Pubdate: Wed, 24 Jun 2015
Source: Columbus Dispatch (OH)
Copyright: 2015 The Columbus Dispatch
Contact:  http://www.dispatch.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/93
Author: Jim Siegel

LEGISLATORS TRY TO BLOCK MONOPOLIES IN POT ISSUE

After debating the technical definition of a monopoly, lawmakers took 
a bipartisan step on Tuesday to block current and future efforts to 
place economic monopolies in the Ohio Constitution.

As ResponsibleOhio marches well past collecting enough signatures to 
qualify its marijuana legalization issue for the November ballot, 
lawmakers concerned that deep pockets are once again carving 
themselves a financial windfall in the constitution are also moving 
quickly. Some say too quickly.

During a House Government Accountability and Oversight Committee 
hearing on Tuesday, supporters of the legislative action stressed 
that the debate is not about marijuana. However, the issue in the 
near term is aimed at blocking ResponsibleOhio from giving those who 
have invested in its campaign a monopoly to establish 10 for-profit 
marijuana-growing sites across the state.

The proposal, which passed committee and is to be voted on by the 
full House today, would require a two-step, multi-year process for 
economic-based amendments, making it more difficult to get such 
issues into the constitution. The plan is to place the proposal on 
the November ballot alongside the marijuana issue.

The constitution "was designed to protect the interests of the many 
against the powerful few," said state Auditor Dave Yost, who 
testified in favor of the provision. "In recent years, that safeguard 
for the many has been hijacked by the powerful few."

Yost noted the 2009 casino amendment that established a monopoly for 
the building of four casinos in the state.

Christopher Stock of ResponsibleOhio sparred with lawmakers over 
whether the proposal would really create a monopoly. Stock argued 
that it would not, saying that anyone could grow marijuana under the 
proposal, although only the 10 sites could sell it.

"If we have a thousand farms out there attempting to grow for public 
consumption, we have a regulatory problem on our hands," Stock said.

Rep. Tim Brown, R-Bowling Green, the committee chairman, said that if 
the issue is not a monopoly, then backers should remove the language 
that blocks others from selling marijuana, letting the state set 
regulations, as it does with tobacco.

Without the benefit of a monopoly, Brown said, he doubts that 
ResponsibleOhio could raise money for a campaign.

Stock said the constitution gives citizens a chance to act when 
lawmakers will not, as in the case of marijuana legalization. "(The 
resolution) will nullify the constitution's direct democracy 
provision," he said.

Others also have also raised that concern. "This language is so 
unbelievably broad that this resolution could weaken legitimate 
citizen initiatives instead of truly protecting against corporate 
monopolies," said Keary McCarthy, president of liberal research group 
Innovation Ohio.

Stock also argued that the issue is written in such a way that it 
could also block efforts to legalize gay marriage in Ohio through a 
constitutional amendment, or to issue bonds to pay war veterans, 
although others disagreed.

In Ohio, if competing constitutional amendments are on the same 
ballot, and both are approved, the one that gets the most votes takes 
effect. However, Secretary of State Jon Husted has said that in this 
instance, the legislative amendment would trump the marijuana issue 
because it takes effect immediately, while the citizen issue takes 
effect in 30 days.

Rep. Kathleen Clyde, D-Kent, argued that some of the legislative 
proposal's language is too vague, and that the process has been rushed.

"I share the concerns about monopolies and business interests having 
too much influence or being able to buy their way into the state 
constitution," Clyde said. "I'm concerned the language does not 
accomplish that aim, and we could see unintended consequences."

Rep. Mike Curtin, D-Marble Cliff, a prime sponsor of the resolution, 
said the language needs to be general enough to avoid loopholes. The 
issue, he said, has been discussed for several months, but the 
ResponsibleOhio proposal provided a sense of urgency.

"The timing is urgent, and this is a historic question we trust the 
voters to decide," he said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom