statehouse.JPG

An Ohio House committee gave initial approval Tuesday to a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit monopolies and other commercial economic interests from being written into the Ohio Constitution.

(Shari Lews, Columbus Dispatch)

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- An Ohio House panel gave initial approval Tuesday to a constitutional amendment that would prevent monopolies from being written in the state constitution and block ResponsibleOhio's plan to legalize marijuana this fall.

House Joint Resolution 4 cleared the House Government Accountability and Oversight Committee and now heads to a full House vote as soon as Thursday. The resolution needs to pass with two-thirds of the vote of both chambers to appear on the November ballot.

The proposed amendment specifically prohibits "a monopoly or a special interest, privilege, benefit, right, or license of a commercial economic nature." The Ohio attorney general would decide whether a proposed amendment violates the anti-monopoly language in addition to verifying the summary that appears on petitions is a fair and truthful representation of the proposed amendment.

Lawmakers were urged by state Auditor Dave Yost to support the measure.

"The marijuana cartel is saying to the public, 'You get it our way, or you don't get it at all. Take it or leave it,'" Yost said. "By sending this amendment to the voters, you are empowering the voters to say whether or not they approve of a constitutional amendment that makes the powerful few even richer, and more powerful."

The anti-monopoly amendment also has the support of another group trying to legalize marijuana, Ohioans to End Prohibition. OTEP President Sri Kavuru said lawmakers and attorneys have assured him the anti-monopoly amendment would not affect its effort.

Lawmakers tweaked the proposed language to prevent amendments creating a monopoly or special interest of a "commercial" economic nature to avoid legal challenges. But Ohio State University law professor Dan Tokaji said the language is still too vague and would allow judges to pick and choose whom the law applies to.

"The proponent of virtually every initiative will claim that it benefits a special interest at the expense of the public interest," Tokaji wrote in testimony submitted to lawmakers.

Chris Stock, a Cincinnati attorney who drafted the ResponsibleOhio amendment, said lawmakers' amendment is an 11th-hour rule change intended to block marijuana legalization. Stock said the language was not well thought-out and would trigger a lawsuit that would cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

"This is the exact type of legislative maneuvering that unravels the clarity and certainty that must underpin our governing process," Stock said.

The anti-monopoly amendment would trump ResponsibleOhio's amendment, Secretary of State Jon Husted said last week, because legislature-sponsored amendments go into effect immediately while citizen-initiated amendments go into effect 30 days after passage.

ResponsibleOhio's amendment would legalize marijuana for personal and medical use, with commercial growing limited to 10 sites belonging to campaign investors. The amendment allows others to apply for licenses to manufacture marijuana products and operate retail stores. A newly created Marijuana Control Commission could revoke licenses or license additional growing sites as needed.

Committee Chairman Rep. Tim Brown, a Bowling Green Republican, questioned ResponsibleOhio's motives, proposing the group remove its "monopolistic language" and sponsor a simple amendment legalizing use.

"I doubt highly your money is going to be there if there aren't strategic financial benefits to a limited few who are backing this proposal," Brown said.

Stock said limiting growing sites is necessary for strong regulation, and the entire supply of marijuana would be spread across thousands of establishments, therefore not constituting a monopoly.

"This is a product that's going to be consumed by the public -- there's a public safety component, there's a public health component to this," Stock said.

Rep. Kathleen Clyde, a Kent Democrat, said she agreed with the sentiment of the legislation but thinks the language is too broad and was passed too quickly.

"Constitutional amendments are a big, big change," Clyde said. "It's our founding document and I'd like to have more time and have more experts weigh in. We have great legal experts saying very different things before us today."