Ohio Issue 2: the Drug Price Standards Initiative

The war over prescription drug prices has come to Ohio in the form of the Drug Price Standards Initiative, which will be on the ballot as Issue 2.  Depending on who you believe, it will be either “saving Ohio taxpayers millions of dollars … while improving healthcare”  or  “a prescription for disaster”.   In any case, it promises to be the most expensive Ohio initiative ever, not because of its substance, which is not all that consequential, but because of its symbolic significance in the national political fight.

The pharmaceutical industry’s take on this is summed up in the warning included in the SEC 10-K report file by Depomed Pharmaceuticals, under ITEM 1A.  RISK FACTORS:

Although [California] Proposition 61 was rejected, these and other cost containment or price control measures, if adopted at the federal or state level, could significantly decrease the price that we receive for our products and any product that we may develop or acquire, which would harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Thus, to the industry, this is not just about what happens in Ohio.  Passing this initiative would signal to the country that the people are finally ready to act to stem the rising cost of prescription drugs.  The industry is not about to let that happen anywhere.

Michael Weinstein 1

Michael Weinstein

The organization behind this initiative is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), led by longtime AIDS activist Michael Weinstein. This foundation, based in Los Angeles but which has facilities in Columbus and Cleveland, financed the gathering of signatures needed to put the issue on the ballot. Employees of this foundation are identified in the initiative as people with standing to defend it against any legal challenges.

This initiative is almost identical to the 2016 California Proposition 61. After a campaign in which $19 million was spent in support and $109 million in opposition to the measure, it failed, 53% to 47%.  Why AHF thinks they will fare any better in Ohio is beyond me.  However, perhaps that is not the point.

Health care financing in America is a mess.  The system is absurdly complex, beyond the comprehension of a layman like myself.  With all the secret deals, it is almost impossible to find out what is really going on.  Those in power like it that way. Each convolution creates another opportunity for someone to extract more money from the public, and the pharmaceutical industry seems to be at the head of pack.

Perhaps the most egregious example is Turing Pharmaceuticals, under the leadership of former hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli.  They obtained the license for a life saving drug, Daraprim, and promptly raised the price of from $13.50 to $750 per pill.  This is angered everyone.  However, it was entirely legal.  Sckreli realized that although prescription drug prices are rising faster than any other part of health care, the drug industry is actually showing restraint.  He simply acted to maximize his company’s profits.  Most drug industry leaders realize that if they were to fully flex their muscles like this that America would rise up and take away their power.

There is one point that everyone seems to agree on.  Even Ohioans Against the Deceptive Rx Ballot Issue leads their ad with “Ohioans need access to affordable medications.”  The question is what to do about it.

Weinstein’s answer, with the Drug Price Standards Initiative, is to disrupt the status quo.  Thus, Our Revolution, “the next step for Bernie Sander’s movement”, fully supports it.  Against it are PhRMA, any establishment politicians dependent on donations from PhRMA, and most establishment medical associations.

Meet Michael Weinstein

Meet Michael Weinstein

The ads, both for and against, feature the kind of personal attacks that clutter the political landscape these days.  In the mail, I received a flyer supporting Issue 2.   It displayed a large picture Craig Landau, head of Purdue Pharma, “the nation’s #1 opioid drug pusher”; since he is opposing issue 2, we must be for it.   On the other side, those opposed to Issue 2 have an website Meet Micheal Weinstein devoted to exposing the man behind the initiative.  As far as I can tell, they stick to the truth.  However, the worst they can do is label him a “California Healthcare CEO” of an organization which makes “nearly 80% of [its] revenue selling prescription drugs” and “has a documented history of frequently engaging in litigation to advance its interests.”  Evidently, thoughtful, nuanced discussion does not make effective advertising.

You might have noticed that i haven’t yet mentioned what the initiative actually does. It has two main provisions:

  • “Require the State of Ohio … to not pay more for prescription drugs than the price paid by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.”  This mandate would only apply where the state of Ohio was the ultimate payer.  Private insurance plans would not be directly affected.
  • Give the petitioners standing to defend the law against any court challenges, and require the state to cover “reasonable legal expenses”.  If the court rules Issue 2 unenforceable, the petitioners would have to pay the state $10,000.

This second provision assures that the issue would be vigorously defended in court even if the state Attorney General chose not to do so.  Ohioans Against the Deceptive Rx Ballot Issue claims this is “an unprecedented provision granting [the promoters] the right to intervene at taxpayer expense in any legal challenges that may be filed against the measure.”  Ballotpedia analyzed the claim and concluded, “That is correct.

In a teleconference on Oct. 5, Dennis Willard, head of the Ohio Taxpayers for Lower Drug Prices, said that this provision was moot because Attorney General Mike Dewine has promised to defend the issue if it passes.  I have not been able to confirm that Dewine has actually said this.  In any case, this is a sidelight, a diversion from the main point.

The main question is whether this initiative would lead to a substantial savings.

The Veterans Administration (VA) pays 20% to 24% less than other agencies for prescription drugs.  If the state of Ohio would pay that same price, it would save around $400 million each year.  This is simple math.

However, the American health care finance system is anything but simple.   In particular, drug prices are negotiated, and these agreements often prohibit public disclosure.  Although the VA publishes a 17,000 line spreadsheet of pharmaceutical prices, the prices that the VA actually pays are not generally available to the public.  Thus, the central mandate of Issue 2 might not be strictly enforceable.  Nevertheless, the savings would still be substantial even if Ohio was only to achieve the published price.

Ohioans Against the Deceptive Rx Ballot Issue make the following assertions:

Issue 2 won’t fix the problem. In fact, it’ll make things worse. It could lead to: •

    • logoHigher Drug Costs

    • Reduced Access to Medicines
    • More Red Tape & Bureaucracy
    • Negative Impact on Veterans

Michael Weinstein has discounted these possibilities, saying that “such dire scenarios will only come to pass if pharma chooses to hurt the public rather than accepting lower profit margins for drugs on some insurance plans”.

How likely is it that the drug companies, after spending over $100 million to defeat the measure in California and some similarly gargantuan amount in Ohio, would placidly accept lower profit margins?  Investors evaluate the performance of executives based on their ability to increase profits; those executives who accept lower profits will be replaced. If Ohio attempts to derail their gravy train, big PhRMA will make damned sure that nobody else wants to follow its example.

Issue 2, by itself, does not change the power relationship that Martin Shkreli so callously exploited.  These prices still have to be negotiated, and big Pharma, on the other side of the table, has no interest in making this initiative a success.  Since the VA price would become the price for the state as well, some drug companies might choose to raise VA prices.  This would have a “negative impact on veterans.” Alternatively, drug companies could refuse to sell to the state at the low VA price, making some drugs unavailable through those agencies.  This would “reduce access to medicines.” Another threat is that the drug companies could simply make up the lost revenue by raising prices for private payers in Ohio, leading to “higher drug costs.”

Thus, each of the “could lead to” assertions by the Issue 2 opponents could turn out to be true. Of course, these result not directly from Issue 2 but from the actions of the drug companies, actions that the drug companies can take whether or not Issue 2 passes.

The California Legislative Analyst provided an analysis of Proposition 61 concluding:

If adopted, the measure could generate annual state savings.  However, the amount of any savings is highly uncertain as it would depend on (1) how the measure’s implementation challenges are addressed and (2) the uncertain market responses of drug manufacturers to the measure.  As a result, the fiscal impact of this measure on the state is unknown.

I have not found a similar state analysis of Ohio Issue 2, but it would come to the same conclusion.

Health care financing in America is a mess.  After November, it will still be a mess, whether or not Issue 2 passes.  Whether Issue 2 passes or not, another similar initiative will appear in the near future in a different state.  It is a national problem.  It cannot be solved at the state level.

I will vote in support of Issue 2 even though I do not expect passing it to result in substantial savings.  I support the long term goal of fixing health care financing in this country.  Defeating big PhRMA would be a giant leap toward that goal, not because of the content of this initiative, but because it would change the political landscape.  Even if it fails, having Issue 2 on the ballot raises awareness of the problem:  something must be done about the rising cost of prescription drug prices.

And, or course,  it’s possible we could win.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Russ Hurley for Congress in 2018 (Ohio’s 2nd Congressional District)

Ohio's_2nd

The voters of Cincinnati have been carefully divided up into two congressional districts, both of which are reliably Republican.  The gerrymandering is particularly obvious in the 2nd district, which reaches to Pike County, roughly 100 miles away from the carefully carved appendage slicing through Cincinnati and Hamilton County.

Currently, this district is represented by Brad Wenstrup, a tea partier who beat the incumbent Republican in the 2012 primary.  Unlike many tea party types, Wenstrup is no lightweight.  A former pediatrician, he is intelligent and articulate.  He runs a very professional congressional office.  His campaign already has a half a million dollars on hand. Given all of the advantages of incumbency and the demographics of the district, whoever runs as his opponent is sure to be a long shot.

In order to win in this district, the Democrats need to step outside their usual box and give the voters something to be excited about in an off-year election.   In my opinion, there is one issue that can generate that excitement: the legalization of marijuana.

Teapot RussMany Years ago, when I was smoking pot regularly, I assumed that when my generation came to power, marijuana would become legal.  Belatedly, this is starting to happen.  It has been legalized in a few states, and many more, including Ohio, have approved if for medical use.  However, the federal government still classifies it as a Schedule I drug, putting it along side heroine and other highly addictive drugs.  It is time end this prohibition at its source, through national legislation.  A Quinnipiac poll says that most Americans (60% to 34%) agree “that the use of marijuana should be made legal in the U.S.”  This is a winning issue.

In the 2016 Democratic primary, there was one candidate for congress who put the marijuana issue front and center: Russ Hurley.  This is why I endorsed him then. Now, he has started an on-ine campaign for the 2018 primary and asked me to endorse him again.

King Court 2Since that primary, I have had the opportunity to meet Russ at his place of business: the King’s Court Master Barber & Shoe Shine Service.  I have not seen him address a crowd, but he strikes me as a down to earth guy who might appeal to the stereotypical Trump voter in a way that Wenstrup, with all his polished professionalism, might not.

I like candidates who let you know where they stand.  Hurley has done this, publishing his “top 10” issues.  Since this blog is about my point of view,  here is what I think of each or Hurley’s points:

  1.  Legalize industrial hemp and marijuana adding trillions of industrial $$$ into our economy. Saving 100s of billions on law enforcement. Eliminating the need for many prison cells across the nation. Close private for profit prisons and re-purpose them for indoor agricultural use making them more profitable for owners and providing even better jobs to the communities in which they reside.

One might question the wisdom of putting the marijuana issue first: we clearly have other important issues facing our nation.  However, the legalization of marijuana is what distinguished Hurley from the rest of the field in the previous primary, and it makes good sense to put this first.

Closing private, for profit prisons is a separate issue.  Even if we succeed in legalizing marijuana, the current Attorney General seems bent on incarcerating our way through the current opioid crisis, which will generate plenty of new prisoners.  America already jails a larger percentage of its population than any other developed nation.  This is horribly misguided.  Furthermore, we have a history of using prisoners for profit, and it is ugly.  We need to stop this now.

However, once we close the private prisons, we do not need to be directing the owners in how those facilities will be used.  Free market entrepreneurs excel at producing wealth from existing assets; they should not need our guidance.

2. Create a living wage increase commensurate  with CEO to minimum wage pay scale from the 1960s and double military base pay.

The increasing inequality in the distribution of wealth in our nation threatens the very foundation of our society.

I support increasing the minimum wage as one step in addressing this problem.  Seattle has set it at $15.00 an hour, which seems reasonable target to me.

As for military base pay, I do not know what is reasonable.  Currently, a Private (E1) with less than 2 years of experience earns $19,198.80, which is what someone earning $9.60 an hour would make working 40 hours a week for 50 weeks a year.  Clearly, the base pay should be increased if we are increasing the minimum wage.  Doubling it seems over the top.

The growth in CEO wages in the last few decades has been obscene; we cannot simply replicate this obscenity throughout our society.  “Commensurate with CEO to minimum wage pay scale from the 1960s” might sound fair, but as near as I can tell, this would put the minimum wage somewhere in the neighborhood of $80 an hour.  This is ridiculous.  Hurley, using different sources, thinks it would be about $28 an hour.  Still ridiculous.

3.  Equal rights at work (equal pay) or home (marriage) and at the doctors  for all people (ALL MEANS ALL) in the USA.

In the bathroom too, although I think it’s fine that he didn’t mention that.

4. Create high speed rail and help update and improve inner city public transportation.  

We need major improvements in our transportation infrastructure.  However, it seems strange to emphasize high speed rail and inner city problems given the district that Hurley seeks to represent.

5. Return retirement age back to 65.

I oppose this.  We are living longer, healthier lives.  I think it reasonable to move the “official” retirement age up, as is happening now.   However, since I myself retired early, you may call me a hypocrite.

A more important improvement to Social Security concerns the earnings cap on the tax used to support it: this should be raised.

6.  Fix immigration with a true path to citizenship. provide better border security by creating more military bases across our border to keep terrorists out.

I support a quick path to legal status for people who are here.  This is much more urgent than the long term path to full citizenship.

Border security is problematic.  While it is plausible that some minuscule fraction of the people entering this country illegally are terrorists, this threat is magnified beyond all reasonable sense of proportion by our politicians.  Trump’s giant wall will not help much; nor will Hurley’s army bases.  This should not be on the high priority list.  We already waste more than enough money on security theater.

7. Strengthen and expand the A.C.A. until single pay comes for a vote.

Here, I think Hurley has exactly the right approach.

8. Eliminate corn subsidies for ethanol replacing corn with hemp, leading towards 100% renewable, cleaner, cheaper and closer to home energy sources.

I know Russ thinks hemp is more efficient than corn as a source for ethanol.  This might be true.  However, there are lots of ways to produce ethanol, and corn is clearly not the most efficient choice.  Thus, I agree that we should move away from corn subsidies.

I think the government has a role to play in subsidizing the production of ethanol from renewable sources.  I would prefer to support multiple options, rather than have the politicians choose their favorite.

9. Fund adult and child education building new schools.

We need to spend more on education.   However, I don’t think providing buildings is the best way to involve the federal government in this.  So here, I agree with the goal, but perhaps not the specifics of the proposal.

10. Expand wind and solar power, updating our power grid to eliminate the 30% lost energy every day.

Improving our electric grid is a major priority.  Efficiency and flexibility are needed to make use of these newer, less predictable, power sources.

We also need to protect it from cyber attack.  I think there are vulnerabilities here that the government could help address.

Thus, my judgment on Russ’s top 10 issues is mixed: I am enthusiastic about some of them, other I find  are too strident.   In my opinion, there are also a few things missing from this list:

  • Paying for it all.  Politicians talk only of benefits, never of costs.  Several of the objectives that Russ lays out cannot be reached without allocating the necessary financial resources.  This money has to come from some place.  There are several options available: borrowing the money, reducing the amount spent on defense, or taxing people who have money.  If Hurley is going to be specific on these priorities, he needs to be prepared to talk about how they are going to be funded.
  • Simplifying the tax system.  As long as our system is so complex and littered with so many loopholes, arriving at a fair method of taxation is impossible.
  • Providing good government, compromising when necessary to move us closer to our long term goals.  In normal times, this would not even be worth mentioning.  However, today there are politicians who take pride in their obstinance. As a result, our politics has become toxic and dysfunctional.  Our constitution was founded on compromise.  We need representatives in congress committed to making our democracy work.

Hurley

So often, campaigns are based on platitudes so broad and bland that it is impossible to have anything constructive to say about them.  Russ Hurley has stated positions that are clear and specific enough that I can have an opinion.  I appreciate this.  That my opinion differs from his in several points does not upset me; since I think for myself, it is inevitable.  I can endorse a candidate who is ready to lead us in what I perceive as the right direction, and is able to analyze problems, and evaluate proposed solutions. What I am concerned with is that he is pointing in the right direction and is able to think things through.

This brings me back to issue number 2, concerning the minimum wage.  What Hurley proposes might sound fair, but I don’t think he has thought this through at all.  Hurley’s position is so far over the top, so impractical, that I question whether  he can be taken seriously as a candidate.  I cannot endorse such lame thinking.

In 2016, I moved from one part of Cincinnati to another, crossing that carefully gerrymandered line.  So I longer vote in the 2nd congressional district.  However, if I had the opportunity, I would seriously consider voting for Hurley, despite my misgivings.

Did I mention that he supports the legalization of marijuana?

 

 

Russ Hurley for Congress (Ohio’s 2nd Congressional District)

Ohio's_2ndIn Ohio, the second congressional district has been gerrymandered to be reliably Republican.  It combines a sliver of Cincinnati, where I live, with large rural counties in southern Ohio, stretching over 100 miles away.  No matter who wins the Democratic Primary, Brad Wenstrup, the Republican incumbent and Tea Party favorite, will probably win reelection.  However, there is reason for hope: this has been a strange election cycle.

There are three declared candidates in the Democratic Primary: Russ Hurley[3], Ronny Harrison Richards[3], William Smith[3].

OCT12_Smith

 

Truck driver William Smith has represented the Democrats in this race before. In 2012, he won the primary despite having no discernible campaign. (How did this happen?)  He seemed to be base his appeal on common sense, but he didn’t seem to have any.  After being nominated, Smith continued to not campaign, with the predictable result in the general election. In 2014, Smith declared again, and came in a close third in the Democratic Primary with almost a quarter of the votes, despite not actually doing anything to campaign.  Again this year, he is not campaigning.  Apparently, he just likes to see his name on the ballot.

 

RichardsRonny Harrison Richards also participated in the 2014 primary, coming in second, beating the invisible Smith by less than a percentage point.  He seems to me to be a traditional liberal Democrat, showing strong support for unions, for women’s equality, and for protecting the environment.  If he wins the nomination, the Democrats, presenting essentially the same familiar message, will loose again.

HurleyThe only candidate with a reasonable hope of taking advantage of the shake up that seems to be going on in this crazy election cycle is Russ Hurley. I say this for one simple reason: his top priority is legalizing marijuana. If last year’s ballot initiative legalizing marijuana had not been such as blatant money making scheme, it probably would have passed. Ohioans, even the conservative rural voters of southern Ohio, are ready to end the prohibition of marijuana, and a candidate who makes this a cornerstone of his campaign is likely to attract a lot of attention.

Teapot Russ

So I am joining Willi Nelson and the TeaPot Party in enthusiastically endorsing Russ Hurley for Congress.

 

 

Legalizing Marijuana in Ohio

marijuana-leaf-joint-140423

Back in the 70s, when I was smoking a lot of pot, I assumed that it would become legal once the baby boomers gained political power. However, instead of being legalized, this drug which I had found to be relatively harmless remains listed as a Schedule I controlled substance, prime target in that international catastrophe called the War on Drugs.

According to a Quinnipiac Poll, over half the voters in Ohio favor allowing adults “to legally possess small amounts of marijuana for personal use.”  Given this, you would think that some opportunistic, politically astute legislators would get to work on a bill to do just that.  However, this does not seem to be about to happen any time soon.  Fortunately, Ohio has a remedy for such inaction: the ballot initiative.

Some entrepreneurs looked at this situation and saw an opportunity.  Following the lead of Colorado and Washington, they put together a ballot initiative to legalize marijuana.  Like the entrepreneurs who managed legalizing casino gambling in Ohio, they crafted a document that would give control over the industrial production of marijuana to a limited few, who happen to be those who sponsored the ballot initiative.  They formed an organization,  called “ResponsibleOhio”, consisting 10 investors or partnerships who each put up $4 million, mostly to fund the campaign.  They succeeded in collecting enough signatures to get the issue on the 2015 ballot, where it will appear as Issue 3.  If the initiative fails, they stand to loose a bundle, but if it passes, they get a huge payoff.  If you were an investor used to backing startups, this might appear to be a good opportunity.

Issue 3 Illustrtion

                                                    Summary from the Toledo Blade

Except for the crass attempt to grab financial control over the new industry, ResponsibleOhio has crafted a thorough and reasoned solution to a very complex problem. Key to their approach is the establishment of a new state agency, the “marijuana control commission,” to regulate the new industry.  The ballot issue explicitly addresses medical marijuana, retail establishments, taxes, and a host of other concerns.  Of course, banking services for this semi legal industry will be problematic, and if the federal government decides to put its foot down, all this is for naught.  However, in general Issue 3 appears to leave enough flexibility in the new commission and in the legislature to enable Ohio to successfully manage the change.

In contrast, one can look at the document put forward by “Responsible Ohioans for Cannabis”, which seems to be the stoner’s version of marijuana legalization.

Driving Under the Influence

This problem is bad enough with alcohol.  People don’t want to have a significant increase in accidents caused by driving while under the influence, whatever the drug involved.

In Washington state,  the framers of the legalization initiative addressed this issue by specifying the amount of THC that a driver could have in his blood stream and still drive legally: 5 nanograms per milliliter.  This is so low that many saw it as a way to re-criminalize the medical marijuana.

The “Responsible Ohioans for Cannabis” draft takes the opposite approach:

“Drug testing for cannabis metabolites is prohibited for any purposes, and if any are found through medical testing, it still may not be used as proof of current intoxication, since there’s currently no accurate way to determine that.”

Evidently, theses guys see no reason to coddle the up-tight drivers of Ohio.

The version actually on the Ohio ballot addresses the problem by declaring it illegal to drive or operate heavy machinery while under the influence of marijuana, and mandating that the General Assembly write laws to enforce this.  Since this, like all direct ballot initiatives in Ohio, is an amendment to the constitution, it is reasonable to allow the legislature some authority in the details, like setting the legal limits for THC in the blood stream.  I have not encountered any complaints about this part of the amendment.

Enhanced Penalties for Selling to Minors

This is a complex ballot initiative.  The summary that appears on the ballot is over a page, and the one provided by Yes On 3 is much longer.  There is one detail that the Republicans in charge thought not important enough to include on the ballot, but concerns people who deal with teenagers, especially in the minority community.  It increases the penalties for selling marijuana to minors, adding “child endangerment” to the offense.

Of course, most of those selling to minors will be minors themselves.  So the proposed amendment doubles down on the failed strategy of trying to control the black market by putting more people in jail, though it limits the target to the young.  This seems mean-spirited, and it is sure to have negative consequences.

I would like to see this language changed.  Unfortunately, one of the problems with a ballot initiative is that it is very brittle.  You cannot amend it.  You have to take or reject the whole thing.

The Opinion of Pro-Legalization Groups

In general, I have no quarrel with speculative investors trying to get a return. However, I cannot stomach using the Ohio Constitution as fodder for an investment scheme.

I am not alone.  The Green Party, which states “Cannabis/Hemp is to be legalized, regulated and controlled like cigarettes and alcohol”, opposes Ohio Issue 3 “exchanging an illegal cartel, for a legal one, representing the worst of cannabis capitalism.”  Likewise, the Libertarian Party, which proclaims that “It’s time to re-legalize drugs and let people take responsibility for themselves”, calls Ohio Issue 3 “a crony scheme to line the pockets of a few wealthy investors.

Other organizations find themselves somewhat reluctantly supporting the issue as it stands.    NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) endorsed the issue with a caveat: “The board expressed concern over investor-driven initiatives where the investors will profit from the passage of the initiative.”  Similarly, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), which led the drive to legalize marijuana in the state of Washington, has come out in support of the issue, arguing, “This may be our last chance for years to come.”

It is time for the Ohio chapters of the ACLU, NORML, the Green Party, and the Libertarians to get together and craft something they can all support.  These groups are not used to having enough political power to get anything done, and consequently, not used to having to compromise.  However, as long as the pro-legalization community remains fragmented, Issue 3 might be the best we can hope for.

Issue 2

Remarkably, the Ohio legislature did take one action in response to the this initiative: they adopted a Proposed Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit constitutional amendments setting up monopolies or cartels such as the one in Issue 3.  Significantly, this is before the voters as Issue 2 If both Issue 2 and Issue 3 pass, we have a conflict. The framers of Issue 2 are in power.   They claim to have crafted their amendment so that it would take precedence over Issue 3 and “prohibit from taking effect any proposed constitutional amendment that appears on the November 3, 2015, state-wide ballot creating a monopoly, oligarchy, or cartel for the sale, distribution, or other use of any federal Schedule I controlled substance.”

Welcome to direct democracy.  What a mess.

My Vote

For myself, this is a painful decision.  I adamantly support legalizing marijuana, but I am angered by the blatantly corrupt constitutional amendment that is before us.  I am tempted to vote for both Issues 2 and 3, hoping they both pass and letting it get sorted out in the courts.  The phrase “careful what you wish for” comes to mind.

I have concluded that giving special privileges to a select few is destructive to our democracy and that the people of Ohio can come up with a better proposal to legalize marijuana.  I will Vote NO on Issue 3, YES on Issue 2.