sell your ride
post your service
sell your stuff
post your class
browse all jobs
post a job
homes for sale
for sale by owner
post your listing
If you're looking for "I Spys," dating or LTRs, this is your scene.
If you're looking for full-on kink or group play, you'll get what you need here.
If 18 year olds should be able to make their own decisions on tobacco, as some Senators have opined, why shouldn't they make their own decisions regarding alcohol?
Are we equating age to judgement? Or are we trying to gauge physical development?
I've heard we ought to restrict alcohol purchases based on age because the brain's prefrontal cortex continues developing until age 25. Meaning, young people may not be well-equipped to make such decisions - and that the decision to consume alcohol would impair some aspects of physical development. If that is correct, does this argument influence legislators' stances on restricting alcohol purchases?
Would the 'progressive-turned-libertarian' Senators be in favor of reducing the drinking age to 18, if they could do so without running afoul of the federal government? Or do they believe alcohol and tobacco purchases should be restricted at different ages?
What should especially scare the Dems is this - unlike 49 other states in the nation, the youth you're rejecting actually have a viable third option.
In other states, Dems can play this game knowing full well they'll never lose socially-liberal youth. Where are they gonna go, to the GOP?
And in VT, where Bernie Sanders' Presidential campaign inspired so much action and enthusiasm - you think those kids won't jump to the Progressive Party? They might not win as many elections, but the Prog Party probably isn't harboring secretly conservative candidates.
I'm not advocating that this happens, by any means. But I hope people like Jill Krowinski and Mitzi Johnson realize this.
Walter Moses, it's fair to say the Dems and Progs will have to choose between people like Cynthia Browning and the few young voters who do choose to stick around in VT after graduating college.
They don't get to keep both.
And this isn't about a purity test - Cynthia Browning's amendments, if included, would have yielded H.170 completely worthless. She may have couched those amendments in a 'concern' for public safety, but all she managed to do was illustrate her total lack of understanding of relevant data from states which have legalized marijuana.
I can't tell my friends, with a real degree of certainty, that the Dems have their back. The platform might reflect VT youth's concerns and values, but the legislators do not. And it seems like the Democratic legislators I genuinely trust and believe in are covering for their more conservative colleagues by not forcing votes on these issues.
In the future, I hope the VDP doesn't support candidates who do not uphold the party's platform or support legislative priorities for a given session.
All Cynthia Browning has accomplished thus far in 2017 is help to ensure that VT youth have no issues leaving the state behind.
Donna - the difference between your claim and Adam's own is that you're employing anecdotes, while Adam is making a reference to a survey of Vermonters.
And Donna, it seems as though the 'spineless' label was directed at certain Vermont legislators. Not you.
I'd mention that you don't have to use marijuana to be in favor of legalization. As someone who has never used marijuana, you too could benefit from a change to its legal status.
Citizen, I gotta say - I really like the trolling. It's nice to have some levity, even when dealing with serious topics like this.
"[If] victims truly wanted to be law abiding and trustworthy, they would not have started using drugs in the first place."
Right, shame on all those people who developed chemical dependency after being legally prescribed opioids.
"This program is just a way for these officials to waste more money and time trying to fix an unfixable problem. The only way to stop the problem is to stop the drugs before they hit the streets."
Wait, just so we're clear - treating addiction as a health issue is trying to 'fix an unfixable problem,' but stemming the tide of all drugs is doable?
"The money this program would cost should be put into education and law enforcement programs."
Do we know what it would cost? This is a study. Furthermore, reaching users in a safe environment seems like a great opportunity to educate about long-term treatment options.
Well, I'm relieved we elected individuals actually interested in serving on the City Council. I guess we all dodged a bullet.
What makes you say that, Timothy?
All Comments »