|
|
 |
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
State Representative Jim Buchy
Marijuana,
Monopoly, FOLLOW THE MONEY
It appears Ohioans will be determining the fate of the marijuana
legalization debate in the near future. I am interested to see
how direct democracy will work in this situation. I am excited
about the freedom of Ohioans to cast a vote regarding their wishes, but
remain concerned about recent trends in the use of the initiative. All
too often these citizen-driven initiatives are seemingly backed by
those who will benefit from a monopoly.
The amendment that currently has the strongest backing is financially
supported by several businessmen who would have sole ownership of the
marijuana grow houses.
Whether you are for or against the legalization of marijuana, a
discussion needs to be held regarding the use of this initiative to
create a monopoly. That’s why my colleagues and I want to provide
Ohioans an opportunity to stop monopoly amendments and return direct
democracy to Ohioans.
The proposed change would only impact laws moving forward and would not
impact Ohio’s casinos, which Ohioans approved based on promises that
were not kept. When the casino amendment was originally passed, Ohioans
were promised four casinos in four specific areas of the state.
Each of these would be sizable locations that would generate major
revenue for the state and local governments. Now, a few years
down the road, few of these promises were ever fully kept, and we
should expect the same from any other monopoly proposal.
We clearly should be expecting more when monitoring Ohio’s casino
revenues and contributions to local governments based on the promises
made years ago. It’s no surprise to me. Many of the casinos were
substantially downsized from the proposed plans, and even these smaller
facilities are not filled to capacity with gaming stations.
Location changes have also significantly stunted revenues and imposed
an additional burden on local governments.
For instance, the Columbus casino was not built in the downtown Arena
District as originally planned. Instead, it was moved to the edge
of the city where foot traffic is minimal. As a result, the City
of Columbus has had to provide a bus, at taxpayer expense, attempting
to encourage foot traffic to the casino. In addition, Toledo’s proposed
casino was significantly scaled back upon further market research and
the facility is much smaller than nearby operations in neighboring
states.
Experience shows, don’t judge a constitutional monopoly by its cover.
It is clear that monopolies in the Ohio Constitution result in Ohioans
getting the short end of the stick. Moving forward, we should be
working in Ohio to avoid putting monopolies into our Constitution.
Please provide your opinion on the issues in the news this month by
completing an online survey at tinyurl.com/buchyjuly2015
|
|
|
|
