Once again, the Plain Dealer Editorial Board has come down extremely hard on Issue 3, the proposed legalization of medicinal and recreational marijuana that we can all vote on tomorrow. 

In their searing editorial last week, the PD laid into the irresponsible, cash-soaked tycoons behind ResponsibleOhio and denounced their tactics in trying to secure YES votes — courting the inner-city African-American community, using a mascot on college campuses, financing a veritable fuck-ton of marketing materials (which included a Scene cover wrap last week).

“ResponsibleOhio is right to argue for marijuana decriminalization,” the editorial board writes, for instance, “but decriminalization and sentencing reform should be dealt with directly, not as a supposed side benefit to legalizing weed and creating a grower cartel.”

The editorial board has favored using “cartel” over “monopoly” again and again, assuming perhaps that the criminal associations will remind voters that even if 10 investors are constitutionally permitted to cultivate and sell weed to authorized distributors, the result still looks an awful lot like a criminal enterprise.

And for that matter, the PD thinks that legalizing weed won’t cut into black-market sales, as ResponsibleOhio has claimed. 

“Would not the illegal Mexican cartels continue to prosper,” the editorial board fairly inquires, “by undercutting the prices established by a voter-sanctioned commercial marijuana cartel supplying state-sanctioned, marijuana-selling retail stores?”

Though the editorial writers don’t fully convey the substance of Issue 2, the sloppy ballot item intended to undercut monopolies — “the courts will have to sort it all out” — they nonetheless full-throatedly endorse a NO on 3 and YES on 2.

The PD also published an editorial from Greater Cleveland Partnership president and CEO Joe Roman, and ADAMHS CEO Bill Denihan (who debated ResponsibleOhio’s Ian James at the City Club last month). They voiced objections to the proposed monopoly structure and the medical ramifications of weed legalization. Denihan, in particular, is worried that legal pot will send a message to children that smoking is less harmful than it is, when in fact pot is much more potent and dangerous than it was 20 years ago.

The PD editorial director Betsy Sullivan saw fit to publish both a yea and nay editorial from guest contributors about Issue 8, the proposed extension of a cigarette tax to support arts organizations, but the Issue 3 material is entirely one-sided.

Hollers the editorial board: “On Nov. 3, Ohioans should refuse to be cowed by a slick political campaign that cloaks a get-rich-quick scheme in advocacy for individual freedom and that gives short shrift to the many unanswered questions about the effects of legalizing marijuana.” 

This article appears in Oct 28 – Nov 3, 2015.

Sam Allard is a former senior writer at Scene.

10 replies on “The Plain Dealer REALLY Wants You to Vote NO on Issue 3”

  1. Cannabis legalization needs to happen as soon as possible! However, giving out a monopoly or oligarchy an elite greedy few who believe that their extreme wealth can buy the exclusive right to grow and sell the herb seems completely wrong and un-American. Any fair legislation would allow the free market to determine how many commercial cannabis farms are viable. With the voting record Ohio has, the statistical probability of ROs Measure 3 success on the first pass is dubious at best regardless. Even California failed the first effort at full legalization. Legalization is a step by step process as seen in all states that have legalized in any form. Ohio is taking a significant and good first step. Whether it will result in full legalization this time around…

    Cannabis is clearly safer than the legal choices. Alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical drugs kill over 650,000 US citizens every year. Why should cannabis be treated differently than the more dangerous legal alternatives which are left to the free market system to proceed?

    Legalize, regulate and TAX! Monopolies and oligarchy not so much…Vote “yes” on 2 and 3, send a message and let the courts sort out the details.

  5. No on 2, Yes to 3. The problems with only having 10 growers are trivial problems that can be dealt with in the future. If prohibition ends in Ohio, then it will become a major presidential issue for 2016, with the candidates supporting legalization seeming much more rational. The death knell of weed prohibition could sound on Tuesday in Ohio. Please vote, and say no to prop 2, and yes to prop. 3. There’s a lot at stake here, This is a very personal issue for me. I have problems drinking too much alcohol, and marijuana helps me not to drink. I will probably be dead from drinking in the next 10 years if I don’t have legal marijuana. I don’t want to get arrested for trying to get something that could make a positive change in my life.

  6. Scene sold out their entire back AND FRONT cover to ResponsibleOhio this week. I wonder why they want the PD to look bad.

    No on 3. No on corporatism. No on selling out. Stand up for democracy.

  7. Yes to legalization, no to forming a legal oligopoly. Why should 10 rich dudes get the exclusive rights to commercially grow a plant? I just can’t in good conscience vote to encourage the rich to get richer. Let free markets dictate how many farms are sustainable. Obviously some regulation has to exist, but not this restrictive.

  8. It’s 50 investors; 10 farms that will increase yearly with demand. Yet we have 4 guys owning all of the Ohio casinos. I have two options for cable. The exact same regulations are imposed restricting state liquor agencies and on and on. I honestly don’t get the counter arguments to Issue 3. Do you have millions of dollars to get in line and start a major grow business?

Comments are closed.