0oNgI8gGOU0DMi1HJ/

I have to admit I feel I could be missing out on some unintended or perhaps intended consequences that I don't see, and the Ohio Bar being against it leaves me wondering, but I think we have to do something.  

[*michaelsean*]

(11-05-2018, 10:18 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Ha.  First off I think the bill is ginned up with the rehab part.  Rehab is already in place.  I also think there is no basis of quantity on these drugs. If you are in possession of enough drugs to say kill a couple hundred of people, it's a misdemeanor. 

It doesn't change from felony to misdemeanor if you have enough for a first, second or third degree charge, but I believe fourth degree is still a fairly large amount, but more like the amount a street level guy would have. Except for fentanyl. You can have up to 20 grams of that which is a whole lot.

[Goalpost]

(11-05-2018, 06:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote:   Except for fentanyl.  You can have up to 20 grams of that which is a whole lot.

Yea.  A quick google click found this...

A gram of fentanyl could kill you over 300–500 times, easily.

[mallorian69]

My biggest problem with it is being over looked by most on here. I'm not as concerned with the parts regarding drug users as I am the first part of the proposed issue. It clearly states that anyone other than a person convicted of murder, rape, or child molestation can get up to 25% of their sentence reduced. This would allow someone who has committed armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, and a host of other violent crimes back on the streets much sooner.

[ballsofsteel]

Marijuana, legal in some states. In Ohio, if someone is caught with grass, they go to jail. Who gives a shit if someone wants to smoke grass? The government needs to mind their own business. Is it a gateway drug? Could be for some. That shouldn't apply to everyone.
Like every thing else in gov., jailing people for stupid reasons is a big money maker. I voted yes on this issue.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-06-2018, 06:55 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Marijuana, legal in some states. In Ohio, if someone is caught with grass, they go to jail. Who gives a shit if someone wants to smoke grass? The government needs to mind their own business. Is it a gateway drug? Could be for some. That shouldn't apply to everyone.
Like every thing else in gov., jailing people for stupid reasons is a big money maker. I voted yes on this issue.

It’s not just marijuana. It’s all the drugs. I’m probably going to vote yes but I thought that should be clear.