Nearly two-thirds of Ohio residents voted against an initiative Tuesday that would have legalized marijuana, eliciting glee from legalization opponents but a shrug from many advocates of treating the drug like alcohol.

"We crushed it," the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana titled a celebratory email.

"Ohio voters weren't fooled. Tonight, they defeated legalization by one of the widest margins of victory any marijuana measure has seen in decades,” the group’s leader, Kevin Sabet, beamed.

"This is huge! This proves that our movement is thriving – and we have many more victories in front of us.”

There’s no consensus on that point, however, particularly among pro-legalization advocates who either sat on the sidelines or actively opposed the Ohio initiative known as Issue 3.

The doomed initiative would have written into the state constitution an oligarchy with 10 commercial grow sites operated by the initiative’s investors for at least four years. Backers said the approach was necessary to raise enough money for paid petition-gathering and to then run a successful campaign in major media markets, but the novel idea irked core cannabis reformers.

Some, such as Don Wirtshafter of the Ohio Rights Group, appeared on TV and spoke to the New York Times about wealthy donors wrecking personal dreams for legalization. Others, such as Sri Kavuru, began laying the groundwork for another push next year, drafting a more conventional ballot initiative that would not mandate an oligarchy.

Until Tuesday evening, the race in Ohio appeared tight.

In the past two months, several polls indicated majority support for legalization in Ohio. Quinnipiac University found 53 percent in favor of legalization, the University of Akron gauged support for legalizing personal use at 53 percent with an even divide on Issue 3, and a Kent State University poll put support for legalization at 58 percent and support for the initiative at 56 percent.

Buddie, a mascot for ResponsibleOhio, greets students at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.

John Minchillo/AP

The pro-legalization campaign’s internal polling, conducted weekly for more than a year, showed the race tied among residents very likely to vote, ResponsibleOhio Executive Director Ian James told U.S. News on Monday.

A more plausible concern than crushing defeat appeared to be the prospect of victory for both the initiative and an anti-monopoly measure referred to the ballot by the state legislature.

Shortly after polls closed, it became clear that voter surveys didn't reflect Election Day realities, and with nearly all precincts reporting Wednesday morning, the massive margin of defeat was clear. Fewer than 36 percent of the 3 million votes cast were in favor.

“I was confident they would lose, but even I didn’t expect it would be that bad,” Kavuru says, attributing the near two-to-one thumping to low voter turnout.

Kavuru, president of Legalize Ohio 2016, says it's not necessarily bad news for reformers. His group has been gathering signatures for six months and is planning a big push ahead of a July deadline to reach the more than 300,000 required for a spot on November 2016 ballots.

He believes donors will pitch in, perhaps including national groups wary of Issue 3 – though groups such as the Marijuana Policy Project already are stretched in 2016 by likely campaigns in Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada.

There’s historical precedent for a legalization measure going down in flames before voters pivot and embrace a second proposal. Colorado voters rejected an initiative by 18 points in 2006 before a resounding win for legalizers six years later. And Oregon voters rejected a measure in 2012 before accepting a rewrite in 2014.

If Ohio voters are given an opportunity to vote again on legalization next year, they may join California in making an about-face. Like Colorado and Oregon residents, Californians rejected a legalization initiative that in 2010 would have made theirs the first state to take that path.

“There are a lot of parallels,” Kavuru says of the Oregon and California measures that were voted down. In Oregon, the 2012 measure “split the activist community right down the middle, and in California [the 2010 initiative] split the industry,” he recalls. “If the activists won’t get behind your law, it’s getting harder and harder to win, because you can’t have your base split.”

Mason Tvert, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, which has taken the lead in organizing many of the 2016 initiatives, said the Ohio result "only reflects where Ohio voters stand on a specific and rather unique proposal in an off-year election." He wasn't prepared to comment on the Legalize Ohio 2016 effort.

Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, another influential group in state-level legalization campaigns said “I don’t see the defeat of Issue 3 slowing the national momentum for ending marijuana prohibition."

“Voters, including those who would like to see marijuana legally regulated and taxed, were clearly turned off by the oligopoly provision," he said. "None of the legalization initiatives enacted to date – in Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska – contains such a provision nor do any of the initiatives headed to the ballot in 2016.”

It’s unclear if the backers of Issue 3, who spent about $25 million, will attempt any future action to see their plan or some variant to fruition. “We started the conversation, and we're going to continue the conversation starting tomorrow,” James said in a statement. “The status quo doesn't work, it's unacceptable and we're not going away.”

Editorial Cartoons on Marijuana View All 15 Images

Sabet says, however, the Ohio results suggest a solid tactic for future anti-legalization campaigns.