Vermont becomes ninth U.S. state to legalize marijuana

[techbeck]

Vermont became the ninth U.S. state and third in the Northeast to legalize recreational marijuana use on Monday when Republican Governor Phil Scott signed a bill passed by the legislature earlier this month.

 

The law legalizes possession of up to 1 ounce of the drug, two mature plants and up to four immature plants by people 21 and older beginning on July 1. It does not legalize trade in the drug.

 

“Today, with mixed emotions, I have signed H. 511,” Scott said in a statement, referring to the measure by its legislative number.

 

He noted that he had vetoed an earlier version of the bill that would have opened up sales of the drug, saying that a state commission would have time for further study before allowing a retail trade in recreational pot.

 

Neighboring Massachusetts, nearby Maine and six other states have legalized marijuana use as a result of voter initiatives.

 

More....

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vermont-marijuana/vermont-becomes-ninth-u-s-state-to-legalize-marijuana-idUSKBN1FB2VU

 

 

Won't be long before every state has it legalized.  I know it is a topic for a lot of states. 

[DocM]

Until DoJ reverses the Obama-era Federal prosecution suspension.  Marijuana is still illegal under Federal controlled substances law, which has primacy over state law. 

[+Zagadka Subscriber²]

Just now, DocM said:

Until DoJ reverses the Obama-era Federal prosecution suspension.  Marijuana is still illegal under Federal controlled substances law, which has primacy over state law. 

And I've rarely been more into states' rights. And I am generally very into states' rights.

[DocM]

Why do I get the feeling we may see many more nominal liberals re-discovering the 10th Amendment? 

[+Zagadka Subscriber²]

Liberals can be federalists. They should be. Most of the policies that actually impact people are local, anyway.

[DocM]

4 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

Liberals can be federalists. They should be. Most of the policies that actually impact people are local, anyway.

Can be, but the post-1970's versions have been increasingly not.  Often militantly not, which is why they're often vilified in flyover country.

[+Zagadka Subscriber²]

Yea, I'm not even a socialist.

 

The feds should protect rights and safety, the policies should be local.

 

But the same problem is in reverse; conservatives who want larger central government control... everything from immigration, drug policies, abortion, religious issues, pretty much anything. The fact that they support the feds with things like the Patriot Act or even accept Gitmo is disturbing.

 

If people in Iowa don't want pot, fine. We do. It is pretty simple to accommodate both.

[DocM]

10 hours ago, Zagadka said:

Yea, I'm not even a socialist.

 

The feds should protect rights and safety, the policies should be local.

 

But the same problem is in reverse; conservatives who want larger central government control... everything from immigration, drug policies,

Immigration is a Federal responsibility via the Constitution, and a Supreme Court decision going back to 1875.

 

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4

 

“… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”

 

14th Amendment, Section 1

 

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” 

 

The first Federal immigration law was enacted in 1875, and in 1876 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. 

 

Drugs, even if grown/made in the state, still involve interstate commerce at some point and that's Federal. Already been through SCOTUS.

 

Quote

abortion, religious issues, pretty much anything. The fact that they support the feds with things like the Patriot Act or even accept Gitmo is disturbing.

Freedom of Religion, and the practice of same, is guaranteed under the 1st and 14 Amendments.

 

Abortion in the form of Roe v Wade has no legal foundation, even many liberal analysts say it was a bad decision which created law from thin air. Before Roe it was up to the states, and it should have stayed there via the 10th Amendment.

 

Quote

 

If people in Iowa don't want pot, fine. We do. It is pretty simple to accommodate both.

Then repeal the Interstate Commerce  clause  along with most Federal taxation (income taxes are a minority). Then  enforce the 10th Amendment rather than have activists pull those new "law" out of their asses.

Edited January 24, 2018 by DocM

[mudslag]

On 1/24/2018 at 2:56 AM, DocM said:

Until DoJ reverses the Obama-era Federal prosecution suspension.  Marijuana is still illegal under Federal controlled substances law, which has primacy over state law. 

 

 

 

And when Sessions does, this will turn into a State issue and end up in courts. Sessions doesn't have the money or resources to go terminator on marijuana. Over half the country now has legal marijuana in some form and majority of the country is in favor of legalization. This is a lose lose battle for Sessions which is largely why he keeps talking about it but hasn't done anything yet. 

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

On one hand, this provides for an increased revenue from taxation (gotta pay for all that debt somehow!) and a temporary job spike => a short-term economic growth; on the other hand, you get a lazier and less productive population => a long-term risk.

[techbeck]

5 hours ago, Mirumir said:

On one hand, this provides for an increased revenue from taxation (gotta pay for all that debt somehow!) and a temporary job spike => a short-term economic growth; on the other hand, you get a lazier and less productive population => a long-term risk.

Depends on the person really.  I know a lot of people who smoke pot and are very productive.   Senior network admin at my last job did it every day and during work.  He hiked, rode his bike, did a lot of out door activities, and never had an issue with the network going down or things breaking. 

 

Like alcohol, some will abuse it and be lazy asses and not do anything.  Others will be fine.

Edited January 29, 2018 by techbeck

[mudslag]

12 hours ago, Mirumir said:

On one hand, this provides for an increased revenue from taxation (gotta pay for all that debt somehow!) and a temporary job spike => a short-term economic growth; on the other hand, you get a lazier and less productive population => a long-term risk.

 

 

How do you get temporary job spike and short-term economic growth out of this? As long as it remains legal, either medicinal or recreational, there will be businesses serving it. There will also be the growers and all the other types of businesses that revolve around that industry. 

 

As for laziness, that's going to be subjective to the user. There are plenty of people that can smoke and live productive lives. 

Edited January 29, 2018 by mudslag