PDA

View Full Version : Vermont to Legalize Marijuana



IMPress Polly
02-09-2018, 02:28 PM
So smoking marijuana recreationally will be legal in Vermont beginning this summer (https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/22/us/marijuana-vermont-legal/index.html). The new law isn't controversial either. I support it too. Traditionally, as you may know, I've had my reservations about legalizing drugs just for recreational use (decriminalization, no problem; legalization though I've tended to favor only for consumers, not producers and sellers), but I'm now on board with full legalization. Why? Because of those studies we've seen out of states that have legalized pot. They find its primary social impact has been to reduce cigarette smoking, which is, of course, far more harmful and addicting. Far from being a "gateway drug" to more harmful things, as critics have labeled it, pot appears to, in reality, have more essentially the opposite impact! That's the thing for me. If legalizing weed outright improves public health then I'm all for it!

Cletus
02-09-2018, 02:31 PM
It is still a violation of federal law.

IMPress Polly
02-09-2018, 02:36 PM
I was wondering what objection our forum conservatives could possibly dream up at this point. I knew you'd find one because you have to, as it's something that I posted after all, but I just didn't how what it could possibly be. Mystery solved! Thanks Cletus. :grin:

Safety
02-09-2018, 03:10 PM
But state's rights!

Ethereal
02-09-2018, 03:13 PM
So smoking marijuana recreationally will be legal in Vermont beginning this summer (https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/22/us/marijuana-vermont-legal/index.html). The new law isn't controversial either. I support it too. Traditionally, as you may know, I've had my reservations about legalizing drugs just for recreational use (decriminalization, no problem; legalization though I've tended to favor only for consumers, not producers and sellers), but I'm now on board with full legalization. Why? Because of those studies we've seen out of states that have legalized pot. They find its primary social impact has been to reduce cigarette smoking, which is, of course, far more harmful and addicting. Far from being a "gateway drug" to more harmful things, as critics have labeled it, pot appears to, in reality, have more essentially the opposite impact! That's the thing for me. If legalizing weed outright improves public health then I'm all for it!
I'm glad that you support legalization, but I find your reason for supporting it somewhat nebulous. Why not simply support legalization based on the principle of individual liberty, AKA, agency? My body, my choice, right?

Ethereal
02-09-2018, 03:15 PM
It is still a violation of federal law.
Federal drug prohibition is blatantly unconstitutional and an affront to individual liberty.

IMPress Polly
02-09-2018, 03:24 PM
Safety wrote:
But state's rights!

Aaaah, but you've forgotten that that's only for RED states! The rest of us have no rights in their logic.

Cletus
02-09-2018, 03:30 PM
I was wondering what objection our forum conservatives could possibly dream up at this point. I knew you'd find one because you have to, as it's something that I posted after all, but I just didn't how what it could possibly be. Mystery solved! Thanks Cletus. :grin:

You are not nearly as important as you think you are. I would have responded the same regardless who started the thread.

You made a lot of false statements. I see no need to address those. They will be obvious to anyone familiar with the subject. The main point here is that it doesn't matter if Vermont legalizes it, it is still a violation of federal law. That means that anyone who uses it may be okay in Vermont, but they are not eligible for a security clearance or to own a firearm or any number of other things that go along with being an illegal drug user.

I don't care whether it is legal or not. However, these states that do legalize it are being stupid. What they should be doing is getting Congress to act on it, not their state legislatures. State law can't protect them from violations of federal law.

Cletus
02-09-2018, 03:38 PM
But state's rights!

Article VIAll debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.


This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


Yeah, that damned constitution thing just keeps getting in your way, doesn't it?The legislators who wrote and passed that legislation violated their oaths of office. If you want to be upset about something, be upset about that.

Common Sense
02-09-2018, 03:45 PM
Canada is going through the process of legalizing it nationally. It should be implemented this summer.

I dont smoke it anymore, but it's silly that it was criminalized. It's far less harmful than alcohol both physically and socially. It's also a missed revenue stream and has only profited organized crime.

jimmyz
02-09-2018, 03:54 PM
I was wondering what objection our forum conservatives could possibly dream up at this point. I knew you'd find one because you have to, as it's something that I posted after all, but I just didn't how what it could possibly be. Mystery solved! Thanks Cletus. :grin:

I find it rude to post an OP soliciting discussion and then condemning a member for doing what your OP intended. Maybe PotSmokersOnly.com is the forum for you.

Ethereal
02-09-2018, 04:00 PM
Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.


This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


Yeah, that damned constitution thing just keeps getting in your way, doesn't it?The legislators who wrote and passed that legislation violated their oaths of office. If you want to be upset about something, be upset about that.

The only ones violating the constitution are the ones who think federal drug prohibition is constitutional. It isn't. Not even close. Even the big government progressives who prohibited alcohol back in the early 1900's knew prohibition was not constitutional, which is why they prohibited alcohol via a constitutional AMENDMENT. So where is the constitutional amendment giving the US government the authority to tell individuals and States what drugs are legal and which ones are not? I cannot seem to find it anywhere.

Cletus
02-09-2018, 04:03 PM
Challenge the law in the courts if you believe that.

Ethereal
02-09-2018, 04:16 PM
Challenge the law in the courts if you believe that.
The courts do not have the power to change the plain meaning and intent of the constitution. Only an amendment can do that.

Cletus
02-09-2018, 04:23 PM
The courts do not have the power to change the plain meaning and intent of the constitution. Only an amendment can do that.

The courts have the power to overturn the federal law you are complaining about.

Ethereal
02-09-2018, 06:04 PM
The courts have the power to overturn the federal law you are complaining about.

The States do not need to ask the courts for permission to do what they have every right to do under the constitution.


Kentucky Resolutions by Thomas Jefferson (http://www.uky.edu/~dolph/HIS316/sources/resolutions.html)

Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming as to itself, the other party: That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Green Arrow
02-09-2018, 06:08 PM
I said on these very forums a couple years ago when the first states voted to legalize it that it would just be a matter of years, a decade at most, before it was legal across the U.S. and marijuana prohibition would effectively end. I stand by that prediction.

Cletus
02-09-2018, 06:24 PM
The States do not need to ask the courts for permission to do what they have every right to do under the constitution.

Unfortunately for you, Jefferson, as brilliant as he was not a delegate to the constitutional convention.

Ethereal
02-09-2018, 06:53 PM
Unfortunately for you, Jefferson, as brilliant as he was not a delegate to the constitutional convention.

One does not need to be a delegate to the constitutional convention in order to have a proper understanding of the constitution.

But if a delegate is what you want, will the father of the constitution, James Madison, suffice?


The Virginia Resolutions by James Madison (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-17-02-0128)

...That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact; as no farther valid than they are authorised by the grants enumerated in that compact, and that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties there-to have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the pro⟨gress⟩ of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Ethereal
02-09-2018, 07:10 PM
But state's rights!
The hypocrisy goes both ways.

Liberals only believe in "State's rights" when it benefits them. Otherwise, they are totally against the concept.

gamewell45
02-09-2018, 09:02 PM
So smoking marijuana recreationally will be legal in Vermont beginning this summer (https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/22/us/marijuana-vermont-legal/index.html). The new law isn't controversial either. I support it too. Traditionally, as you may know, I've had my reservations about legalizing drugs just for recreational use (decriminalization, no problem; legalization though I've tended to favor only for consumers, not producers and sellers), but I'm now on board with full legalization. Why? Because of those studies we've seen out of states that have legalized pot. They find its primary social impact has been to reduce cigarette smoking, which is, of course, far more harmful and addicting. Far from being a "gateway drug" to more harmful things, as critics have labeled it, pot appears to, in reality, have more essentially the opposite impact! That's the thing for me. If legalizing weed outright improves public health then I'm all for it!

Think I'll have to cross over into Bennington once this becomes law! :)

Ethereal
02-09-2018, 09:42 PM
Think I'll have to cross over into Bennington once this becomes law! :)
Drug criminal!

:afro:

gamewell45
02-09-2018, 09:58 PM
:evil: