Ohio Voters Choose Economic Fairness Over Legalized Marijuana

Voters in Ohio Reject Marijuana Legalization Amendment - New York Times

Ohio Now a Battleground State For Marijuana - CBS News

Ohio Marijuana Legalization: Investors Insist There's No Monopoly - CNN Money

On Election Day, Ohio decisively voted against a statewide measure, called Issue 3, that would allow for the use of marijuana for both medicinal and recreational purposes throughout the state. At first glance, it seems as if this is a loss for those in favor of legalizing marijuana. They believed that if Ohio, a political battleground state, were to legalize marijuana, other states would follow. However, this issue is not as black and white as legalization has been in many other states.

Prior to Election Day, polls done in Ohio had shown that the majority of Ohio citizens were in favor of legalization, so why was it voted down? The reason it was rejected had to do with its economics and the issue of monopoly. Issue 3, while legalizing the use of marijuana, would have put huge limits on its sale. If it had been passed, only marijuana grown from 10 farms (which are operated by the 25 investors who funded the measure and its campaign) could be sold. Citizens would be able to grow marijuana for personal use, but they could not sell it. Many people, including those in favor of marijuana legalization, campaigned against the measure due to the monopoly it would give these investors. Instead of allowing a free market to emerge, passing Issue 3 would lead to a few wealthy investors controlling the entire marijuana economy in the state, which they can manipulate for their own gain. Although they want marijuana legalized, they believe it would be better to wait for a new measure that discourages monopoly in the industry to be passed. On the other hand, people in favor of the measure argue that 10 competing farms is not a monopoly and that they deserve to have a lot of power over the marijuana economy, due to their important roles in getting it legalized and all the money they spent (which totaled to over $20 million).

If you were an Ohio voter who favored the legalization of marijuana, would you vote against Issue 3 because of its economic issues? Do you consider the power the investors would have had over the marijuana economy to be a monopoly, even if there are 10 separate farms competing? Is the control given to the investors by Issue 3 unfair, or is it justified?

GOP Debate Debacle

Last Wednesday night, October 27th, The GOP presidential debate featuring the top Republican candidates came to an end with many people around the country asking questions about the “questions”. The Republican presidential candidates were very critical on the way the CNBC moderators handled the event. The moderators were supposed to be responsible for facilitating the debate by helping open the door on certain topics so the American viewers could become more acquainted with those who are running, and get a feel for their respective agendas. However, that night some “personal” questions were posed by the CNBC moderators, most of which were embarrassing to candidates, showcasing them in a bad light.

The Republican’s felt that many of the important questions referring to the country's future that were asked in the democratic party debate were eluded. GOP candidate Ben Carson was among those disappointed with CNBC and expressed his concerns saying, “We need a change of format. Debates are supposed to be to 'get to know the candidates,' what is behind them. What it has turned into is a gotcha." ‎Another Candidate who found the questions frustrating was Carly Fiorina who was repeatedly bombarded with questions about remarks she made previously about planned parenthood. After the debate she criticized the “liberal media” for their lack of questions geared to address the more posing issues a president elect might face. Brian Steel, CNBC's senior vice president for public relations, later responded to complaints from the Republican party standing by the moderators' performance saying, "People who want to be President of the United States should be able to answer tough questions." The Republicans were furious claiming that the moderators intentionally gave them “useless” questions, while the Democrats were given questions more relevant to the major issues during their debate. To address their concerns, the Republican’s have decided to abandon CNBC and have scheduled their next debate to be hosted by Fox Business on November 10th.

Were the CNBC moderators within their bounds to ask questions that focused primarily on the personal issues of candidates, placing them in difficult situations? Was it ok for the Republicans to lash out against the moderators for eluding the important questions asked during the Democratic party’s debate? Is the GOP’s action to leave CNBC for Fox business in the next debate justifiable? Did the political bias of CNBC have anything to do with the entire ordeal?

California Governor Gavin Newsom Chooses to Favor Tighter Gun Laws

San Francisco Chronicle Article Regarding Guns vs Marijuana

2016 California Gun Law on the Ballot

     Lieutenant Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, stood outside of the scene of a "1993 shooting incident that left eight people dead" and pledged to support a 2016 California ballot measure that would strengthen California's already tough assault weapon's policy. Newsom has traditionally been strongly in favor of laws that allow for legal Marijuana use in California. While he “he still supports legalizing marijuana”, his shift in policy support is most likely directly tied to his campaign for reelection in 2016. Newsom has carefully chosen which alliances to keep, reasoning that it is more important to support gun restraint than Marijuana legalization. The proposed gun law “measure will ban possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines, require licenses for ammunition dealers, call for background checks for anyone buying ammunition, make it easier to confiscate weapons from people not allowed to have them and require people to report lost or stolen guns.” Newsom’s newfound support for gun restraint, possibly in lieu of major tragedies that have recently occurred, poses a threat to avid supporters of the 2nd Amendment while also helping him gain voters in favor of gun control.

     Do you think it is more important to support Marijuana legalization or gun restraint laws? Do you think it is unconstitutional for the proposed gun law to enact the restrictions mentioned above? 

Clinton Raises More Questions During Benghazi Hearings

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/22/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi-hearing-updates/

 An 11 hour hearing (the second so far) concluded on October 22nd regarding the questionable emails sent by Hillary Clinton about actions in Benghazi. As a result of a Romanian hacker breaking into a private email server on Clinton's property, emails were released showing that Clinton may not have done as much as she could to save the American ambassador and soldiers that died in Benghazi. Soon after, Clinton released 30,490 "work" emails, maintaining that she did this "out of an abundance of being transparent." However, 31,830 "personal" emails were deleted as well. Both Democrats and Republicans presided over her hearing, with Democrats in support of Clinton's good intentions and Republicans demanding answers for questions they feel are still unanswered. Whatever the case may be, implications for her campaign are huge as people feel that her integrity is severely lacking.

 Is it a violation of Clinton's right to privacy if she is condemned for things taken from her without permission? Are Republicans right to ask what Clinton had in her personal (and now deleted) emails? Or, did she even have the right to delete them in the first place after the hack, possibly knowing that they would come up later?

Who Will be the Next Speaker of the House?

            A few weeks ago, John Boehner surprised everyone and announced that he is retiring from Congress. This came unexpectedly even though many conservatives, especially the Tea Party wanted him out. The big question now is who will be his successor? For a while, Kevin McCarthy was thought to be the front runner, but he eventually withdrew his bid. That leaves Republican Paul Ryan as many conservatives' favorite. Paul Ryan is 45, popular, and even members of the Freedom Caucus (some of the most conservative members in Congress) said they would willingly support him. The fact that the Freedom Caucus is supportive of Paul Ryan is very interesting, considering they were part of driving Boehner out of Congress, and blocking McCarthy as a candidate.
            It seems as though Ryan has everything falling into place, and is a contrast to Boehner in many ways. He presents a fresh face, who is young and more lively. He has even made sure that if he does become Speaker of the House some things change, like not letting a single member of the House be able to file a motion to remove the Speaker.

Even with the support of the Republicans, do you think that the conservatives will try and use him as a puppet to get what they want, a similar force that drove out Boehner? If he wins, do you think he will try and compromise with Democrats to get work done, or will he be intimidated by the conservatives? Finally, what is your thought on how well Paul Ryan will be as Speaker of the House?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/us/politics/house-gop-factions-lining-up-for-paul-ryan-as-speaker.html

Ben Carson Makes Racist Comment

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/22/ben-carson-cant-change-subject-after-contentious-muslim-remark/

When asked if the candidates faith should matter to voters, presidential candidate Ben Carson had a very controversial reply. He said he believes faith matters and that the faith must be consistent with the constitution. Carson then escalated his statement by saying “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” Carson's comments infuriated thousands, prompting many Muslims to voice their anger. The candidate was asked to clarify and further discuss his statement on several occasions the following week. As we have discussed in class, candidates can ruin their entire campaign with just one comment. 

Do you think Carson's comments will have a negative or positive effect on his candidacy? Do you believe a candidates' faith should be important? Will the United States have a Muslim President in the next 50 years?

Marco Rubio’s Energy Policy Centers on Drilling and Reversing Obama Rules

Recently, Senator Marco Rubio stated a new energy policy that would be heavily based on drilling and hydraulic fracturing which would ultimately diminish Obama's previous environmental gains.  Rubio discussed an immediate start to move forward with the Keystone XL oil pipeline to allow the extraction of gasses buried in Salem and other places. Rubio claims that "the hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of natural gas and oil underneath the ground are doing the people of Ohio no good pent-up in shale rock.”  Rubio's speech emphasized that extracting these natural resources would lead to less pollution because it would allow for the creation of wind and solar powered devices. However, this plan would reverse Environmental Protection Agency regulations in order to receive this gas.  He goes on to say how little progress Democrats such as Hillary Clinton are making because they constantly oppose economic advancements.  Furthermore, he says “If we elect Hillary Clinton as president, an outdated leader who believes President Obama’s restrictions haven’t gone far enough, who believes that energy policy is more about trying to change the weather than it is about empowering our people — then we will miss out on one of the greatest economic opportunities of this century.”

Do you believe that Rubio is moving in the right direction in implementing oil drilling?  What is more important, in your opinion, economic progress or saving the environment?  Is it important to note that Rubio made this speech in Ohio because it is a major swing state in the election?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/marco-rubios-energy-policy-centers-on-drilling-and-reversing-obama-rules.html?ref=us