By JOE RONCA
Staff Writer
On Tuesday, off-year elections took place across the United States. Normally, off-year elections are really just drab affairs that are extremely boring to watch. There are no Congressional elections, and the only really meaningful contests are a few gubernatorial elections in such politically unimportant states as Kentucky or Mississippi. Not to bash on Kentucky and Mississippi, but the two are have pretty weak political influence when compared to states like California, Texas, Florida, or New York.
Suffice it to say that off-year contests do not receive a whole lot of media coverage. Yet, this off-year election generated a significant amount of coverage.
See, states can have citizens vote on ballot propositions in which they essentially get to decide whether an amendment should be added to the state’s constitution. Such proposals are often voted on during off-year elections to ensure that the campaigns are not disrupted by hotly-contested national and state elections held at the same time.
On Tuesday, Ohio voters failed to pass a ballot proposal known as Issue 3. The results of the vote on Issue 3 became a national news story for one simple reason: if the measure was passed by voters, marijuana would have been legalized for both medicinal and recreational usage via an amendment to the Constitution of Ohio.
The measure obviously failed to be approved by a majority of the Buckeye State’s voters. That’s an understatement, actually. The counted ballots indicated that Issue 3 was defeated with 64 percent of voters opposed and 36 percent in support. That’s a massive margin of defeat for any sort of ballot initiative.
The results of the vote on Issue 3 are extremely confusing, due to the fact that a majority of Americans now support legalizing marijuana for recreational usage according to the most recent Gallup poll on the issue. Why, then, did Issue 3 fail?
The reason is simple: Issue 3 was seen as legalizing marijuana the wrong way. You are probably asking yourself right now how marijuana could be legalized the wrong way. Issue 3 would have essentially created a monopoly in Ohio where ten companies would control the cultivation, distribution, and sale of marijuana throughout the state.
This de facto monopoly on cannabis would have been enshrined in Ohio’s constitution, making it virtually impossible to change. When the phrase “government-sanctioned monopoly” gets thrown around, people tend to get very skeptical.
Also, a major factor in the failure of Issue 3 to pass was the fact that advocates for legal marijuana in the state were essentially unified in their opposition to the proposal. Yes, you read that right: people whose main goal is the legalization of marijuana opposed a constitutional amendment doing just that. That seems paradoxical on its face, doesn’t it?
However, the movement for legal marijuana in Ohio had logical reasons for opposing Issue 3. The reason again is due to the monopoly that Issue 3 would have created. Many of those people who have been campaigning for legal marijuana are either Baby Boomer hippies who never quite left the 1960s, or stoners who like to sit in their underwear and watch “Pineapple Express” on a loop.
I kid, of course, but you get my point. The idea that a few wealthy fat cats could simply come in and make billions of something that they spent years toiling for is pure anathema to many legalization advocates. They simply could not allow that to happen. This is why Issue 3 failed. It lost all hope of passing due to the fact that the not even the pro-marijuana camp could get behind it.
Personally, I would have voted against Issue 3 if I lived in Ohio. Now, by all means I am 100 percent for the complete legalization of marijuana for both recreational and medical use. I have never really tried it myself, but I know plenty of people who use it on a regular basis. It does not seem to have any significantly negative effect on their lives as far as I can tell.
Granted, that is quite a small sample and I am definitely a little biased, but the science would seem to support me on this one. Marijuana is not overwhelmingly harmful to an individual over the long term. I personally believe that if a person uses marijuana too much they probably will do some damage to themselves in the long term, but again that is just from my own observations.
Marijuana is about as bad for an individual as alcohol, and is certainly not as harmful as cigarettes. It also is almost impossible to get physically dependent on marijuana. Sure, it can become mildly addicting if used too much, but the dependence is much more psychological than physiological. In essence, marijuana is just like alcohol: it is something that is fun for most people, but some simply just cannot use it in moderation and get hooked on it. Simply put, marijuana is not that dangerous.
Also, I am a huge fan of what are known as “sin taxes.” Examples of sin taxes include taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, marijuana, and prostitution. I am in favor of legalizing all of these so-called vices. I am not at all arguing for the morality or reasonableness of these practices. On the contrary, I believe that prostitution is immoral and I think that gambling is simply foolish.
That being said, I do not believe that you, I, or the government has any right to tell a single person what is immoral. If you want to drive up to the nearest Native American reservation and gamble away your kid’s college fund, then by all means, be my guest. You’re an idiot, but be my guest.
Also, the tax revenue that could be raised by legalizing previously prohibited activities would be immense. Colorado makes billions every year off of recreational marijuana, and Nevada does the same off of regulated prostitution. That’s the best case I can really give for legalizing marijuana.
That being said, I would have voted against Issue 3. I would have been opposed simply because it would have created a monopoly on marijuana. I am a capitalist. I believe that in the majority of situations, the free market is the best way to deliver goods and services cheaply and efficiently. Monopolies run counter to the idea of a free market. They represent government interference in the economy and usually lead to high prices and shoddy services and products.
Marijuana is no different in this respect to any other economic fields. All of the new marijuana products, such as edibles like lollipops and even THC-infused sodas have been created due to the drive to make money. Not only do the so-called “gangapeuners” who are making small fortunes off cannabis benefit, but so does the consumer, who gets better quality marijuana at lower prices and with a wider array of products.
In essence, the free market has caused marijuana to boom. That is why I would have voted against Issue 3. It’s not about ethics, it’s about economics.
