Vermont House Votes Against Legalization

[t-pain]

it was an odd vote.

 

http://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/roll-call/2016/235

 

http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Documents/2016/Docs/JOURNAL/hj160503

 

Rep. Bartholomew of Hartland explained his vote as follow:

 

“Mr. Speaker:

There are strong arguments on both sides of the marijuana legalization

issue. After much reading, many conversations, and considerable thought, I've

TUESDAY, MAY 03, 2016 1897

concluded that all of the arguments presented by proponents and opponents are

largely irrelevant. We've been fighting the drug war for over 100 years. It is

clear to me that prohibition has not worked and never will. It's time to try

something else.

 

 

Rep. Berry of Manchester explained his vote as follows:

 

“Mr. Speaker:

Prohibition of cannabis is bad for Vermont. Legalization needs to be the

goal for our state. The Black Market in cannabis sales needs to be eradicated.

Eighty thousand Vermonters should be able to legally use marijuana. That

said, I voted yes on the amendment because the Senate bill is not ready for

prime time. The bill is unwieldy and cumbersome. Legalization should

happen. Marijuana needs to become legal but I believe the commercialization

of marijuana needs to be vetted further. Commercialization concerns me.

Prohibition is not the answer but neither is S.241. Legalization needs to be

done the Vermont way, smartly, to scale. I support legalizing home grown.”

 

 

Rep. Chesnut-Tangerman of Middletown Springs explained his vote as

follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

Last week I was discussing this issue with a retired New York City police

officer, who was arguing against legalization. I asked him what percentage of

the domestic violence calls involved alcohol. He replied, ‘90%, easily.’ I

asked what percent involved marijuana. He laughed and said you go up there

and do what’s right.”

 

 

Rep. Grad of Moretown explained her vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

My vote to strike S.241 is a vote against creating a large scale commercial

market that does not allow for small scale growing for personal use or does not

further the role of small growers and community supported agriculture. S.241

is not the Vermont way.”

 

 

Rep. Klein of East Montpelier explained his vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

I vote no, which in fact, Mr. Speaker, is a yes vote for the legalization of

marijuana! Long overdue!!”

 

 

Rep. Rachelson of Burlington explained her vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

 

On the one hand, I support the concept of legalization but the lack of time

that the House has had compared to the Senate to fully vet S.241 and address

some of the concerns I have had with implementation of it is problematic. On

the other hand, wasting our tax dollars and resources on enforcement and

continuing to make felons out of people who are over 21 and privately using is

unacceptable.”

 

 

they tried some other bills, like decrim 2 plants or put it on the ballot, so more comments:

 

Rep. Buxton of Tunbridge explained her vote as follows:

 

“Mr. Speaker:

There’s no better way to give voice to the voters than to speak with them

directly. My constituents expect me to take the time to query, question, and

consult with them on a regular basis.

Asking Vermonters to excuse us from this duty is self-indulgent. Our work

should be about them, not us.”

 

 

Rep. Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford explained her vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

Here’s how I would have asked the questions:

‘Should Vermont create a legalized and regulated market place for

marijuana?’ and ‘Should Vermonters be allowed to legally grow marijuana for

adult consumption?’

Furthermore, if the intention was to gauge public support for legalization of

marijuana, I would ask the questions at the November election.”

 

 

Rep. Lucke of Hartford explained her vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

We need more time and more work to vet the question of legalization to get

it right for Vermont. For example, I am particularly concerned given the

shortage of prevention and treatment professionals in our state to do the current

work not to mention the potential work in our communities and schools. The

shortage of licensed addiction providers in Vermont is evident by the wait lists

for treatment and the long recruiting cycles it takes to find these professionals.

A quick scan of electronic ‘want ads’ today shows seven Vermont employers

looking for LADCs in communities all over the state including Burlington,

Vergennes, Montpelier, Morrisville and Windsor.

While I am uneasy with decriminalization I fully support youth education

and prevention, the advisory commission and the workforce study committee.

We need to get this right for Vermont and the legislature needs to do the

work.”

 

 

Rep. Russell of Rutland City explained his vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

I regularly consult with my Rutland City constituents and have discussed

my overall concerns on this issue.

I vote no.”

Rep. Turner of Milton explained his vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

Should Vermont legalize marijuana for recreational use? Why would a

legislator oppose allowing their constituents to vote on this question? I believe

that Vermonters deserve the right to have their voice heard on this issue.

Thank you.”

 

 

Rep. Webb of Shelburne explained her vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

Only 12% of registered voters voted in the 2012 primary compared to 65%

in the general. The general election would have been the more appropriate

time for such a question.”

 

some more:

 

Rep. Berry of Manchester explained his vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

Decriminalization of 2 marijuana plants is not much to ask. I am glad to

have voted for this amendment. We need to work toward legalization in a

thoughtful, safe, manner. No criminalization is a good step in that direction.”

 

 

Rep. Christie of Hartford explained his vote as follows;

“Mr. Speaker:

I voted no. I spent a half hour last night with my chief of police and his

direct comment to me was ‘We are not ready.’ We spoke about the families

affected by this and we still have so much to learn. I have a great deal of

respect for the work he has done in his short tenure, such as 2 officers adopting

each school. This is not a solution.”

 

 

Rep. Cupoli of Rutland City explained his vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

I have taken the time to speak with my school superintendents, principals

and teachers in my community as well as law enforcement. You have met

members from Project Vision in Rutland who have worked to make our

community a safe place to live and work. Introducing another component to

an already stressed state is wrong – I vote no.”

 

 

Rep. Klein of East Montpelier explained his vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

Disappointing outcome. So much for Vermont’s reputation as a liberal

state. Continuing to label Vermonters as criminals for small use and

possession of weed (pot) is backward outdated policy.”

 

 

Rep. Martel of Waterford explained her vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

I voted no on this bill: human nature is to always want more!! We allow 2

plants then they want four, before you know it everyone has their field of

dreams in their backyard. What a great example for our young generation to

grow up with.”

 

 

Rep. Morrissey of Bennington explained her vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

We as a body have debated this issue of legalizing or decriminalization of

marijuana for the past five hours. We sliced and diced this discussion through

amendments, questions and answers, assumptions and statistics from

everywhere. At this point I would contend that we have no idea what the

consequences are in this piece of legislation, should we pass it. The ‘devil is

always in the details’ and we have no idea what those details are.

This piece of legislation is too important to decide on the fly, whether you

are in favor or not. The committees of jurisdiction need to have time to

complete the appropriate due process in order to pass or not pass this

controversial piece of legislation.”

 

 

Rep. O’Sullivan of Burlington explained her vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

TUESDAY, MAY 03, 2016 1905

I voted yes because it is time we recognize reality as opposed to prohibition

fantasies. I believe adult Vermonters have a right to grow their own, just like

they brew their own.”

 

 

Rep. Purvis of Colchester explained his vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

I voted no for the children. We can’t cure a drug problem with another drug

problem.”

 

 

Rep. Russell of Rutland City explained his vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

My concern with this legislation is over burdens placed on Vermont law

enforcement. I believe a more thorough study of this topic needs to be

accomplished.

Although a workplace study and an advisory commission are included, I

must vote ’no’ as this legislation is proposed.”

 

 

Rep. Yantachka of Charlotte explained his vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

I have a lot of concerns regarding legalization of marijuana including how it

is done, how we keep it out of the hands of young people, what effect it will

have on our highways, and other issues of control and enforcement. That said,

I have listened to the debate on this amendment, and I believe there are

legitimate arguments for and against decriminalization. Decriminalization is

not legalization, and I think the arguments for outweigh those against.”

 

 

Rep. Zagar of Barnard explained his vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

With the results of this vote, the Vermont legislature has decided to keep

one foot firmly planted in the Nixon era.”

 

Rep. Dakin of Chester explained her vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

I am appreciative of the work done by the Judiciary committee. Today I

have gained a better insight in the issues.

Section 9 I believe is well crafted, covers many of the areas relating to

outreach and education, and I must echo the member from Hartford’s concerns

about the lack of resources available today in our schools to carry out

important subsections in Section 9 of this amendment.”

 

 

Rep. Donahue of Northfield explained her vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

I support the remaining parts of this amendment but I cannot support any

bill without having a source of funding identified.”

 

 

Rep. Poirier of Barre City explained his vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

I voted no because how much it costs and where the money is coming from

are unanswered questions. This is poor budgeting.”

 

 

Rep. Stevens of Waterbury explained his vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

By refusing to legalize marijuana, or even decriminalize it, we honor the

darkness where cannabis currently resides. In the shadows, our children will

continue to buy illegal drugs, and we will continue to refuse to shine a light on

the need to control this substance for the safety of all.”

 

 

Rep. Till of Jericho explained his vote as follows:

“Mr. Speaker:

I vote no. No other time this session can I remember us passing a bill with

an expenditure which did not go to the Appropriations committee and did not

have a source of revenue to pay for that expenditure identified by the Ways

and Means committee. It is not a good way for this body to operate.”

[ilynnboy]

How many studies do we need to state the Safety and Efficacy of this plant?

I am tired of the stale old Prohibitionist saying the same thing....

Blah, Blah. Blah...No.

Look above at Rep. Rutlands reasoning.

It completely baffles me.

More studies, even though they already convened two studies that were done by their own governmental bodies.

Sheesh..

[shishka]

Sounds like they want to get it right. Good on them I say, keep it small and keep commercial interests out.

[t-pain]

Sounds like they want to get it right. Good on them I say, keep it small and keep commercial interests out.

"oh , we didnt get it right in 2016, we'll try again in 2017"

"oh , we didnt get it right in 2017, we'll try again in 2018"

"oh , we didnt get it right in 2018, we'll try again in 2019"

 

i've seen the future and its sad.

 

"its 2020! oh, we were going to legalize it, but then we saw this new scientific study that says marijuana makes you gay. so for the children we wont legalize marijuana for adults."

[trichcycler]

well, some cannabis plants are sexually confused. come to think of it......before medical marijuana I never heard of a child having a sex change, now I've heard of more than one on television...so....

                                                          ^      ^

[Willy]

well, some cannabis plants are sexually confused. come to think of it......before medical marijuana I never heard of a child having a sex change, now I've heard of more than one on television...so....

                                                          ^      ^

Careful what you say,, even in jest , that is the kind of stuff anti's will claim next. smoking weed made my kid change sex... Dont give them ideas, they think up enough BS on there own.

[trichcycler]

no worries, isnt anything that hasnt been suggested before. Estrogen, long hair, effeminate men, compassionate hippies, he/she goddess Shiva, goddess of cannabis, is a hermaphrodite even.

the anti's dont need evidence any longer, instead insisting on "needing more studies" is sufficient now.