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

quote:

---

that's my thing. if the states can't have their own drug laws, then any law in "conflict" with federal drug law would become invalidated. that would create chaos and leave the feds as the de facto drug prosecutor, which would implode their system.

also, i read an article yesterday that went through this. the DOJ said they're not going to prosecute these crimes and the USSC can't force the federal or state governments to execute their laws. so basically even if the USSC said this scheme was illegal, the only thing that would really become illegal is the regulations of weed. that would leave Colorado with legal, unregulated weed.

---

quote:

---

the argument is that by legalizing marijuana, the state is now in conflict with federal law

i'm not an expert in this area of con law, but i believe to make that argument, you have to show the federal government has established itself as the regulatory body in this area. basically federal law preempts state law, so state law cannot violate federal law.

OK/NE's arguments are weak for 2 reasons

1. drug prosecutions are the domain of the states, always have been, and will continue to do so regardless of what Colorado does. there is a regulatory framework for drugs in the federal system, but it is not the first line of defense in the "war on drugs". states handle the super majority of cases involving drugs.

2. Colorado is basically removing a law. it's not adding a law that comes into conflict with federal law. OK/NE are arguing that by removing a law (or refusing to enforce a law) that comes into an area that the feds may also regulate, the state at issue is violating the constitution by its inaction. not only is that a scary argument, any politician from OK/NE that claims to be for states rights that supports this suit is basically the definition of hypocrisy.

---

10/10. Would read again.

SFP, I fully believe that a when they lose this case, we're going to eventually see bordering states around Colorado and Washington legalize or at least decriminalize weed. It's all or nothing here for drug warriors. But damn, this may be the most shortsighted move I've seen in a while in opposition to legalization efforts.

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.

even if smoking weed had the same effects, that's a shitty argument because other ways to ingest teh drug exist

colorado turned red in nov fyi

the same people who voted in the dems voted them out for police-stating their guns.

repubs will get voted out if they pull the same shite.


the repubs in the midwest are big govt, no doubt. they love their farm subsidies.