re: Oklahoma, Nebraska Ask U.S. Supreme Court To Overturn Colorado Marijuana Law

i don't think they "lose", but i think the state-sanctioned regulations are likely to be invalidated

that would leave chaos for Colorado, b/c it would have to re-amend its constitution to invalidate the amendment, and until then, there would be legal, unregulated weed (which would be hilarious). the USSC is mindful of the impacts of its rulings on the federal system, but it has shown to not give 2 flying fricks about how its rulings frick up state systems, so this is possible.

if the USSC strikes down teh entire amendment, it's basically ruling that if federal law occupies an area with a regulatory scheme, the states MUST have laws in kind with the federal laws. this would be both bat shite crazy and unworkable.

go outside of drugs. go to like, say, environmental regulation. the federal government has a regulatory scheme in this field and a government agency that executes the laws and creates regs (EPA). what level of compliance would the state schemes have to follow to avoid risking losing their entire scheme? what if they treat certain emissions (or levels) differently? what if the states are proactive in regulation of chemicals/emissions?

do these differences invalidate the entire schemes? what's the point of states even engaging in the regulatory behavior at that point? if a state "opts out" to avoid conflict with the federal law, is that in itself a violation of the supremacy clause? (that is actually a central argument for OK/NE)

like i said earlier, i'm in no way an expert on these issues, but it's interesting b/c we're talking about the absence of regulation by a state in an area being a conflict with federal law, which has a regulatory scheme in the area. once we get beyond the state-based regulation, it becomes a question of whether the supremacy clause requires/forces a state to act in an area where fedgov regulates. if it does, then there is some absurdity down that road.