The Schizophrenia of ResponsibleOhio

[Updated August 16, 2015]

Come November, voters in Ohio will have to decide if they want a highly regulated cannabis legalization law to go into effect in their state by voting yes or no on Issue 3. The law would allow citizens to legally purchase, possess, and consume marijuana for medical or recreational purposes.

Like progressive leaders Oregon, California, Colorado, and Alaska, all of which legalized recreational cannabis within the past two years, Ohio’s law would permit adults 21 and over to cultivate the herb. Ohio’s particular regulations specify up to four indoor plants and possession of up to eight ounces of raw marijuana flowers. Outdoor gardens, permitted in much of California and Oregon, would be prohibited, however (just as they are in Colorado,). All forms of personal cultivation are currenty banned in Washington State.

Only Ten Producers

The initiative, sponsored by a group of wealthy individual investors (some of whom are minor celebrities) and based in Columbus, the state’s capital, would limit production of marijuana to only ten pre-selected facilities positioned throughout the state. The state would then license roughly 1,100 businesses, at fees of between $10,000 and $50,000, to open manufacturing facilities, medical dispensaries, and retail outlets.


These businesses would be forced to purchase their herbal product  from the ten cultivation facilities. In this respect, the scheme is a monopoly (technically, it is an oligopoly) that would prevent any person or business, regardless of their expertise or potential benefit to the market, to get into the business of cannabis production (above the four plants per adult personal limit).

ResponsibleOhio, of course, argues that it will not be a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel based on the fact that the ten companies will compete with each other. It is assumed that retail outlets and dispensaries would be capable of purchasing from any and all of the ten facilities. However, this would ultimately be determined not by ResponsibleOhio or its member companies, but instead by a governing board appointed by Governor Kasich, a Republican who is opposed to legalization (and may appoint his prohibitionist buddies to administer the program).

It can easily be argued that so few production facilities would result in a lack of innovation and possibly little research and development—such as the breeding of new medicinal strains. The recreational quality (high type), medical efficacy (cannabinoid profile), and potency of pot produced by the ResponsibleOhio investment group-cum-constitutionally amended state law would depend entirely on how vigilantly the ten production facilities competed with one another (and the regulations surrounding that competition and their individual operations that are eventually written and implemented by the state).

Good for Consumers

For consumers, ResponsibleOhio is a pretty sweet deal, but would almost certainly result in higher prices than in some other states. Medical users will be permitted to purchase discounted (wholesale) marijuana at designated dispensaries (among the 1,100 businesses permitted under the initiative) if they are registered with the state (as in California). Recreational users would purchase from retail outlets and require no registration. If ResponsibleOhio’s legal herb is of relatively low quality or costs more than the black market, citizens will have the option of growing their own (if they wish to remain legal).


Unlike what is offered by the current black market, the investment group’s ten cultivation factories would utilize outside laboratories to batch test all cannabis grown. It could be argued that the ability to visit a medical dispensary or retail outlet and purchase a product that has been thoroughly tested, with accurate labeling and a guarantee of quality, safety, and purity is certainly worth the prices currently being charged by the black market.

It is sad, however, that a lack of competition at the cultivation level would most certainly curtail innovation and the competition necessary to truly drive down prices.

For cannabis consumers in the Buckeye State, ResponsibleOhio is so much better than the prohibition with which they live now that it’s not even funny. With the exception of the continued prohibition of outdoor gardens, consumers would have the option of purchasing on the black market (and possibly getting busted), buying from a medical dispensary or retail outlet, or growing their own. No longer would adults be convicted of possession of small amounts of marijuana or personal gardens.

Bad for Employees

However, the proposed ResponsibleOhio legislation in no way protects employees who legally use medical or recreational marijuana. Employers who are acclimated to drug testing employees—and firing those who fail drugs tests—will continue to be legally permitted to do so.

In this respect, ResponsibleOhio addresses some of the concerns of Ohio’s citizens who wish to avoid the black market and legally cultivate, possess, and consume cannabis as medicine or euphoriant while avoiding some of the stickier issues of workplace drug testing and the rights of both workers and the companies that employ them.


Brandon Coats, who lost lawsuit over firing for legal medical cannabis consumption in Colorado

On June 15, 2015, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that medical marijuana patients can be fired if they fail a drug test. Even in this progressive state, prohibitionist forces are defending employers and outdated practices from the late 20th century and Nancy Reagan’s Just Say No campaign. Would a legal challenge in Ohio’s court system produce a different result, especially given the current conservative Republican legislature and presidential candidate Kasich’s opposition to cannabis legalization of any type?

Crain’s Business Cleveland article from August 16 describes how a variety of groups in Ohio oppose the bill, including the Council of Smaller Enterprises, the Greater Cleveland Partnership, the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, and the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce.

The board of directors of the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association on August 13 announced opposition to the ballot issue “on the grounds that granting what, in effect, are business monopolies would undermine free-market competition.”

According to Ian James, the executive director of ResponsibleOhio, “This is disappointing, but not surprising.”

“They all know that legalization does not have an impact on the ability to enforce drug-free workplaces. After passage of the marijuana legalization amendment, you remain a drug-free and a zero-tolerance workplace, period.”   — Ian James

The only problem with James’ logic is that metabolites of THC, the chemical compound in cannabis that delivers its euphoric high, remain detectable in the human body for roughly 30 days following consumption of the herb or an extract or concentrate thereof (like tinctures, edibles, and oils). Heavy habitual users may test positive up to two months after ceasing consumption.

ian james for gooey rabinski blog

ResponsibleOhio executive director Ian James

Thus, patients and recreational consumers who are not consuming cannabis or high while at work, but who smoked at a party or medicated for a disease like Crohn’s or cancer weeks prior to a workplace test, would be penalized for their fully legal consumption of cannabis. Most of Ohio’s citizens must work to earn a living. According to James, the same people to whom his investment group would be marketing cannabis flowers and manufactured products if the law passed would be subject to dismissal because “legalization does not have an impact on the ability to enforce drug-free workplaces.”

Growers Database

Unfortunately, those growing their own would have to register with the state and pay a $50 annual fee. I don’t think anybody cares about the $50 (that doesn’t even buy a quarter ounce of quality herb in the state today). But registration in a state-owned database is something that justifiably intimidates and frightens a lot of existing growers who are contemplating passage of this initiative and the ability to legally grow a few plants.


What if the Republican-dominated state cooperated with federal authorities (like the DEA) and handed over the database, revealing exactly who was growing cannabis (in flagrant violation of federal law)? Regardless of the real possibility of this occurring, many curious cannabis cultivators are wary.

While I personally would like to see the grow limit raised and legal outdoor gardens—from a consumer perspective—ResponsibleOhio looks pretty nice. In theory, prices set by all stages of cultivation, manufacturing, and retail sales would strive to equal or beat those of the black market, helping ensure market demand and sufficient sales volumes to maintain all segments of the industry. If retail outlets and the black market engaged in a price war, consumers would obviously benefit.

Can a Closed Market Drive Down Prices?

States like Oregon, Colorado, and Washington have proven that open markets drive down prices while simultaneously improving quality, selection, and brand dependability. In some areas of Colorado and the West Coast, ounces of top-shelf sativa and indica strains, like Jack Herer and G13, sometimes sell for only $130 to $200—significantly below the national average for the black market.

In tightly regulated New Jersey, state-run dispensaries sell an ounce of top-shelf cannabis flowers for $550; at Delaware’s sole dispensary, that ounce costs $400-450.


The only problem for those in Ohio, however, is that theirs would not be an open market. With only ten production facilities—albeit owned by ten separate companies—market competition likely wouldn’t occur at a level necessary to significantly drive down prices through the natural forces of the market. At least not like in Washington, Oregon, and Colorado. With only ten potential sources of raw plant material, sales outlets could cut their margins only so thin in an effort to compete with one another on price.

In this respect, retail stores would be hobbled by limited selection and greater difficulty in differentiating themselves from their competition. Exclusivity is a trait of many successful marketing campaigns. None of the 1,100 retail outlets would be able to claim that they offered a unique strain of cannabis. Thus, customer loyalty would be considerably harder to obtain. Pot customers would understand that they could purchase the same basic product—albeit possibly in different packaging or processed in a somewhat different manner—from each and every retailer in the state.


This frustrates some activists and progressive leaders for two reasons. First, they cite that Ohioans will likely pay more for their cannabis than citizens in other states featuring true open market production, manufacturing, and retail sales. Second, what about other entrepreneurs who might want to get into the production of cannabis for sale in the state? Is it ethical, in a supposedly open market democracy, to exclude them?

Voters should not assume that legal herb produced by the ResponsibleOhio group would be cheaper than that of the black market. In states like Colorado, black market prices have been driven down by legal dispensaries and retail shops, but are still cheaper than legal herb. Thus, cannabis consumers in Colorado prove that they are willing to pay more for legal and safe access to tested, labeled, and reputable marijuana.

(In March 2015, Colorado sold about $75 million worth of cannabis in combined medical [dispensary] and recreational [retail shop] sales. By July, the monthly revenue for recreational sales alone topped $50 million for the first time, contributing about $4 in taxes to Colorado’s schools.)

Pros and Cons

Thus, marijuana consumers in Ohio who are tired of high prices, dealing with the black market, and, of course, the threat of being busted for purchasing street weed might want to embrace ResponsibleOhio and vote Yes in November. In the end, ResponsibleOhio is offering a value proposition to pot consumers: Would cannabis users rather pay the black market a little less, but get a baggie full of something that has no strain name, no brand, no pedigree, and certainly no guarantee?

Outdoor gardens banned

Outdoor cultivation would be banned under ResponsibleOhio’s law

The simple ability for a patient or recreational consumer to shop a retail outlet during business hours, purchase up to an ounce of a particular strain like Kali Mist or Jack Herer, and then take it home and consume it—all within the bounds of the law—is something that sounds almost too good to be true for the average toker or patient almost anywhere in the Midwest, including Ohio. The fact that this luxury would be enabled by a pseudo-monopoly on the production side of the business somewhat sucks. Most would agree that monopolies, especially those encouraged and maintained by the state, are anti-American and anti-middle class.

For those of a libertarian mindset who encourage free markets, believe in the power of entrepreneurialism (consider the wealth that has been generated by Silicon Valley), and don’t support arbitrary government restrictions that put wealth into only the pockets of a few will be against ResponsibleOhio on principle. Of course, if ResponsibleOhio fails to pass, they’ll also be forced to continue purchasing their cannabis on the black market, with uncertain quality, a total lack of testing, no labeling or ability to choose strains, high prices, and the risk of imprisonment.

Come November, Ohio voters must decide if they not only embrace marijuana legalization, but if they are willing to limit production to an artificial monopoly of only ten cultivation facilities. ResponsibleOhio is basically telling voters: “We’ll pay the $20 million required to get this issue on the ballot and educate voters so it passes if you’ll give us exclusivity on the production of the product.”

To learn more about ResponsibleOhio, check out ResponsibleOhio: The Upside.

Image credit: ResponsibleOhio PAC

HBK11RenderGooey Rabinski is a technical writer and instructional designer who has contributed to magazines such as High Times, Cannabis CultureSKUNK, HeadsWeed World, and Cannabis Health Journal. He is currently a contributing writer to and the author of Understanding Medical Marijuana (2015 Edition), available on Amazon Kindle.

His marijuana-related freelance photos, spanning back more than a decade, are available on Instagram and Flickr. He tweets from @GooeyRabinski.


Fear of Smoking and THC

In late 2015, Louisiana legalized all “non-smokable forms of the [cannabis] plant” as part of narrow and controversial medical cannabis legislation that was signed by Governor Bobby Jindal.

HBK11RenderMy beef: Why the fear of smoking? With such little research having been conducted, especially in the form of human trials, why are lawmakers so quick to approve either single-cannabinoid extracts (like Charlotte’s Web from CW Botanicals) or any non-smokeable form of the plant?

Those of libertarian bent who preach a populist “power to the people” will obviously side with cannabis activists who believe that cannabis laws should embrace self-sufficiency and a free market. This mindset encompasses patients growing their own medicine and having the ability to form collectives for the efficient cultivation and dispensation of marijuana (one reason so many activists, newspapers, and organizations opposed the 2015 ResponsibleOhio legalization effort in the Buckeye State).

Medpot That Comes Up Short

Louisiana joined New York, Texas, and Georgia in passing legislation that comes up short of allowing full-plant therapy. Even New Jersey, home of cannabis-hating Chris Christie, allows patients to consume whole-plant forms of the medicine—although the state does prohibit them from growing their own and has dragged its feet when it comes to making cannabis available via dispensaries (in addition to charging sometimes $550 per ounce for top-shelf strains).

So why the fear of smoking?

Just as the euphoria that accompanies the high of cannabis is a top fear—and objection—of conservative prohibitionists, so too is the act of smoking a plant that can be grown in a patient’s backyard.

By outlawing whole-plant therapy, states are establishing monopolies and depriving patients the right to grow a mere herb. For those suffering from severe epilepsy or multiple sclerosis who are desperate for relief, the fact that cannabis is typically smoked and almost always conveys a psychoactive component is of little consequence to its medical efficacy.

Is The High Dangerous?

It’s time for politicians and the media to recognize that a plant with such great medical applications doesn’t carry “danger” or “harm” and isn’t necessarily a detriment to teenagers simply because it provides them with some euphoria (maybe if the Columbine shooters had been smoking herb after school they would have left the guns at home).

This same ignorant and borderline paranoid mentality is resulting in the passage of laws encompassing only single-cannabinoid extracts in many states. This popular form of politician-sponsored “compassion” legislation allows only CBD oil—and often for only the treatment of a very limited set of ailments.

[To learn more about CBD oil and the patients it helps, check out the Flipboard magazine CBD Oil. To learn about the problems inherent in CBD-only state medical cannabis laws, click here.]


Are those who suffer from diseases not included on these short lists not worthy of the relief that might be afforded them by a cannabinoid extract? Are the vast majority of patients, who respond best to whole-plant or multi-cannabinoid extract therapies, not deserving the basic right to grow a plant in their basement or backyard that they then dry, cure, and smoke or vaporize?

Should they not have the right, as tens of millions of patients already do, to select an edible, tincture, or topical as their preferred form of consumption?

Fear of smoking and fear of the high provided by THC is serving only to deprive worthy patients of the whole-plant medicine they desire and deserve. For many raised in the United States in the 1960s and ’70s, patriotism was real. “Land of the free” was what America was supposed to represent. But it is illegal to grow a plant simply because it makes one feel a little different, somewhat like a pill one might get at a pharmacy?

States like California, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska get it—or, at least, their voters do. There’s no boogey man in the woods. This politically motivated and culturally naive fear of cannabis must be overcome in order for meaningful legislation to reach the average American—not just those living in progressive states like Colorado, California, and Oregon.

Patients in Kentucky, Alabama, Florida, and Kansas also deserve relief.

Educate Thyself

Readers who fear things they don’t understand should educate themselves. The internet makes available the summation of the world’s knowledge at one’s fingertips. Learn why families are willing to move across the country to live in a state like Colorado or California where they can legally and without fear gain safe access to the medicine that helps their family—but is illegal in their home state.

Eddy Lepp displays the fattie winner at the rolling contest

Learn why Shona Banda has the threat of up to 30 years of incarceration hanging over her head for doing what millions do on nearly a daily basis: Medicating with cannabis. Why? Simply because she lives in Garden City, Kansas.

If Banda lived only 70 miles to the west—about a one-hour drive—in eastern Colorado, her use of cannabis would have been perfectly legal (under state law, at least) and she would currently be suffering no legal headaches whatsoever. She would also have her son, who was taken by Child Protective Services in March 2015; one of her charges is child endangerment.

The next time you see a headline that reads: “State X legalizes medical marijuana,” get the details. Don’t be duped by a mass media that barely understands THC and cannabis as medicine and lacks an agenda that includes educating its consumers.

Like Facebook and LinkedIn, CNN and NBC News serve their advertisers, not their viewers.

Many States Have Crap Med Pot Programs

Many states are so severely handicapping their medical cannabis programs that the majority of patients will opt to simply stick with the black market. Louisiana, Georgia, Texas, New York, and several CBD-only states are missing the mark. States like California, Oregon, and Colorado have proven that legalization of whole plant therapy, including home cultivation and the right to create derivatives like edibles and tinctures, doesn’t increase crime rates or lead to more high school drop outs.

Until society loses nearly a century of stigma associated with cannabis in the United States, there will be those who assign a negative undertone to the euphoria associated with cannabis and, more specifically, THC.

Is removing THC from therapy and forcing patients into highly-processed, expensive treatments the solution? Is depriving sick children of the THC cannabinoid that, when combined with CBD, can provide such amazing efficacy really an optimal approach?

All text and photos, unless otherwise noted, Copyright © 2003-2018 Gooey Rabinski. All Rights Reserved.

Gooey Rabinski is a technical writer, photographer, and compliance docu

mentation specialist for cannabis businesses who has contributed feature articles to magazines and media outlets such as High Times, CannaBiz Journal, MERRY JANEEmerald Magazine, Grow Magazine, Herb.coThe KindSkunk, Cannabis Culture, WhaxyHeads, Weed World, Green Flower MediaCannabisHealth Journal, Green Thumb, and Treating Yourself.


He is the author of Understanding Medical Marijuana, available on Amazon Kindle.

His cannabis-related freelance photos, spanning back more than a decade, are available on Instagram and Flickr. He tweets from @GooeyRabinski.