Nevada voting on legalization

[Tall Guy]

How 'bout Viva Las Vegas

Or CS:hIgh.

[711]

Heh, what's the modern equivalent of the word "moonshiner"?

[courtjester]

Um, I don't know how Vietnam got into the conversation, but OK. As for the proliferation of Native American casinos representing primary expansion of the gaming industry in the U.S., I suppose you could make that argument, and might even be right.

On the other hand, major gaming corporations are running casinos that aren't on sovereign land, and have nothing to do with Native Americans, all over this country.

Detroit, Biloxi, Joliet, Michigan City, St. Louis, Tunica, Shreveport, New Orleans, that Caesars Palace thing in Southern Indiana -- hell, I'm just going down middle America, and there's a half-dozen or more. You can't swing a dead cat in this country without hitting an MGM/Mirage or Harrah's Corp. property somewhere, and they aren't sharing with the Lake Pottawattomi Band of Affronted Profiteers, I guarantee you that. I guess that doesn't qualify as gambling proliferation, though.

And yes, if one (1) state allows regulated weed sales in this country, with no medical b.s. requirement, it's going to cause a domino effect. Alaska never allowed such a thing, and there was no financial benefit to government. Big difference.

[Doog]

Um, I don't know how Vietnam got into the conversation, but OK.

Neither do I and I still don't Was it possibly

Heh, what's the modern equivalent of the word "moonshiner"?

Please elaborate my good man, oh and by the way........

And yes, if one (1) state allows regulated weed sales in this country, with no medical b.s. requirement, it's going to cause a domino effect. Alaska never allowed such a thing, and there was no financial benefit to government. Big difference.

Totally agree.

[Stygian23]

Um, I don't know how Vietnam got into the conversation, but OK.

You brought up the Domino Theory, which was the major argument against communism and the impetus of the Korean and Viet Nam wars. I pointed out that that theory was wrong then and wrong now.

On the other hand, major gaming corporations are running casinos that aren't on sovereign land, and have nothing to do with Native Americans, all over this country.

Yes, but this is hardly a major paradigm shift. For the most part, gambling is generally frowned upon, and most state legislatures prefer not to allow it.

And yes, if one (1) state allows regulated weed sales in this country, with no medical b.s. requirement, it's going to cause a domino effect. Alaska never allowed such a thing, and there was no financial benefit to government. Big difference.

Alaska never said anything about medical issues either. They allowed you to grow your own at home and had some of the most lax possession laws in the country. And for decades. And in all that time their ease of use on the drug has not spread to other states. And as for whether the state of Nevada legalizes the weed with or without medical benefits it won't matter, the response from the federal government will be the same. Harsher probably. In the case of Medical Marijuana laws where the overwhelming majority of the U.S. population believes that the plant should be legal, the Fed Gov't still attempts to enforce its will over that of the state. In Gonzales vs. Raich (Supreme Court, 2005), the Supreme Court ruled that despite State's Rights and State autonomy to regulate substances within its own border (so long as that substance is not transported over state lines) the cultivation, sale, and use of Marijuana (even for medical purposes and with the saction of the State) is still a Federal Crime. The gov't is quite willing to throw cancer and AIDS patients in jail to try to stem the medical marijuana movement, what makes you think that just because Nevada legalizes that this will change ANYTHING? This time they won't even have the argument of sick patients to support the cause, it will just be seen as a move toward legalizing the big bad herb to get high. The bible belt and the tools in Washington won't let that happen. And as for a financial benefit to the gov't, that won't matter either. Most politicians see their jobs as being held by their electors and the fat-cat lobbyists (DuPont, the Petrochemical industry, and the pharmacuetical industry). A lil money that comes in to one state government (even if the money came into the Federal government) won't change this, as the money doesn't enter the politician's pocket quite the same way as the money from lobbyists, and the taxes from weed won't get them re-elected.

[711]

Heh, what's the modern equivalent of the word "moonshiner"?

Please elaborate my good man.

Oh, someone brought up the word prohibition, which reminded me of the alcohol prohibition (people who made alcohol illegally in US were called moonshiners, they made moonshine and sold it at speakeasies). I happened to wonder what the modern equivalent of such terms are; what will we call the pot growers of old when this wacky prohibition ends? =P

[Lafe]

the cultivation, sale, and use of Marijuana (even for medical purposes and with the saction of the State) is still a Federal Crime

Very true. However, the overwhelming majority of arrests are by local authorities. If they choose to not enforce, or are directed to not enforce federal statutes, then what? A swarm of feds on every corner in Nevada?

And Nevada is probably the ONLY state that could exist without federal funding. Point taken about "no domino effect" from progressive Alaskan views, but the lack of proximity to the rest of the country causes many Americans to frankly not think that much about Alaska.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Other states which may consider this, based on demographics, would be Vermont and possibly New Hampshire.

Particularly Vermont :-)

p.s. in all fairness, there really are not that many street corners in Nevada :-)

[courtjester]

About state legislatures not allowing gambling, any U.S. citizen living in a lottery state, when none existed just 25 or 30 years ago, feel free to raise your hands. Got a state lottery where you live, Stygian? I'll take a wild guess and say yes. Just slap my wrist if I'm wrong.

How far away is your nearest casino now (to stay fairly within the framework, let's make that "non-sovereign-land" casino), and how far away was the nearest one, say, 30 years ago?

I have a major gaming property's casino less than three hours away. Thirty years ago, the nearest one was three time zones away.

I now know that expansion of gaming has nothing to do with, er, expansion of gaming; and that the theory of domino effect no longer exists or can be logically used in any application because it was once illogically applied to eradicating governments and imposing will.

Thanks for getting me straightened out. I only thought I was really seeing what I was really seeing. I feel better now that I know none of this is real. The Vietnam theory rocks.[/quote]

[courtjester]

Also, Stygian, to address the rest of your previous post, I can't argue against some of your governmental harangue. The federal overhang would be daunting, you are absolutely correct. Alaska flaunted a law for many years that ran contrary to prevailing federal statute; that also is absolutely correct. So does California, so does Colorado. If Nevada allows legal possession (or, in the ideal world, sales under the roof of the downtown strip in coffeehouses -- I'd like to rub the little leprechaun's head at Fitzgerald's with a fatty hanging out of my mouth), the obvious problem would be federal backlash. But as for lobbyists and political impact, don't you think that a legally regulated marijuana sales and distribution program would be able to assemble a pretty damn strong lobby of its own? I certainly do.

Things happen incrementally. I didn't say every state would start falling in lockstep this decade. But by 2025 or 2030? You bet (oh, wait, sorry, didn't mean to say bet).

I'm 45. If you ask me if I believe I will see marijuana decriminalized or legalized in large parts of the U.S. in my lifetime, I will say absolutely, yes, based on the events of the last 25 years, and the clearly shifting paradigm. I don't even think there's a debate. It's already happening.

I also plan on living a long and healthy life, though.

[Stygian23]

You are oversimplifying the situation, and with or without your sarcastic derision, that oversimplification is where you are going wrong. There are too many industries with a serious interest in keeping marihuana illegal. The petroleum, petro-chemical, lumber, pharmaceutical industries all lobby hard for its continued prohibition. Millions if not billions go into fighting marihuana both from lobbyists and federal drug funding. Police organizations also make money off of its prohibition, with American jails being run more as corporations than as penal institutions. Marijuana arrests (like most arrests) have become big business. The more arrests the more funding the Federal gov't gives to police organizations. And on top of all this is 70 years of pervasive moral rectitude that states marihuana use is just as bad as cocaine and heroin (even though anyone who has done any research on the matter knows better). Especially in the older generations and those raised in the bible belt. Now, trying to assert that because one ultra-liberal state attempts to bypass Federal law that they will succeed and it will spread to other states, is a bit of a leap. Even ignoring the example of Alaska, there are 13 states (last I checked) that have medical marihuana laws. 13 of 50 is hardly a robust spreading of right thinking. All of these states are having problems with the federal government over the issue. And, despite the local LEOs overlooking such offenses, the Feds have, and do, send in officers of the DEA to make strikes to prove points and to help shut down such state policies. The Gonzales vs. Raich decision in the Supreme Court also could be the death knell to medical marihuana as a whole, as the ruling stated that Federal Drug Laws supercede state laws, despite the issue of states' rights and the fact that the drug doesn't need to pass state borders inorder for the Federal Government to intervene in state law. For Christ's sake, the U.S. government won't keep its nose out of other countries' drug policies, do you honestly believe they will let it slide here because a handful of states want it?

The hippies and countercultures have been saying that marihuana will be legalized any day now because of this or that for 4 decades. It still hasn't happened. Will it? Sure. Prohibition laws are untenable, this has been proven time and time again. However, it won't be because of Nevada's approach. Perhaps because of the 13 and growing med-mari states, but not because of a state that wants to make it legal and tax it for entertainment purposes. And despite the MPA and NORML and whatever nickel and dime lobbies you think are out for legalization, their contributions do not even compare to those by the lobbyists that want it kept illegal. The two are not even in the same league. And again, it's been 40+ years people have been claiming that marijuana will be legal any day now, that because of all the changes in the "last few years" things will change. The fact is they haven't yet, and the amount of change toward the good of marijuana legalization pales in comparision to shifts for the negative. The Clinton administration for example arrested and incarcerated over 3 million marihuana users alone. And every president since Nixon has made laws harsher on marihuana use, not the other way around.

Basically, all I am saying is that while it is a good step, they aren't going to succeed. And not to get your hopes too far up. Yes, the times are a-changin', but change is a real slow process.

[DrGonzo]

As a tourist, if they sell it to me over a counter...... I'll buy it, Federal Law or none!

I can't imagine the public outcry if they imprisoned a British citizen for something the state legislative bodies class as legal.

[Alaskan Biker]

To tired at the moment to add much except Stygian is right about the Federal and business reaction if this passes and I believe they will aim there limited DEA resources at the shops that sell it and growers not the smokers since the local law enforcement will be sitting it out.

If this passes until the dust has settled and you have not seen a Fed busting shop owners for at least say a minimum of 2 years I would never open one there until I felt sure they really where not coming back.

But for the tokers and smokers a new day maybe coming to Nevada and any advance on an end to prohibition is a good thing.

To be certain the bastards will not go down without a fight there is just to much money that a handful of powerful industrial families are going to lose when this finally becomes nationwide in the future but they are finally beginning to lose a little ground and it is so beautiful to see.

[711]

I feel like I'm watching crossfire. Who wants to be James Carville?

[courtjester]

Stygian, no one said it would be easy, but a lot has been achieved in the last 40 years, to use your time frame. You're neither entirely wrong, nor entirely right. Same here. But to avoid my opinion being twisted and blended with whoever "they" are who said marijuana would be legal any day, well, "they" didn't say it to me, or I would tell them "they" were buffoons. As I noted, I believe broad-based legalization or decriminalization is many years distant.

At the same time, I think there were roughly the same number of med-pot states 40 years ago as there were, say, casinos outside Nevada (just to use an example...how close did you say your nearest non-sovereign-land casino is?) Yes, those states get hassled. Yes, federal vs. state rights are at issue, but we fought that war in the 1860s, and that's one thing we never did get resolved, so that's going to remain in debate until the federal side is pushed by too many states to fall in line (like, for example, after prohibition of alcohol).

The hippie culture collectively, assuming that means the group that was roughly 20 years old in 1965 (there's your 40-year period again), isn't even old enough to draw Social Security yet. The greatest proliferation of weed smokers in this country grew up after those years. They're only beginning to achieve some political and financial clout, and become policy-makers. That's the group I hope recognizes the absurdity of warehousing weed smokers on taxpayers' money, when it shouldn't even be illegal.

As for the drug lobbyists, I'm actively hoping the descendants of Sam Walton take every opportunity to shove it up their arses. His SuperStore never looked so good.

I didn't mean to be sarcastically demeaning, or whatever you called it (sorry, can't see the post as I'm typing this). Don't take it personally. We're on the same side, at heart.

[Stygian23]

No harm, no foul, bro. I tend to take the pessimistic approach to the topic as I been hearing pie in the sky for a long, long time. Anyhows, here is to the future. Cheers. <puff>