Forum, May 7: The folly and hypocrisy of Vermont’s marijuana debate

Monday, May 06, 2019
The folly and hypocrisy of Vermont’s marijuana debate

Marijuana is banned under federal law. Vermont has no power to repeal such law. It can not legalize marijuana. It cannot “tax and regulate” it. Legislators know this. By passing such bills, they violate their oaths of office, and commit an act of rebellion against the Union.

Were such law enacted, it would invite our president to declare martial law in Vermont. This​ is just the sort of thing he would do. State officials could be prosecuted under organized crime statutes, as that is exactly what such a profit-oriented protection racket would be. Any public interest group could sue Vermont to void such a law as violative of the Supremacy Clause. A federal judge would have no choice but to deem it so, and would award attorneys fees. A class action lawsuit might then be brought by those harmed. The state might find itself facing millions of dollars worth of liabilities.

Our leaders debate whether a warrant should be required to test for driving under the influence of cannabis. No warrant is required for compelling a field sobriety test. Drivers know that if they refuse to give a breath test for alcohol, they will lose their license. The same will go for a saliva test for THC. Those who insist on a warrant do not want there to be such testing, as it would make it impossible. They do not wish motorists to be prosecuted for driving under the influence of cannabis nor to lose their licenses for doing so.

Truly, the folly and hypocrisy of this government is incomprehensible. It could be considered funny, were it not for the fact that in 2016, five high school students were killed on Interstate 89 in Williston, Vt., and a toxicology report showed that the man who faces charges of second-degree murder in the case was stoned out of his mind.



Connecting abortion, eugenics and immigrants

I feel compelled to address Janice Prindle’s response (“The great social ill of forcing women to breed for the nation,” April 28, ) to my recent Forum submission (“We should be blaming Roe v. Wade for America’s shrunken workforce,” April 21).

First of all, the “great social ill” to which abortion was supposed to be the answer was actually the sexual revolution beginning in the 1960s, or more precisely, the inability or unwillingness of both men and women to accept responsibility for their newfound sexual freedom. With the exception of rape, incest or coerced prostitution, no woman is “forced” to engage in sex, and pregnancy is often the natural outcome of the irresponsible exercise of sexuality.

Abortion is clearly the most insidious form of human trafficking, scarring women both physically and emotionally, and destroying thousands of unborn children. The connection of eugenics and Hitler to abortion is forged through Margaret Sanger, the progenitor of Planned Parenthood and an avowed racist who desired to exterminate “undesirable” elements in our population, in her view primarily those of African American descent. Abortion disproportionately affects the African American population. I find it interesting that an average of 1,400 black babies daily were aborted during eight years under America’s first black president.

Blaming the “libertarian, Koch-funded wing of the Republican Party” is dubious because some of the bailouts of financial institutions that benefited the wealthy at the expense of the middle and working classes, irrespective of race, took place under Democrats during the Obama administration.

As far as our all being descended from immigrants, so-called “Native Americans” are no exception. Anthropologists theorize that their ancestors may have migrated here, possibly by crossing the Bering Strait. It is ironic that the statement to the effect that we “need immigrants to fill the jobs Americans don’t want” appeared in the same edition of the Valley News as the article about Orford’s Stacey Thomson, who is more than happy to make a handsome living doing “dirty” jobs others don’t want to do. Of course, he is descended from immigrants, too.



Something about Jesus the anti-Semites are forgetting

Just a short message to the anti-Semites of the world: Where do you think you would have found Jesus on the Sabbath? In the synagogue, of course.

He was born and died Jewish, and, if it were not for his followers, (also Jewish), Christianity wouldn’t exist today.

If Mary, the mother of Jesus, were alive today, she could easily become the victim of an attack.

What are you thinking?