SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Vermont's Governor Phil Scott has vetoed a bill that would legalize recreational cannabis in the state, but says "there is a path forward on this issue":
Vermont Governor Phil Scott, a Republican, said on Wednesday he was vetoing a bill to legalize marijuana, and sending it back to the legislature for changes. "We must get this right," Scott said in prepared remarks at a press conference today. "I think we need to move a little bit slower."
Though he said he views the issue "through a libertarian lens," Scott vetoed the bill due to concerns about detecting and penalizing impaired drivers, protecting children, and the role and makeup of a Marijuana Regulatory Commission. The governor said he is "not philosophically opposed" to legalization, "and I recognize there is a clear societal shift in that direction." He said he'll send recommended changes to the the Democratic-majority legislature, and that if they address his concerns, "there is a path forward on this issue."
Also at The Hill, NORML, Reason, The Washington Post (AP), and The Vermont Standard.
Previously: Vermont Legislature Passes Cannabis Legalisation Bill
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @12:43PM (12 children)
There are already laws on the books about driving while impaired, etc., regardless of the cause.
He wants the State to have a monopoly on producing marijuana.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday May 26 2017, @01:16PM
Were this any other realm I might give the often-given advice of "don't let perfect be the enemy of good." But this is politics. Somebody's hand didn't get greased. A “libertarian lens” my ass. Allow me to feign being touched by his concern for the inalienable rights of the people.
This seem like a winner. I may look into it later today, although Fridays are usually "omg omg everything changed omg omg we need it NAO" day. For now though do you have a citation whereby we may follow the money to learn just why it is that the people cannot be entrusted with their their human rights to do with their bodies and property as they please and to engage in free enterprise and commerce and just how this can possibly be a “libertarian” point of view?
I haven't been reading NORML's blog lately. It's just too damned depressing.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 26 2017, @02:38PM (3 children)
The problem here is that you bring a great deal of ambiguity. How much weed of a known potency do I have to smoke before I become legally impaired? For alcohol, there is a fairly predictable level of consumption of alcohol beyond which you know you won't be legal to drive. For the normal "driving while impaired" rules, the mere smell of marijuana in your car may be a sufficient dose for the police officer to decide you are driving while impaired and interpret some modest driving mistake in that light.
Not seeing that, but if you have links to other stories that indicate such, please post them. I'll note here that the governor stated particular reasons, none of which involved a state monopoly on marijuana and which seem relatively easy to resolve. He otherwise seems rather agreeable to the issue.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday May 26 2017, @03:04PM
I don't know. We should legalize cannabis so that science and practical experience can develop a robust answer. I have faith that free industry, having an easy access without government interference and regulations prohibiting the mere possession of cannabis flower, will be able to develop some kind of test, seeing as how there's sufficient demand for it, to draw a line in the sand and give a go-no-go indication.
The challenge will be giving
armed thugs of a violently imposed^W^W^W^W^W^Wlaw enforcement guidance in determining the difference between a senior citizen driving 10 under the speed limit normally and a senior citizen driving 10 under the speed limit due to having recently consumed cannabis flower for its medicinal properties. At this point, I think it is safe to say that if we observe somebody under the age of 40 driving 10 under the speed limit, we may be able to suspect that they have recent consumed that herb.(Serious note: While the science seems to say driving while high is objectively safer than driving drunk, texting, or fatigued, I absolutely think it's a stupid idea. I would encourage anybody who thinks driving while high is perfectly ok to do a simple experiment involving lap times in Gran Turismo. You don't want to be Captain Slow, now do you?!)
I hope you're right. Perhaps I was just being cynical in my previous comment. They would find studying Colorado helpful, since at this point they have several years of experience, and I understand that Colorado has been able to avoid this otherwise seemingly inevitable uptick vehicular fatalities and injuries.
Unless of course I've been led astray by #fakenews!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @04:05PM (1 child)
In the United States, we don't (or are not supposed to) value catching 'bad guys' above all else. We have a court system that often lets bad guys get away so that we don't put as many innocents in prison. Likewise, we should not ban (or keep it banned) something merely because 'bad guys' can sometimes use it improperly and it's hard to catch them in the act.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @09:05PM
That's true.
But when it comes to bombing bad guys in other countries, there's no limit on the number of good guys we can incidentally sentence to death. I imagine their friends and relatives don't mind that. We just need to keep bombing and kill the last remaining bad guys. Only been 16 years now, I imagine we've almost got them all. Just another few months/years/etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @02:56PM (3 children)
> There are already laws on the books about driving while impaired, etc., regardless of the cause.
Are there? Seems like an assumption of faith on your part. Why do they do breathalyzers and blood test for alcohol if these generic laws exist?
As the NPR article noted, there is not good tech for accurately measuring marijuana impairment. There are lots of stories of people being arrested for marijuana DUI because their blood tested positive for metabolites that were a week old.
> He wants the State to have a monopoly on producing marijuana.
No, he wants a regulated market, not a monopoly on production. And I agree in principle. The last thing we need is the creation of a Big Marijuana that becomes a cancer on our government the way Big Tobacco has. At the very least states that legalize pot should start with state operated pot stores just like there are state operated liquor stores. If it turns out that is not the best approach it is easy to go to completely independent pot stores. But if we start with independent pot stores and there are big problems with it, now you've got Big Marijuana lobbying money preventing the state from fixing those problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @04:48PM (2 children)
fuck your regulation and your government. fuck your slave society. we will have blood or freedom in my lifetime. pick one. you're running out of time.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @05:13PM
Don't you generally need to have the former before you obtain the latter?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @11:37PM
Enjoy being a slave to Facebook, Google, and Neo-Tobacco because Freedom!
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday May 26 2017, @03:08PM (2 children)
Oh really?
Let's see if they are able to agree on an legalization that Scott agrees with, or if he is really just another authoritarian anti-drug Republican.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @05:50PM (1 child)
Hey, if they give him everything he wants and he still wont sign it, then we will know.
At least he suggested the changes he'd need to see before he signed it, that suggests that it really might be a procedural issue rather than a fundamental one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @09:08PM
Let me guess... World peace? Balanced budget? Second coming of Christ? And THEN he'll be happy to sign that bill, if it includes budget for a new Governor's mansion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @03:16PM
Newsflash: No one believes you, douchebag.