Could Vermont follow the lead of Colorado and Washington and legalize marijuana?
Don’t bet the stash on it. But a handful of lawmakers — including senator-elect David Zuckerman (pictured) — is drafting legislation for the upcoming session to legalize, tax and regulate the green stuff.
Pot reformers in Montpelier have been focused on a more incremental step: decriminalizing marijuana possession in Vermont. But advocates like Zuckerman see the recent votes in Washington and Colorado as giving momentum for legalization — or at least a conversation about it.
Zuckerman, a Progressive/Democrat representing Chittenden County, said he’s asked legislative council to draft a legalization bill and was told by the legislature’s lawyers that “a handful” of other lawmakers had made the same request. Rep. Susan Hatch Davis (P/D-Washington) is one of them, according to Rep. Chris Pearson (P-Burlington), leader of the House Progressive caucus. The others are unknown because the bill-drafting process is confidential.
Zuckerman doesn’t expect legalization — which he prefers to call “regulation and taxation” — to pass this year. But he says it deserves to be part of the broader discussion over drug policy. Employing an agricultural metaphor, the Hinesburg farmer compares his effort to planting seeds that will bear fruit down the line.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
No one’s going to be arrested or harassed or even noticed for smoking pot in the privacy of their own home or their friends’ homes. If you want to smoke marijuana, smoke it. But why are some people so desperate to make smoking pot legal? What’s the big deal about making your hobby legal? You want to be free to toke on Church Street? Why?
It’s not about permission to smoke out in the open. It’s about people who get caught with a small amount of marijuana and then have a record. Criminal records stick around and can cause problems if you’re obtaining professional licenses, or jobs that have criminal background checks. Most of us feel that penalty is out of whack with the crime.
The point is people are being arrested and imprisoned for just that. It’s time to change the laws to a more focused approached to decrimininalization and treatment where needed.
Why should it be illegal? There is no logical reason.
I support full-blown legalization over decriminalization alone for several reasons. In addition to reducing the burden on our criminal justice system for what many (most?) people these days consider to be a trivial offense, legalization would simultaneously shrink the black market for marijuana, stimulate our economy through new (legal, regulated) business opportunities, and greatly increase state revenue through heavy taxation. Basically, legalization would not only keep non-violent, otherwise productive members of society out of jail, but it also stands to seriously stimulate our economy, while hitting foreign drug cartels where it hurts them most.
Put another way, legalization is a sound argument for compassion, for the economy, and for national security. That’s why.
Who was arrested for smoking in the privacy of his or her own home?
Nearly one in every six prison inmates in the federal prison in the United States is serving time for marijuana related offenses. This is a very significant statistic and it reflects on the economic burden that marijuana control has placed on the nation. The number of people in federal prison for marijuana offenses exceeds the number of federal inmates for violence related offenses and quite often violent criminals are set free early or not sent to prison at all because the prisons are full of people who don’t need to be there who never hurt anyone. Fifteen states in America have laws that can lead to life sentence for a non-violent marijuana related offense. The average duration of the sentence of a convicted murderer in the country is about six years. This reveals a serious discrepancy in the way marijuana related non-violent crimes are punished in comparison to violent crimes. As far as smoking on Church St. as a metaphor.. at first, after legalization, we may see some people out of exuberance and immaturity doing their best to blow smoke in our faces but after things settle down and return to normal pot smoking will be no more common than cigarette smoking and no more exciting or less and take place in amore mature and casual way instead of the kinds of scenes we have now because it’s illegal, with people grouping together and toking on one joint and making it all seem so seedy. I’d even go so far as to say that some people might even stop smoking because it won’t seem so cool and out of the main stream anymore. Some probably won’t even start for the same reason. Lots of young people do things just to be spiteful and rebellious and once pot is legal it just won’t seem like so much fun anymore.
Who was arrested for smoking in the privacy of his or her own home or a friend’s home? Who? Name one single person, please.
Its one thing for Vermont to do this. How many people would legalization affect there? I do however support Vermont’s push. Now, what if Illinois did the same thing? There is some talk in Springfield to do just that. They vote on medical mj in January, and at least one member plans to introduce a legalization bill here. But, doing it In America’s Center would send a message far louder though.
Lets just say there is no logical reason you can think of. That doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
There are several describe detrimental health effects (as well as benefical, however there are also benefical effects to most illegal drugs).
Most importantly there is no way to accurately and quickly discern the level of intoxication of an individual.
“Basically, legalization would not only keep non-violent, otherwise productive members of society out of jail”
Umm…no. The guys in jail for pot are not there for firing up a doobie once in awhile. They are more likely there for seeking to profit from the addiction of others…if it weren’t pot it would be some other illegal drug. decriminalizing marijuana isn’t going to reduce this population.
It’s kind of a dumb reason Chris. People get criminal records for breaking the law. If that causes the loss of a job well um…. that’s not really a bad thing. Look at it this way would you hire someone with the mentality that it is ok to break the law if you don’t happen to agree with it? Forget about which law, just the idea that it’s ok to break any law. That’s not the person I’m going to hire, the mentality / morality of the individual suggests they aren’t going to be a good worker.
There are reasons to argue for decriminilization of marijuana but “getting a criminal record” and ” alleviate the corrections system” aren’t two of them.
Further, it’s an academic debate until the feds actually change the law. Until then Zuckerman and the other sponsers have done nothing but waste taxpayers time and money. I think the Legislature owes the people a little more then useless bills that won’t go anywhere, “starting the conversation”, and advisory resolutions.
Please show me where anyone spent significant time in prison for smoking a bowl.
“http://www.whitehousedrugpolic…“
Of note : 0.3% or 3 on 1000 prisoners are in jail for a first offense possession of marijuana. That is ‘possession’ and does not indicate the amount they were in possession of.
This myth that the correctional system is clogged full of people going to jail for smoking a joint is just plain bullshit. They are in possession of larger quantities/selling/ or multiple offenders. And as such they deserve to be in jail.
It would help the legalization crowd so much to actually stick to legitimate and factual arguments. Otherwise it just comes across as paranoid delusion, and trust me… that is NOT helping you cause.
First off, Marijuana is not a physically addicting drug like heroine or other class 1 drugs, to say otherwise is misleading. Second, the reason the United States has the single largest prison population on the planet is largely do to the fact that we arrest and jail non violent drug offenders at a higher rate then any country in the world. You can not argue with the fact that we have more people in jail then in authoritarian countries such as China and Russia. This fact is do to the large number of people we imprison for non violent drug offenses. By changing drug policies you absolutely reduce the number of people in jail. By legalizing and regulating the sale and distribution of Marijuana, you provide a safe and legal venue to purchase and grow Marijuana in state. This actually reduces violent crime by eliminating the flow of money going to the drug cartels, and the illegal smuggling trade into the U.S.. Finally, statistics show that a majority of Vermonters support legalizing, and a large minority of Americans have either tired pot or smoke it regularly. It makes no sense to continue criminalizing this substance which is proven to be less detrimental to society, and less addicting then alcohol. I commend Pearson and Zuckerman for getting behind this, and It is time for the rest of out legislators to get in line with the voters on this issue.
Actually, there is. The state of Washington included standards in its legalization law for measuring the amount of THC in the blood, and is quickly moving to create road side testing procedures.There are a variety of tests out there for measuring your level of intoxication. By legalizing and regulating, this tests will become better, more accurate and more effective at deterring people driving high. Unlike in states which have legalized, in Vermont there is currently no procedure to figure out the intoxication of an individual.
The U.S. has the highest rate of incarceration in the world because we incarcerate non violent drug offenders at a higher rate then any other country in the world. Regardless, the over 100 million Americans who have smoked pot, are in the eyes of the law criminals. Regardless of whether or not you go to jail for getting caught with pot, it can stay on your record and make employment virtually impossible, pushing people further and further to the bottom. This has proven to adversely affect minority populations which are less likely to be given leniency in drug cases
He just listed the facts. I am sorry if you can not accept them because you can not think of an anecdotal story.
The majority of Americans who believe that pot should be legal would disagree that these folks should be in jail. the fact is that over 100 million Americans have smoked pot and buy it from someone. So long as Americans are smoking pot at higher rates then virtually any country in the world, there is going to be an illegal drug trade. The vast majority of dealers would like to become legitimate if the could. No amount of enforcement is going to stop the massive use of Marijuana in this country. For the first time a majority of Americans support legalizing and regulating pot. I am sorry, but you are on the wrong side of history on this issue.
So you think that the over 100 million Americans who have smoked pot should be denied access to employment. That is what you are saying when you make this statement.
There are 2,266,800 people in U.S. prisons. By your own comment, this means that there are 68,004 people in United States prisons for firsts time possession. I am sorry you think that 68 thousand people is unsubstantial but the majority of the american people would disagree with you, especially the family members and friends of those incarcerated.
Yes, if the job is medical worker, or truck driver, or nuclear safety engineer, or . . . or . . . or . . .
But the point is, no one’s going to have a criminal record, or be denied access to employment, FOR TOKING IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOME.
First off, medical opinion is that marijuana IS addicting.
Second, no one ever went to jail, or ever will go to jail, for smoking in their own home.
Actually, virtually every single employer, from the service industry to white collar employers ask for criminal history. It is a basic ask on any employment application. Having a minor infraction such as a possession charge will get you out the running. Lastly, you fail to acknowledge that the majority of people get charged for possession without smoking in public. This is a major issue in NYC, where stop and frisk policies are the norm. It is often the case that police “stop and frisk” pedestrians who have done no wrong other then looking suspicious in the eyes of the police. When they are asked to empty their pockets, they pull out a few grams of pot and are given a possession charge. This issue is well documented. The same can be said for drivers who posses pot in their car and get searched for a minor violation because they look suspicious, and then have to deal with a criminal record. Most people who get caught with pot are not caught smoking openly in public, they are charged with possession because pot is found on them. These people may only smoke in the safety of a home, but still need to transport it from one place to another. You have set up a straw man argument which does not hold up to the reality on the ground. And regardless, in the eyes of the law over 100 million Americans have committed criminal acts by smoking pot, why are we criminalizing what a majority of Americans have accepted as common and normal behavior.
This statement is simply false. I believe you fail to understand the differences between a psychically addicting substance and someone who becomes psychologically addicted to a substance. The medical research on marijuana is that there are no psychically addicting properties, meaning that no one who smoked pot will become physically dependent on the substance and go through withdrawal. like many things, there is the potential of physiological addiction. The same exact thing can be said for video games, the internet, and a variety of other potentially psychologically addicting activities. According to the National Institutes of Health, roughly 15 percent of drinkers are problem drinkers and regular tobacco smoking is almost certain to cause physical dependency. By comparison, a maximum of 10 percent of pot uses become psychologically addicted. I encourage you to watch this video of a former Surgeon General saying that pot is absolutely not addicting.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH…
“The same can be said for drivers who posses pot in their car”
You shouldn’t have pot in your car.
Psychological addiction to pot is a good thing???
Legalization of pot tells our kids it’s ok — go ahead, smoke it if you want to. That’s an inappropriate message. Smoking pot ISN’T good for you.
Do people not transport alcohol in their car legally? Do you not transport alcohol in your car if you drink? How is someone supposed to purchase pot without transporting it in a vehicle or on foot in public? Your argument is ridiculous unless you think no one should smoke pot ever, in which case you are standing against the over 100 million Americans who smoke pot, or the majority of Americans who support legalization.
Neither Is alcohol or tobacco, and yet both are legal. Pot is healthier and far less addicting then both. This has been shown by many scientific studies. You can not od on pot. People become psychologically addicted to video games, exercising, and sex. Should we make these things illegal. The fact on the ground is that despite the war on drugs, more children are smoking pot each year. The just say no approach has failed miserably. It is time to have an honest conversation about marijuana. And regardless, usage among children has never been used to justify making alcohol and tobacco illegal, both of which are far more harmful then marijuana. Your arguments are asinine, and fail to pass the straight face test.
Well, there it is. Anyone who disagrees with you on pot is “ridiculous.”. I guess you win.
What is ridiculous is to say that you think it is ok for people to smoke pot in their own homes but that they should not have it in a car ever. that simply does not make sense. It is one thing to say that you do not think someone should smoke pot ever. To say that it is ok to smoke pot in the safety of your own home, as the writer above stated, and then to say that you should not transport it in a car ever does not make any sense. I again ask how is it possible to smoke pot in your own home without, on occasion transporting it in a car, or on foot in public. Unless you live in a bubble, grow your own pot(which can get you into even more serious trouble), there is no way to smoke pot without bringing it though public spaces on occasion. This is where you are likely to get busted. In all seriousness, can you tell me a way for people to receive pot in their own homes without transporting it though public. The only way is by growing it yourself, or by magic. I again say that it is ridiculous to claim that it is ok for someone to smoke pot in their own home, but should not have it in a car ever. If you would like to argue on whether people should smoke at all, that is an entirely different debate.
why should it not be legal? I can make just as much sense as you by saying that.
You do realize the majority of the pot smoking public are not addicted to that stuff right? Don’t offer me treatment when I rarely smoke the ganja.
Prison? No, I can’t show you that. An overnight in jail and a criminal record? Yup pretty sure I can show you that. It’s victimization over something that is less harmful then drinking alcohol.
Your delusional. Plain and simple. Three people were arrested just the other day for possessing pot. That was their only crime. They was charged with nothing else. I read this in my newspaper. This type of thing is pretty silly. Unless the police blotter is simply lying to me. Your facts are not correct and you quiet frankly seem like a narrow minded moron. I think I am done looking at this website.
No, “he” just said three people were arrested. “Kenny” gave no facts and source. I repeat: name one person who was arrested fro smoking pot in the privacy of their own home when they were doing nothing else wrong?
Also, “Kenny” appears to have smoked a few too many buds and is no longer capable of reading, as his response above, 2 hours ago, to ronj1955, shows. Who says pot isn’t harmful to your health.
Really? You need to drive around the world with pot in your car? Really? Really?
I think what you really want is the freedom not to transport it from your dealer back to your house, but to smoke it in your car.
I was actually referring to Dirt Works comment. Based on the comment of jcarter1 below, there are 68 thousand people in U.S. prisons for first time possession charges. You are again setting up a straw man argument. Even if people only smoke pot in their own homes, they need to transport it from one place to another, be it from the dealer or to a friends house. This is where the majority of busts occur. Very few people are dumb enough to smoke pot in the open where they can get caught. Unless you think that everyone should grow their own pot(which is far more illegal then possession), the only way to smoke in the privacy of your own home is by bringing it through public spaces. Unless of course you believe in magic. Smoking pot in the open VS. at home is a misleading argument. The real issue is people getting caught possessing pot. Many advocates for legalization believe that pot SHOULD be treated like alcohol, where having an open container in public is illegal, but transporting it from point A to point B is not. The people who only smoke in their own homes ARE the ones getting busted for possession charges, whether or not they are actually arrested while at home.
False. I never smoke and drive, and think that those who do should be treated in the same way as drunk drivers. Are you willing to acknowledge that people who only smoke pot in their own homes must buy it from somewhere, and therefor must transport it in their car? You also said previously that you are fine with people smoking in the safety of a friends house. Are you willing to admit that in order to do so they must transport it though public space, where they can get busted? You are making false assumptions and then basing your arguments off of those assumptions. Again, many many people who only smoke at home, get busted for transporting marijuana from point A to point B. These are the exact people you say will never get busted for pot.
That’s great, and once those tests and policiies are in effect then I say the pro-pot group will be in a much better position. But legalizing first is putting the cart before the horse.
Did they go to jail? Are they clogging up the corrections system? please post the link to these these victims and prove I am absurd and a moron… or your illiteracy.
Not at all, but what I am saying is it very well could and some employers will take it into account. There are however plenty of employers that do in fact hire past criminals. Some won’t but clearly, the idea that you can break the law because you don’t agree with it reflects a mentality and ideology that many employers wouldn’t consider. The issue an employer has is the breaking of the law, not what law was broken. Therefore, Pearsons reason is not applicable.
I suspect a very large percentage of that 68,000 were first time offenders caught in possession of LARGE quantities of marijuana as opposed to a dime bag as is the argument most pro-legalization would like to perpetuate.
Also 0.3% could never in anyway be characterized as “substantial” therefore 100 million americans can disagree with me if they like, but they are still wrong.
Bahahhahahhahaha this is the best. Post of the day!!!!!
Getting caught smoking pot can cause adverse employment issues and is responsible for pushing people further to the bottom.
Yes yes… damn cops, always trying to keep a man down.
F**& me! Did you really write that in a serious state of mind. Its getting caught that is the problem? How about breaking the law being the problem? How about smoking an illegal substance being the problem. if little Johnny gets caught smoking weed and loses his job then it is his fault and he suffers the appropriate consequences for his actions. Its not the cops or the lawmakers fault for passing a law he failed to abide.
Look, if testing is solved then I’m for legalizing it. Whatever. But people need to be prepared and not under some grand delusion. A.) it is illegal currently, if you are a user you are breaking the law and will suffer the consequences of your actions. B.) if it is legalized in VT it is still illegally in the federal gov’t’s eyes and any federal agent is obligated to arrest you. C.) if it is legalized a lot of people do not like pot smokers and will likely terminate your employment regardless of the legality of smoking pot. As employment in this state is at will, I don’t want to hear anyone crying wrongful termination.
People need to accept responsibilities for their actions. There is a whole lot of whining and excuse making going on in this thread right now. Man Up!! If you got busted and it cost you your job then you have no one to blame but yourself.
How does someone who is not otherwise breaking any law, get busted for walking to a friend’s house with pot in his pocket? Answer: she doesn’t.
I don’t believe anyone in Vermont ever spent a night in jail for getting caught with a joint or small personal stash. You want to make life sweet for dealers? F that.
In addition, I don’t want my kids smoking pot. Why? Because despite what you potheads want to believe, IT’S NOT GOOD FOR KIDS TO INGEST a hallucinogenic drug. So while I’m urging them not to smoke pot, the State of Vermont pulls the rug out from underneath me by telling my kids it’s ok to smoke pot? That’s exactly the message to kids of legalization: it’s ok to smoke pot. Well, guess what? It isn’t. You can do it if you want, but it isn’t good for you, and I don’t want the State telling the kids of this world: don’t listen to your parents, smoking a pot is ok.
How is it not applicable? He is talking about a real societal problem which affects the ability many many people to find work. A large minority of the population will continue to smoke pot regardless of whether or not it is legal(roughly 41 percent of the american public). By making pot legal and bringing laws in line with societal norms, you no longer have people being denied employment for doing something which the majority of the american public sees as a minor violation at worst. This issue affects low income and minority communities far more then other populations, as it is far more likely that they will be charged to the fullest extent of the law. Consistent denial of employment can lead people to join gangs, and commit worse acts of crime as a means of survival. This has been one of the main issues of legalization and decrim advocates, and should can not be written off as “not applicable”. The U.S. has a long and proud history of Americans refusing to accept unjust laws (prohibition, jim crow, etc.).
Several months ago I was driving through the Adirondacks, when I was pulled over for going about 10mph over the speed limit. The cop for whatever reason decided that I looked suspicious and pulled me and my partner out of the car and searched/questioned us. The cop asked to search my car, I told him no, and he told me that if I refused to a search he would bring in drug dogs and search my car anyway. Thank god I did not posses any Marijuana in my car at that time(which I at times do transport from point A to point B). For a minor speeding violation I could have ended up with a Marijuana charge. I am not someone who smokes pot regularly, or ever smokes in public or on the road, yet I could have ended up with a criminal record. Many other people I know/have read about are not so lucky. But you do not need to take my word for it. In NYC, officially sanctioned stop and frisk polices enable police to search anyone they see as “suspicious”, regardless of whether or not they are breaking the law. People who are doing nocc wrong other then walking to a friends house with a few grams of pot in their pocket end up with a record because a cop makes them empty their pockets. Please do not take my work for it, you can read up on the issues yourself in the article linked below. The issue of people getting busted for walking down the street to a friends house with pot in their pocket has become so bad that Governor Cumo has intervened. Your statement is flat out wrong. Please do your research before making factually incorrect statements.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
Testing has been solved. Washington state, as part of their legalization bill, regulated the amount of active THC a person can have in their blood while remaining below the influence. They instituted accurate testing procedures, to be administered on the road side, in order to judge whether someone is above of below the influence. We can do the same exact thing in Vermont as part of a legalization bill. I am glad that you can now support legalization. Point A.) Yes pot is illegal. Currently, 41 percent of the american public have committed criminal acts. We believe that these people should no longer be treated as criminals. If all of these people had records and were denied employment, then we would not have a viable workforce in this country, and the laws would need to change. as things stand now, minority and low income communities are disproportional targeted and denied access to employment. This creates a situation where many people are led to increasingly more dangerous and illegal activities. If I take your statement at face value, then 41 percent of Americans “should suffer the consequences for their actions” and be denied access to federal loans, and education funds, and have a very difficult time finding employment. Point B.) Yes, pot will still be illegal federally, but the DEA has zero ability to police personal consumption of pot. As of 2007 there were a total of 5,235 federal DEA Agents to police all international drug crime. If we were just talking about U.S. states, that would be 105 agents per state. We are however talking about international policing as well. That is the number of agents who police dealers, manufactures, and transporters for every single illegal substance out there. All policing of individual use is done by local and state cops, who do not have the ability to go against state law for federal enforcement. If Vermont legalizes, there is nothing the federal government can do to enforce personal consumption. Point C.) you can already get fired for smoking pot, nothing about legalization will change that. There will not be more employers testing because pot is legal, and there will likely be less. I am willing to accept what will likely be a slow reduction in the number of employees who are terminated for failing a drug test, if it means pot is legal and people are no longer systemically denied employment for having a violation on their record. Finally, no one is “whining”. We are having a conversation on a serious societal issue which affects tens of millions of Americans and tens thousands of Vermonters. Recent polls have shown that a majority of Americans, and a significant majority of Vermonters support outright legalization. I hope our politics are not so polarized that you would call over half of the state and nation “whiners” because of their beliefs. I have tried to respond to your comments in a significant manor, without personally attacking you. Your comment is offensive, and brings down the level of conversation.
God, you make all kinds of utterly ridiculous, typically liberal bleeding heart assumptions. Everyone who gets busted for pot possession will join a gang, and civilization as we know it will come to an end.
Second, you assume 100 million Americans will never get a job. Well, someof them wouldn’t anyway, which has more to do with why they’re smoking pot than the other way around.
Third, by law some of them shouldn’t have a job, at least in certain functions deemed by society to be too dangerous or critical to be staffed by potheads.
Fourth, some employers may choose not to hire people with criminal records but many won’t. Visit the kitchens of many Burlington restaurants and you’ll find lots of ex cons.
Sorry, but the Puffington Post is hardly the last word on the truth
According to the 2011 Vermont Youth Risk Behavior Study, 39 percent of students have smoked Marijuana. While pot use by teens in Vermont is increasing, despite the war on drugs and the just say no approach, alcohol (a legal substance for those over 21) use has significantly decreased since the 2009 survey. Public campaigns, education, and honest conversation which teens is what is causing this trend. The data has clearly shown that legalizing pot will not significantly increase use by teens. It will likely have the opposite effect. As things stand now, teens find pot more accessible then alcohol. This is due to the fact that keeping pot un-regulated has created a system of illicit dealers who are often very willing to sell to high school students. This issue does not exist for alcohol, where there is a legal outlet to sell to people over the age of 21, and very serious consequences for those who provide alcohol for minors. In this way, legalizing actually reduces the availability of pot. No one wants pot to become easily available to high school students. That is why I would support a significant amount of tax revenue generated by legalization to go towards prevention and treatment programs, specifically targeted at teens. There was language in the Washington State initiative which did just that. Your characterization of legalization advocates as being people who support teen use is misplaced and wrong. No one is saying that pot is good for you, what we are saying is that it is ABSOLUTELY a better alternative, and less addicting then alcohol. I again ask if you believe that alcohol( a more harmful and addicting substance) should be made illegal in the name of protecting our children? I encourage you to look at the website of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of current and previous law enforcement officers who believe our policy on Marijuana is failing the nation. The link is below.
http://www.leap.cc
No one is making claims that “everyone who gets busted for pot possession will join a gang”. I am saying that many will. This trend is well documented and a real societal issue, which we are seriously working to tackle. Perhaps you should know your own assumptions, rather then miss characterizing my argument and then basing your argument on false assumptions. Yes of the 100 million Americans who smoke pot, some will get a job, and some would not get a job any way, but many many Americans who get busted for pot will not get hired simply because of the fact that they have a record from pot. Also of note is that many low income students get denied access to pell grants because they have a pot record. This does nothing to increase the opportunity of well deserving smart students who will not get a chance to go to college because of denial of federal aid for what most consider a very minor violation. Yes, even if we legalize, some employers will still drug test. I while research has shown that pot is less detrimental then alcohol, I would not advocate for preventing employers from drug testing if they choose. There will not be more employers drug testing, and there will likely be less over time. For someone with a name such as knowyourassumptions, you sure do make a lot of assumptions by by calling me a bleeding heart liberal. While my arguments are based on research and facts, you have not brought one piece of data to the table, and have only listed off your own opinions about myself, and your assumptions about pot.
“pot use by teens in Vermont is increasing, despite the war on drugs”
Despite your completely unvalidated “assumption” that it will go down after legalization, I assume just the opposite. When the state in effect tells teenagers that this drug is ok, use will go up, not down.
“The data has clearly shown that legalizing pot will not significantly increase use by teens”
Is this from a peer-reviewed study? There is no sceintific way to show this. Or is your “data” just another opinion from the Puffington Post?
The state is absolutely not telling teens that pot is ok for them to use. Can you name one representative who is saying that teens should smoke pot? What we are supporting is the state saying (through legalization) that pot is not worse then alcohol for people over the age of 21. Again, do you support making alcohol illegal for the same reasons you are against legalizing pot? A far more effective method is to spend a great more money on educating students in the schools. again, alcohol use in schools is declining, while pot use is increasing for many of the reasons listed above. On stop and frisk article, if you would rather read the Huffington post article,.here is the NYT taking about the same issue..you are flat out wrong on people not getting charged fir pot in their pocket.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06…
That was just the first of many news articles reporting on this issue. Here is the NYT if you would prefer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06…
According to the nyt, tens of thousands if mostly latino and African American young men have been arrested for having pot in there pockets and getting stopped and frisked. That is the fact and it is widly reported on by many news organizations.
Will you now admit that people are getting busted fir walking to a friends house with pot? Do you now see that this is a legit issue, or woo you refuse to even read the article?
You may have forgotten, you want to legalize pot in VERMONT, not the Bronx or LA. So, tell us, how many Vermont teenagers from Wolcott or Manchester or Dummerston are going to join a deadly street gang because they got busted for carrying pot? And will it be the Crips? Or the Bloods?
heres what lincoln said
“Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.” people have always sought a way to make them selves feel better and always well wether its legal or not if you dont like it hang with diff people
Lincoln was speaking about the ill advised nature of banning of something that was already legal. He was also speaking in 1860. And he was not speaking of marijuana. You cannot take his quotation out of context and use it for your pothead purpose. By that logic we should legalize everything, including the free street use by kids of LSD, cocaine, heroin, and oxycontin.
“but many many Americans who get busted for pot will not get hired simply
because of the fact that they have a record from pot. Also of note is
that many low income students get denied access to pell grants because
they have a pot record.”
That is absolutely correct. There are consequences to ones actions, pot is illegal and if you choose to break the law there will be consequences for the rest of your life. I find your posts to be encouraging to smoke pot, and that’s a shame because it could costs someone a college education and a good job.
On a similar note you bring up a good point, someone in possession of pot could be denied a FEDERAL pell grant. So when the state of vermont and Mr Zuckerman decriminilize pot, and the Feds do not how man VTer’s will be getting FEDERAL pell grants. A lot less that’s for sure. That is yet one more reason why a state taking it upon themselves to create laws that directly oppose federal statute is ridiculous and the politicians that write them ought to be thrown out.
Thanks Mr. Pearson and Mr. Zuckerman for trying to endanger the ability of Vermonters to get a college education or a federal job.
I respectfully request you drop the issue or tender your resignations.
Wow, elected officials actually considering this issue thoughtfully. This nation and it’s citizens are figuring it out: laws that dictate what someone can and can’t do with their bodies and lives CAUSES death, suffering and the loss of individual liberties. It prevents nothing, other than preventing the sick from seeking help. They pave the way for others to oppress, and the endorsement of laws and policies that result these things places an incredibly scary association with racial and class-based tyranny.
This unfettered waste of taxpayer dollars has already caused MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of your countrymen to suffer and die, and our nation and government to kill other citizens of other nations. There never has and never will be a drug free society. Are we a nation of truly free people if we support a tyrannical law? Who is worse here, our leaders who are afraid of a belligerent oppressor, or the citizen who accepts the ruination of lives? Tell your lawmaker you believe in liberty. Tell them you believe in fundamental human rights to equal protection under the law. Tell them you want this antithesis of liberty removed, and that you will hold accountable all who insist on perpetuating this grossly immoral, grossly murderous, and grossly ineffective law. Tell them you want to protect children by placing the trade in the hands of responsible adults with high incentives to comply. Tell them you support strengthening the laws against impaired driving. Tell them you support tight restrictions on commercial speech because you know companies will be predatory otherwise.
And, tell the ignorant and shallow people you meet that the continually cheesy pot jokes are offensive, just like this article’s author. Tell them their dismissive view is ignoring institutionalized the human rights abuses going on for 40 years or more, and by refusing to take a seriously an issue that’s causing death, they are among the most agregious of violators. People who love this nation and love liberty, it’s time to stand up for what you believe. It’s time to end tyranny against our people.
This very nation was founded on principles that state that laws that oppresses others shall not stand. Defiance of the British monarchy because they were oppressing the colonies was the very inception of the Dclaration of Independence. I’m sorry but I don’t see your idea that lawbreakers are unlikely to be good workers. Lets examine…
And what of the racially disparate arrest and conviction rates for people of color versus whites, who are actually more likely to use cannabis but are far more unlikely to get caught? So, your business model is based on a morality argument, that those who will violate a law they think is immora are not the kind of people you want to hire. OK fine, especially if their conviction is from a predatory act, but by not hiring those with a cannabis conviction, you exclude by design people of color, while allowing whites, who actually defy the law more frequently, to work and thrive, keeping their ‘secret’ from you.
Somehow I think you’ve missed a bit on your theory. Your view, which is one that permeates the uneducated thinking on this issue, results in you hiring a greater percentage of lawbreakers, people who’ve cleverly deceived you into thinking they are something they’re not.
Your not getting it. But I do congratulate your straw man making ability.
Pot smokers violate the law because they think it is immoral … (yeah right)… and that by not hiring criminals one is perpetuating racism…
Somehow I think it is you that have missed a bit on your theory.
As to your point B.) it’s not the DEA I’d be worried about in this state but rather ICE/customs/Federal Marshalls
There are plenty of them.
Lets see, companies hire people who break the law regularly. Those who speed, are convicted with DUI, skipped out on child support, there are lots and lots of lawbreakers in the ranks of the employed.
But you’re right, that’s not what’s at issue here. Your point seems to be more specifically that employers won’t hire someone who smokes pot, because they believe that anyone who would defy a law they see as ‘immoral’ is someone who cannot be trusted. There’s an ounce of truth in there, in that many businessmen will avoid those who use drugs (as verified by a record that says they are). But I don’t share your view of WHY that’s the case. No, nearly every businessperson I’ve encountered (and that’s a regular thing for me) is concerned not about any morality issues, but rather workplace safety, attendant health insurance costs, poor performance and absenteeism. Not one has ever mentioned morality, though I concede there are some employers will fire for tobacco usage. It follows that someone would do the same regarding pot, whether legal or not.
As for me and my straw man arguments, again our country was founded on the very principle of civil disobedience against the British monarchy and their requirement to submit to Britain’s laws and taxation, without the freedom to decide and govern themselves. But there are other instances where citizens openly defied the law they saw as not only immoral, but more specifically, unjust. The civil rights movement, women’s suffrage, The Wiskey Rebellion of 1791-1794, the list is long indeed.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki…
So we are still left with the issue of morality. Leaving aside whether or not your theory (I noted you also opted not to link facts) has merit given your absence of support, I’m curious about what you define as moral. Is it that obeying the law equals morality? Is there any room in your moral compass for considering laws that oppress as immoral? Is it your moral belief that one should always obey every law whether just or not, and that only blind compliance is required for one to obtain moral supremacy?
Somehow I think I missed a few things. I think I missed your limited knowledge of history. Somehow I think I missed your limited understanding of the concept of liberty. Somehow I missed that you appear to not have any meaningful business experience. And somehow I think I missed the glaring appearance that you are merely some desk cop with little more to do than to play on the Internet.
But, all this is of little consequence. Ultimately, prohibition is going the way of alcohol prohibition, because just like back then, people openly defied the law, states refused to enforce it and there was nothing the Feds could do about it.
Side note: those who think Federal law trumps state law, that’s a matter of intense discussion. For those who care to learn more there was a very good panel held on Dec 12, 2012 at the Cato Institute, (http://www.cato.org/events/law… with Dr Mikos, Law Professor at Vanderbilt, and Asa Hutchison, former US Drug Czar. The questions at hand in light of legalization measures in CO and WA were that of Federal Supremacy and state’s prerogatives with the 10th Amendment. Many will blindly invoke supremacy, yet states cannot be compelled to enforce federal law.
The debate then turned to distribution systems. While many think the Feds will target distributors and even state employees who are implementing their state’s laws, it does not constitue a violation of CSA if the employee’s sole purpose is to ensure compliance with state law. The Feds will be left with the few remaining tools they have for their own enforcement: bullying landlords, stealing their assets, sicking the IRS on them. Jury nullification is likely to render all but true black market cases null and void.
The nation continually wonders why cops who should be looking for violent offenders instead spend their time surfing the Internet and trotting out their ‘the law says what’s moral and immoral, and that’s all that matters’ arguments (Hey Straw Man, got brains?) But hey, the asset forfeiture haul from their undesirables in the population should get their paychecks for another pay cycle, and a year end bonus for a real big haul, so all those killers and rapists may carry on at least until the news picks up the story.
“Your point seems to be more specifically that employers won’t hire
someone who smokes pot, because they believe that anyone who would defy a
law they see as ‘immoral’ is someone who cannot be trusted.”
Actually my point is that decriminalizing pot BECAUSE it keeps people from getting a job is an idiotic argument. The point is it isn’t the pot that is keeping them from getting the job but rather the willful breaking of the law.
Its ass backwards. You don’t change the law because it hurts the chance at employment, you change your behavior so you can get a job. It is sad to me that a legislator would suggest otherwise.
“Many will blindly invoke supremacy, yet states cannot be compelled to enforce federal law”
You are correct, but ALL federal law enforcement agents/employess are required to uphold and are bound by federal law. You won’t get busted by the VSP, but ICE/BP/DEA/Marshalls are still required to arrest you. Moreover, federal agents that bust say a distribution system would also be able access all records of those who bought pot and then could still arrest them, cut off college loans/grants and otherwise still impose penalties.
A state legalizing pot is putting the cart before the horse and makes little sense.
Actually, not only are federal law enforcement officers required to enforce federal law, but all state officials in Vermont take an oath of office that requires them to uphold state AND federal law. It is ridiculous, illegal, and contrary to their oath for a Vermont elected official to do something that they know violates federal law — like legalize marijuana.
It is not sound rationale to ban a thing simply because it “isn’t good for you.” Otherwise we should probably make a point to ban alcohol, tobacco, HFCS, soft drinks, and all other forms of junk food. That would certainly put a dent in the prevalence of childhood obesity and early-onset diabetes!
Legalizing marijuana and regulating it such that one must be 21 or older to purchase and / or use would send the message I think you’re keen to send to children, that marijuana shouldn’t be consumed by kids. Is this not a fair argument?
http://www.burlingtonfreepress…¦newswell¦text¦FRONTPAGE¦s
Oh, sure. Let’s make this legal!
this is an extremely divisive and destructive attitude. obviously those who smoke marijuana DO take responsibility for their actions. What they do not take responsibility for, however, are others’ intentional and unwarranted ostracism. i understand that you seek to leverage an idea of unquestioning legal obedience to justify a very stark social division, but you might be willing to entertain a less black and white vision of the world if you could understand the magnitude of problems that it causes. I mean, god, we don’t lynch people for jaywalking either, you know.
legalization tells kids nothing of the sort. in fact, it tells them that our society respects average individual adults enough to let them decide whether or not to ingest a plant that could be grown in the backyard. -and that is a message most likely MUCH less detrimental that the great majority of messages of violence, fear and paranoia to which children are exposed via the cultural apparatuses that we use to pander to their parents.
You’re entitled to your opinion. I don’t know if you have teenagers. I do. And I believe legalization of marijuana tells them that smoking pot is an ok thing to do.
It ISN’T an ok thing for teens to do. Just because people do it doesn’t mean it’s an ok thing for teens to do.