Serving the University of Toledo community since 1919.

Lutz: In need of new legislation

Devan Lutz, IC Columnist
October 14, 2015
Filed under Columns, Opinion

image_pdfimage_print

Next month Ohioans will vote on the legalization of marijuana. Now as open-minded, freedom-loving college students, this idea probably sounds exciting. As we hear about the millions of dollars that Colorado has made and already put back into the state, it’s easy to fantasize about smooth, pothole-free, Ohio roads and a revitalized downtown.

However, odds are that Ohio’s legalization would not play out in the same manner. Under the current proposal there would be a limit of ten growing facilities allowed across the state, which would be funded by private investors. This is what is called a monopoly — which means these private investors basically decide what the going prices for marijuana would be, and since there are no other options, the people would have to pay it.

So ask yourself this: Do you want your marijuana priced by wealthy businessmen who see it as an investment?

With approximately 70,500 crop and livestock farms throughout the state of Ohio, allowing only ten marijuana farms owned by wealthy businessmen doesn’t sound like a very fair deal to me, especially for local farmers.

Colorado does not have a monopoly, which is what Issue 3 would create. Instead, Colorado has an open market, which I believe is the primary reason for the state’s economic success.

So if you like to burn one on the weekends or just support the legalization of marijuana economically, I would make sure you look into the issues to be certain you support what the issue actually entails.

I myself support marijuana legalization but I just think that the state needs to take a different approach. I believe some amendments will need to be made before Ohioans will pass the legalization of marijuana; we want a better plan — and preferably one that does not involve a monopoly.

Devan Lutz is a fourth-year majoring in communication

Print Friendly

Tags: ,

1 Comment

  • JohnB

    The Ohio Farm Bureau came out against issue 3 last week.

    You might think that such news supports the idea that farmers are going to be hurt by issue 3, but consider this;

    NOWHERE in their opposition statement to issue 3 did the Farm Bureau even mention Ohio farmers being excluded from commercial growing.

    Their opposition was solely opposition to issue 3’s inclusion in the Ohio constitution.

    Who knew that Ohio farmers were so interested in constitutional matters?

    Again, not once, not anywhere, has the largest farmers’ organization in Ohio EVER mentioned the exclusion of Ohio farmers from the cannabis market.

    Add to that the fact that not a single farmer or group of farmers anywhere in Ohio has ever come out publicly - in blogs, on facebook, or on comment sections such as this one - and said, “dang that issue 3, it excludes me from my dream of growing commercial cannabis.”

    Taken all together, on can only reasonably conclude from that evidence that Ohio farmers are simply NOT interested in growing commercial cannabis - a crop that must be grown indoors to meet today’s quality standards, a crop with which they have no experience, and a crop which would put at risk any federal farm subsidies they might receive.

    So, no one is buying the argument that Ohio farmers are being hurt by issue 3; it’s simply not true.

    NOW, as far as the so called monopoly goes:

    “The monopoly argument just doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny, especially in light of recent developments, wherein at least four of the properties have now leased portions of their properties to other growers.

    There are hundreds of other proposals and deals in the works by groups wanting to use the land to grow cannabis commercially.
    Exactly how many growers do we need before people stop plugging their ears and yelling “monopoly?”
    The amendment confers commercial growing rights to TEN PARCELS OF LAND, not to any particular individuals.

    For the record, the amount of that land in Ohio (13.5 MILLION square feet) is many times the amount authorized by Washington State’s legalization - by some estimates, as much as 19 times what is currently being utilized in Washington, where a glut of cannabis has led to unsold product and plummeting prices.
    There is plenty of opportunity for anyone with the actual resources to get into large-scale commercial growing.

    For those who want a law that allows every superannuated hippie in Ohio to grow in their backyard and sell at their roadside stand, tough luck.
    That’s not on the table in Ohio, or anywhere, and it’s simply not a viable model that voters, especially in Ohio, would ever approve.

    Bottom line: IT’S NOT A MONOPOLY.

    [Reply]