• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vermont governor wants legislation to legalize marijuana

bg85 said:
you can't expect the executive branch to devote the same amount of time and effort to every single issue. there are only so many budget dollars to go around for enforcement of federal law. if you have one area of enforcement that requires more attention than another area, then it's hardly ignoring the constitution to make tactical decisions about where to spend the most effort.
Click to expand...

IMO, it was a smart move....let a few states try and see what the results are...kind of like a 'pilot program' and costing the taxpayers, at the federal level, nothing.

The states that have legalized it so far are all working with regulation and planning from scratch and all are doing it differently. It's a good shakedown period, to see what works for the states (tax-wise, financially, regulations, etc) and other states can then observe.
 
Lursa said:
Does that mean still illegal or more like regulated like alcohol or cigarettes? I'd like to see some of the polls, if you can link to them?
Click to expand...

In U.S., 58% Back Legal Marijuana Use

There are many national and local polls, but most national polls reflect the same numbers, around 58%. End national prohibition, let the States and the local communities decide what is best for them, as they have done with alcohol. No one is forcing folks to partake in cannabis, just as no one is forced to drink alcohol. All the doomsayers who claimed the sky will fall in states such as CO, none of that has come to be true. If anything CO is booming, they are cashing in on the revenue windfall, while the States surrounding CO look on with hesitant envy.

The marijuana movement owes much to the internet. People became educated on the truth behind the plant and its medical benefits. They also discovered how and why it continues to be banned, and the majority want the situation resolved on a national level.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
IMO, it was a smart move....let a few states try and see what the results are...kind of like a 'pilot program' and costing the taxpayers, at the federal level, nothing.

The states that have legalized it so far are all working with regulation and planning from scratch and all are doing it differently. It's a good shakedown period, to see what works for the states (tax-wise, financially, regulations, etc) and other states can then observe.
Click to expand...

Thus far the social experiment has been a success. It has not increased teen use of the drug, nor increased drug use overall in the States, this has been proven with numerous polls conducted in CO after the first year of the recreational ballot being passed. Most teens will tell you, weed is much easier to get than alcohol. Teens cannot walk into a liquor store and buy legally, nor should they. The same with cannabis, obviously the black market will not disappear overnight, that will take time as it has done in the Netherlands, the only other country to allow the legal sale of cannabis.
 
Lursa said:
IMO VT is a very good candidate for legalizing pot soon. Pretty sociallly progressive. And interestingly, no permits required for concealed carry of firearms. (Just an example) A good mix of sensibility.
Click to expand...

... Tangent (emphasis mine) !
 
Absentglare said:
... Tangent (emphasis mine) !
Click to expand...

I can appreciate the analogy even though its a bit off the mark. I would rather keep the marijuana movement separate from 2nd amendment rights in a debate. The gun advocates have there 2nd amendment protection , not so for us medical cannabis advocates. Although the 10th amendment has been used by the MPP (Marijuana Policy Project, our NRA lol)) to fight the schedule 1 classification, its not clear cut like the 2nd.

https://www.mpp.org/

I am a vet with PTSD, so this issue will be forefront in how I vote in Nov. This country has so many more important issues to tackle, I just do not understand the resistance. The benefits to ending prohibition far outweigh the justification for it remaining as a schedule 1 drug.

Veterans at center of medical marijuana legalization push
 
Last edited:
yankintx said:
I can appreciate the analogy even though its a bit off the mark. I would rather keep the marijuana movement separate from 2nd amendment rights in a debate. The gun advocates have there 2nd amendment protection , not so for us medical cannabis advocates. Although the 10th amendment has been used by the MPP (Marijuana Policy Project, our NRA lol)) to fight the schedule 1 classification, its not clear cut like the 2nd.

https://www.mpp.org/

I am a vet with PTSD, so this issue will be forefront in how I vote in Nov. This country has so many more important issues to tackle, I just do not understand the resistance. The benefits to ending prohibition far outweigh the justification for it remaining as a schedule 1 drug.

Veterans at center of medical marijuana legalization push
Click to expand...

I know, i wanted to respond to it, as i consider it controversial, i'm just pointing out that i won't directly address it here.
 
yankintx said:
I can appreciate the analogy even though its a bit off the mark. I would rather keep the marijuana movement separate from 2nd amendment rights in a debate.
Click to expand...

They are not connected...but they are shared in the same state and that WAS the point.
 
Absentglare said:
I know, i wanted to respond to it, as i consider it controversial, i'm just pointing out that i won't directly address it here.
Click to expand...

I dont expect anyone to. But it was a very solid example of the 2 more (gemerally) polar opposite perspectives, liberal and conservative, IMO.
 
Lursa said:
They are not connected...but they are shared in the same state and that WAS the point.
Click to expand...

I would just prefer the 2 issues are kept separate, other than debate topics they have little in common.
 
bg85 said:
you can't expect the executive branch to devote the same amount of time and effort to every single issue. there are only so many budget dollars to go around for enforcement of federal law. if you have one area of enforcement that requires more attention than another area, then it's hardly ignoring the constitution to make tactical decisions about where to spend the most effort.
Click to expand...

Why not?

Was the 14th Amendment repealed?

I guess there just wasn't any personnel left after the 501C 3&4 attacks were made.

Oh, wait, that a political thing. Obama wouldn't use the Federal Government to attack political enemies. That would be a crime. Nixon was almost impeached for it.
 
code1211 said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

...because we have a finite amount of resources. if you have a limited supply of time and money, you have to make decisions about where to spend that time and money. that involves setting priorities.
 
bg85 said:
...because we have a finite amount of resources. if you have a limited supply of time and money, you have to make decisions about where to spend that time and money. that involves setting priorities.
Click to expand...

So you see no other options between enforcing the law and not enforcing the law?

The action Obama has taken and the one that you seem to endorse is that of dictatorship.

Another option is to campaign to change the law. You know, the thing that a president would do if fulfilling his role as the chief executive in a republic.

There is only one talent that Obama seems to have and that is to campaign. If he was of the mind that his word meant anything...

pause a few moments for the raucous laughter to subside...

one might expect that IF he saw the classification of marijuana to be inappropriate, THEN he would have campaigned to change that classification.

Instead, he simply broke his oath. Breaking something that is worthless seems not to concern him. Or you. There are a variety of approaches to this issue. He once again simply voted "Present".
 
code1211 said:
So you see no other options between enforcing the law and not enforcing the law?
Click to expand...

obviously he still enforces drug laws. the DEA still conducts raids and prosecutes marijuana growers and dispensaries, even in states where it is legal. the degree of enforcement has decreased under Obama, however, as he made the tactical decision that those types of raids and prosecutions were not producing the desired benefits - or at least not to the degree making that level of enforcement worth it.
 
bg85 said:
obviously he still enforces drug laws. the DEA still conducts raids and prosecutes marijuana growers and dispensaries, even in states where it is legal. the degree of enforcement has decreased under Obama, however, as he made the tactical decision that those types of raids and prosecutions were not producing the desired benefits - or at least not to the degree making that level of enforcement worth it.
Click to expand...



I haven't read the whole thread, am not necessarily disagreeing with anyone and only want to add this (I promise it's not entirely worthless) :

Executive Discretion.



It's a tricky thing. Federal and state executives are charged with variously worded duties to enforce the law, but it is very difficult (if not impossible) to get executives before a court to rule on whether or not they are honoring their commitment to enforce the law. It's a constitutional mandate without enforcement mechanism.

Whether or not a president is adequately enforcing the law by taking a particular stance on federal agencies going after marijuana is a question with no certain answer.
 
code1211 said:
So you see no other options between enforcing the law and not enforcing the law?

The action Obama has taken and the one that you seem to endorse is that of dictatorship.

Another option is to campaign to change the law. You know, the thing that a president would do if fulfilling his role as the chief executive in a republic.


one might expect that IF he saw the classification of marijuana to be inappropriate, THEN he would have campaigned to change that classification.

Instead, he simply broke his oath. Breaking something that is worthless seems not to concern him. Or you. There are a variety of approaches to this issue. He once again simply voted "Present".
Click to expand...

Yes, because respecting states rights and allowing some states the leeway to pilot some test programs *at their expense* to see the outcomes is dumb? Executive over-reach?

To learn, from smaller experiments, at no expense to the federal govt, if something like pot use is actually harmful to society or not? And if not, then SAVING billions of $$ no longer using law and court resources/$$ to enforce something useless?

Gee, wouldnt it be nice to find out on a limited basis, with each state paying for it themselves, as THEY CHOOSE?
 
Mr Person said:
I haven't read the whole thread, am not necessarily disagreeing with anyone and only want to add this (I promise it's not entirely worthless) :

Executive Discretion.



It's a tricky thing. Federal and state executives are charged with variously worded duties to enforce the law, but it is very difficult (if not impossible) to get executives before a court to rule on whether or not they are honoring their commitment to enforce the law. It's a constitutional mandate without enforcement mechanism.

Whether or not a president is adequately enforcing the law by taking a particular stance on federal agencies going after marijuana is a question with no certain answer.
Click to expand...

of course you are quite right
 
bg85 said:
obviously he still enforces drug laws. the DEA still conducts raids and prosecutes marijuana growers and dispensaries, even in states where it is legal. the degree of enforcement has decreased under Obama, however, as he made the tactical decision that those types of raids and prosecutions were not producing the desired benefits - or at least not to the degree making that level of enforcement worth it.
Click to expand...

So do you think he shares the opinion that marijuana should share the same classification as heroin?
 
code1211 said:
So do you think he shares the opinion that marijuana should share the same classification as heroin?
Click to expand...

no. I don't think he considers it a very important issue at all.
 
bg85 said:
no. I don't think he considers it a very important issue at all.
Click to expand...

That is an answer, but does not address the question that I asked.
 
code1211 said:
That is an answer, but does not address the question that I asked.
Click to expand...

how does it not address the question you asked? you asked me a yes or no question. I answered with "no" and then elaborated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom