First Snow Storm

But that didn't stop the People's Republic of Burlington from doing the blue-box recycle run here in the South End.

And I hope you, too, are enjoying Public Safety Commissioner Kerry Sleeper's appearance with Mark Johnson on WDEV AM-FM this fine morning.

The veteran state trooper who rose to the top, Kerry Sleeper is retiring --- looking for a little consultant work as he hits his "older" years.

Kerry declined to comment directly on Windsor County State's Attorney Bobby Sand's suggestion we  take another look at how we handle marijuana and other "illegal" drugs since treating drug abuse as a crime issue instead of a substance-abuse/healthcare issue clearly has not shown any indication whatsoever of working.

Sleeper did say, however, that most young people in treatment for substance abuse are marijuana smokers.

As for the illegal-drug biz that's sparked an up-tick in violent crime in Vermont in the last year, Ol’ Kerry said it primarily involved cocaine and crack cocaine. 

One caller just asked why if Prohibition [of alcohol] didn't work in the 1920s, what makes him think prohibition of other equally popular drugs will work?

Good question.

Comments

[Green.Mountain.05401]

So what if most kids in treatment for substance abuse in Vermont are marijuana smokers? They are kids! Kids should not be smoking tobacco or marijuana. That doesn't mean adults should be put in jail if they do.

And Mr. Sleeper is obviously ignoring the biggest drug: alcohol. The number of kids who abuse alcohol dwarfs the number who abuse marijuana --and the consequences of alcohol abuse are much greater (violence, date rape, drunk driving).

Yet alcohol is legal. And adult use of marijuana gets you a criminal record and possible jail time!

[JPC]

Do you have supporting facts. I think the recent polls show that more kids use pot then alcohol since it is easier to get. Further the point that you missed was that those in rehab for hard drugs all use pot is that pot leads to other drugs. Petition your reps to change the law if you like, but as long as it is illegal, then YES they should be put in jail.

[MsRee]

Nobody told the commissioner that teens' dangerous drug of choice is now pharmaceuticals?

[bigbadbrad]

Same with everyone who breaks any law, right? I want people who park in handicapped zones to get at LEAST the weekend in jail. What's the greater social ill, Scaggy and Scoopy smoking a bowl at home or some narracistic schmuck who parks in the posted handicapped zone? How about the guy who hunts on posted land (aside from being trespassing, is basicly theft)? Cool with that? Didn't think so.
Your assertion on Pot V Booze is way off. Booze is still and will remain A. easy to get B. cheap and C. the gateway drug of choice for all americans.

It is time for this nation to grow up. Mind your business, mind your manners. Stay out of my business and as long as your not molesting children, I'll stay out of yours. Long story short, I reall ydon't care what you do, smoke banana peels for all I care, keep your nose out of my business, or we've got propblems, friend. And I don't even smoke weed anymore. I just find the busybody nature of our nation to be extremely aggravating and frankly, hypocritical.

[bigbadbrad]

Pardon, I meant to post "Shaggy and Scoobie"

[JPC]

BBB,

"Your assertion on Pot V Booze is way off. Booze is still and will remain A. easy to get B. cheap and C. the gateway drug of choice for all americans."

While that maybe the case where you live it is no longer the way it is here.

"some narracistic schmuck who parks in the posted handicapped zone? How about the guy who hunts on posted land (aside from being trespassing, is basicly theft)? Cool with that? Didn't think so."

Yes those people should be held accountable as well. Shows what you get for thinking.

[bigbadbrad]

Your wrong, booze was/will be easier to get than weed. You're kidding, right? How would you know, anyway?

Also, You know what, pal. you are a real f'ing jerk. I didn't attack you, I mearly pointed out that your repetive posts on this subject are wrong. Dis agree with me if you like, but like I've said before and will say again, I could be anywhere in the world, I'd still be ten times more of Vermonter than you. Leave my current geographical local out of your posts. And I didn't just say those criminals should be held accountable. Nice weasel words, there. I said THROWN in jail for at least the weekend, which along with a hefty fine, is exactly what they deserve. I don't have a problem with potheads or even closeminded knuckleheads like you. I DO have a problem with selfish people who park in hadicapped zones, they deserve a servere reckoning, far more than the consenting adult who wants to chill out and smoke weed like people have done for milenia.
Anyway, as has been shown to me time and again that you've got a HUGE h#rd-on for pot users. Regardless of anyones counter arguement about the incredible waste of taxpayers money, demographics, privacy, consenting adults, you name it. I give, up, you are absolutely helpless and set in your ways. For the sake of my own sanity, I'm going to stop bothering to reply to your ridiculous posts on this subject, you fake vermont poser, you. You need to smoke ALOT of weed, buddy. Man,what a wanker.

[JPC]

BBB, I have actually repeatedly stated that I have no problem with people choosing to smoke pot. You all have a great point in booze not being illegal. WHere the problem comes in is the law. When/if the law is changed then great, but until then I think the laws need to be followed and enforced as set forth in the law books. Crimes should not be prosecuted, enforced, etc based on how a particular judge or prosecuter feels. The law is the law. Now, As some one who has up until recently coached alot of young teens over several years I have seen the tendency to shift to pot and other drugs and the shift away from alcohol. I am not trying to take a crack at you BBB, but there maybe a different situation where you are. Here especially in the North, Canada used to be a frequent weekend trip for young teens. Easy booze, however that has become much harder, so where alcohol was once readily available, it is no longer. On the other hand pot especially had become a frequent replacement for booze. I am not even trying to argue with you, just saying as you know with the border an hour away or less ( or more ) it was much easier to get booze. In your current town, I doubt the same geographical features have had an impact on the issue.

"Cool with that? Didn't think so."

Not really an attack, but certainly not the type of phrase that engages one in an open minded conversation.

[bigbadbrad]

groan. Listen, I didn't just fall of the turnip truck and I wasn't born yesterday (or pre Vietnam for that matter). I've been around the block and seen my share of things. I logged plenty of time north of the border and came of age just as they raised the drinking age but not the adult age to 21. Pot decriminalization for the adult population and drug and alcohol ecucation for our youth are two seperate issues. Issues I'm afraid We are doing a woefully bad job at.
It is my humble opinion that pot prohabition for consenting adults is an abject and complete failure. Just as is the much more narcassistic and anti-social acts of parking in handicapped spaces, hunting on posted lands illegal dumping and the like. Acts which carry little if any time in the joint, while possession does. The issues I sighted may be of little consiquence to some or may seem over the top to others, but thet mean alot to me, much more than some deadhead with the munchies. Just like when I was a kid, teens with the desire to get booze will find a way to get it and weed as well, nothings really changed except the society has become more priggish and hypocritical. Instead of having an open, honest discussion with teens about the dangers of binge drinking or drug abuse, we wag or finger and just say no without real personal context. In doing so, these behaviors are glamorized through this very demonization.

[jajang]

You're all missing the point...its about $$$$, fines,taxes,CRASH courses,etc., it fills the town, city, county, state and federal treasuries. Its a moneymaker for government...think how they tax liquor from start to finish...and they can measure drunkeness scientifically, however how can you measure "legal over the limit highnesss"?..all levels of government make money off liquor and they can blow .08 if you're over the limit. How "high" is high legally. Until they can measure legal highness, then you'll see pot legalized.

[Peter Joes]

First JPC, "Where the problem comes in is the law. When/if the law is changed then great, but until then I think the laws need to be followed and enforced as set forth in the law books."

Do you feel that way about all laws? What about the laws that used to prohibit Indians (native Americans now) from being served in bars? What about all the segregation laws that were in effect down south?

"Bad laws are the worst form of tyranny" - - Edmund Burke

We were all brought up understanding the principle of "equal protection of the laws". Now I know that there is a difference between the common understanding of what this means and the strict legal interpretation. The common understanding (if I may be so bold) is that the punishment for two similar offenses should have two similar treatments under the law.

But - - - it seems clear that marijuana is less harmful medically and societally than other drugs like alcohol and cigarettes. This violates the concept of equal protection and the law is bad.

-ooOoo-

I frequently hear the argument that the use of marijuana leads to the use of other drugs. This argument has some merit, not because of the drug marijuana but because of the laws against it. This forces people to buy the marijuana from criminals who have a monetary interest in getting people started on actually addicting drugs. Saying that people that do hard drugs have previously done marijuana does not establish cause and effect any more than saying that all these people "started" on milk.

Yes - - and I do remember a recent newspaper article about a survey that showed that it is easier to get marijuana than alcohol for HS kids. Another great achievement of the laws against M?

And yes there are people in treatment for M use. That is because they are forced to do this counseling as a condition of their legal status.

PJ

[bigbadbrad]

Great points, Peter.

As for changing law, once it is on the books, there are huge Obstacles to removal, including those coalition of interested parties alligned against decriminalization for a myrid of reasons both Philosophic, scientific and economic.

[JPC]

Yes, Peter Joes I do feel that way about all laws. If you think that there are unjust laws then people should do something about it. But as long as a law is a law it has to be followed. We do not get to pick and choose which laws to follow because it is our opinion that they aren't right. I don't think the seat belt law is right, but I do buckle up. One of these days I will get around to petitioning it to be removed. But until that day, wear your seat belt or pay the fine.

"But - - - it seems clear that marijuana is less harmful medically and societally than other drugs like alcohol and cigarettes. This violates the concept of equal protection and the law is bad."

I'm sorry but it does not seem that clear to me and many others. Low level use is no safer then low level use of alcohol and hard core use is no better then hard core use of alcohol. And jajang has a very good point as well, the major roadblock with pot, is there is not a good way to determine how high someone is, it can't be controlled. Therefore it has to be illegal. The legalization people would do their cause well if they could come up with a way to address this.

And you are right BBB, changing laws is not easy, doable but not easy. Which makes it all the more important for the public to watch closely as laws are being created the first time around (in general).

[bigbadbrad]

Well, these are temperance era laws, by huckleberry I wasn't alive then. Also, there are coupious numbers of substances that you shouldn't use before driving a vechile or hunt or operate a chain saw, etc. Most of those substances are legal and/or regulated on some level. Not to excuse the behavior, but you've got to smoke alot of weed to get to a point where are a even remotely close to the adverse effect on driving and relflex's posed by booze. Regardless, my main beef with the criminalization of personal possesion of "small amounts" of weed is the pointless expenditure of public monies persecuting a behavior that a significant minority of American Adults engage in. As for this most recent case involving this family court lady, if anything She needs to be prosecuted for "general dumbassery". WHat the hell was she thinking?

[Peter Joes]

Thanks so much JPC for a thoughtful response to my comments.

"But as long as a law is a law it has to be followed." Problem is that when we have bad laws they aren't universally enforced. They are selectively enforced. Consider the statements by out attorney general that people in possession of small amounts of marijuana do not get jail time. And consider his jokes about how the amount of M that the atty was caught with was more than a fraternity could smoke all year! yuk, yuk

So, he is not prosecuting "users" to the full extent of the law but feels that this person growing the weed deserves the wrath of his office.

-ooOoo-

Having read tons of studies on the medical consequences of the various drugs it is amazing to me that people can put M on the same playing field as other really dangerous drugs like nicotine and alcohol. Yet there are many intelligent people that harbor these beliefs.

I think what is needed in Vermont is an independent commission made up of medical and social service experts to examine and report on the medical and societal problems of the various drugs. This should then form the basis for a more fact-based policy toward all harmful drugs with a view toward minimizing the negative impacts on Vermont.

As to a definitive test for M, people involved in serious accidents have their blood tested, like it or not, for drugs. The presence of M would be detected. The statistics I've seen indicate a far greater problem from people distracted by smoking cigarettes while driving than by being under the influence of M. (and no, I read about this a long time ago and don't have the source handy).

I don't believe there is a simple roadside test available for M like their is for alcohol. Because M is defined in the same class as heroin it is difficult for researchers to be able to obtain the drug and permission for important research like this.

Lets start all over at the beginning and get the info for a solid fact-based premise upon which to build our drug policies.

PJ

[bigbadbrad]

"distracted" - Don't forget cell phones. That behavior drives me batty!

[Green Mountain 05401]

"Low level use is no safer then low level use of alcohol and hard core use is no better then hard core use of alcohol."

No, heavy use of marijuana is much less of an individual or societal problem than heavy use of alcohol. Which is why there is no such thing as "marijuana smoker's anonymous" but there are 12 step groups for more serious drugs: alcoholics anonymous and narcotics anonymous. And we don't hear about the problems of "binge smoking" on campus like we hear the problems of "binge drinking" on campus.

"And jajang has a very good point as well, the major roadblock with pot, is there is not a good way to determine how high someone is, it can't be controlled. Therefore it has to be illegal."

Of course there are good ways to tell how high someone is on any substance. It's called the field sobriety test. And if you can't pass it and you were driving than you broke the law --even if the drug was prescribed to you or bought legally at the liquor store. Nobody I know of thinks we should decriminalize driving while intoxicated on any substance. Keep in mind their is no "breathalizer for any drug other than alcohol and this includes legal drugs that are prescribed.

[bigbadbrad]

Good Points, Green. While possesion of weed can land you in th joint, our jails a FULL of people who did very distructive and ANTI-socical deeds while under the influence of booze and/or hard drugs. Nary a one who was ONLY under the influence of weed. Have youever heard of someone raping or robbing or murdering under the influence of weed. I don't think so.

[JPC]

"It's called the field sobriety test"

That's not a good test! How many convictions do you think would be gotten without a quantitative test. The test is purely subjective, meaning it has absolutely no standing in court.

"No, heavy use of marijuana is much less of an individual or societal problem than heavy use of alcohol."

That appears to be your opinion, this has been state repeatedly but I have yet to see a study or statistics that support it. That being said I don't care enough about the subject to go doing the research. Smoke if you want to and be prepared to pay the price if your caught. BTW haven't heard from Sandy recently.

[bigbadbrad]

Low level use is no safer then low level use of alcohol and hard core use is no better then hard core use of alcohol.

Unbelievable. Well that appears to be you opinion and you are intitled to it, but as usual on this subject you are dead wrong.

Let's see....

Alcohol a Factor in 40 Percent of Violent Crimes

Two-thirds of victims who suffered violence by an intimate (a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend) reported that alcohol had been a factor. Among spouse victims, 3 out of 4 incidents were reported to have involved an offender who had been drinking. By contrast, an estimated 31 percent of stranger victimizations where the victim could determine the absence or presence of alcohol were perceived to be alcohol-related.

That's the tip of the iceberg.