Pubdate: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 Source: Plain Dealer, The (Cleveland, OH) Copyright: 2015 The Plain Dealer Contact: http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/letter-to-editor/ Website: http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/342 Note: priority given to local letter writers Author: Dave Yost Note: Dave Yost, a Republican, is Ohio auditor. OHIO MARIJUANA PROPOSAL ECHO CAUTIONARY TALE OF MARGARINE PROHIBITION Margarine prohibition ended in Ohio via the ballot box in 1949. How it happened sheds some light on the attempts to repeal marijuana prohibition this year. Oleomargarine, as it was known at the dawn of the 20th century, was invented in France as a result of a prize offered for the invention of a cheap substitute for butter. The invention spread quickly to the United States. The stuff was white and had the appearance of lard --not surprising, since it was originally made from beef fat and vegetable oils. Many people found the appearance unappetizing --imagine spreading warm, fresh-baked bread with lard -- so manufacturers began to use yellow food dye to make margarine look more like butter. They succeeded, causing alarm among Wisconsin dairy farmers who correctly concluded that a tasty, less expensive alternative to their butter would create a drop in sales and cut into their income. Threatened by the competition, they won passage of new laws banning the sale of yellow oleomargarine. In 1890, Ohio enacted its own prohibition on yellow oleomargarine. Plain white oleo was legal only the kinds that looked like butter were against the law. White oleo could be sold with yellow dye packets that could be mixed in at home. The additional labor, at a time before power mixers and food processors, was not well received in Ohio's kitchens. The end result was frequently a swirled effect, yellow and white. At least it didn't look like rendered pig fat. (That's what lard is, of course.) The matter was challenged in court as an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment, but the U.S. Supreme Court in 1903 held that the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the states, only the federal government. So, aggrieved Ohioans turned to their legislature, seeking relief. Year after long year, they were whipped by the powerful dairy lobby - -- a potent political force at a time when every county had at least one representative in the House, no matter how small its population. The political churn made Ohioans burn with passion -- they yearned to keep more of what they earned by purchasing cheaper butter substitute. Finally, they turned to the initiative process, collected petition signatures, and placed the issue on the 1949 November ballot, ending prohibition against yellow oleo once and for all. Today, the self-proclaimed ResponsibleOhio is seeking an end to marijuana prohibition through the initiative process - but with a twist. If approved by voters, it would write into the Ohio Constitution the location of ten farms that would be allowed to grow marijuana, exclusively. A business plan shouldn't be written into the constitution. Even if you're for ending prohibition -- of oleo or marijuana -- writing into the constitution an exclusive license to make the newly legalized product is a bad idea. It wasn't needed for oleo legalization, and it's not needed for marijuana legalization either. A legalized, properly licensed market should be available to all comers, not just the few with the money to enshrine into the Ohio Constitution a monopoly for themselves. Oleo prohibition ended at the hands of the voters -- and without the creation of a cartel of rich guys to control the market. If it is the judgment of the voters of Ohio that marijuana prohibition should end, the ResponsibleOhio amendment is the wrong way to go about it. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom