Auditor: 10 farms for pot idea 'immoral'

The accelerating force of ResponsibleOhio's push to legalize marijuana in Ohio this year has rattled the state's power structure. So much so that elected officials are working on language for the ballot that could short-circuit the private group's most radical idea, which Auditor Dave Yost calls "immoral" and "not American."

Yost, Ohio House Speaker Cliff Rosenberger and others said Wednesday the ResponsibleOhio ballot proposal would enshrine constitutional protection for a small group of wealthy people to grow marijuana. Their own ballot initiative for 2015 would, Yost said, prevent private interests from using the Ohio Constitution to shield narrow private business interests.

"What my amendment is designed to do is: If you want to use the initiative process to legalize pot, then legalize pot," Yost said. "Don't create a monopoly or a cartel to do it."

ResponsibleOhio wants to put on the Nov. 3 ballot a proposed constitutional amendment that would legalize marijuana but in a novel structure: Only 10 farms around Ohio would be licensed by a Marijuana Control Commission to grow the crop.

The specific pieces of land have been written into the proposed amendment, and the properties have been purchased by more than a dozen wealthy Ohioans, including former University of Cincinnati star Oscar Robertson, Cincinnati philanthropist Barbara Gould, Cincinnati singer-restaurateur Nick Lachey and two descendants of President William Howard Taft.

Backers: Limits best way to regulate pot

The ResponsibleOhio backers say limiting the crop is the most important feature of their proposal and is the best way to move marijuana straight from prohibition to state-regulated sales.

"This is political shenanigans," said Ian James, executive director of ResponsibleOhio. "They can't stop the voters' will, so Yost wants to change the rules."

James said ResponsibleOhio will file between 750,000 and 800,000 signatures with the secretary of state by the July 1 deadline to make the ballot. The necessary number for ballot inclusion is 305,591, but it's common for an initiative drive to submit more than the required amount as insurance.

Many of Ohio's elected officials, including Gov. John Kasich and Attorney General Mike DeWine have said they oppose legalization in general – DeWine: "It's a stupid idea" – and the ResponsibleOhio effort, in particular. Many longtime marijuana advocates in Ohio also oppose the ResponsibleOhio language as creating a monopoly on growing marijuana, though a provision in the amendment would allow licensing for a home grower to raise four plants.

But the initiative effort, backed by millions of dollars in campaign money and polls showing voters in favor of legalization, is gaining ground. So Ohio's politicians are tacking to adjust. Last week, DeWine said he was thinking about an avenue to create a medical-marijuana program, although he had no details.

This week, Yost, Rosenberger and Rep. Michael Curtin said they found bipartisan opposition in the General Assembly to the ResponsibleOhio proposal, and they are kicking around language that would halt the limited-grow proposal.

Yost, a Republican, said, "The fact of the matter is, it limits the supply, it limits competition, and it allows for higher profits for the select few. It's wrong, it's immoral, and it's not American."

Deadline is Aug. 5 for legislature to act

Brittany Warner, press secretary for Rosenberger, a Clarksville Republican, said, "This isn't a citizens' initiative. It's a handful of people trying to make lots and lots of money on the sale of marijuana. So we are definitely having conversations on what could be done to protect such an important document from constitutional monopolies."

The legislature could add its own language straight onto the ballot, but the clock is ticking. The state House and Senate must pass the proposal by a three-fifths majority by Aug. 5. Warner said the legislature intends to finish the state's budget and adjourn by the end of June for the summer.

A similar argument about writing monopolies into the Ohio Constitution arose in 2009 with the initiative for a constitutional amendment that created four casinos. But Curtin, a Marble Cliff Democrat, said the difference is that, since 1851, the Ohio Constitution carried strong anti-gambling language that only an amendment could change to allow casinos.

"This is a whole different matter," Curtin said. "You don't have to amend the Ohio Constitution to change drug policy. The constitution is about fundamental law, it's about the structure of the economy, it's about limitations on government authority.

"The proponents of this issue are trying to amend the constitution not because drug policy should be in the constitution, but because they want to corner the market on marijuana and embed themselves into the bedrock foundation stone of our state. It's wrong, and that's why I'm involved."

James of ResponsibleOhio said the legislature has had the opportunity to change the state's policy toward marijuana since at least 1997, when the first medical-marijuana bill was introduced. This year, a limited bill to allow children with epilepsy access to a certain kind of marijuana extract was introduced and drew just nine co-sponsors.

"They got 29 co-sponsors to make 'Hang On Sloopy' the state rock song," James said. "They have more compassion for a rock song for than for kids with epilepsy."