Defeat of Marijuana Legalization in Ohio Says A Lot About the Kind of Economy People Are Sick and Tired Of
A community-focused alternative would have fared better at the polls
Ohio's marijuana legalization effort suffered a crushing defeat on November 3rd. In the aftermath, there is much conversation about why Ohioans opposed the measure so strongly. Some have pointed to the bad timing of an off-year election, others to lingering puritanical opposition to drug use. But the strongest and most consistent message is the strong populist resistance to legally establishing a business structure that leaves out every day people.
Leaving aside heated rhetoric about the evils of "Big Pot," the fact is that, had Issue 3 passed, it would have established a system of elite and most likely absentee ownership, as opposed to community-based family businesses. Voters recognized the need for local, broad-based ownership as the foundation of a thriving, resilient economy.
Issue 3 was created by a decision-making process led by private interests, excluding local residents. Voters sent a message that they want more voices at the table.
While much was said about the jobs a new legalized marijuana industry would create, there was no guarantee that those jobs would offer decent wages or dependable employment. There was a clear preference for a business model that offers inclusive, living wage jobs that help families from all walks of life enjoy economic security.
Finally, under Issue 3 the business of marijuana would have been the business as usual of wealth inequality. Resentment on this point was pervasive, particularly because there is such a culture of entrepreneurialism and private growth, created by marijuana's longtime illegal status.
That the creators of Issue 3 chose to promote such an elite and exclusive model is a missed opportunity and a real shame. The legalization of marijuana opens up enormous possibilities for creating a genuinely new system, anchored in community-based economic activity that produces wealth at the community level, and keeps wealth circulating in the community.
Imagine if, instead of a handful of outside interests promised sole rights to the statewide marijuana concession, an option was presented that established cooperatively owned marijuana farms. And not only marijuana co-ops, but also locally owned marijuana shops! Imagine if the enormous profits promised by legal marijuana kept that money circulating locally. Imagine if, instead of just promising an end to prohibition, voters had also been offered a new way of thinking about doing business.
This is the real take-away of Tuesday's election: people instinctively favor economic development rooted in democratic ownership and community wealth. And as the legalization movement contemplates its next steps in other states around the nation, it should establish a precedent that all marijuana growers and shops should benefit their local communities - and not be used to extract wealth from those communities.
From defeat can come great progress. Let's hope that leaders both in Ohio and around the country learn that keeping wealth local is what everyday people want.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Ohio's marijuana legalization effort suffered a crushing defeat on November 3rd. In the aftermath, there is much conversation about why Ohioans opposed the measure so strongly. Some have pointed to the bad timing of an off-year election, others to lingering puritanical opposition to drug use. But the strongest and most consistent message is the strong populist resistance to legally establishing a business structure that leaves out every day people.
Leaving aside heated rhetoric about the evils of "Big Pot," the fact is that, had Issue 3 passed, it would have established a system of elite and most likely absentee ownership, as opposed to community-based family businesses. Voters recognized the need for local, broad-based ownership as the foundation of a thriving, resilient economy.
Issue 3 was created by a decision-making process led by private interests, excluding local residents. Voters sent a message that they want more voices at the table.
While much was said about the jobs a new legalized marijuana industry would create, there was no guarantee that those jobs would offer decent wages or dependable employment. There was a clear preference for a business model that offers inclusive, living wage jobs that help families from all walks of life enjoy economic security.
Finally, under Issue 3 the business of marijuana would have been the business as usual of wealth inequality. Resentment on this point was pervasive, particularly because there is such a culture of entrepreneurialism and private growth, created by marijuana's longtime illegal status.
That the creators of Issue 3 chose to promote such an elite and exclusive model is a missed opportunity and a real shame. The legalization of marijuana opens up enormous possibilities for creating a genuinely new system, anchored in community-based economic activity that produces wealth at the community level, and keeps wealth circulating in the community.
Imagine if, instead of a handful of outside interests promised sole rights to the statewide marijuana concession, an option was presented that established cooperatively owned marijuana farms. And not only marijuana co-ops, but also locally owned marijuana shops! Imagine if the enormous profits promised by legal marijuana kept that money circulating locally. Imagine if, instead of just promising an end to prohibition, voters had also been offered a new way of thinking about doing business.
This is the real take-away of Tuesday's election: people instinctively favor economic development rooted in democratic ownership and community wealth. And as the legalization movement contemplates its next steps in other states around the nation, it should establish a precedent that all marijuana growers and shops should benefit their local communities - and not be used to extract wealth from those communities.
From defeat can come great progress. Let's hope that leaders both in Ohio and around the country learn that keeping wealth local is what everyday people want.
Ohio's marijuana legalization effort suffered a crushing defeat on November 3rd. In the aftermath, there is much conversation about why Ohioans opposed the measure so strongly. Some have pointed to the bad timing of an off-year election, others to lingering puritanical opposition to drug use. But the strongest and most consistent message is the strong populist resistance to legally establishing a business structure that leaves out every day people.
Leaving aside heated rhetoric about the evils of "Big Pot," the fact is that, had Issue 3 passed, it would have established a system of elite and most likely absentee ownership, as opposed to community-based family businesses. Voters recognized the need for local, broad-based ownership as the foundation of a thriving, resilient economy.
Issue 3 was created by a decision-making process led by private interests, excluding local residents. Voters sent a message that they want more voices at the table.
While much was said about the jobs a new legalized marijuana industry would create, there was no guarantee that those jobs would offer decent wages or dependable employment. There was a clear preference for a business model that offers inclusive, living wage jobs that help families from all walks of life enjoy economic security.
Finally, under Issue 3 the business of marijuana would have been the business as usual of wealth inequality. Resentment on this point was pervasive, particularly because there is such a culture of entrepreneurialism and private growth, created by marijuana's longtime illegal status.
That the creators of Issue 3 chose to promote such an elite and exclusive model is a missed opportunity and a real shame. The legalization of marijuana opens up enormous possibilities for creating a genuinely new system, anchored in community-based economic activity that produces wealth at the community level, and keeps wealth circulating in the community.
Imagine if, instead of a handful of outside interests promised sole rights to the statewide marijuana concession, an option was presented that established cooperatively owned marijuana farms. And not only marijuana co-ops, but also locally owned marijuana shops! Imagine if the enormous profits promised by legal marijuana kept that money circulating locally. Imagine if, instead of just promising an end to prohibition, voters had also been offered a new way of thinking about doing business.
This is the real take-away of Tuesday's election: people instinctively favor economic development rooted in democratic ownership and community wealth. And as the legalization movement contemplates its next steps in other states around the nation, it should establish a precedent that all marijuana growers and shops should benefit their local communities - and not be used to extract wealth from those communities.
From defeat can come great progress. Let's hope that leaders both in Ohio and around the country learn that keeping wealth local is what everyday people want.