Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
…obviously the passion for power is one of the most moving passions that exists in man; and after all, all democracies are based on the proposition that power is very dangerous and that it is extremely important not to let any one man or any one small group have too much power for too long a time.
After all what are the British and American Constitution except devices for limiting power, and all these new devices are extremely efficient instruments for the imposition of power by small groups over larger masses. ~Aldous Huxley
Can you explain it to me like I am an 8 year old...Im seriousIf you read the conclusion it makes sense
Each petition can ask only one question. So a petition stating legalize marijuana with proceeds being used for schools and healthcare is actually 3 questions. Should marijuana be legal. Should we use the money for schools. Should we use the money for healthcare. By law there would need to be three petitions each asking one of thee questions. This was just hypothetical. The court said the marijuana petition asked eight questions.Can you explain it to me like I am an 8 year old...Im serious
The silliness behind this is if they asked the singular question "should medical Marijuana be legal", it would have passed and then immediately been regulated down by the legislature to the point of being meaningless.Each petition can ask only one question. So a petition stating legalize marijuana with proceeds being used for schools and healthcare is actually 3 questions. Should marijuana be legal. Should we use the money for schools. Should we use the money for healthcare. By law there would need to be three petitions each asking one of thee questions. This was just hypothetical. The court said the marijuana petition asked eight questions.
We all know that gambling and pot get passed, with ease, once you know who is gone.
I think you forget how red this state truly is. It goes beyond Tom Osborne or Pete Ricketts. There will always be some moral crusader to protect from the evils of the devil's lettuce or slot machines.
True that. And the crusaders are always funded by the parent companies of the Council Bluffs casinos.There will always be some moral crusader to protect from the evils of the devil's lettuce or slot machines.
We all know that gambling and pot get passed, with ease, once you know who is gone.
meaningless? So you mean it would have been regulated to the point that only people who MIGHT actually derive some benefit was able to use it?The silliness behind this is if they asked the singular question "should medical Marijuana be legal", it would have passed and then immediately been regulated down by the legislature to the point of being meaningless.
No, I'm saying the legislature would have restricted it down to essentially nobody being able to use it.meaningless? So you mean it would have been regulated to the point that only people who MIGHT actually derive some benefit was able to use it?
And maybe that's how it should be? Whenever medical marijuana has been legalized it's turned in to a free for all where anybody for any reason can get a "script". The medical benefits of MJ are very very limited and the negative effects on your lungs are becoming more evident with the passage of time. Logic would say that chronically inhaling smoke from a member of the ragweed family probably wouldn't be a good thing for a person.No, I'm saying the legislature would have restricted it down to essentially nobody being able to use it.
I honestly don't really care either way. I've never smoked pot and most likely never will. That being said, its undeniable that it can have a medical purpose but due to the stigma its still seen as some form of evil.And maybe that's how it should be? Whenever medical marijuana has been legalized it's turned in to a free for all where anybody for any reason can get a "script". The medical benefits of MJ are very very limited and the negative effects on your lungs are becoming more evident with the passage of time. Logic would say that chronically inhaling smoke from a member of the ragweed family probably wouldn't be a good thing for a person.
In some ways, I'm a bit of a libertarian but I don't want to have to breathe second hand pot smoke any more than I want to breathe in 2nd hand cigarette smoke. Whatever. My life doesn't revolve around being able to smoke weed. IF you want to do it in your own home, I don't care although we need to realize that the 2nd hand smoke has a similar effect on the development of a child's brain as 1st hand smoking does. Airway irritation from any smoke leads to an increase of asthma in children as well.
The bottom line is that if people are responsible intermittent recreational users it probably doesn't hurt much.
And maybe that's how it should be? Whenever medical marijuana has been legalized it's turned in to a free for all where anybody for any reason can get a "script". The medical benefits of MJ are very very limited and the negative effects on your lungs are becoming more evident with the passage of time. Logic would say that chronically inhaling smoke from a member of the ragweed family probably wouldn't be a good thing for a person.
In some ways, I'm a bit of a libertarian but I don't want to have to breathe second hand pot smoke any more than I want to breathe in 2nd hand cigarette smoke. Whatever. My life doesn't revolve around being able to smoke weed. IF you want to do it in your own home, I don't care although we need to realize that the 2nd hand smoke has a similar effect on the development of a child's brain as 1st hand smoking does. Airway irritation from any smoke leads to an increase of asthma in children as well.
The bottom line is that if people are responsible intermittent recreational users it probably doesn't hurt much.
I honestly don't really care either way. I've never smoked pot and most likely never will. That being said, its undeniable that it can have a medical purpose but due to the stigma its still seen as some form of evil.
Last time I checked they don't put edible THC containing products in a child proof container. There's been quite a few incidents of accidental poisoning of children in Colorado from MJ edibles. IF I remember correctly there was one death not too long ago from that. As I said, I'm not a fan of pot as a "medicine". There's really not much repeatable scientific evidence to support it's use. Recreational use? Meh. My issue with it is the abuse by young people and that already seems to be a problem for some. The "stoner" stereotype of young heavy pot users is a real deal. Do we really need something else to dumb down our youth?What if I only consume it as an edible?
Last time I checked they don't put edible THC containing products in a child proof container. There's been quite a few incidents of accidental poisoning of children in Colorado from MJ edibles. IF I remember correctly there was one death not too long ago from that. As I said, I'm not a fan of pot as a "medicine". There's really not much repeatable scientific evidence to support it's use. Recreational use? Meh. My issue with it is the abuse by young people and that already seems to be a problem for some. The "stoner" stereotype of young heavy pot users is a real deal. Do we really need something else to dumb down our youth?
The slaughter of 7 people at that MJ grow operation in California should be a wake up call. Legalizing weed isn't going to get organized crime out of the business.
I don't disagree with anything you've said other than pain management. There's no scientific evidence to support pain suppression with pot. It's all anecdotal. What it might do in SOME people is lessen anxiety which has some placebo effect with pain. That said, for terminal cancer patients there is no more potent pain killer than morphine and other opiates. IF somebody with terminal cancer wants pot, they should be able to get it.I’m usually in line with you, Dingle. But we may have to respectfully disagree here. On weed, I was a very late adopter. Never used it until I was in my late 20’s and rarely use it now.
I completely agree with the damage it can cause the youth. But I really don’t see that any different than alcohol in that regard. And frankly, it seems less dangerous than alcohol overall. I feel hypocritical thinking alcohol should be legal and weed illegal.
As for medicine, it is much safer for pain management than pills. For cancer patient hunger issues, it works well. And I’ve seen a few stories on children with seizures benefitting for it. The big one for me is the pain management. We stuff opioids down people’s throats at an alarming rate and it has lead to a terrifying opioid epidemic.
When compared to alcohol, I know a lot more people who have had alcohol ruin their lives than weed. I’m not saying that weed is harmless and cannot ruin people’s lives or that it is perfectly safe. But alcohol, in my opinion, is worse than pot. And that is coming from somebody who prefers to have a drink over getting high.
I’m usually in line with you, Dingle. But we may have to respectfully disagree here. On weed, I was a very late adopter. Never used it until I was in my late 20’s and rarely use it now.
I completely agree with the damage it can cause the youth. But I really don’t see that any different than alcohol in that regard. And frankly, it seems less dangerous than alcohol overall. I feel hypocritical thinking alcohol should be legal and weed illegal.
As for medicine, it is much safer for pain management than pills. For cancer patient hunger issues, it works well. And I’ve seen a few stories on children with seizures benefitting for it. The big one for me is the pain management. We stuff opioids down people’s throats at an alarming rate and it has lead to a terrifying opioid epidemic.
When compared to alcohol, I know a lot more people who have had alcohol ruin their lives than weed. I’m not saying that weed is harmless and cannot ruin people’s lives or that it is perfectly safe. But alcohol, in my opinion, is worse than pot. And that is coming from somebody who prefers to have a drink over getting high.
I’m in the minority, I’m glad it’s not on the ballot just drive through small towns across the country and drive through the blighted neighborhood and you’ll see how weed and meth and other drugs have destroyed them.
The decline in small towns IMO has more to do with economic concerns than drugs. The drug problem in small towns is secondary I think. As farms have become more mechanized they've required less labor per acre farmed. With that many of the jobs in small towns have dried up. Small machinery dealers have closed and schools have consolidated. That has left lots of older homes which are too far from employment sources. Those have been filled largely with people who don't have to worry about getting up and going to work in the morning. They can rent a house very cheaply in an area without as much crime in their neighborhood. Unfortunately they also bring with them their drug problems and many times kids who are not exactly high achievers. What we're seeing is the inner cityization of our rural towns.I’m in the minority, I’m glad it’s not on the ballot just drive through small towns across the country and drive through the blighted neighborhood and you’ll see how weed and meth and other drugs have destroyed them.
True that.You are crazier than a shithouse rat if you think you can drive through a blighted small town neighborhood and figure out the root cause of the problem. Crazier still if you think weed has destroyed anything. Meth is a symptom of broader problems, not the cause.
He's just confusing the result of economics with causation. The drugs are an effect more so than a cause. Economics is the root cause.You are crazier than a shithouse rat if you think you can drive through a blighted small town neighborhood and figure out the root cause of the problem. Crazier still if you think weed has destroyed anything. Meth is a symptom of broader problems, not the cause.