Responsibleohio To Revise Marijuana Legalization Proposal To Allow Home Grow

[bobandtorey]

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Pro-pot group ResponsibleOhio announced Tuesday it plans to allow adults age 21 and older to grow marijuana at home in a revised proposal to legalize the drug in Ohio for personal and medical use.

The group also plans to lower its proposed tax rate at retail locations from 15 percent to 5 percent.

"After extensive conversations with experts and concerned citizens across the state and nation, ResponsibleOhio has decided to include regulated and limited home growing as a part of our amendment," ResponsibleOhio Spokesperson Lydia Bolander said in a press release. "Combined with a lower tax rate for consumers, these changes will make our communities safer by smothering the black market."

Much of the early opposition to ResponsibleOhio's plan has been by other marijuana legalization advocates, including three other groups working on ballot initiatives. The pro-pot groups criticized ResponsibleOhio's plan for only allowing cannabis to be grown at 10 sites promised to campaign backers and for limiting the amount of marijuana someone can buy and possess to 1 ounce.

Adults over age 21 could obtain home grow licenses but would not be allowed to sell to the public, similar to beer enthusiasts brewing their own beverages, according to the press release. Bolander said the revised amendment will follow Oregon's model, which allows adults over age 21 to obtain a license to grow up to four marijuana plants in a secure space.

ResponsibleOhio on Friday submitted a proposed constitutional amendment and nearly 3,000 signatures of Ohio registered voters to the Ohio attorney general for certification. Bolander said the group will circulate new amendment language this week to gather an additional 1,000 signatures and file again with the attorney general.

If certified by the attorney general and deemed a single issue by the Ohio Ballot Board, petitioners must then collect more than 305,591 valid signatures by July 1 to appear on the November ballot.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/02/responsibleohio_to_revise_mari.html

[t-pain]

ah, they can actually think for themselves. or this is a huge ploy.... like to see the new plan on paper first.

[AmishRnot4ganja]

Why would we need a license to grow at home? Home beer brewers do not need a license. This gets more absurd with each passing day.

[YesMichigan]

Why would we need a license to grow at home? Home beer brewers do not need a license. This gets more absurd with each passing day.

 

The writers would likely say it is to satisfy local officials who are concerned with "public welfare" as it pertains to security, electrical and other code concerns.

 

The cornerstone of the legislation is the 10 company cartel that gets to control the sale of marijuana. Registration would be used to protect those who are funding the proposal by regulating "private" growing to ensure it remains non-commercial.

 

"Home-Brewing" has an interesting, not so distant, history also:

 

"On October 14, 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed H.R. 1337, which contained an amendment sponsored by Senator Alan Cranston (D-CA) creating an exemption from taxation of beer brewed at home for personal or family use.  This exemption went into effect on February 1, 1979, making homebrewing legal on a federal level in the U.S."

 

http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/homebrewing-rights/statutes/

 

Home-growing as an afterthought to the legislated monopoly illustrates the intent of this group. Scrap it and start over because that stench is too thick.

 

I do wonder what a pragmatist like Keith Stroup would say about this legislation. While it is inherently flawed, it does offer a path to ending more arrests in the near future for medical and recreational users. As he said in his interview on PGT "We can figure out the rest later, stop the arrests first."

[bobandtorey]

stop the arrests first." the only way to do that would be stoping people from Growing

[t-pain]

I do wonder what a pragmatist like Keith Stroup would say about this legislation. While it is inherently flawed, it does offer a path to ending more arrests in the near future for medical and recreational users. As he said in his interview on PGT "We can figure out the rest later, stop the arrests first."

i saw some people supporting it, something like "any baby step to stop the arrests is good really."

 

its a tough choice. maybe these people can pull it off. maybe not. good luck to them and ohio

[Restorium2]

 "any baby step to stop the arrests is good really."

 

People who say that are the worst kind of prohibitionists because the tax dollars collected support putting some of us in prison for not affording what they have on the menu. What they are condoning are baby steps in the wrong direction. Any step in the wrong direction is a fatal mistake.

[t-pain]

you're saying that the baby steps are instead dragging prohibition out longer?

 

i dont disagree...

[Restorium2]

I'm saying the baby steps that are being proposed do not lower the amount of people going to jail for marijuana. They could actually increase the numbers by funding prohibition as they propose along with quasi legalization. They should call it monopoly profitization and policing the cash cow. It's a terrible situation to want to create with any kind of steps. 

[YesMichigan]

 "any baby step to stop the arrests is good really."

 

People who say that are the worst kind of prohibitionists because the tax dollars collected support putting some of us in prison for not affording what they have on the menu. What they are condoning are baby steps in the wrong direction. Any step in the wrong direction is a fatal mistake.

 

 

you're saying that the baby steps are instead dragging prohibition out longer?

 

i dont disagree...

 

So Rest is calling Keith Stroup a Prohibitionist and T agrees his strategy is detrimental to ending Prohibition.

 

Perfect illustration of how well-intentioned people who kind of want the same thing can wind up fundamentally opposed to another person's approach.

[t-pain]

i didnt say i was against it.

[Restorium2]

Just looking at it from the point of view of someone who can't afford what a dispensary charges. Nothing personal and no name calling.

[bobandtorey]

All i here on here is Cannabis is going for 200 for top  shelve top of the line all- throw i haven't seen any

[bobandtorey]

I have been told everybody  wants the same things but a different way of getting there       

 

Thanks