To the editor:
I would like to thank our local officials who were quoted in the article about why Issue 3 should be opposed. I hope everyone read their statements carefully because they contained numerous good reasons to vote no on Issue 3.
When I started searching for information about Issue 3, I was surprised at how many reputable statewide organizations had issued excellent fact-filled explanations as to why their group was opposed to Issue 3. All I had heard prior to that was rather vague, emotional implications that we “needed” medical marijuana. However, the Ohio State Medical Association sees no healthy lifestyle benefit from using marijuana. In addition, their statement clarifies that: Although some research shows benefits for specific conditions, additional evidence is needed to justify this drug for treatment.
It seems to me that Issue 3 is not really about medical marijuana nor about reducing the penalties for possession or use because if it were about those reasons, it would be very limited. Instead, it grants a monopoly to certain investors who are putting a large amount of money into advertising because if Issue 3 passes, they will benefit financially.
Issue 3 allows for 1,159 marijuana retail stores. That’s more locations than McDonald’s. It’s also nearly three times the number of state liquor stores!
Reading the actual ballot language is distressing! It prohibits local and state governments, including zoning laws, from being applied to prohibit the marijuana industry’s activities. It grants a monopoly to self-designated landowners who own 10 predetermined parcels of land. And, it amends the constitution to accomplish this purpose. That in itself is enough to vote no!
You can read the official arguments against Issue 3 at:
Mary C. Schmiesing