Vermont Senate Passes Ski Area Bailout

[Edd]

Not true, you'll get fined or jailed just as quickly for possession of drugs or DWI just as quickly no matter your means.

But how long will you stay in jail? How good will your defense be? That will depend upon your means.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Any adult who thinks that legalizing marijuana is an important issue needs to grow up. The world is crumbling around us and you're spending time passionately fighting for your right to get stoned? Absolutely pathetic.

That's another way to look at it. It's somewhere between 484 and 838 on the "issues that matter" list, yet you get a lot of morons who act like it's the Manhattan Project, circa 1942.

http://www.care2.com/causes/people-on-welfare-less-likely-to-do-drugs-than-those-with-jobs.html

This article notes that drug testing of people on Welfare is a net $$$$ maker for the government.

 

[ironhippy]

Any adult who thinks that legalizing marijuana is an important issue needs to grow up. The world is crumbling around us and you're spending time passionately fighting for your right to get stoned? Absolutely pathetic. I don't care if it's legal and I don't care if it's illegal. It's not important either way.

But it is important to spend your time arguing on an internet message board dedicated to skiing?

I wouldn't spend too much time judging how others spend their free time.

 

[VTKilarney]

I've stayed out of this discussion, but I did want to clear up a major misconception. In Vermont, NOBODY is going to jail for personal use of marijuana. And I mean NOBODY. That is a complete straw man argument.

There are some people in jail who have been convicted of marijuana possession. But they are in jail for something much more serious. Legalization advocates look at the fact that they were also convicted of possession, and make the assumption that they are in jail because of the possession. (e.g., by ignoring an armed robbery conviction) Nothing could be farther from the truth, at least in Vermont.

And to further erode this straw man argument, personal possession is now the equivalent of a traffic ticket. Jail is not even an option.

 

[deadheadskier]

Good article summing up some of the societal costs and other issues with prohibition

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/2...stice-of-marijuana-arrests.html?referer=&_r=0

 

[SkiFanE]

Conclusively proven fact. Lol

Show me unbiased data; not a Pfizer sponsored study.

Does it affect some negatively in those ways? Absolutely. Same with alcohol. All depends on the individual. You can't have "conclusive proven facts" when the results vary by individual. Science doesn't work that way.

My job gives me the opportunity to read hospital medical charts. You just made me realize - in over 25 years I've never read one that had a diagnosis of "cannabis consumption", "chronic cannabitus" or "cannabis overdose". But the number of alcohol induced XYZ and obesity (likely due to McDs and twinkies) are prevalent. Lately I've had dealings with the Bariatric Surgery charts. The illnesses and surgeries that we taxpayers pay for this healthcare (b/c most people are paid by govt) blows away any other social costs of MJ. If we are all so concerned about societies health - do statistical analysis on what makes people sick - not based on some idiotic reefer madness scare. And yeah - MJ is cutting into Pharm bottom line - tis a shame.

 

[Los]

But it is important to spend your time arguing on an internet message board dedicated to skiing?

I wouldn't spend too much time judging how others spend their free time.

Touché. In my defense, I had four kids in bed, it was late Friday night, and I couldn't sleep.

But yeah, reading a book would have been a more productive use of time.

 

[BenedictGomez]

I've stayed out of this discussion, but I did want to clear up a major misconception. In Vermont, NOBODY is going to jail for personal use of marijuana. And I mean NOBODY. That is a complete straw man argument.

It's a mostly a fake argument, and not just in Vermont, but everywhere. There is a political entity that attempts to further this false belief, and attach "racism" to it, but the reality is very few people "go to jail" for little amounts of pot.

When they do, there's often additional charges (carrying an illegal handgun, etc...) to the MJ, but people who are intentionally trying to misconstrue the statistics to further this false belief as a weaponized political issue, will count this as a "jail for MJ" data point, which completely ignores the real reason they were sent to the clink.

 

[steamboat1]

http://www.care2.com/causes/people-on-welfare-less-likely-to-do-drugs-than-those-with-jobs.html

This article notes that drug testing of people on Welfare is a net $$$$ maker for the government.

Reading comprehension problem?

From the article: "Now, Florida lawmakers are standing by their decision, despite the fact that it’s costing the state far more money to actually do the testing than it is saving in not providing benefits".

​

 

[steamboat1]

I've stayed out of this discussion, but I did want to clear up a major misconception. In Vermont, NOBODY is going to jail for personal use of marijuana. And I mean NOBODY. That is a complete straw man argument.

And to further erode this straw man argument, personal possession is now the equivalent of a traffic ticket. Jail is not even an option.

For possession of less than an ounce there's no jail time & just a fine. For possession of more than an ounce or selling any amount there most certainly can be jail time.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/marijuana-laws-and-penalties/Vermont.htm

 

[VTKilarney]

For possession of less than an ounce there's no jail time & just a fine. For possession of more than an ounce or selling any amount there most certainly can be jail time.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/marijuana-laws-and-penalties/Vermont.htm

That is exactly what I said. In Vermont, there is no potential of jail time for possession of an amount of marijuana consistent with personal use. And for possession of more than 1 ounce, do not confuse a possibility with a probability.


.

 

[steamboat1]

Possession of less than an ounce is a misdemeanor in most states. Just a fine, no jail time.

That is exactly what I said. In Vermont, there is no potential of jail time for possession of an amount of marijuana consistent with personal use. And for possession of more than 1 ounce, do not confuse a possibility with a probability.


.

Think I said pretty much the same thing several pages back.

 

[jaybird]

Reading comprehension problem?

From the article: "Now, Florida lawmakers are standing by their decision, despite the fact that it’s costing the state far more money to actually do the testing than it is saving in not providing benefits".

​

Nice catch by Steamboat

We see it time and again...
Gomes knows nothing about everything.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Reading comprehension problem?

From the article: "Now, Florida lawmakers are standing by their decision, despite the fact that it’s costing the state far more money to actually do the testing than it is saving in not providing benefits".

​

Not at all.

I actually looked into the data linked from the page you referenced to see the actual figures. Put another way, I wasn't lazy.

Net savings to the state — $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

In the grand scheme of things, admittedly that's such little savings, that it's essentially a wash. But it should make you wonder why the author you linked either lied or misinterpreted the math given the article clickthrough notes exactly the opposite.

 

[prsboogie]

I bet there will be double the population of users as there is today.

Double the number who admit to using. Geez people don't pay attention now, can't wait!!!

 

[steamboat1]

Not at all.

I actually looked into the data linked from the page you referenced to see the actual figures. Put another way, I wasn't lazy.



In the grand scheme of things, admittedly that's such little savings, that it's essentially a wash. But it should make you wonder why the author you linked either lied or misinterpreted the math given the article clickthrough notes exactly the opposite.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

"Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said".

 

[MEtoVTSkier]

That makes no sense. So the state reimburses an average of $30 for the test, IF THE TESTEE PASSES, yet it is costing them more than they are saving by not paying the people that don't pass the test, at all? I'd imagine the benefits are much more than $30...

 

[BenedictGomez]

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said".

So with updated data it goes from a very slight gain to a very slight loss.

Okay. Same thing though.

It's completely disingenuous to just leave it as, "this is costing money" with absolutely no context around it, which is clearly what the author intended to do, which is not shocking since liberals absolutely hate this.

 

[BenedictGomez]

That makes no sense. So the state reimburses an average of $30 for the test, IF THE TESTEE PASSES, yet it is costing them more than they are saving by not paying the people that don't pass the test, at all? I'd imagine the benefits are much more than $30...

No, it's definitely mathematically possible since they're not getting a ton of fails. And if this only cost $46k for an entire year (and in some years will likely make a small sum since it's pretty much breakeven), I'd say that's a rare case of taxpayer money fantastically well-spent.

 

[steamboat1]

That makes no sense. So the state reimburses an average of $30 for the test, IF THE TESTEE PASSES, yet it is costing them more than they are saving by not paying the people that don't pass the test, at all? I'd imagine the benefits are much more than $30...

Only 2.6% of people either didn't pass the test or refused to take it.