- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Oklahoma, Nebraska Ask U.S. Supreme Court To Overturn Colorado Marijuana Law
Posted on 12/20/14 at 6:58 am
Posted on 12/20/14 at 6:58 am
I searched and holy shite, I can't believe this hasn't been discussed here yet.
LINK
I really hope the Supremes refuse to hear this case.
If they refuse to do so or the Supremes rule in favor of Colorado, I think the wheels will really come off of pot laws in this country. It's going to force Colorado's neighboring states to legalize it or at least decriminalize pot if they really are so overwhelmed by the pot coming in droves from Colorado and the Feds have all but abandoned fighting the war against marijuana leaving the states with a de facto gentleman's agreement and federal prosecutors being banned from fighting against medical marijuana. In my opinion, Colorado and Washington might be a good cancer of pot legalization/decriminalization that will spread over the next decade. This case is all or nothing for people that love, perpetuate and profit off the war on drugs.
If the Feds use the supremacy clause to shut Colorado weed down, wouldn't that ruin the idea of dual sovereignty for Feds and states as far as drug laws go and have a big impact on federal and state prosecution?
Also, one last thing, I am laughing my arse off at the states rights republicans moaning and whining about not enough federal intervention into Colorado weed. It's pathetic and pussy bullshite.
quote:
DENVER — Two states — Oklahoma and Nebraska — filed a lawsuit Thursday against neighboring Colorado over its law legalizing recreational marijuana, contending that it violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The legal challenge, an original action filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, is the first of its kind since Colorado voters passed Amendment 64 in 2012, which allows recreational pot use and sales for adults 21 and over.
Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said one problem with Colorado’s law is that marijuana is now crossing state lines, causing headaches for states where pot remains illegal under both state and federal law.
“Colorado has created a system that legalizes, promotes and facilitates distribution of marijuana,” Mr. Bruning said in a statement. “The illegal products of this system are heavily trafficked into neighboring states, causing an unnecessary burden on the state of Nebraska. Colorado has undermined the United States Constitution, and I hope the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold our constitutional principles.”
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers announced that his office would defend Colorado’s law. Mr. Suthers is term-limited and will be succeeded in January by Cynthia Coffman, his deputy, who was elected in November. Both officials are Republicans.
LINK
I really hope the Supremes refuse to hear this case.
If they refuse to do so or the Supremes rule in favor of Colorado, I think the wheels will really come off of pot laws in this country. It's going to force Colorado's neighboring states to legalize it or at least decriminalize pot if they really are so overwhelmed by the pot coming in droves from Colorado and the Feds have all but abandoned fighting the war against marijuana leaving the states with a de facto gentleman's agreement and federal prosecutors being banned from fighting against medical marijuana. In my opinion, Colorado and Washington might be a good cancer of pot legalization/decriminalization that will spread over the next decade. This case is all or nothing for people that love, perpetuate and profit off the war on drugs.
If the Feds use the supremacy clause to shut Colorado weed down, wouldn't that ruin the idea of dual sovereignty for Feds and states as far as drug laws go and have a big impact on federal and state prosecution?
Also, one last thing, I am laughing my arse off at the states rights republicans moaning and whining about not enough federal intervention into Colorado weed. It's pathetic and pussy bullshite.
11
Posted on 12/20/14 at 7:34 am to Sentrius
I have never smoked weed and have no desire to do so.
However I think I have come around to the idea it should be legalized.
However I think I have come around to the idea it should be legalized.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 7:55 am to weagle99
quote:
I have never smoked weed and have no desire to do so.
Same, but
quote:
However I think I have come around to the idea it should be legalized.
Have thought that for a few years now, glad you are on board
Posted on 12/20/14 at 8:55 am to SpartyGator
It should be legalized. Hell, we already use is in every state anyway. It's called Marinol. A synthetic THC we give to cancer patients and others suffering from severe nausea and anorexia(loss of appetite not nervosa the eating disorder). And the shite is EXPENSIVE. Of course, it does come from big pharma. If alcohol, tobacco, and Marinol is legal, then marijuana should be. There is no real addiction to THC, no withdrawals, no liver damage, can be used in ways other than smoking, has true medicinal properties, inexpensive and easy to grow, no documented overdoses, no increase in aggressive or dangerous behavior related to it's use, not a carcinogen(smoking it still causes lung damage, but not even close to tobacco.), other uses including fuel source that is more economically feasible than corn since it can grow in poor soils that are otherwise useless for agri, textiles and a few more I'm probably leaving out.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 8:59 am to SmackoverHawg
This is equal to dry counties suing to make wet counties stop selling alcohol
Posted on 12/20/14 at 9:11 am to Gulf Coast Tiger
quote:
This is equal to dry counties suing to make wet counties stop selling alcohol
For Nebraska it's even funnier. They are whining Colorado is causing them problems with their legal weed sales while they have a town of 10 people that makes $400,000 a year in alcohol tax because it just happens to be across the border from a dry native American reserve in South Dakota. Same fricking thing, but Nebraska doesn't seem to care about the second one. Strange.
Nebraska Complains About Colorado Weed While Enabling South Dakota Alcoholism
This post was edited on 12/20/14 at 9:15 am
Posted on 12/20/14 at 9:16 am to Sentrius
I don't see how they can possibly have a case. Colorado is under no obligation to make something a crime under state law just because it's a federal crime. If the feds want to ban marijuana, then it's their job to enforce that ban.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 9:18 am to Sentrius
I don't think the USSC can refuse to hear this, as there certainly appears to be standing and the Court has original jurisdiction over the case.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 9:20 am to Bestbank Tiger
Here's the actual text of the Supermacy Clause:
No relation to the Colorado dispute. Someone who uses marijuana is not violating any state law, so the state doesn't have the jurisdiction to prosecute. If the feds don't like Colorado legalizing marijuana, they can send the DEA in to arrest people on federal charges. But state courts have no power because no state law is being violated.
quote:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
No relation to the Colorado dispute. Someone who uses marijuana is not violating any state law, so the state doesn't have the jurisdiction to prosecute. If the feds don't like Colorado legalizing marijuana, they can send the DEA in to arrest people on federal charges. But state courts have no power because no state law is being violated.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 9:20 am to Sentrius
I don't have a lot of faith that SCOTUS will do anything to shore up state's rights.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 9:28 am to Gulf Coast Tiger
quote:
This is equal to dry counties suing to make wet counties stop selling alcohol
Except alcohol is bad and has ruined millions of lives over the last 100 years or so since marijuana was made illegal. There is ZERO evidence supporting the illegalization of marijuana. Hell, I wouldn't even require a rx if it were up to me, but psych and pain management will fight it tooth and nail. I do pain management and have to treat psych issues in my practice. I can honestly say that legalization would help me wean pt's off of addictive meds and avoid their use in the future. They tie our hands by limiting our access to better treatment options. Just like a newer pain med Nucynta. They made it schedule II. It shouldn't be. It's expensive, but no more so than opiate based pain meds they do cover. Has shown little if any addictive potential. No significant withdrawals after prolonged use. Mild to moderate at most. Had one pt tell me it was like a really mild case of flu with the bodyaches when she went cold turkey, against my advice, but did say it was NOTHING like weaning off hydrocodone. Big pharma wants addicts. They want high street value and demand for their drugs. And the insurance company and the federal gov't through medicare are complicit in this by limiting treatment options and medication formularies. It's bullshite. Then when we treat a pt within the guidelines we're given and with the meds we are allowed, we are accused of being "pill docs" and the pt's are stigmatized for it as well. Are you gonna hire someone on hydrocodone and Xanax over someone that isn't?
Posted on 12/20/14 at 9:30 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
I don't see how they can possibly have a case. Colorado is under no obligation to make something a crime under state law just because it's a federal crime. If the feds want to ban marijuana, then it's their job to enforce that ban.
If the Supremes can tell Arizona to stop enforcing federal immigration laws due to the supremacy clause, then how can a state try to get another state to enforce and abide by federal law which the Feds are really not enforcing?
Posted on 12/20/14 at 9:32 am to udtiger
quote:
I don't think the USSC can refuse to hear this, as there certainly appears to be standing and the Court has original jurisdiction over the case.
Since 1960, the court has received fewer than 140 requests to take original cases, and has refused to hear about half of them.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 9:39 am to Sentrius
quote:
For Nebraska it's even funnier. They are whining Colorado is causing them problems with their legal weed sales while they have a town of 10 people that makes $400,000 a year in alcohol tax because it just happens to be across the border from a dry native American reserve in South Dakota. Same fricking thing, but Nebraska doesn't seem to care about the second one. Strange.
Good find. South Dakota should sue their arse!!! And those Indians should too!!! Alcohol abuse is a HUGE problem on the reservations. Hell, every indian I've ever seen up in those parts was drunk off their arse or fast on their way to getting there. Have never heard of such issues related to marijuana use.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 9:49 am to Sentrius
quote:
“Colorado has created a system that legalizes, promotes and facilitates distribution of marijuana,” Mr. Bruning said in a statement. “The illegal products of this system are heavily trafficked into neighboring states, causing an unnecessary burden on the state of Nebraska.
shite, Nebraska is so near sighted... If its all about cost burdens to the state, sounds like an excellent opportunity to make a killing off of fines for possession. Im sure they have no problem setting up checkpoint for Inspection stickers/Seat belts.. So the same leading into their state from Colorado.
Step 1: Stop Cars
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit
Posted on 12/20/14 at 10:14 am to weagle99
quote:
I have never smoked weed and have no desire to do so. However I think I have come around to the idea it should be legalized.
And when it is legal, w...should those who consume it pay increased, health and auto premium costs? Can companies still employ testing standards in hiring, as performance stats reflect on the bottom line?
Will States (taxpayers), be forced to bear the societal costs of many who will become unemployable/unemployed? And don't tell me pot don't affect employment...I smoked a ton of that stuff back when...and I clearly remember that 'work'...wasn't high on to-do list.
I don't give a hoot about who does what...but there will be consequences that will be paid for, in the Collective. All that glitters...ain't gold.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 10:26 am to Sentrius
quote:
wouldn't that ruin the idea of dual sovereignty for Feds and states as far as drug laws go and have a big impact on federal and state prosecution?
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.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 10:33 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Someone who uses marijuana is not violating any state law, so the state doesn't have the jurisdiction to prosecute. If the feds don't like Colorado legalizing marijuana, they can send the DEA in to arrest people on federal charges. But state courts have no power because no state law is being violated.
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.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 10:47 am to SlowFlowPro
This seems to highlight the difference in legalization and decriminalization.
You can make the argument that legalization and taxation makes the state a business partner in the drug industry.
You can make the argument that legalization and taxation makes the state a business partner in the drug industry.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 10:50 am to TrueTiger
quote:
You can make the argument that legalization and taxation makes the state a business partner in the drug industry.
that's why there was the argument that the USSC can't force the feds or Colorado to enforce weed laws
but
they can invalidate the regulatory scheme (which includes taxation). i don't know if that's what NE/OK really want to do
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News