- The Weed Blog https://www.theweedblog.com

What Are The Ten Entities Behind ResponsibleOhio’s Marijuana Legalization Initiative?


Responsible Ohio LogoIf you follow marijuana politics, then you know that Ohio has a marijuana legalization initiative that will be on the ballot in 2015. The initiative has drawn a lot of controversy because it only allows ten entities to grow recreational marijuana for profit in Ohio. The ten entities that get to grow marijuana for profit are the only ones funding the initiative as far as I know. So who are these ten entities? Below is a list of who will be able to grow marijuana for profit if the initiative passes, via Marijuana Business Daily:

• Licking County site – Dr. Suresh Gupta and Alan Mooney, principal of Mooney Wealth Advisory.

Hamilton County siteWilliam Foster, owner of A-1 Quality Logistical Solutions; Arizona Cardinals player Frostee Rucker; and former American National Basketball Association star Oscar Robertson.

Lorain County site – Bobby George, executive with Corporate Management Group.

Clermont County site – Frank Wood, CEO of Secret Communications.

Lucas County site – David Bastos, partner in Capital Investment Group.

Delaware County siteJennifer Doering, general manager of Chas. Seligman Distributing Co., in Kentucky.

Summit County siteWilliam “Cheney” Pruett, CEO of DMP Investments, in Texas; John Humphreys, chief financial officer of DMP Investments; and singer/restaurateur Nick Lachey.

Butler County site – Fashion designer Nanette Lapore; philanthropist Barbara Gould; Paul Heldman, former executive with Kroger Co.; financier Woody Taft; and musician Dudley Taft Jr.

Franklin County site – Rick Kirk, CEO of Hallmark Campus Communities.

• Stark County site – Ben Kovler, who runs a Chicago-based investment fund; and Peter Kadens, a Chicago entrepreneur in the solar energy industry.

All eyes will be on Ohio in November. The campaign has done a poor job of working with the cannabis community and supporters, and has caused future harms with their ‘Buddie the marijuana mascot’ gimmick. With that being said, marijuana prohibition is a horrible thing. How do readers feel? Do you think this is a ‘marijuana legalization at all costs scenario?’ Or do you feel that this is the best that Ohio can do, and that people should vote for it?

the cannabis manifesto steve deangelo book


About Author

Johnny Green


  1. Better tham Monsato doing it and killing everyone. But how is that capitalism from a country that boast of the “Free market” when they are not allowing free market competition?

  2. They’ll make their first 36 million back in about five months.
    I notice that most of the backers are just people who are making money off of their initial wealth. How much do some people need?

  3. Like I said below: of course they own the land, they want their 36 million dollars back that it cost them to get this on the ballot! And if Issue 3 fails, good luck ever getting ANYONE else to put up 36 million dollars EVER again…don’t tell me, go ahead and tell the sick children that need this medication that Issue 3 is not in the BEST INTEREST of the people…I’m sure they’ll understand…or you could just vote YES on 3, get the kids their meds that they deserve, and THEN let’s focus on the 10 Commercial Sites only problem…

  4. Of course they own the land, they want their 36 million dollars back that it cost them to get this on the ballot! And if Issue 3 fails, good luck ever getting ANYONE else to put up 36 million dollars EVER again…don’t tell me, go ahead and tell the sick children that need this medication that Issue 3 is not in the BEST INTEREST of the people…I’m sure they’ll understand…or you could just vote YES on 3, get the kids their meds that they deserve, and THEN let’s focus on the 10 Commercial Sites only problem…

  5. This is the only marijuana initiative ever voted on in OH. When exactly will there be another and who exactly will pay for it? And how many consumers will be arrested from now until then?

  6. The parcels of land are owned by landlords who are not growers and who will lease their land to many more than 10 growers. There are many states that have MJ laws with far fewer than 10 growers. And OH will also have home grow. In addition, the legal suppliers will have to compete with the quality of the black market. This law is far better than the prohibition OH has now.

  7. You’ve got to be kidding me….
    “The Ohio bill would authorize 10 production facilities to serve as the only legal sources of marijuana within the state—and the land for these parcels is owned by the backers of the proposition.”
    This is old school politics. It DOESN’T WORK THIS WAY ANYMORE. Prop 3 is not for the people.

  8. Hello?!…
    The Ohio bill would authorize 10 production facilities to serve as the
    only legal sources of marijuana within the state—and the land for these
    parcels is owned by the backers of the proposition.

  9. I’m voting NO on 3!
    “The Ohio bill would authorize 10 production facilities to serve as the only legal sources of marijuana within the state—and the land for these parcels is owned by the backers of the proposition.”

  10. Re: prop 3… “The Ohio bill would authorize 10 production facilities to serve as the
    only legal sources of marijuana within the state—and the land for these
    parcels is owned by the backers of the proposition.”
    This is absurd and a power grab. This is not for the people.

  11. Ohio, vote NO on 2, and YES on 3…(November 3rd…THIS TUESDAY)

    First off, cannabis grown for medical/recreational consumption is a completely different crop/product than cannabis grown for hemp…

    (Re. Medical & Recreational Cannabis Production)- To all those opposed and everyone else: nowhere does Issue 3 say that the 10 parcels of self-designated land are only to be used by the 10 land-owners. In fact, the land-owners are already accepting applications from independent indoor growers to lease space on the designated indoor parcels of land to grow. The 10 “commercial company monopoly” thing is disingenuous, what’s real is that there will be 10 commercial indoor sites with leases available to anyone…this consolidation can be a good way to monitor indoor growing conditions and ensure there’s quality control (correct temp & humidity, lighting, nutrients, air circulation, watering, bug and mold prevention)…and even if it is what the opposition says it is, it’s not “set in stone” and can be changed…and most importantly, you’ll be able to grow your own anyway or use friends if you don’t want the store bought “corporate backed” stuff…The key word is “commercial”, you & your friends can still privately grow/share/consume your own. If you plan to grow commercially, then I recommend you submit an application now to one of the property owners, while there’s still some space left.

    Winning elections cost money these days (36 million dollars so far to get this on the ballot) and I have no problem granting exclusive commercial property growing rights to 10 land-owners, for 4 years, that can lease out lots to independent commercial growers.

    (Re. Agricultural Hemp Production)- Medical/recreational plants are bred to be mostly female, while hemp plants are mostly male…the species/strain is different, the hemp plants don’t flower, so there’s nothing to consume/smoke…the processing is different, and basically they’re the same plant, used in two completely separate industries…

    I agree that the lack of Hemp production Free Market provisions left out of Issue 3 is an unresolved issue, and it’s an issue that needs to be addressed in the future/2016. For now the positives far out way the negatives, unless you’re able to completely ignore your “emotions” by taking a year of the patients treatment and well being out of the equation, and instead only focus on being the “Napa Valley” of the midwest, I’d say you’re only focused on the money, and no better than what you’re implying ”RO” is guilty of. I say, give “RO” a year to make back their 36 million dollar investment to get this passed, and THEN rally all of the agricultural industry beneficiaries to come up with they’re XX million dollars to get the Free Market Hemp production provisions passed in 2016.

    Now let’s get this straight and summarize: these 10 locations that everyones so upset about, are to be indoors, people don’t grow anything other than medical/recreational cannabis indoors… Medical/recreational cannabis CAN be grown outdoors, but it most likely won’t be done that way around HERE because of the winter. So it will be grown indoors using all female “flowering” plants, only the flowers get harvested, so they are clipped by hand and the plant remains as is— Now Hemp, on the other hand, is grown outdoors, using male plants that don’t flower and the entire plant is used/harvested similar to corn…and that is what is missing in issue 3- the Hemp provisions…which if the agricultural industrial beneficiaries would have been on their game, should have gone in together with “RO”…so now they’ll have to wait and rally the troops and go it alone in 2016 or whenever, just like “RO” is doing right now…

    Look, it’s a supply and demand industry, just like anything else.

    “RO” is doing what they needed to do to guarantee that the investors will get there 36 million dollars back, they needed to do that in order to get the money to begin with…otherwise we wouldn’t even be having this conversation…I don’t blame them for that, it’s smart money…would you invest $36 million dollars in something that wouldn’t get your money back with interest? They are going to be leasing indoor growing space to independent commercial medical/recreational growers, if they weren’t, they wouldn’t be accepting lease applications, and they are RIGHT NOW.

    What I want to see happen is this: everyone vote NO on 2, and YES on 3…get the Medical/recreational indoor industry supplying the sick people with meds, teach the able bodies to grow their own at home, and also allow the 21 and older crowd to have some fun…THEN lets address the Hemp Production issue in 2016…we are making progress here, sometimes compromises have to be made, these baby steps are going in the RIGHT direction…

    vote NO on 2, and YES on 3

  12. I am a partner & co-founder of a legalized WA state based producing company who has residency in both OH and WA. It’s obvious where I stand on 3, however, to legalize a system that allows for the “few” well-off (pay to play stereotypical individuals) to reap the financial rewards goes against everything our democracy stands for! Its well known that Oligarchy disallows innovation, fair balance and for further separation of the rich and poor. It’s very well documented that there are over 2,000 well known specific strains of cannabis offering people all kinds of different benefits but very individualized benefits. It really comes down to CHOICE – In WA, we have developed ourselves as being really well known for producing very high good quality strains and offering different options to the masses who individualize their taste and need for a specific high quality strain and there are over 600 licensed growers there! By no means am I a proponent for that many in OH, but if there are only 10 organizations producing cannabis, history shows us that innovation and consumer choice and quality of product all suffer.
    To offer another perspective think about all the choices we, as consumers have in other industries – beer, gas stations, medications, cars etc. So here with cannabis lets all ask ourselves – why should we be dictated to – and only be able to choose from a select few growers who are not meeting all the needs of the many!

    YES on 2 – YES on 3

  13. Please watch and share UC Students for Sensible Drug Policy’s well balanced RO panel debate, featuring RO author, Chris Stock, as well as Citizens Against ResponsibleOhio. Thank you so much! Ohio deserves to make an educated decision, please help make that possible!


  14. A law to allow a plant that grows anyway, to
    legally grow..can I vote to legally breathe and walk next? What a bunch of mindless drones we have become. You don’t need permission to live and eat and grow and think.or a law.

  15. disqus_khOigjnTmd on

    Thanks, I appreciate the reply. I didn’t mean to insinuate anything, you run a quality site.

  16. Once people start mastering the art of home growing, the home grown will be better than the retail. By the way, it’s 4 flowering plants per license holder in each household. Which also means 2 people can have a pound of homegrown at any given time in their house and 8 more plants that are flowering. If this plan didn’t allow for it, I wouldn’t be for it. Fortunately it does. YES ON 3!!

  17. Vote yes on 3. Then if one of these other groups can actually make the ballot, we can vote it in to trump RO plan. Getting it legal is the first step.

  18. I don’t trust that issue 2 won’t be turned into something to block all legalization efforts in the future. After all, it was written by the politicians who are against marijuana legalization. Think about it.

  19. I’m tired of waiting for something that never happens. To many groups have come and gone here in Ohio and no one except RO had made the ballot. I don’t really like how it’s written but I’ll grow my own rather than support the growers. Yes on 3.

  20. That depends on what your goal is. If your goal is create a new legal economy, where folks spend their disposable income on a luxury product that in turn creates jobs and funds tax revenues, then starting a race to the bottom is definitely NOT a good idea.

    If EVERYBODY can grow it and sell it, then you not only lose control from a regulatory standpoint (testing, quality control, child-proof packaging, etc), you also will create a glut that will make the product ultimately valueless.
    Washington State is a good example; there is such a glut right now that the 400 licensed growers so far are begging the state to quit issuing licenses.
    That’s right, they want a “monopoly” of 400 – ethically no different than a “monopoly” of ten.

    That may sound good to certain consumers, who want to be able to buy cannabis by the bushel for just a few dollars, but in terms of creating a viable economic system that also controls a product that needs to be kept away from teens and children, “free and open to all” is a terrible idea.

  21. There are a few bias website spreading anti-legalization fibs. Here they are and watch the poisonous rhetoric spread although, by now most people have already spotted the baloney the following republican prohibitionist websites:
    Cleveland.com, Cincinnati.com, columbusdispatch.com, reason.com and a few others but mostly these brainless old fart that only allow commenting if you have facebook. Nothing against facebook but a high percentage of their users are old, not computer savvy individuals that lack technical ability. The truth is the choice is simple legalize now by voting yes on 3 and no on 2 or wait another 20 years or more to have this choice again. There are no organization with the money or the commitment to legalize in 2016. YES YOU HEARD RIGHT zero, none. They simply don’t have the money or the support. As far as the made up oligopoly most Ohioans did not know what the word meant until these republican website made a definition for it. Nice try, why are they not asking their politicians if the they are invested in the 3 companies that run all the private prisons in the country that is a pretty good monopoly or cartel as the term is used loosely or if they are invested in pharmaceutical companies that grease their pockets to extend patents that are due to expire, preventing generic from being fabricated.
    Again the choice is simple legalize now YES ON 3, NO ON 2 or go another twenty or more years before the issue comes up again for Ohio.
    GO VOTE YES ON 3, NO ON 2. Its your only chance. By the way, I just looked up some recent polls on issue 3, 52% in favor, 44% against, 4 percent undecided. Spread the word Help pass Issue 3.

  22. Most all initiatives have cartels. NY has 5 growers who only grow for sick people who qualify. I didn’t hear a peep out of stoners against legalization then. MA limits growers -and has a cartel – by having exorbitant license fees. Again, no complaints about cartels.

    There is no perfect law. Fighting for freedom is a process that never ends. No law will be good enough and we’ll always fight for better.

    OH doesn’t have the choice between a perfect law and RO. They have the choice of what they have now – prohibition- vs RO. Take what you can get now, because you have no guarantees that you will get this choice for years to come. Which means thousands of needless arrests every year. To protect whom? The cartel of growers we have now who gouge us with prohibition prices? Who make prohibition profits by throwing the consumers under the bus? Just another example of capitalist special interests not giving a crap about the people who make them rich.

    Why didn’t illegal growers get together and pay for an initiative that THEY liked? Because most growers favor the prohibition that allows them to make a living by growing a few dozen plants while throwing consumers under the bus. Screw that. I’ll take my chances with the legal “cartel”.

  23. Exactly! And even if it’s not a slam dunk (which it is!) so what? Folks will still buy their weed from whatever entities have the best weed. Regulations must deal with the reality of the market, not vice versa. This is why we’re ending prohibition. Because making weed illegal has little to no effect on the market. It just makes criminals out of people who don’t have to be.

  24. I do have “skin in the game”; first and foremost, I live in Ohio, and I want issue 3 to pass so that we can have legal cannabis.
    Second, it annoys me greatly that people who have obviously never even read the actual amendment want to make all sort of far-fetched claims about it, or its effects.
    I’m also frankly a fan of the amendment behind issue 3, because having read every single legalization language in the nation so far, I concluded that this one is the best and most comprehensive by far.
    Have you read it?
    If not, you should, even if you’re not an Ohio voter.
    The mechanisms it creates for controlling a currently uncontrolled cannabis economy are remarkable, and well considered.
    Aside from the so-called monopoly, the amendment’s language could be a very good model of federal legalization; it allows legal cannabis without just throwing open the doors to mayhem.

    As far as the quoted section of issue 2 goes, you have to read the referenced sections 1 and 2 to understand how the prohibition against schedule 1 substances applies to more than just this election. Essentially, the first two sections make ANY voter initiative in the future that has any economic component whatsoever (and they all do) a “monopoly.”

    btw: the deleted posts were all from one person, Blazzin Buds. Sorry to have clogged up the comment board with what amounted to a conversation with him.

  25. Steve Nickerson on

    ROs proposal is shameful…Do not legalize at all cost as this will all become legal in future anyway. I am for legalization but against forming a cartel to control the grow sector. The grow market should be free and open to all…

  26. I plan on voting “Yes” on both Issues 2 & 3. Issue 2 stops initiatives from instituting monopolies in the Ohio Constitution. Issue 3 is Responsible Ohio’s legalization amendment to the Ohio Constitution. If both pass, Issue 2 will block Issue 3’s full implementation. I want legalization. I don’t want the Ohio Constitution sold to the highest bidder.

  27. disqus_khOigjnTmd on

    WTF is going on with the comment section of this article? All I can tell is that, going by replies, every single post opposing the initiative has been deleted. There’s no way to tell now if the deleted posts are all by the same person or by different people, but it sure feels slanted to only get half of the discussion.

    Also, I do not trust JohnB’s stated impartiality – no one takes the time to reply to nearly every single comment on an article like this, and to go after the people leading the charge in the other direction, if they don’t have some sort of skin in the game.

    Finally, JohnB and J C Unacapher’s claims that the anti-monopoly ballot measure would make any future legalization / rescheduling unconstitutional is total BS, only possible with a deliberate misreading of the text. The sentence in question, omitting the legalese filler, is that if the voters approve a initiative allowing “the creation of a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel for the sale, distribution, or other use of any federal Schedule I controlled substance, then…that entire proposed constitutional amendment shall not take effect.” Note that it has to be a monopoly, oligopoly, etc, FOR the sale of the drug. But in their arguments they seem to only start paying attention at “the sale, distribution, or any other use,” ‘forgetting’ the all-important limiting clause beforehand. That’s misleading, and as well-versed as they claim to be on the issue, they definitely know better.

  28. remember where we were a couple of years ago?? baby steps, quit try to take more than? we have to show “them” that Ohioans can “handle” this BIG step!!!

  29. Exactly, any economic advantage the ten companies might get is temporary.
    Interstate commerce, specifically the commerce clause of the US Constitution, will nullify the so-called monopoly once there is federal re-legalization.
    Yes, that will require a court challenge to the portion of the amendment that requires retailers to buy from the ten authorized wholesalers, but it’s a legal decision that will be a slam dunk.
    Big national companies will be wanting to open cannabis franchises in Ohio, and this amendment will not withstand their legal challenges.

  30. Right, Ian played the same role. That’s exactly what I said.
    How is it a truth when you say it, but a lie when I say the exact same thing?

  31. I just gave you a real and specific example of how one plant was grown for under $100 that yielded 1.5 ounces. If all three of the plants that were started had turned out to be female, that output would have been even greater, for exactly the same energy cost.
    So, how is growing 4-6 ounces every six months for less than $100 impracticable or more expensive than retail?

  32. YOU used the word “rogue,” not me.

    I said “The opinion offered came from a SMALL GROUP of the leadership of The Ohio Society of CPAs, and again, even within that leadership group, that reading was not unanimous.”

    All of which is supported by the link I provided to a news release by the very group in question, on that very group’s website, the Ohio Society of CPAs.

    Specifically, they say “The Governmental Affairs Advisory Council, comprised of CPA leaders across the state…” which means that the regional leaders of a COUNCIL (a small sub group) within the OSCPA came up with and published this opinion.

    As far as whether they reflect some majority opinion of CPAs in Ohio, we still DON’T KNOW.

  33. As far as I can tell, the casino monopoly belongs to Dan Gilbert, not Ian James.
    The so-called cannabis monopoly won’t belong to Ian James either; it will belong to ten independent companies, each with a 10% stake.

    Ian James makes his money by running campaigns for OTHER people. He gets paid either way, but if he fails to deliver, it makes it awfully hard getting the next group of investors to have any faith.

    That alone should tell you that you should vote for issue 3; it’s an issue that is being run by a professional PAC, with a history of political success.
    If they can’t get it done in Ohio, what makes you think some part-time grass roots group can?

  34. NO, I don’t know what progress Ohio is, but I’ll look it up.
    I don’t have any reason to know what it is; I avoid liberals like the plague, and I’m a card-carrying member of the religious right.
    You might be surprised at just how many Republicans support, and have supported, the legalization of cannabis.
    Check RAMP, Republicans Against Marijuana Prohibition.

    You simply don’t know what you’re talking about to claim I somehow work for ResponsibleOhio.

  35. Why then was issue 2 not written to retroactively affect the casinos?
    Monopolies are bad….except the ones we already have?

  36. You are miscontextualizing what I said.
    What I said was “we don’t know” how many members agree with or disagree with the leadership position.
    It might be most, and it might be only some.
    But again, what is most important is that even the leadership’s position says that it is a POTENTIAL loophole.
    If it were not open to interpretation, then they would have said so.
    Ultimately that means it will be up to the courts to decide, and if you think they are going to decide against additional revenue for the state then you aren’t old enough to know how politics work in America.

  37. I have no idea what that is, but it sounds like some social media thing.
    I’m not on any social media, unless this qualifies as social media.
    Too old for any of that nonsense.
    I’m just a long time advocate of cannabis legalization, who is old enough to recognize an opportunity when I see one.

    Oh, and for the record, I’m a registered Republican and have voted a straight Republican ticket since 1980.

  38. This is the only time I’m going to respond to your unfounded accusations that I am a paid promoter of issue 3.

    I AM NOT.

    As far as I can tell, there are enough people who feel as passionately FOR issue 3 as there are folks who are passionately against it, so I can’t imagine why either side would need to pay people for their opinions.

  39. Here it is, direct from the source:
    “The Governmental Affairs Advisory Council, comprised of CPA leaders across the state, studied the issue and also found a potential tax loophole in the ballot language that could exempt investors from paying state personal income tax on flow-through income from marijuana operations. Other, specific business taxes, including local taxes, would be required.”

    Notice that they say POTENTIAL tax loophole. That’s why, if it comes to it, if one or more of the ten grow companies refuses to pay their state taxes, it will be up to the courts.

  40. Right, it is what it is.
    Again, there was no vote, or survey, or any fact-finding done before the top few people at OSC issued their un-unanimous opinion to the public.
    That means it is the opinion of a few leaders, and the general constituency can either agree or disagree.

    That’s the way professional organizations work.
    Again, the leaders who issued that opinion also have a political agenda against cannabis legalization.

    Do the majority of CPAs in Ohio agree?
    We simply don’t know.
    But even if they did, it doesn’t change the fact that the State’s courts are not going to make a billion dollar industry exempt from state tax, so it’s a completely moot opinion anyway.

  41. Right, but there wasn’t some vote or opinion gathered from all the CPAs in Ohio, as you tried to imply.
    The opinion offered came from a SMALL GROUP of the leadership of The Ohio Society of CPAs, and again, even within that leadership group, that reading was not unanimous.
    Again, do you honestly think the courts are going to tax exempt a billion dollar industry?
    Look, if you’re going to get all your talking points from Aaron Weaver and CARO, you should be made aware that its leader is a political extremist whose opinions are often very ill-informed, and the points that CARO’s immature and politically naive posters make are usually more emotional than factual.
    Remember, you are the company you keep.
    As far as I can tell, Aaron still has not ever read the actual amendment against which he is crusading.
    Is that a guy you want to take your marching orders from?
    If so, maybe you can join him at an “occupy” movement or two after the election.
    It’s protest for the sake of protest, because he’s young and idealistic and thinks protest is cool.

  42. 1) Why do folks think that this oligopoly will last? OH will have to contend with the marketplace which exists, legal or not. Folks in OH are going to buy good weed, and that’s going to come from CA, OR, and WA. You can’t control the laws of physics or the market through legislation.
    2) this law restores the 4th amendment because weed or the smell of it is no longer a crime.
    3) how can you fight for your rights and hire lobbyists if you are a criminal? This law will start an avalanche, because consumers who are now criminals will be incalculably less disenfranchised.

  43. I’m well aware that a certain small group of CPAs has this reading of one section of the amendment.
    Even within their small group, that opinion was not unanimous, but more important is the fact that the authors of issue 3 don’t see it that way and have specifically rebutted that reading.
    So, yes, that opinion does exist. It should be noted that it’s also the opinion of a group of folks who are diametrically opposed to legalization of any kind, as well.
    It will be a moot point if the ten companies go ahead and pay their local and state taxes, as I fully expect they will.
    But in the remote chance that they would risk potential charges of tax evasion and not pay, the courts will decide.
    Do you honestly think the courts are going to decide that a billion dollar state industry doesn’t have to pay state tax?

  44. How does it make it impracticable?
    I just gave you a real-world example of a grow that was well under the proposed legal limit and cost less than $100.
    Three plants could have been grown for the same cost in that same example, as the plant was grown in an unused shower stall with ample room left for two more plants, which would still have been well under the legal limit.
    Nearly five ounces for less than $100 is neither impracticable nor more expensive than retail.
    And, you will only be able to buy one ounce at retail, just like other legal states.

  45. I’m pretty sure that the words “stay out of Ohio” do indeed acknowledge that Doc doesn’t already live here.

  46. A no vote on issue 3 will keep the current monopoly, which is held by criminals who neither pay taxes, check IDs nor test their products.

  47. Blazzin Buds

    you are a complete fool who obviously can’t read, here is the proof of the Trojan Horse that the Senate wrote into HJR4 at the last minute to stop any future efforts to legalize cannabis if this amendment should pass, the following wording was copied directly from the HJR4 amendment

    “(3) If, at the general election held on November 3, 2015 the electors approve a proposed constitutional amendment that conflicts with division (B)(1) of this section with regards to the creation of a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel for the sale, distribution, or other use of any federal Schedule I controlled substance, then notwithstanding any severability provision to the contrary, that entire proposed constitutional amendment shall not take effect. If, at any subsequent election, the electors approve a proposed constitutional amendment that was proposed by an initiative petition, that conflicts with division (B)(1) of this section, and that was not
    subject to the procedure described in division (B)(2) of this section, then notwithstanding any severability provision to the contrary, that entire proposed constitutional amendment shall not take effect.

    disregard anything and everything that specifically has to do with the words “monopoly”, oligopoly”, or
    “cartel” those words are absolutely meaningless and are only a ruse to the real design of this amendment.

    please pay close attention to this particular wording, ” the sale, distribution, or other use of any federal Schedule I controlled substance, then notwithstanding any severability provision to the contrary, that entire proposed constitutional amendment shall not take effect”

    notice that they not only refer to selling and distributing, but also any other use of any federally classified schedule I controlled substance, (WHY put this into an amendment that is supposedly meant to stop a monopoly when these words have no baring or meaning in the situation) this is the clause written in at the last minute by the Senate that kills any current and future legalization efforts of cannabis as long as it is under the federal schedule I classification!!!

    to anyone who believes otherwise, just ask yourself why they (the Senate members who added this wording) would even bother to mention anything about the “Federal Schedule I Controlled Substance” classification in the amendment at all if the amendment was truly written to stop the so-called monopoly, unless its real meaning is to say that if the amendment is also related to illegal drugs in the eyes of our federal government, the entire amendment shall not take effect.

    the citizens of Ohio are being tricked by the Ohio Government into stopping any and all current and future efforts to legalize cannabis!!!

  48. That’s exactly what I am advising as well; read HJR4 for yourself, and be sure to pay special attention to the syntax of section 3.
    In legal documents, word order, and even comma placement, can have major effects on the courts’ interpretations of a law.
    Ask any lawyer to parse the language of section 3, and you’ll be hard pressed to find even one who would guarantee that issue 2 won’t affect future voter-initiated cannabis amendments.

  49. You are a rogue drug dealer a common everyday criminal. We want taxed, controlled legal product. Stay out of Ohio we simply don’t need you.

  50. Most the homegrown weed I have ever smoke sucked. Let the pro handle the growing I just need some quality stuff. In all reality you are a prohibitionist parading as some kind of anti-monopoly champion. OHIO VOTERS BEWARE OF THE ANTI LEGALIZATION SITES.
    They all have one thing in common that cannabis prohibition continue. If you have already read their baloney, you probably already realize how full of crap they are. They also leave no room for comments or allow you to only use the old mom and pop computer communication via facebook. Legalize while you still have a chance VOTE YES ON 3, NO on 2.

  51. Yes, and I’m agreeing with you that the investors did not seek out Ian James. Jimmy Gould sought out most of the investors, and brought them to Ian James’s Strategy Network meeting.
    Those investors in turn bought in because they saw both an opportunity to make money and a chance to change cannabis law.

  52. No, the investors did not seek out Ian James; they were invited to The Strategy Network sales pitch for issue 3 by James Gould, a Cincinnati financier.

    “”I had not met Jimmy Gould before,” (Ian) James recalled, “so I just asked if he were interested in the legalization of marijuana for personal use or for medical use. I didn’t know how this was going to go over. But no sooner had the words come out of my mouth, Jimmy said, ‘I’m in.’ “

  53. The point is the ability to legally grow more than enough for your own personal consumption, and to do so in a way that is cost negligible.

  54. Take a look at section 3 of HJR4, and notice that it refers not only back to sections 1 and 2, but also to any future elections.
    The language in HJR 4 specifically prohibits issue 3 or any future initiative that legalizes a “federal schedule 1 substance.”

    Read it for yourself.

    The legal opinions that have been offered so far have pertained only to whether OTEP would be considered a monopoly if issue 2 passes, NOT whether issue 2 kills all future chances for citizen-initiative cannabis legalization.

    It does; again, read it for yourself.

  55. That’s exactly right; it is no different than any other competing companies who temporarily pull together to fund a PAC.
    It happens all the time, and is in fact the number one reason why most PACs exist.

    For example, if the FCC is proposing some new rule that will drive up costs for telephone companies, all the major players will fund a PAC to fight that legislation.
    Once the issue is resolved, the companies no longer have a common cause, and competition continues.
    Actually, the competition never stopped, but the companies did have a common legal cause.
    That’s exactly what this is. Exactly.

  56. That’s factual.
    Except that The Strategy Network, Ian’s company, has ALREADY been paid $5.6 million.
    That’s why the PAC ResponsibleOhio goes away on November 3rd; it’s the termination both of their project, the election, and their funding.

    Thus, anyone who thinks the ten independent companies will act as a cartel after the election, is missing a major piece of the puzzle; most of the investors had never even met the other investors before The Strategy Network pitch, and as I know two of them, I can tell you very specifically and firsthand that they still don’t really know one another.
    They fully intend to compete.
    Once the election is over, so is their common cause, and it’s game on.

  57. Uhm…that would be to keep a plentiful supply on hand, and have the fun LEGAL hobby of small-scale cannabis growing.

    You know, those two things we can’t LEGALLY do now…?

  58. Here you go, read it for yourself:


    The “schedule 1” language is in section 3; be sure to notice that section 3 refers back to sections 1 and 2, and also references any future elections.
    The legal opinions issued so far on HJR4 have only opined on whether or not OTEP would be considered a monopoly, not whether section 3 prohibits any future legalization of cannabis.

    For the record, OTEP has said that they will retract the petition they currently have approved and start over, if issue 2 passes.

    At the end of the day, issue 2 is meant to take power away from the people and further concentrate it with legislators.

    NO on 2.

  59. Ultimate efficiency in cannabis growing isn’t the point here.
    LEGAL cannabis growing is the point.

    By the way, I “know a guy” who just grew a single indoor plant that took six months from start to finish, completely under CFLs, and the yield was about 1.5 ounces of buds. The total increase in the electricity bill was completely un-noticable, so lets’s say under $100 over those six months.

  60. If you say so. I don’t know anyone – not a single person – who wouldn’t be perfectly content with a half pound on hand at home at any given time, plus more coming in the flowering stage.

  61. YES on 3.
    It’s important to note that the folks listed in this article are just some of the investors in a plan created by The Strategy Network, which in turn created the PAC, ResponsibleOhio.

    Far too many people think that these investors somehow wrote the plan; nothing could be further from the truth.
    The Strategy Network presented it to them, and they were chosen to get the sales pitch specifically because they were both wealthy and amenable to the idea of cannabis reform.

  62. By the way, a yes vote on issue 2 will prevent ANY future legalization in Ohio, as it very specifically prohibits this or any future law that legalizes a schedule 1 substance.
    Monopoly issues aside, that’s the part everyone always misses about issue 2.

  63. Well, good for you, if that’s actually true. But Ohio’s law only allows for indoor grows, and almost no one can grow a one-pound-of-buds plant indoors, not without a very elaborate commercial or quasi-commercial setup.
    That’s not what this is about; it’s about allowing home growers to produce more than enough for even the heaviest of personal consumption.

  64. Eight ounces of homegrown isn’t enough for you?
    The amendment allows for homegrow under the following conditions; “in an enclosed, locked space, inaccessible to persons under 21…”
    Clearly, the intent is to allow closet grows, or something similar in scale, which is MORE than enough to keep every stash box in Ohio full without either violating the letter of the law or buying cannabis from retail.

    NO ONE, and I mean no one is putting a 1,000 watt light in a closet. If they do, they should go ahead and call the fire department right away.
    A closet grow with CFL or LED lights will yield about 2 ounces per plant, and use a NEGLIGIBLE amount of energy, thus costing very very little.

    Would you skip growing window-box herbs just because you can’t grow an acre of parsley?

    It is so ridiculous that people want to forego a chance to grow ANY cannabis legally, at least for the foreseeable future, just because they can’t grow a giant backyard full of it and sell it to their “friends.”
    btw: if they’re really your friends, you can just GIVE it to them, which is perfectly acceptable under the new law.

    Vote YES to issue 3, and then grow your own.

  65. I say yes on 3. Prohibition needs to end. Every 45 seconds someone is arrested for marijuana…fix the rules later, change the law NOW!

  66. So be a friend and share with someone. Let’s vote it in and then screw those that are trying to screw us by growing it at home and sharing with our friends. Yes on 3.

  67. Responsible Ohio’s initiative is not perfect, but the money has to come from somewhere. The bottom line is, Initiative 3 is better than prohibition, the ten sites can increase in the future if supply is inadequate, and unlike Washington State – at least RO allows home grows. If I lived in Ohio, I would vote Yes on 3 and No on 2 to end prohibition now.

    Waiting for perfect initiatives only guarantees many losses and routinely losing wears out local volunteers who of course will also need to raise $20 million or more (don’t forget the court battles) to compete. Drug Warriors will crush Initiative 3 any way they can including divide and conquer. Example: Ohio NORML has drunk the Drug Warrior Kool-Aid and now opposes Initiative 3 while wiser minds at national NORML support Initiative 3 (with reservations). ACLU of Ohio also supports Initiative 3. Listen to Radical Russ’s podcasts for more information.

    Voting against prohibition and against wishes of the cops, prosecutors, and drug warriors is the safest bet in my experience. Here’s hoping Ohio doesn’t wait for idealism instead of voting common sense. That “idealism” thing is unlikely to happen before we get “legal enough” to get federal banking laws fixed and fair treatment from the IRS. Voting yes on 3 and no on 2 will add to the growing momentum. And, might as well quit getting arrested in the mean time. Thanks and good luck Ohio.

  68. This is Ohio’s one and only chance unless the federal government does something about it. So what, if there are only 10 growing sites. Grow your own and don’t support the 10 entities. Marijuana supporters need to vote yes this November. We’ve been hearing for years about groups getting on the ballot but never have made it. It’s now or never. A bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush. We’ve got our bird. Now don’t let it go just to hear a group next year say sorry we didn’t make the ballot again. Is it really worth that chance? Yes it’s going to make people richer, but if that’s all your worried about then you better stop buying gas because every time you do you’re doing the same thing your upset about with this plan. VOTE YES!!!

Leave A Reply