It actually really pisses me off that issue 2 passes. People don't know what they were voting for. Now a 5 person panel will say what goes on the ballot. Even if everyone in ohio wants an issue to pass they can not put it on the ballot. It takes away a lot of our freedom. I wanted issue 3 to pass, but issue 2 was a much more important issue. People of ohio just hurt their freedoms a lot today.

Voted against Issue 3. It's just badly written. Put the medical part all by itself and it would pass.

(11-04-2015, 01:17 AM)EatonFan Wrote: Voted against Issue 3.  It's just badly written.  Put the medical part all by itself and it would pass.

You mean like medical alcohol?

(11-04-2015, 01:25 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: You mean like medical alcohol?

People have been so misinformed about marijuana how could you be surprised about the result. People still thinks it causes brain damage.

Go Bengals!

I think the scare tactics definitely worked, especially the whole 'pot candy' thing.

I think it's funny yet sad that people could vote against pot...and then get shitfaced in a bar. I've never heard anybody say, "Look at the guy, he has pot muscles."

I voted YES on 2 & NO on 3.

Why YES on 2? Because companies were backing initiatives specifically written to help their businesses gain a monopoly. This is wrong, IMO, and basically perpetuates a carrot with a stick policy between businesses and voters. It's a very sneaky way to gain a lawful closed market while wooing desperate voters who want something so bad they would do anything to have it regardless of legal or capital consequence.

- As far as the 5 person panel is concerned, they only come into effect if the amendment proposed is a potential monopoly and the panel needs to vote to allow it. If something looks to be a good idea and only one or two companies can actually implement the idea, then they can make that happen and push it through to the ballot in spite of it being a monopoly.

Why NO on 3? I have a serious fundamental problem with people's growing desire to chemically change the way they feel. I look at drug use (and alcohol abuse) as a selfish act that removes someone from their real world responsibilities and life. We as a society have enough forms of recreation to be distracted or waste time. To add another that physically/chemically impairs is just ludicrous to me.

I have seen so many friends and people I grew up with become infatuated with getting high that it dominates a lot of their thoughts or activities and, in some cases, it has limited their life's potential. One of my life long best friends started smoking occasionally a few years ago. Now, at 35, he can't go anywhere other than work without being bored or wanting to smoke. He is habitually/mentally addicted. I can't, in good conscience, vote to give that the go ahead as a way of regular life for upcoming generations.

Side note: I find it funny that people even need to have weed legalized at this point. CLEARLY... CLEARLY people who want it have very little problem getting their hands on weed. Legalizing seems more like validation or confirmation of the psyche of drug users more than it is about health, wellness, taxes, or availability. Almost as if users need society to tell them it's ok to get F'd up or that we all feel the same pain or struggle with boredom and the desire to feel different.

(11-04-2015, 09:49 AM)PDub80 Wrote: I voted YES on 2 & NO on 3.

Why YES on 2? Because companies were backing initiatives specifically written to help their businesses gain a monopoly. This is wrong, IMO, and basically perpetuates a carrot with a stick policy between businesses and voters. It's a very sneaky way to gain a lawful closed market while wooing desperate voters who want something so bad they would do anything to have it regardless of legal or capital consequence.

- As far as the 5 person panel is concerned, they only come into effect if the amendment proposed is a potential monopoly and the panel needs to vote to allow it. If something looks to be a good idea and only one or two companies can actually implement the idea, then they can make that happen and push it through to the ballot in spite of it being a monopoly.

Why NO on 3? I have a serious fundamental problem with people's growing desire to chemically change the way they feel. I look at drug use (and alcohol abuse) as a selfish act that removes someone from their real world responsibilities and life. We as a society have enough forms of recreation to be distracted or waste time. To add another that physically/chemically impairs is just ludicrous to me.

I have seen so many friends and people I grew up with become infatuated with getting high that it dominates a lot of their thoughts or activities and, in some cases, it has limited their life's potential. One of my life long best friends started smoking occasionally a few years ago. Now, at 35, he can't go anywhere other than work without being bored or wanting to smoke. He is habitually/mentally addicted. I can't, in good conscience, vote to give that the go ahead as a way of regular life for upcoming generations.

Side note: I find it funny that people even need to have weed legalized at this point. CLEARLY... CLEARLY people who want it have very little problem getting their hands on weed. Legalizing seems more like validation or confirmation of the psyche of drug users more than it is about health, wellness, taxes, or availability. Almost as if users need society to tell them it's ok to get F'd up or that we all feel the same pain or struggle with boredom and the desire to feel different.

Legalizing weed isn't about some validation or confirmation of the psyche of people who smoke. It's about not being put in jail just because you like to smoke something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

(11-04-2015, 09:36 AM)nevergonnachange Wrote: I think the scare tactics definitely worked, especially the whole 'pot candy' thing.

I think it's funny yet sad that people could vote against pot...and then get shitfaced in a bar.  I've never heard anybody say, "Look at the guy, he has pot muscles."

You are obviously pretty ignorant regarding the specific legislation that issue 3 was trying to push... 

(11-04-2015, 10:21 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Legalizing weed isn't about some validation or confirmation of the psyche of people who smoke. It's about not being put in jail just because you like to smoke something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

The people of Ohio were smart to vote down issue 3 today. It wasnt about legalizing marijuana at all, its about the way in which it was going to be legalized. 

Most of the people are for legalizing marijuana (including me) but didnt support issue 3 because of the unfair market and production of marijuana that was laid out in the bill. Only 10 farms were allowed to grow and sell marijuana. Why shouldnt I be allowed to grow and sell? The people of Ohio were smart for voting this bill down and waiting for the appropriate piece of legislation to get marijuana legal in Ohio. 

(11-04-2015, 10:21 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Legalizing weed isn't about some validation or confirmation of the psyche of people who smoke. It's about not being put in jail just because you like to smoke something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

Why do you say it shouldn't be illegal?

(11-04-2015, 10:39 AM)PDub80 Wrote: Why do you say it shouldn't be illegal?

Why should it be illegal?

Marijuana is less harmful than stuff like cigarettes and alcohol. It's not physically addicting, and you can't overdose on it. It doesn't cause brain damage, and it actually helps people with a lot of minor things (some major things too). It still has some bad aspects to it though, but it's crazy to say people can't smoke something just because. There is no reason that marijuana is illegal and yet alcohol and cigarettes are.

BTW there are a lot of things that are "mentally addictive" that are legal too. Maybe we should ban MMO's because people get mentally addicted to them too. Some people can't stand it when they don't play their MMO for more than a day. What about other things like Facebook? Some people are mentally addicted to that, and it effects them too. Just because someone likes to do something and is "mentally addicted" doesn't give the right for someone to tell them they can't do something because they're not being as productive as they can be. You should let people live the way the want to if it's not hurting anyone else.

sad day for ohio looks like its smokers will keep sending money out of country and the us goverment and state will see none of it.

so many benefits 3 would have brought but again ohio voters let fear mongers scare them away from by worrying about the 10 people that spent their money to get it on the bill making their money back. when so many more would have made money off this deal. and the tax dollars would go along way to fix the schools and roads.

But nah... lets keep sending that money to mexico.

(11-04-2015, 10:23 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: You are obviously pretty ignorant regarding the specific legislation that issue 3 was trying to push... 

And you're obviously unaware of how to have a civil discourse...

Yeah, I know exactly what the bill was pushing and I didn't care.  Do you really think the result would be different if the bill was simply, 'pot is now legal just like alcohol?'  

How much money has been spent on the War on Drugs?  Do you think it's been a huge success?  I think it's a huge waste of taxpayer money to keep people from harming...nobody but themselves.

(11-04-2015, 10:58 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: sad day for ohio looks like its smokers will keep sending money out of country and the us goverment and state will see none of it.

so many benefits 3 would have brought but again ohio voters let fear mongers scare them away from by worrying about the 10 people that spent their money to get it on the bill making their money back. when so many more would have made money off this deal.  and the tax dollars would go along way to fix the schools and roads.

But nah... lets keep sending that money to mexico.

The funny thing is it's not a permanent oligopoly either. It would only last a few years. I would gladly take only 10 people allowed to mass grow it for a few years to make it legal(EVERYONE 21 and older would be able to have their own plants BTW). Voting no on 3 isn't going to reduce the amount of people smoking it, and there will still be a lot of people who will smoke it in the future.

(11-04-2015, 10:39 AM)PDub80 Wrote: Why do you say it shouldn't be illegal?

You point to your friend/acquaintance who has had his life "ruined" by Marijuana. Have you ever known anyone who is an alcoholic? How about someone who spends more money then they have to spend on scratch off lottery tickets? What about those big casino's we just built in Ohio, know anyone who messed up their lives in one of those? Caffeine is in fact a drug, but it is used by most our country every day including children but we don't seem care about that. Nicotine? Heck yea! It's everywhere. While we have pushed back against Tobacco in recent years it is still widely consumed even by *GASP*..... children!

The issue is, people with addictive personalities can become addicted to almost anything. Addiction in almost any form can ruin peoples lives in different ways. I am not in favor of protecting those with addictive personalities from themselves. If something doesn't create a chemical dependence (interestingly enough nicotine and caffeine do) then I am all for letting people do what they like. I don't smoke, never have, but I think the idea of Marijuana being illegal is a hypocritical way for people to try and take a moral high ground. 

(11-04-2015, 10:50 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Why should it be illegal?

Marijuana is less harmful than stuff like cigarettes and alcohol. It's not physically addicting, and you can't overdose on it. It doesn't cause brain damage, and it actually helps people with a lot of minor things (some major things too). It still has some bad aspects to it though, but it's crazy to say people can't smoke something just because. There is no reason that marijuana is illegal and yet alcohol and cigarettes are.

It is a substance ingested for chemical impairment. Medically, I get it. But, doctors have helped people abuse prescriptions and medically cleared things forever. I am all for medical drugs (even weed) for people in need... but that system gets abused. So much stiffer penalties need put in place for doctors who do so with ANY drug before I could be on board with legalizing something.

- You can have a beer or two and not be wasted.... You can smoke a single cigarette and have it not impair you.

- You can't smoke a joint or two and not be F'd up. Other than medically, the purpose of it is to get high. The purpose of alcohol is not to get drunk/wasted unless it's abused. ANYTHING can be abused, so lets not get into that as it's a circular argument. Where do we, as society, draw the line with recreational substances where their purpose is to impair?

Not physically addicting? There are a lot of studies out there with all sorts of different numbers on that. It is mentally addicting and this is something that I have found plenty of research validating. Before you jump in with the fact that lots of things can be mentally addicting... yes, but NOT things that are designed and sold for the purpose of impairment through singular use.

To reiterate, where does society draw the line on making impairing substances available for normal public consumption? Why should the pot smokers have a right to impair themselves, but the ecstasy crowd can't? What about the people who want to do cocaine? Or meth? What does society say to them when they point to cigarettes, weed, and alcohol as legal, viable ways to get F'd up and say that their personal vices and decisions should be allowed as well? A line has to be drawn (doesn't it?), and I am ok with that being at weed.

(11-04-2015, 11:09 AM)PDub80 Wrote: It is a substance ingested for chemical impairment. Medically, I get it. But, doctors have helped people abuse prescriptions and medically cleared things forever. I am all for medical drugs (even weed) for people in need... but that system gets abused. So much stiffer penalties need put in place for doctors who do so with ANY drug before I could be on board with legalizing something.

- You can have a beer or two and not be wasted.... You can smoke a single cigarette and have it not impair you.

- You can't smoke a joint or two and not be F'd up. Other than medically, the purpose of it is to get high. The purpose of alcohol is not to get drunk/wasted unless it's abused. ANYTHING can be abused, so lets not get into that as it's a circular argument. Where do we, as society, draw the line with recreational substances where their purpose is to impair?

Not physically addicting? There are a lot of studies out there with all sorts of different numbers on that. It is mentally addicting and this is something that I have found plenty of research validating. Before you jump in with the fact that lots of things can be mentally addicting... yes, but NOT things that are designed and sold for the purpose of impairment through singular use.

To reiterate, where does society draw the line on making impairing substances available for normal public consumption? Why should the pot smokers have a right to impair themselves, but the ecstasy crowd can't? What about the people who want to do cocaine? Or meth? What does society say to them when they point to cigarettes, weed, and alcohol as legal, viable ways to get F'd up and say that their personal vices and decisions should be allowed as well? A line has to be drawn (doesn't it?), and I am ok with that being at weed.

You can take a few hits and only get buzzed. Some people can smoke a joint and not get that high either. You're going to have to smoke a lot to not be able to function, unless your not used to smoking. Making things illegal just because you don't like it is stupid. You shouldn't limit other peoples rights just because you don't like something. People can smoke marijuana and have a perfectly productive life. When people abuse it like you're talking about that's when things go wrong.

Getting drunk is a chemical impairment too. If you don't care if alcohol is illegal than it's just hypocrisy to say that marijuana should be illegal.

Oh... and I need a station on the "studies" that say it's physically addicting... because it's not.

(11-04-2015, 11:05 AM)Au165 Wrote: You point to your friend/acquaintance who has had his life "ruined" by Marijuana. Have you ever known anyone who is an alcoholic? How about someone who spends more money then they have to spend on scratch off lottery tickets? What about those big casino's we just built in Ohio, know anyone who messed up their lives in one of those? Caffeine is in fact a drug, but it is used by most our country every day including children but we don't seem care about that. Nicotine? Heck yea! It's everywhere. While we have pushed back against Tobacco in recent years it is still widely consumed even by *GASP*..... children!

The issue is, people with addictive personalities can become addicted to almost anything. Addiction in almost any form can ruin peoples lives in different ways. I am not in favor of protecting those with addictive personalities from themselves. If something doesn't create a chemical dependence (interestingly enough nicotine and caffeine do) then I am all for letting people do what they like. I don't smoke, never have, but I think the idea of Marijuana being illegal is a hypocritical way for people to try and take a moral high ground. 

- The "It's not addicting" argument is a moot point to me. I don't care if it's addicting or not. Other than medically, the purpose of it is to get F'd up and a line has to be drawn. 

- I didn't say his life is ruined.

- My father was a functioning alcoholic. As was his mother, and his sister.

- I know people with plenty of gambling addictions.

- I know people who spend more money than they have on weed.

- The caffeine is a drug argument is classic and so funny! It's hilarious, really.

- NONE of your mentioned legalized activities impair people from singular use. NONE. 

(11-04-2015, 11:09 AM)PDub80 Wrote: It is a substance ingested for chemical impairment. Medically, I get it. But, doctors have helped people abuse prescriptions and medically cleared things forever. I am all for medical drugs (even weed) for people in need... but that system gets abused. So much stiffer penalties need put in place for doctors who do so with ANY drug before I could be on board with legalizing something.

- You can have a beer or two and not be wasted.... You can smoke a single cigarette and have it not impair you.

- You can't smoke a joint or two and not be F'd up. Other than medically, the purpose of it is to get high. The purpose of alcohol is not to get drunk/wasted unless it's abused. ANYTHING can be abused, so lets not get into that as it's a circular argument. Where do we, as society, draw the line with recreational substances where their purpose is to impair?

Not physically addicting? There are a lot of studies out there with all sorts of different numbers on that. It is mentally addicting and this is something that I have found plenty of research validating. Before you jump in with the fact that lots of things can be mentally addicting... yes, but NOT things that are designed and sold for the purpose of impairment through singular use.

To reiterate, where does society draw the line on making impairing substances available for normal public consumption? Why should the pot smokers have a right to impair themselves, but the ecstasy crowd can't? What about the people who want to do cocaine? Or meth? What does society say to them when they point to cigarettes, weed, and alcohol as legal, viable ways to get F'd up and say that their personal vices and decisions should be allowed as well? A line has to be drawn (doesn't it?), and I am ok with that being at weed.

you are wrong about your assesment but carry on