Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: xzins

Issue 2 passed by a lot less than Issue 3 was rejected by. You had 48% saying they were fine with monopolies but only 36% saying they wanted the pot monopoly.

All 52% who voted against monopolies may have been anti-pot too. It’s up to you to provide evidence otherwise.


130 posted on 11/04/2015 7:46:42 AM PST by JediJones (The #1 Must-see Filibuster of the Year: TEXAS TED AND THE CONSERVATIVE CRUZ-ADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies ]


To: JediJones

As a landowner in Ohio with a creek-front floodplain that I keep wild to retain soil, I know that anything could grow there. As the law now stands, and as confiscation stands with drug indictments, it’s always possible that nature or someone else could grow some pot on my property, and I’d never see it. Never. I avoid the area in the summer due to its being overgrown and full of ticks, mosquitos, etc.

Because of that I would welcome some aspects of pot legalization, but I voted against it because of the monopoly.


132 posted on 11/04/2015 7:56:59 AM PST by xzins (HAVE YOU DONATED TO THE FREEPATHON? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies ]

To: JediJones

Regarding the 52%, it is evident that they were opposed to monopolies being enshrined in our constitution. It’s not really necessary to show anything other than that. Those numbers would have also defeated the pot issue #3.


141 posted on 11/04/2015 9:10:33 AM PST by xzins (HAVE YOU DONATED TO THE FREEPATHON? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson