Vermont: Leaders Unsure Marijuana Legalization Can Pass In 2016

[Robert Celt]

The future of a bill to legalize marijuana is very much in doubt on this first day of the 2016 session. House Speaker Shap Smith says there are still many outstanding questions about the plan, and he doesn't think it's ready for a full debate at this time.

At the end of the 2015 session, many backers of a bill to legalize marijuana were optimistic that their legislation would be adopted in the second year of the biennium, but some of the momentum for the bill seems to be slipping away.

House Speaker Shap Smith says he's generally a supporter of legalization, but he says there are still many unanswered questions with the bill. For instance, who would be allowed to grow marijuana, how would it be distributed to retail outlets, and can law enforcement officials come up with a plan to test potentially impaired drivers.

"It's much more complicated than most people think. It's not just turn a switch on and all of sudden you have legalization of marijuana," Smith says. "It just doesn't feel like we have done all the work that's necessary to flesh those issues out to pass it this year."

Caledonia Sen. Joe Benning also supports the concept of legalization, and he says he has many of the same questions.

"I can also see there are things that are not quite ready for prime time. So whether or not that takes up our session or overrides the other concerns that I have is anybody's guess at this point," Benning says.

The Senate Judiciary committee plans to review the details of the bill in the coming weeks.

News Moderator: Robert Celt 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Vermont: Leaders Unsure Marijuana Legalization Can Pass In 2016
Author: Bob Kinzel
Contact: VPR
Photo Credit: Angela Evancie
Website: VPR

 

[Radogast]

The future of a bill to legalize marijuana is very much in doubt on this first day of the 2016 session. House Speaker Shap Smith says there are still many outstanding questions about the plan, and he doesn't think it's ready for a full debate at this time.

At the end of the 2015 session, many backers of a bill to legalize marijuana were optimistic that their legislation would be adopted in the second year of the biennium, but some of the momentum for the bill seems to be slipping away.

Sad to hear.

House Speaker Shap Smith says he's generally a supporter of legalization, but he says there are still many unanswered questions with the bill. For instance, who would be allowed to grow marijuana, how would it be distributed to retail outlets, and can law enforcement officials come up with a plan to test potentially impaired drivers.

Nothing new there. Today there is no control over who grows marijuana and how it is distributed.

Today they already have the best tests for potentially impaired drivers, the roadside tests they have used for 50 years to test for impaired drivers and the judgement of the officers. So far the "scientific" tests are worthless. There are already laws against driving impaired and operating construction equipment while impaired, so they already have that issue well covered.

"It's much more complicated than most people think. It's not just turn a switch on and all of sudden you have legalization of marijuana," Smith says.

Shap Smith is wrong. It is exactly that simple.

What is complicated is how to make it semi-legal. How to craft laws that pretend to keep people safe from a plant which is not only aready safe, but beneficial. It is the double standard of legal freeedom and criminal prohibition which is complicated.

The other thing that is complicated is how to tax a plant, and manage a plant that needs no taxation or management.

It is totally simple to declare Marijuana state legal.

What is difficult is to craft a law that says noone under 21 can use Marijuana while still allowing the 15 -20% of the people under 21 who would significantly benefit and the 90% of the people under 21 who would be healthier and happier with regular marijuana use. Again, it is the double standard of pretending a beneficial plant is a threat that is hard to legally define, because there is no justification or logic for the double standard. Regulating marijuana like every other herb and vegetable sold in the grocery store is simple, you just add it to the same list of rules as for spinach and thyme. By default it is already regulated as a plant. All the state has to do is remove the unjustifiable laws that make marijuana illicit.

Shap Smith is wrong. It is exactly as simple as throwing a switch and all of a sudden it is legal.
There just isn't any money for politicians who do it that way.

 

[stones55]

It's simple, but it's not. And I can see, yeah, make it entirely legal and let things shake out. But that's not the scenario any state is in regarding the issue. I say, take the time to get it as right as one can the first time. I am sure most of the issues open-ended or still at hand can be ironed out within months ---- not years ---- and that makes it quite worthwhile to get things ironed out. It also almost always results in a greater buy-in. The more questions that can be answered prior to implementing, the better off the issue is when it comes to vote or legislation.

Everyone, including Vermont, has come so, so far in the last decade, and actually in the last five years. With that said, it would be quite irresponsible to not take this additional, small, incremental amount of time to get it more polished. These final months of ironing things out will have an exponential benefit when everything comes into action.

Take the time, Vermont. It's not worth taking three steps backward before going forward again...

Peace.
Suffering in NYS

 

[Radogast]

It's simple, but it's not. And I can see, yeah, make it entirely legal and let things shake out. But that's not the scenario any state is in regarding the issue. I say, take the time to get it as right as one can the first time. I am sure most of the issues open-ended or still at hand can be ironed out within months ---- not years ---- and that makes it quite worthwhile to get things ironed out. It also almost always results in a greater buy-in. The more questions that can be answered prior to implementing, the better off the issue is when it comes to vote or legislation.

Everyone, including Vermont, has come so, so far in the last decade, and actually in the last five years. With that said, it would be quite irresponsible to not take this additional, small, incremental amount of time to get it more polished. These final months of ironing things out will have an exponential benefit when everything comes into action.

Take the time, Vermont. It's not worth taking three steps backward before going forward again...

Peace.
Suffering in NYS

That approach works best if they address the right issues.

How to transport marijuana (cited in the article) is not the right issue. It doesn't matter whether it is in the back of a taxi cab or an armored car. The people transporting it have a vested interest in making sure the marijuana reaches it's destination. Market forces will work out this issue without rules and laws.

The issues that matter are the ones that affect people's lives.

Politicians and special interest groups are happy to agree "no one under 21 has access." Many people under 21 and their parents have a real issue with this. Teenagers want to smoke pipes of herb and dabs, their concern is that they will be punished for smoking cannabis. Parents of those same teenagers, when confronted with the reality that their teenagers are going to be smoking cannabis, are concerned for the safety, health, and freedom from imprisonment of their teens - and the cost, time and future suffering from being caught with cannabis and being prosecuted. That makes a strict rule of "no one under 21 has access to cannabis" a solution that is both politically acceptable and realistically draconian and as unfair as adult prohibition.

In my opinion, the issues covered in the article are the wrong issues - solving those issues will do more harm than good.