The states are the laboratory of democracy.
I only know what I read from other people's commentary, but someone also said that there's a proposition on the same ballot (Issue 2) that bans state-created monopolies. If both 2 and 3 pass apparently Ohio will collapse in a matter-antimatter-like annihilation.
Don't try to refugee yourself here. We're taking Syrians first.
Who says Ohio never contributed anything to clean energy efforts?
2 is right, and I'll miss you when we're as dense as a neutron star. (Issue 2 is also a horrible mess put together by the secretary of state, Jon Husted, of whom my baseline assumption is that he's a bad actor. Husted has done a lot of shady stuff regarding initiatives, and use of the "monopoly" term on the ballot seems to be his decision.)
My activist friends seem pretty undecided on 2 and 3. I'm strongly hoping a better initiative comes along and passes next year.
My activist friends seem pretty undecided on 2 and 3.
That's interesting. I don't think I've seen any 3 support.
7: Actually, support from corners that I would have thought would know better:
I'm kind okay with an holy mess and profiteering for two or four years or however long it takes to fix if it means more people aren't being locked up.
Even if only the monopoly-pot amendment passes, wouldn't you still have the potential for an unholy mess? The interstate commerce clause is still a thing. I know PA has gotten in trouble (not nearly enough) for making it easier for in-state wineries to sell to PA consumers than out-of-state (i.e. much, much better) wineries.
Just read the Ballotpedia summary. Even if the law wasn't so explicitly oligopolistic, I wonder if it would be viable. It prevents localities from banning marijuana businesses except in residential areas, which is farther than the existing legalization states have gone.
11: I'm okay with that too in theory, yes. Yeah, maybe the dormant commerce clause could eventually edit out the worst of 3?
9: That's my position. Genuinely conflicted, but I've decided to vote for it.
I'm with 9. State monopolies on intoxicants aren't exactly new things, after all, and Pennsylvania has an even stricter one at the retail level for liquor/wine/etc. which is annoying but not the end of the world. And more importantly anything that increases the number of states with legal recreational marijuana seems like a good thing to me, because it normalizes the idea. The more there are that do it the more the pressure on the rest of the states to make it a thing, both in terms of public support and along the lines of "wait why does Ohio get to make so much money off that and we here in Michigan don't?" incentives. Sure the corruption in this case is laughably open, rather than just behind-the-scenes like it is for other things and/or in other states, but it's not like you were likely to see a bunch of mom-and-pop pot farms springing up if they legalized it in a similar way to the other states.
The reliable police union response of "we need to make sure this remains a crime otherwise we won't be able to arrest people for committing this crime" is always hilarious to me as well. I've never been fully clear on why there's such a strong and consistent reaction among police forces generally against the idea of legalization, especially now that we have a reasonable idea of what happens when you do it (i.e., that it's basically fine and things turn out ok). My best cynical guess is that it's a lot harder to use "I thought I smelled LSD in the car" as a pretext for a search.
The states are the meth laboratory of democracy.
Profiting for 2 or 4 years? How is the oligopoly ever going to get dislodged once it's established?
17 is my worry. If you need another ballot initiative to end it, how does that happen? Those apparently cost $25 million.
Also, the PA wine/spirit monopoly is indeed strict, but it is also very much public. That's completely different. The beer distributors in PA are closer to this kind of thing. They are private and have state-enforced monopolies.
And I just got a "Yes on 3" meme in my facebook feed from a hippie friend, so I take back 7!
This seems to be a level of enshrinement too far even for the laissez-faire voting public. I could imagine a measure negating this specific component passing, and if 3 passes there will be more money pouring in from its non-beneficiaries to back such a measure. Plus courts as per above.
I'll go farther: an indefinite oligopoly would still be better than the war on drugs.
This is following the same template as the gambling initiative that passed in Ohio -- rich people funding an initiative that legalizes a "vice" and grants them a monopoly over it. Has this kind of thing happened in other states?
If you count professional sports stadiums as a vice, sure.
Setting this particular instance aside, it's pretty tragic that just as was frequently predicted, commercial marijuana is going down the big-capital, lobbying route, that you'd expect of a new industry, leading to excessive advertising boosting demand, regulatory capture, poor safety regulations, shutting out people of color, etc. I increasingly think the industry should not be an efficient, profit-maximizing industry at all, but rather an assemblage of small businesses, either nonprofit or somehow limited in profitability. The new commercial structure for medical marijuana California just passed has some attempts to prevent vertical integration and limit bigness, but not all that much. But I'm going to see if I can do anything over the next year, as legalization's path to the ballot is cleared, to advocate on that.
How about socialized marijuana? Obamarijuana.
You mean oligopolies selling subscriptions with income-based federal subsidies?
It should also be pointed out that marijuana decriminalization has in fact led to more people using marijuana, more people going from occasional users to constant users who find it hard to stop, etc. In stark contrast to the "LOL, as if anybody who's interested can't already find marijuana whenever they want wherever they want" message that pervades the hip internet world.
From the link in 28: "I don't see how you can view these data other than in a context of growing liberalization of medical marijuana laws and availability of marijuana."
I mean, if ever there was a [citation needed], that's a [citation needed].
Someone can probably find proof for you that there has been growing liberalization of medical marijuana laws and availability of marijuana, if you want.
"LOL, as if anybody who's interested can't already find marijuana whenever they want wherever they want"
Yeah, this one is bullshit. Finding pot is hard if you aren't in college or hanging around with a pot smoking crowd. Just wandering up to people who look sketchy and asking doesn't work, especially if you are middle aged. I tried finding pot for years and got nowhere.
There's no doubt in my mind that legalization will increase use, but I'm willing to bet some of that increased use comes directly at the expense of alcohol use (it certainly did for me).
I always figured if I really needed some, I know which neighbors' kid to ask. I have not tried, but he's got bongo drums.
31: You don't have any pothead friends? I wouldn't know how to buy pot of my own accord, but I know people who I know smoke, and they must get it somehow.
I don't have any local pothead friends, that I know of.
Having grown up and lived most of my adult life in the pre-legalization era, I'm still getting used the sight (smell, really) of people casually walking down the street in broad daylight smoking pot. Especially when they walk right by a couple of police officers.
33: None local. I know someone who has an uncanny ability to find pot wherever he is, but he's not near me.
I'm eagerly awaiting legalization in New Hampshire, so I can quit my job, move to the lake full time, and pursue my true calling: the development and marketing of Spike's Doobie Blend.
Pro-3 friend has just updated to say that she realizes 3 supports a monopoly but just grow in your own yard! Smiley! (She's white; it's probably fine.)
Having grown up and lived most of my adult life in the pre-legalization era,
This is pretty funny as an unnecessary disclaimer.
39: You're dismissing the possibility of time travel out of hand?
38: Suggest she take a look at the wording more closely. I can't tell for sure, but it looks like you need a license from the same people who have the exclusive right to make commercial sales.
38: Providing that it is lawful for persons 21 years of age or older to grow, cultivate, use, possess and share with another person 21 years of age or older homegrown marijuana in an amount not to exceed four flowering marijuana plants and eight ounces of usable homegrown marijuana at a given time, so long as they have obtained a non-transferrable license pursuant to Commission-promulgated rules and regulations.
40: Plausibly -- she does have some friends in private school
42, 43: Yes, I was sort of laughing/rolling my eyes, but that probably doesn't come across in blog comments.
38/42: I take it to mean just grow unlicensed, because it wouldn't be a law enforcement priority anymore.
37: The U-Dub class of 2018 will have lived their entire adult lives in the legalization era.
University of Dubuque? Iowa hasn't legalized yet.
Anyway, the real reason I'm voting for 3 is that I just can't say no to Nick Lachey.
The idea that pot legalization won't or doesn't lead to increased use is crazy. Why wouldn't it? How much increased use, and how much of a problem that is, are separate questions, but of course making a powerful, sometimes taboo drug more widely available and less taboo will lead to more use. And of course at least some of those who use it a lot will use it more. The better argument was always that the effects of criminilization are severe enough, and the costs of increased use low enough, so that increased use through legalization is still a net benefit.
50: cf. the prohibition and subsequent legalization of alcohol.
Also, the idea that legalized pot producers would be rainbows and sunshine small businesses and not act like any other business/marketer of a powerful product is also beyond nuts.
We should probably have legal but unpleasant state dispensary monopolies for all drugs, including alcohol, with the drug priced just low enough to keep the black market pretty small. I mean, this would definitely bother me personally, since I like to drink and like to do so in pleasant bars and restaurants, but if you were designing a regulation regime from scratch that's surely that's the best one for society as a whole. I'd add prostitution -- we should have drab, unpleasant, but very safe and employee-protective state run monopoly brothels. Drab, Stalinist dispensaries for all!
for all vices, that should say, Drab, Stalinist state-run dispensaries for all vices!
What about when employee-protective and unpleasant clash? Would you fire an employee who moaned with a level of enthusiasm above that set by the state Commission on Sounds Make During Insertion?
That's a reasonable point. I don't think I'd impose sound restrictions, but we'd have to keep the drab, brutalist, extremely uncool and kind of gross-seeming state-run brothel building warm enough so that the employees didn't get colds. Lingerie and outfits would also be state-issued and, while revealing, would need to be drab and unflattering.
The alcohol dispensaries would basically be like the gross, dirty, basically unpleasant bars that you see in College student centers or VFW halls.
The drab, Stalinist strip club would of course be named "Airstrip One."
I'm pretty sure the mouseover text was written in a bar that was formerly a VFW hall. That is, I know the bar I was in used to be a VFW hall, but I'm not 100% sure that's where I was when I said that. It was a really nice place when it was a VFW hall.
I'm not sure drugs, including alcohol, or sex are really immoral. So whatever sense of vice is involved it seems like it would be awfully general, and might just end up in drab stalinist food, drab stalinist amusement parks, and so on. Quite possibly just drab stalinism. This is an entirely different Halfordismo than the one I'd previously imagined.
But why does Stalinism always have to be drab? Can't we have Technicolor Stalinism? Or kawaii!!! Stalinism?
I think the picture of drab Stalinism is probably more a picture of drab East German architecture than anything else. Russia right now isn't that drab, and it's not like they rebuilt all the buildings after the fall of the USSR or anything. Some bits of the former USSR are colorful and neat looking. I suspect that drab Brutalism was probably more popular in places like America and the UK, really.
Not all of my neo-Stalinist world needs to be drab and depressing, just the vice dispensaries.
The better argument was always that the effects of criminilization are severe enough, and the costs of increased use low enough, so that increased use through legalization is still a net benefit.
No, the better argument is that I have a god-given right to get high, dammit.
61: But wouldn't that just create a Pavlovian feedback loop, whereby the population learns to associate the aesthetic we think of as drab and depressing with excitement and pleasure?
the population learns to associate the aesthetic we think of as drab and depressing with excitement and pleasure?"
well i know mom sure likes it.
Oh, news today, a coalition of influential organizations with some deep-pocketed supporters just came out with what may end up as California's big legalization initiative for the 2016 ballot. Maybe I'll submit a guest post when I find the text and we can all see what we think of it.
Y'all know it's Haile Selassie coronation day today, right?
King of kings, Lord of lords, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah
52: buzzkill.
28: obviously more people are going to use and then go on to become problem users. but 1) if they want to get stoned, who are we to say, "no, you can't be stoned. reasons!!!" 2) more people drank and more people became problem drinkers after the repeal of prohibition but no one thinks it was a bad move to end it. little old ladies who would never have gone into some speakeasy could go buy sherry whenever they wanted--you can't tell me that didn't up the drinking rate. 3) even if there was a terrible upspike in stoners, there'd still merely be a lot of stoners around, so, that. 4) while it's nonsensical to say "everyone can already get pot" it's sensical to say "the groups we are most concerned about--minors and young adults--currently have the best access to pot of anyone; that seems backwards." 5) UTILITARIAN DRUG WAR ARGUMENT THAT SWEEPS ALL BEFORE IT; HEARS LAMENTATION OF BILL BRATTON.
The better argument was always that the effects of criminilization are severe enough, and the costs of increased use low enough, so that increased use through legalization is still a net benefit.
No, the better argument is that I have a god-given right to get high, dammit.
That's the ideological argument. The thing you're responding to is the technocratic cost-benefit argument, which is unrelated.
Fucking bill bratton. That guy is the worst.
I think the picture of drab Stalinism is probably more a picture of drab East German architecture than anything else. Russia right now isn't that drab
Up to a point, Lord Copper. Central Moscow and central St Petersburg are not that drab. The bits that have plenty of pre-Revolutionary architecture are in general not drab. This, on the other hand, is downtown Nizhny-Novgorod.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@56.295895,44.0209249,3a,75y,188.59h,89.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1shMBG1N4QoCOMnUVtJU5HYA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DhMBG1N4QoCOMnUVtJU5HYA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D256.61688%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656
See what I mean?
Update again: Yes-on-3 friend has reconsidered and isn't comfortable with the monopolistic piece and encourages people to just find a safe and comfortable source until it's legalized.
My point in 29 was that we're talking about national numbers. But is the uptick in marijuana use and over-use disproportionately in states that have moved towards more legalization? It probably is, and that certainly makes sense. But a lot of things make sense that aren't true when you examine them; is there any sort of actual breakdown from which I could see the causality of legalization rather than just sounds-right-ism on a blog post?
There's a billboard here in Ohio for 'meet in a hotel to see a presentation on distribution of marijuana'. So from what I can tell the pot oligopoly will also be a multi level marketing scam (maybe like McDonalds franchises?)
That would be so great. People would be sitting at home and their cousin would knock trying to sell them not just pot but the idea of selling pot.
Now I'm imagining a world where the Evangelical and Mormon communities in America are all massive potheads. I think that might be a better world.
76 Stoners trying to talk to me about Jesus all the time, no fucking thanks.
Isn't that an actual crime where you are now? I think it would be worth it if I could use the term "Pot-zi Scheme."
Which part, the getting stoned or talking about Jesus?
Rather, talking about Jesus with intent.
Stoners trying to talk to me about Jesus all the time, no fucking thanks.
No, no, stoners who keep meaning to talk to you about Jesus all the time, but can never quite muster the concentration required. Ideal.
The first part definitely, I'm sure. The second part as long as it were confined to non-Muslim expats would probably be fine and maybe even go unnoticed. They do have some churches here for the expat community.
I suspect it would quickly go from "talking about jesus" to "trying to talk about jesus but actually just talking about weed". Which is actually more annoying but also less dangerous to national politics.
What We Talk About When We Talk About Weed
Let he who is without sin be the first stoned.
"Jesus was like, a really cool dude, man. He like, loves you and shit. Hey, you going to eat those chips?"
I am imagining slightly confused-looking Jehovah's Witnesses standing on doorsteps having temporarily forgotten what they were doing there.
The Ohio thing failed. That Pot-zi scheme that is, not the anti-monopolistic counter measure.
Also, the lesser of two evils won the local Supreme Court elections.
My polling place was moved to a shittier room in the same school. I should probably call and complain. At least the poll workers were trying to get people to call and complain. The main problem was lack of easy access for anybody with mobility issues, but even if that were fixed, I still felt too exposed when voting because the room was small and too many people could see the screen.
At least the fact that the anti-monopoly thing failed gives marijuana advocates a good argument for why the marijuana amendment failed.