[GJJG2012]

The Supreme Court is not required to use dictionary definitions of words, so they can take away all of our Constitutional rights & claim they are still using the Constitution. The states have tricks of their own. The laws on MMJ are denied by in state law enforcement. DEA policy last I heard was don't prosecute if under 500 lbs or 500 plants, but they admit they come when asked by in state law enforcement.

So if in state law enforcement doesn't want people to think they ignore MMJ laws in their state, they call DEA, then DEA comes.

Also, look at our alcohol laws. Federal, state, county & municipal all have some say in it. Why doesn't Supreme Court say these decisions should all be made by Feds?

The Constitution says the Feds have the right to *regulate* interstate commerce & Supreme Court says this gives Fed govt right to close down state MMJ programs. But when I look in dictionary under regulate, it does *not* say "to prohibit".

When it is announced more money is available to fight drugs, 50 different Federal agencies say we can do something with drugs.

X-LAPD Chief D.Gates started the DARE program & said casual drug users should be rounded up & shot.

Voters/pols are part of problem, too. Early on Newt Gingrich used MJ & said it should be legal, at least for medicine. Then medical industry bought him, & he introduced a bill calling for executions of any American in possession of 2 oz or more! So, saying harmless need executing wasn't enough to stop voters from keeping him in politics for half a century! Scary, isn't it? (Right party=right person?)

America can't have much freedom as long as voters vote for the bribed (most Dems & Reps). It doesn't matter to them that cannabis has 124 medical uses & in oil form cures cancer. Best wishes.

Originally Posted by Raphael07

Federal legalization would just get rid of a ban on the federal level, not say that this has to be legal in all states. Effectively, I believe this would just get rid of federal offenses on marijuana charges. Yes, a lot of states would follow in legalization, but it would not be compulsory. If the federal government forced legalization in all states there would be an uproar by people who would consider it a violation of state's rights.

[MountainMen]

Originally Posted by Xander_Crews

you do not believe in freedom, simple as that. Own it, you don't like freedom.

Careful, you're starting to sound like George W. Bush. Freedom is not that simple. You can either maximize total freedom (by limiting bad behaviors and the societal costs associated with them), or you can grant freedom to badly behaved people (thus taking it away from well behaved people). I feel like we are beating a dead horse here. We might as well agree to disagree.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Xander_Crews

Is this dude trolling me?

This is the same guy who thought the city towing his car off a public street with tags 2+ months expired was a violation of the 4th Amendment.

He lives in his own little reality.

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by MountainMen

Careful, you're starting to sound like George W. Bush. Freedom is not that simple. You can either maximize total freedom (by limiting bad behaviors and the societal costs associated with them), or you can grant freedom to badly behaved people (thus taking it away from well behaved people). I feel like we are beating a dead horse here. We might as well agree to disagree.

Careful, you are starting to sound like Lenin. I have no views in common with George Bush, he doesn't believe in freedom at all, look at his record of using the military to dominate smaller countries and the war on drugs, stealing people's money to give to friends in the form of bailouts...and you realize this guy is anti-freedom.

You obviously do not understand freedom at it's core concept if you think "you have the freedom to make good decisions, not bad ones." That is ABSURD if you know an inkling of rights theory.

I will maintain that you are not a fan of freedom, and advocate against it.

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

This is the same guy who thought the city towing his car off a public street with tags 2+ months expired was a violation of the 4th Amendment.

He lives in his own little reality.

Whew, I knew something was wrong, ha ha. I am an easy target for trolls, as I tend to feed them ha ha.

[MountainMen]

Originally Posted by Xander_Crews

I am an easy target for trolls,

You know a debate is over when the name calling starts. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a troll. A troll is one who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages.

[jm31828]

I find it funny that Nebraska is the land of red politically, the people who strongly believe that government should stay out of their lives, let them "live and let live", but yet then want to turn around and outlaw/ban everything THEY think in their narrow minds is bad, such as the situation with casinos. So much for letting people live their lives the way they want to without government interference, huh? And who gets to decide what is "good" and what is "bad"? Maybe next a few ultra conservative folks will decide to outlaw birth control because it is "bad", maybe ban video game consoles because staring at TV screens for too long is "bad", heck maybe even start outlawing certain bad curse words because they are "harmful", too? Who exactly decides? Whose opinion of "bad" ends up being the law? It is this kind of government interference/regulation that people supposedly so independent like Nebraskans are supposed to be so against!

I see arguments on here that casinos ruin the society in a particular town, bring all kinds of problems, absolutely ruin a place, etc. That is so ridiculous it is laughable. We have casinos all over the place here in Washington state. For example there is a big one just ten minutes or so north of where I live. People go there for an entertaining evening, having dinner at one of the restaurants onsite and doing some gambling and then going home. And guess what? It is not flushing that area into the toilet, it's not a seedy area, it is not ruining all the people who go there, it is really doing no harm. It's a nice place, in a nice area, with one of the biggest, busiest outlet malls in the country on the adjacent property attracting everyday and high end shoppers from all around. The casino is having zero negative effect on the outlet mall or the people who go there, nor on the community around it- it is just simply a place people go to eat and play. The vast majority of people know their limits and play within those limits. Sure, you will have a very small percentage who go off the deep end and gamble themselves into major debt and that is very unfortunate, but that is far, far from the norm- and those people who do that will find other ways to feed their gambling addiction without the casino, such as underground gambling, lottery, keno, etc. (Nebraska has lottery and keno, both are forms of gambling, so there is more of a double standard right there) Anyway the vast majority of people going there are doing zero harm to themselves or anyone else, and there is no ill effect on the area by having it there.

I lived in Nebraska for 12 long years and thank my lucky stars I was able to get out of there and move away.

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by MountainMen

You know a debate is over when the name calling starts. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a troll. A troll is one who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages.

You know a debate is over when someone refuses to address issues and relies on pedantry to try to "win" the argument. Your above post is a direct example of this.

You have been posting mostly things that I find to be extraneous and inflammatory... not to mention, downright silly. Also, to educated, thinking people... your arguments are so SOOOO ridiculous, that I felt like I was being bated into a false discussion for your entertainment. I still feel like you have to be messing with me, because you keep posting logical fallacies as if we should live according to them.

If you want to prove me wrong, prove me wrong.... or just whine because I asked the general populace of this board if I was being trolled, and I, in essence got told, "yes.".

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by jm31828

I find it funny that Nebraska is the land of red politically, the people who strongly believe that government should stay out of their lives, let them "live and let live", but yet then want to turn around and outlaw/ban everything THEY think in their narrow minds is bad, such as the situation with casinos. So much for letting people live their lives the way they want to without government interference, huh? And who gets to decide what is "good" and what is "bad"? Maybe next a few ultra conservative folks will decide to outlaw birth control because it is "bad", maybe ban video game consoles because staring at TV screens for too long is "bad", heck maybe even start outlawing certain bad curse words because they are "harmful", too? Who exactly decides? Whose opinion of "bad" ends up being the law? It is this kind of government interference/regulation that people supposedly so independent like Nebraskans are supposed to be so against!

I see arguments on here that casinos ruin the society in a particular town, bring all kinds of problems, absolutely ruin a place, etc. That is so ridiculous it is laughable. We have casinos all over the place here in Washington state. For example there is a big one just ten minutes or so north of where I live. People go there for an entertaining evening, having dinner at one of the restaurants onsite and doing some gambling and then going home. And guess what? It is not flushing that area into the toilet, it's not a seedy area, it is not ruining all the people who go there, it is really doing no harm. It's a nice place, in a nice area, with one of the biggest, busiest outlet malls in the country on the adjacent property attracting everyday and high end shoppers from all around. The casino is having zero negative effect on the outlet mall or the people who go there, nor on the community around it- it is just simply a place people go to eat and play. The vast majority of people know their limits and play within those limits. Sure, you will have a very small percentage who go off the deep end and gamble themselves into major debt and that is very unfortunate, but that is far, far from the norm- and those people who do that will find other ways to feed their gambling addiction without the casino, such as underground gambling, lottery, keno, etc. (Nebraska has lottery and keno, both are forms of gambling, so there is more of a double standard right there) Anyway the vast majority of people going there are doing zero harm to themselves or anyone else, and there is no ill effect on the area by having it there.

I lived in Nebraska for 12 long years and thank my lucky stars I was able to get out of there and move away.

People like to pick something that they don't like, and then they will find problems in society that they can tie very loosely to their issue, and pretend that it caused it.

With that logic you can outlaw anything.

[MountainMen]

Originally Posted by Xander_Crews

You know a debate is over when someone refuses to address issues

Do you need me to address your comments in order for them to be valid? Also, it is not my intent to prove you wrong. Your viewpoint was well elucidated, thank you. We obviously think differently about this issue, and that disagreement is neither inflammatory nor extraneous.

[Lincoln Nebraska Native]

Originally Posted by Xander_Crews

Again, if liberty and freedom scares you, move out of the one single country designed to be an experiment in human freedom... a majority of countries around the world are designed to regulate human behavior for the common good, move there.

If not having casinos scares you, move to Iowa.

Originally Posted by Xander_Crews

Careful, you are starting to sound like Lenin.

Yes, we're all secretly communists in Nebraska.