Why these Ohioans say no to ResponsibleOhio

In June, The Enquirer published a story explaining how ResponsibleOhio pulled together the money and the campaign firepower to push for a constitutional amendment to legalize marijuana. We invited some readers to express their unhappiness with the proposal. Essays have been edited for clarity and brevity.

Linda Bumpass, Finneytown: The initiative will price out of reach the cost of medication for patients: $300 an ounce is not affordable to any medical household. My son is a stage four cancer survivor whose treatment was paid for by the health care program of the Procter & Gamble Co. in Cincinnati. Medication alone was $10,000 for each treatment. Cannabis can be grown for $14 an ounce by a friend of mine from California, so why should I pay $50 a gram ($1,400 an ounce) for the oil required to treat stage four cancer or $300 to $400 an ounce for bud? Responsible Ohio is an oligarchy. Surely there was a day in the United States when I would not need to explain that an oligarchy through limited competition leads to higher prices and lower quality. Ohio can become a leader through free market in supplying cannabis to the United States once the federal laws change. That will never happen under RO due to the high tax structure not encouraging business.

Nolan Preece, Amelia: Legalization is a great debate and has many possible solutions. Of these, Responsible Ohio is NOT the group that will solve the problem. The entire point of ridding Ohio – or anywhere for that matter – of prohibition is so that it can be enjoyed freely. RO does not give marijuana users freedom; rather, it impedes upon them so that RO can succeed. By only allowing 10 corporations to own the bulk of marijuana distribution, we are essentially empowering these 10 and taking away from our own rights. Surely, we as a majority want legalization, but RO will not be the right way to go about it. Voters must stay informed so we do not further impede our freedoms.

Brad White, Mount Lookout: Legalization of cannabis in America is inevitable. For Ohio to be a leader, we should implement a model that benefits everyone, from the grower to the consumer. Any economics textbook will identify why ResponsibleOhio's monopoly, plus the burden of high taxes, will make Ohio's industry high in cost and low in innovation. Under ResponsibleOhio, growers and users are subject to a felony with jail time in many circumstances, including selling homegrown cannabis to a friend. Strain availability is restricted to what ResponsibleOhio's investors make available. If they don't sell it, you cannot get it – even if it's available in another state. Rejecting ResponsibleOhio won't be a setback for legalization. It will be the rejection of a bad proposal. Ohioans should support a free market initiative in 2016 that will deliver more variety, better quality and lower cost.

Aaron Weaver, Vermilion, p resident, Citizens Against ResponsibleOhio: I've been asked how it is possible to be pro-legalization but oppose ResponsibleOhio's amendment. The simple fact that ResponsibleOhio's amendment institutes a blatant monopoly on an Ohio industry is reason alone. Add in that they do not include any provision for Ohio farmers to grow hemp and severely restrict their "home grow," the fact that they actually stiffen penalties that are now misdemeanors to make them into felonies, and the fact that their "medical" provision bypasses your patient rights by having their commission dictate who qualifies – the absurdity is overshadowed only by the malicious character of Ian James and the ResponsibleOhio investors. Their obsession for power and control can and will be stopped, and Ohioans will make the better choice in 2016 for the right way to legalize cannabis.

Nicole Scholten, Cincinnati, s pokeswoman, Ohio Families CANN: Ohio Families CANN is an organization solely focused on the legalization of whole-plant medical cannabis in Ohio in a manner that will yield effective medicine for our children. These children have truly debilitating illnesses and have exhausted treatments that are not only ineffective, but terribly harmful. Their lives would improve immediately upon approval of medical cannabis. We are wary of ResponsibleOhio's approach. We are not convinced it would yield the type and volume of medical cannabis that would be effective for our children. Legalization does not equal sustainable medicine. The medicine that would help our kids requires specific strains of cannabis and vast quantities. ResponsibleOhio's plan to have only ten grow sites is problematic. There is no guarantee these businesses would devote the grow space to the kind and volume of cannabis we need.

Justin Prado, Ross County: Nearly every aspect of the marijuana business ResponsibleOhio wants would be eligible to qualify as an agricultural co-op. In the Ohio Revised Code are these sections; 1729.67 "Marketing Agreements", 1729.68 "Prohibited Acts", and 1729.69 "Unfair Marketing Practices" Then there is 1729.70 "Agricultural cooperative not illegal" stuck in at the end, granting an exemption for agricultural co-ops. It creates a legal loophole for them not to be defined as monopolies. I doubt business lawyers hired by millionaires forgot to consider possible legal challenges and overlooked this. You won't legally be able to call them a monopoly, and any legal challenge based on anti-monopoly laws won't fly. When it comes to pot (and huge amounts of money), why would you trust suits and ties over tie-dyed shirts?

Nick Brown, Tipp City: They aren't allowing this industry into the hands of a free enterprise, which is one of the things America was founded on. So if I own my shop, shouldn't I grow marijuana that's going to represent me and my shop? History's proven limited supply makes black markets thrive. Do I need a license to grow tomatoes? How about brewing beer? Then why do I need one for marijuana at home? Medical "may" be funded and not "shall" be funded like the recreational portion. They won't allow caregivers to grow for their patients, forcing them to buy from the investors that will cost the patient more. Are we not going learn from Colorado's mistakes?

Dan Frybarger, Coshocton: This amendment was written to help a bunch of wealthy investors capture the up-and-coming market before it is even established. The provisions are written to benefit those involved, not the people of Ohio. I feel the Ohioans to End Prohibition bill is a much better deal. I also do not agree that RO's bill is written as an amendment. Corporate greed does not have a place in Ohio's constitution. Penalties are increased under RO's plan, if you are not willing to pay their price, buy their product and support their greed. Hopefully, our legislature will be successful in heading off this unjust attempt at monopolizing the cannabis industry.

Matthew Hufferd, Columbus: ResponsibleOhio parades itself as if it is the only chance at legalization Ohioans have, when in fact it is but one option. There are ballot initiatives collecting signatures for the 2016 election. Organizations like Ohioans to End Prohibition and Better for Ohio present opportunities for entrepreneurs, personal growers as well as caregivers of medical patients. Under ResponsibleOhio's amendment, a small business dispensary has to obtain its product from their 10 investor-backed grow entities. Those same suppliers can also file separate LLCs to open competitive retail dispensaries. The amendment benefits the investors and backers of ResponsibleOhio. Voters should have choices other than a monopoly when voting an amendment to our Ohio Constitution.

Theresa Verrier, Grand Rapids: I am against the monopolization of the cannabis industry. It is imperative that the sick and the poor are able to grow their own medication. I can only see a bad future for the advancement of this medicine when corporately owned and ruled. The pesticides and procedures of the farming industry could easily skew the true effects of the plant and lead to further misunderstanding the benefits.