vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

2.05.2008

Belly up

The Senate Economic Development Committee decided today it will hear more testimony on the idea of lowering the drinking age.

That's not to say the committee will endorse it. Chairman Vince Illuzzi said it's not something he's enthusiastic about, but the majority of the five-member panel said they'd like to hear more. The bill under consideration doesn't just flat out call for lowering the age. It calls for studying it over the summer.

This, of course, is an issue former Middlebury College President John McCardell is pushing. The committee has heard from him.

Is it an issue that has legs in the world at large?

Sen. Hinda Miller took some ribbing about her support for this bill and the one to decriminalize small amount of marijuana out. There were suggestions that her kids were pretty strong lobbyists.

Miller said it's her, not the kids, who wants to square street reality with the legal reality. Teenagers are drinking, she said, and they're doing it behind adults' backs, which is more dangerous than above-board drinking would be.

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 12:17 PM |

Comments:

Why stop at a "little pot"? Hey, people also do coke, heroin, meth, so let's make that legal too! While we're at it, let's do the whole liberal thing - let's decriminalize EVERYTHING!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:39 PM, February 05, 2008

Let the soldiers drink.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:46 PM, February 05, 2008

Bubba, aren't you in favor of smaller government??

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:50 PM, February 05, 2008

Get serious, Bubble boy's not in favor of anything. That requires thought and intellect.

He's just against people who put on airs and insist on walking only on their two legs like Democrats.

If he listens to flush and coulter, he's a mittwit. If he listens to some other talk show hack who doesn't parrot flush, he's a mccainiac who wants to stay in Iraq for another 100 years because the Brits cut and ran on the 100 Years War.

Either way, it's a steady diet of ignorant gop-slop.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 9:23 PM, February 05, 2008

I wish these scotch-swilling, hypocrites would leave those poor potsmokers alone. And never mind the damn kids. In case people haven't noticed, most potsmokers are ADULTS, in age at least.

I know a few people who have tried pot and, amazingly enough, most of them even have jobs and pay taxes.

Governor Douglas keeps trying to think up ways to attract young people to Vermont...

I bet this would do it.

The real crime is that adults who choose to use marijuana have to pay a third its weight in gold.
Ya know, if pot was cheaper, the people who use it would have some extra jingle around to help stimulate the 'real economy'. Always wondered where all that money went....

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:43 AM, February 06, 2008

"I know a few people who have tried pot and, amazingly enough, most of them even have jobs and pay taxes."

I know a few people who smoked a lot of pot in high school. They dropped out. They're probably in jail now or on welfare.

The rest of us gave it up and moved on with our lives.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:55 AM, February 06, 2008

How many drinking age studies do we need? The arguements that lowered it in the first place still hold true. I know a lot of people smoke pot and nearly as many who abuse it. Abuse of any drug is a serious matter and unfortunately drunks and stoners can do a world of damage to the rest of us. It is not worth the risk.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:28 AM, February 06, 2008

Anonymous said...

"I know a few people who have tried pot and, amazingly enough, most of them even have jobs and pay taxes."

"I know a few people who smoked a lot of pot in high school. They dropped out. They're probably in jail now or on welfare."

"I know a few people who smoked a lot of pot in high school. They dropped out. They're probably in jail now or on welfare."

"The rest of us gave it up and moved on with our lives."

Talk about assuming facts not in evidence, little nameless-factless-nitwit fella.

If the best you can do when pressed for evidence is:

"I know a few people who smoked a lot of pot in high school. They dropped out. They're probably in jail now or on welfare."

To paraphrase a flush phrase, little fella, your anecdotal anal poisoning ain't evidence.

ya got bupkis.

We've had at least 1 - probably two - kids who've smoked pot and gone on to be President and we're about to have a third, little fella. That's a fact. Deal with it.

Always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 5:37 PM, February 06, 2008

Anonymous said...

"How many drinking age studies do we need? The arguements that lowered it in the first place still hold true. I know a lot of people smoke pot and nearly as many who abuse it. Abuse of any drug is a serious matter and unfortunately drunks and stoners can do a world of damage to the rest of us. It is not worth the risk."

That's essentially what they said about Prohibition, little fella.

Apart from making Al Capone a rich man, how'd that work out?

11:28 AM, February 06, 2008

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 6:17 PM, February 06, 2008

"We've had at least 1 - probably two - kids who've smoked pot and gone on to be President and we're about to have a third, little fella. That's a fact. Deal with it."

1. Talk about assuming facts not in evidence, little fella. Who are the "probably two?"

Ya got no evidence.

2. Assuming the current dolt in the White House is one of your two, that proves my point that it ain't good for ya, little fella.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:41 PM, February 06, 2008

Anonymous has left a new comment on the post "Belly up":

"We've had at least 1 - probably two - kids who've smoked pot and gone on to be President and we're about to have a third, little fella. That's a fact. Deal with it."

"1. Talk about assuming facts not in evidence, little fella. Who are the "probably two?"

We hold the fact that you've got no evidence beyond your "I knew a guy in HS and they're probably in jail or on welfare" nonsense to be self-evident, little fella.

Just which part of "probably" is giving you trouble?

Clinton's on record. Shrub just pulls his "when I was young and foolish, I was young and foolish" nonsense."

Anybody with a brain and a pulse under the age of 60 has at least been offered the opportunity.

Furthermore, little factless fella, Obama's very existence as one of two serious Presidential Candidates blows your "I knew a guy and they're probably..." anecdotal nonsense to hell.

Obama's on record. He's also a hell of a lot smarter than the dolt that's in there now. I don't know what Hillary's situation is. I wouldn't be surprised either way.

"Ya got no evidence."

Really. An admission and a "when I was young and foolish is no evidence but your "I knew a guy...." slop is, eh?

Nice try.

"2. Assuming the current dolt in the White House is one of your two, that proves my point that it ain't good for ya, little fella."

Well, little fella, given that the dolt in question was drunk until he was 40 shows the healing power of Jim Beam. Ya gonna reinstate prohibition now, little fella?

Ya got bupkis.

Not everybody who smoked pot in HS is in jail or on welfare today, little fella. Just like every frat boy who drank like a frat boy when he was a frat boy still drinks like a frat boy.

Pot ain't heroin or the Oxy-moron's hillbilly heroin, little fella.

Some have problems. Some don't. That's a fact. Deal with it.

You're in the spinderella's barack HUSSEIN Obama zone if ya think that's evidence, schmuck

Little idiot fella, the fact that you have bupkis when asked for evidence is a given. Just like your theory that everyone "you knew" who smoked pot in HS is "probably" in jail or on welfare today.

Ya got bupkis.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 9:31 PM, February 06, 2008

So now "probably" is evidence for you, little fella?

Your defensive attitude shows that you're on pot.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:24 AM, February 07, 2008

jw distilled:

little fella
little factless fella
your slop
little fella
little fella
Ya got bupkis
little fella
little fella
chmuck
little idiot fella
you have bupkis
Ya got bupkis
Dismissed

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:28 AM, February 07, 2008

"Anybody with a brain and a pulse under the age of 60 has at least been offered the opportunity."

And your evidence for that is . . .?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:30 AM, February 07, 2008

"Not everybody who smoked pot in HS is in jail or on welfare today, little fella."

And when did I say that they were, little fella?

"Pot ain't heroin or the Oxy-moron's hillbilly heroin, little fella."

Gee, no kidding?

"Just like your theory that everyone "you knew" who smoked pot in HS is "probably" in jail or on welfare today."

And where do you see that I wrote that?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:00 AM, February 07, 2008

jw distilled:

little fella
little factless fella
your slop
little fella
little fella
Ya got bupkis
little fella
little fella
chmuck
little idiot fella
you have bupkis
Ya got bupkis
Dismissed

In other words, you've quoted me because ya got bupkis.

You're gonna have to do better than another highlights package of my stuff to make it look like ya got something to say, little fella.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 7:36 AM, February 07, 2008

As opposed to merely showing that you had nothing to say first.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:16 AM, February 07, 2008

Nah, I leave the stuff to you and bubble boy, little fella.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 10:44 AM, February 07, 2008

Pay attention jwcoop10.
Sen. Hinda Miller isn't talking about a prohibition, she would like to lower the drinking age. Nothing good can come of this...I would propose that young people that aren't old enough to legally drink should not be asked to be solders defending your dumb ass. My agruement is that we are already asking too much of our young people. 18 is too young.

what are you? 8yrs old? what's with all the name calling?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:51 AM, February 07, 2008

Anonymous said...

"Pay attention jwcoop10."

"Sen. Hinda Miller isn't talking about a prohibition, she would like to lower the drinking age. Nothing good can come of this...I would propose that young people that aren't old enough to legally drink should not be asked to be solders defending your dumb ass."

"My agruement is that we are already asking too much of our young people. 18 is too young."

First of all, little "argruementative" fella. I read the article so go cheney yourself.

Secondly, the "prohibition" post was pointing out the absurdity of the current pot laws in terms of taxpayer funding for cops, courts and corrections costs which are up considerably more than Educational funding.

Finally, you can't prevent somebody from joining the service. It would be Unconstitutional.

Moreover, they're taking anybody they can find just to get close for the recruiting numbers, so the Pentagon would never let the notion see the light of day.

Just who's defending your dumb ass, little fella?

The biggest threat to this Country was and is Afghanistan. If this clown gave a damn about anybody but himself, Iraq never would have happened and there'd be more troops in Afghanistan.

Hinda Miller can be in favor of anything she wants. That don't make it a lock to become law, little fella.

Pay attention, little fella.

"what are you? 8yrs old? what's with all the name calling?"

Well, Mr dumb ass, aren't you in Kindergarten with my little brother or do you go in the afternoon?

You're just another nameless nitwit to me, little fella, so if ya wanna pick an argument with me, ya just might wanna learn how to spell the word first.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 4:31 PM, February 07, 2008

"funding for cops, courts and corrections costs"

Guess you don't read the papers or follow the legislative testimony, little fella. The police, the state's attorneys' offices, and the AG have all stated that small quantity marijuana possession enforcement consumes virtually no resources.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:37 PM, February 07, 2008

"so if ya wanna pick an argument with me, ya just might wanna learn how to spell the word first."

Ya mean like Peter "Feyne?"

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:42 PM, February 07, 2008

Anonymous said...

"funding for cops, courts and corrections costs"

"Guess you don't read the papers or follow the legislative testimony, little fella. The police, the state's attorneys' offices, and the AG have all stated that small quantity marijuana possession enforcement consumes virtually no resources."

Gee, an Agency fighting to keep their level of funding...what are the odds.

Isn't Bobby Sand a State's Attorney, little fella?

Sleep tight.

8:37 PM, February 07, 2008

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 10:31 PM, February 07, 2008

No, that's the point, dopey little fella. They're not making arrests for small quantity possession, see? No one's getting busted for small quantity possession, and no one's going to jail for it, see? There may be reaons for decriminalizing small quantity possession of marijuana, but the argument that current marijuana law enforcment is "clogging" the legal system in Vermont is a red herring, see? It has nothing to do with an "Agency" trying to keep their level of funding.

Get it?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:46 AM, February 08, 2008

Just once I would like to read one of these blogs withOUT jwcoop running off on tangents and insults. In all the freeps blogs I can find nothing worth reading from this guy.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:02 PM, February 08, 2008

"Just once I would like to read one of these blogs withOUT jwcoop running off on tangents and insults. In all the freeps blogs I can find nothing worth reading from this guy."

In other words, ya got bupkis.

I don't give a damn what you want to read little nameless-nitwit fella.

I don't wanna read your nameless, factless, nitwit-nonsense slop any more than I want to read spinderella's ignorant, bigoted-trash nonsense claiming "Pat Leahy is probably the most vicious, partisan politician in this country." when he's not even in the team picture, so feel free to go cheney yourself, schmuck.

You're just another factually-challenged anonymous nitwit with nothing to say and still less to back it up.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 3:28 PM, February 08, 2008

In other words, ya got bupkis
I don't give a damn
little nameless-nitwit fella
your nameless, factless, nitwit-nonsense slop
ignorant, bigoted-trash nonsense
go cheney yourself, schmuck
factually-challenged anonymous nitwit with nothing to say and still less to back it up
Dismissed

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:51 PM, February 08, 2008

"factually-challenged"

No, you mean "fact-challenged."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:53 PM, February 08, 2008

"nothing to say and still less to back it up"

That's illogical.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:54 PM, February 08, 2008

Anonymous has left a new comment on the post "Belly up":

"nothing to say and still less to back it up"

"That's illogical."

No, it's an accurate description of your act, little fact-free fella.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 8:40 AM, February 09, 2008

Anonymous said...

""I don't wanna read your nameless, factless, nitwit-nonsense slop any more than I want to read spinderella's ignorant, bigoted-trash nonsense""

"Great! So leave! It's a win-win, schmuck."

Nice try, schmuck.

Just knowing you care enough to post such tripe is reason enough to stay, little fella.

Go cheney yourself.

Dismissed

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 8:45 AM, February 09, 2008

Nah, they'll just send your dough to exxon. They don't buy munitions. They do what all gops do, max out the visa and stick the kids and the grandkids with the bill.

If it wasn't for gops, we wouldn't be in this fix.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 8:57 AM, February 09, 2008

"Nah, they'll just send your dough to exxon. They don't buy munitions. They do what all gops do, max out the visa and stick the kids and the grandkids with the bill.
If it wasn't for gops, we wouldn't be in this fix."

Oops. Another confused, posted-on-the-wrong-thread mistake by jw.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:24 PM, February 09, 2008

"I don't wanna read your nameless, factless, nitwit-nonsense"

So leave.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:25 PM, February 09, 2008