“Good job! Now maybe we can consider the executive branch to be empowered by this decision to take cannabis off of schedule one. Then maybe allow banks to handle cash from dispensaries so the risk of keeping large sums of cash on site is no longer a problem. One step at a time. We just have to keep pushing to keep up the momentum. An election year is a good time to push! Go Team!”
“While we're on the subject, if one could simply stop at the local dispensary store or liquor store and buy a joint, there would be less tendency to buy large amounts and keep it around where kids can get to it.”
“I'm moving from a part of CA where you can grow outdoors to a place where you can't. I'm getting too old to live in the climate I'm currently in. It is an imposition on the CA taxpayers to be subject to such arbitrary decisions made at the local level. LEGALIZE it and let's be done with this nonsense! Some laws keeping it away from kids and reasonably concealed in a greenhouse would be just fine to address any potential problems. Let's get real.”
“Maybe we can take her national park animal feeding policy a little further! If you leave food in your car or tent, and a bear breaks your window or tears your tent apart to get the food, you are not allowed to attack the bear and you are considered at fault for leaving the food in the where they can get it! So, if I decide to forage in her kitchen, that should be ok, I guess!”
“The only reason there was a "standoff" is because he rallied his armed posse comitatus buddies. They also threatened violence repeatedly in communications with the court and BLM. What should the authorities do when threatened while doing their jobs? How does it cool down when every single effort to do so was met with threats? I think you see what you want to see.”
“All of this is speculation, and if it has any merit, would have been challenged in court by the huge rancher coalition that has a lot of clout in Nevada. Their government is more that sympathetic to their needs already. If they have a case to make, make it legally. It seems this individual case has already been through the courts at least four times. The question is, where is his local support from other rancher organizations?”
Joseph Peeler on Apr 25, 2014 at 14:45:06
“"All of this is speculation."
It is not speculation that Bundy is the last rancher standing in Clark County, Nevada.
It is not speculation that all of the other ranchers were bought out by the very "fees" that the BLM extracted from them after they had made ranching unprofitable in Clark County.
The only rancher that has managed to survive the BLM's tactics is the only one who refused to by bullied.
"Through the courts." Yes, through the federal courts! It always amazes me when anyone wins against the federal government government in one of its courts.
I'm on the side of the displaced ranchers. I think more people would be, too, if they understand what exactly the BLM did to them in Clark County.
It's not as simple as the establishment protecting press makes it out to be.
Now look at what they are doing to the man. They are purposefully trying to bait-and-switch. This was about land mismanagement, "fees." and the heavy handed tactics of the BLM. Then I wake up the next day and this is all about race. How exactly does that work?
My suspicion is that Bundy's message about BLM tactics was getting out the longer this story went on. So: the establishment press (lead by N.Y. Times, natch) did a hit piece in order to change the subject. They are very skillful at manipulating public opinion and distracting in this way. It would be impressive if it weren't so dishonest.”
“They restrict land use so it isn't overused and becomes useless as a result. Overgrazing causes erosion problems, and can produce dustbowl like conditions. Bank erosion from overuse cause the stream banks to collapse into the creeks, blocking them and preventing irrigation of the land. You are familiar with the dustbowl, right? The people managing public lands are not driven by greed and profit, the ranchers are.”
Joseph Peeler on Apr 25, 2014 at 13:43:24
“I give you credit for at least responding in a civil, intelligent way.
However, I think you are misguided.
There are legitimate reasons to restrict the use of land, but this would be better handled by private individuals, not a giant bureaucracy at the federal level. This sort of think never happens back East where all of the land is in private hands of managed by local governments.
Having said that, the "land sharing" policies of the BLM in Clark County were purposefully designed to limit the number of cattle a rancher could own in order to make it unprofitable to ranch in that county. That is precisely why Bundy is the only one left from 20-years ago.
There were always restrictions put in place by the federal government. My argument is that they added NEW restrictions ostensibly for the well-being of some turtle, but I think the real reason is that the feds wanted that land for other purposes.
Maybe the federal government thinks it can make more money by leasing that land to big corporations?
Regulatory bodies are usually captured by connected corporations and big donors to the political class. It's a revolving door between the big companies and the regulatory agencies.
It's okay to admit that the federal government serves its own interests. I'm not talking so much about the rank-and-file as I am about the decision makers who wield power and have ample opportunity for rent-seeking.”