Why did Ohio vote against legalizing marijuana?

It was a highly anticipated vote in Ohio on Tuesday. Voters were asked to vote on the legalization of medical and recreational cannabis through an amendment to the state constitution. Despite the general enthusiasm surrounding the legalization of cannabis in the United States, Ohio voters overwhelmingly rejected this proposal. Why?

The National Cannabis Industry Association stated following the vote: «Ohio citizens have, quite rightly, rejected a flawed proposal for legalizing marijuana which gave 10 companies a monopoly. This debate highlighted strong support for the legalization and regulation of marijuana. “The groundwork has been laid for a genuine public consultation in 2016, which would lay the foundation for a sensible initiative and could influence the 2017 presidential election.”.

The amendment proposed allowing each person to possess or grow up to 220 grams of cannabis from four plants. In addition, individuals over the age of 21 would be allowed to possess up to 28 grams of cannabis, and the law would authorize access to medical cannabis for patients.

Nevertheless, there was controversy surrounding the following proposal: granting 10 farms the exclusive right to grow and sell cannabis plants. The farms were proposed by Ohio lawmakers, some of whom have strong ties to the bill’s lobbyists, either through personal relationships or financial ties. In fact, some «investors» contributed as much as $4 million to support the passage of the bill.

This unique aspect of the bill would place control of Ohio’s cannabis market in the hands of just 10 people. Even though the most influential advocacy groups supported the bill—with the exception of NORML, which had some reservations—Ohioans did not view the proposal as an opportunity for the state.

The estimated cannabis market in Ohio could reach $554 million by 2020. This money could be reinvested in the state’s coffers rather than going to drug cartels. But the citizens have, in our view, reasonably voted against a law that would effectively create a near-monopoly for 10 state-owned companies, even though the cannabis industry can, in fact, benefit everyone.