Colorado sued by neighboring states over legal marijuana

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/18/colorado-marijuana-lawsuit/20599831/


The attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma sued Colorado in the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, arguing state-legalized marijuana from Colorado is improperly spilling across state lines.

The suit invokes the federal government's right to regulate both drugs and interstate commerce, and says Colorado's decision to legalize marijuana has been "particularly burdensome" to police agencies on the other side of the state line.

In June, USA TODAY highlighted the flow of marijuana from Colorado into small towns across Nebraska: felony drug arrests in Chappell, Neb., just 7 miles north of the Colorado border have skyrocketed 400% in three years.

"In passing and enforcing Amendment 64, the state of Colorado has created a dangerous gap in the federal drug control system enacted by the United States Congress. Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states, undermining plaintiff states' own marijuana bans, draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice systems," says the lawsuit. "The Constitution and the federal anti-drug laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local pro-drug policies and licensed distribution schemes throughout the country which conflict with federal laws."

[dannno]

I think the neighboring states should be sued for kidnapping innocent people who merely possess a plant.

[Schifference]

Each state is setting their own laws. Why have Colorado have to pay for laws that other states choose to enforce?

[Anti Federalist]

"The Constitution and the federal anti-drug laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local pro-drug policies and licensed distribution schemes throughout the country which conflict with federal laws."

The feds have no right to enforce drug laws.

Ask yourself, why did it take a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol?

[Anti Federalist]

"If you don't like it, change the law. We just enforce them." - Obersturmbannführer Friendly

[osan]

Truly and forsooth is America FUBARed.

[Occam's Banana]

I'll just repeat what I said from another thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?453511-Colorado-the-new-%91black-market%92



"Putting people in jail, prosecuting them, that costs us money," [Officer Friendly] said. "Officers go to court, that's overtime. We may have to defend these people, and we're paying for their defense in many cases."

But of course, NOT "putting people in jail, prosecuting them," etc. is not an option - is it, Officer Friendly? :rolleyes:

And no - doing those things does NOT "cost you money" ...

Officer Friendly and his Hut-Hutting Highwaymen aren't paying for a goddam thing - taxpayers (and Officer Friendly's other victims) are.


Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said he won't rule out the possibility of taking Colorado to court to ask for reimbursement for the costs of dealing with a problem its neighbor created.

Take yourself to court, asshole. YOU - and Officer Friendly, and all the other like you - are the cause of this so-called "problem."

[helmuth_hubener]

Truly and forsooth is America FUBARed.

There has existed an effective, well-enforced ban on various drugs for many decades, and it has existed nationwide. Now, there are major, major cracks developing in the foundation. There are hundreds of retail marijuana stores in Colorado. There are many states in open defiance of what is still the federal law.

http://media.vocativ.com/photos/2014/01/weeed_combined3028618602.png

This is wonderful news with implications far beyond this one issue of drug use. Arizona, for example, recently passed a referendum making it legal to try non-FDA-approved drugs if you're terminally ill. That's illegal! They are thumbing their noses as the FDA, nullifying its wise and careful overlordship.

And yet you can somehow see something negative in all this? Not only negative, but negative beyond all and any hope? This is pessimism taken beyond reason. Yes, neighboring states are suing. Whoop-de-doo. Yes, there is going to, predictably, be some opposition to the effective legalization of drugs over the Fed's hysterical objections. But the trajectory is clearly in the right direction on this issue. Can you really not see that? :rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

The supremacy clause pre-supposes that the laws assumed to be supreme are actually Constitutional to begin with. Federal drug laws are not Constitutional, therefore there is no supremacy.

[Occam's Banana]

Nebraska and Oklahoma Sue Colorado Over Legal Cannabis
http://mises.org/blog/nebraska-and-oklahoma-sue-colorado-over-legal-cannabis
Ryan McMaken (18 December 2014)

Back in June, I wrote (http://mises.org/library/why-foreign-politicians-hate-your-freedom) about how the state of Nebraska would love to sue Colorado in the federal courts to force the end of cannabis legalization in Colorado:


Were it free to do so under US law, the State of Nebraska would surely be happy to impose sanctions against Colorado for its non-conformity. Nebraska may yet get what it wants if it finds a way to do so through the federal courts. When it comes to government agents, the urge to rule does not stop at the border.

So, it seems Nebraska has come up with what it thinks is a winning strategy at the Supreme Court.

The Denver Post reports today (http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_27163543/nebraska-and-oklahoma-sue-colorado-over-marijuana-legalization?source=infinite):


Two neighboring states are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Colorado's laws legalizing recreational marijuana.

The Colorado attorney general's office says the states of Nebraska and Oklahoma have filed the lawsuit directly with the nation's highest court. The attorney general's office says the lawsuit alleges "that Colorado's Amendment 64 and its implementing legislation regarding recreational marijuana is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution."

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said in a statement that he will defend the state's legalization of marijuana.

"Because neighboring states have expressed concern about Colorado-grown marijuana coming into their states, we are not entirely surprised by this action," Suthers said. "However, it appears the plaintiffs' primary grievance stems from non-enforcement of federal laws regarding marijuana, as opposed to choices made by the voters of Colorado. We believe this suit is without merit and we will vigorously defend against it in the U.S. Supreme Court."

Nebraska and Oklahoma, through this lawsuit, signal that they wish to carry on the legal tradition of the fugutive slave laws. Namely, when some states worry that there is too much freedom in neighboring states, they crawl to the federal government to impose a uniform lack of freedom through out all states in order to assist the less free states (in this case Nebraska and Oklahoma) in strengthening their local coercive monopolies.

If Nebraska and Oklahoma are successful in their suit, it will be an enormous victory for the federal government and its efforts to further assert total supremacy over state and local laws.

The latest development also adds a new dimension to this scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlt4vwS0wsg) from South Park.

http://mises.org/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/nebraska.JPG?itok=QgBxUDN6

[tod evans]

Government employees in Nebraska and Oklahoma, I'm betting there's not one signature on that suit who isn't affiliated with a government agency that doesn't profit from the War on Weed......

This has absolutely nothing to do with the desires of the subjects and everything to do with maintaining their gravytrain....:mad:

[juleswin]

I was just thinking about the whole Jon Brunning suing Colorado after reading the Marijuana is legal thread. My guess is that our idiot AG ignored all of that and the fact they he is supposed to be supportive of state rights before filing that lawsuit.

The sad part is that this is the sort of conservatives we have in Nebraska. Another frustrating example is the new Republican mayor. Elected mainly because the last democrat mayor raised the restaurant tax I think by 1%. She came in promising to repeal it but after getting elected, she decided that repealing the tax would cost the state a lot of money, so she instead used the money to fund police, fire fighters and first responders as opposed to schools, socials programs and some other democrat pet project.

[Schifference]

I remember driving into California and being stopped at the border and having to dispose of any fresh fruit before I could enter the state.

[seapilot]

According to the map that h_h posted above Nebraska has decriminalized for personal use, if that is true what is the big deal?

I hope this is dropped, because other states will use it as a precedent for other things such as gun control, NY suing Pennsylvania for example. Cigarette taxes etc. Opens up a big can o worms.

[libertyjam]

English Bob: Well, actually, what I heard was that you fell off your horse, drunk of course, and that you broke your bloody neck.
Little Bill Daggett: I heard that one myself, Bob. Hell, I even thought I was dead 'til I found out it was just that I was in Nebraska.

[helmuth_hubener]

According to the map that h_h posted above Nebraska has decriminalized for personal use, if that is true what is the big deal?

Yes, they are really tilting against windmills. Swimming against the tide. The wave of legalization that's crashing over them is driving them crazy because they can't stop it. We can empathize. We, as libertarians, know exactly how it feels to realize how much the public is against us and that it's hopeless. In health care socialization, for example. The welfare state in general, for the last 50 years. Frustrating!

Opinion polls are clear. The legalization wave is going to just keep coming. So these old birds trying (hopelessly!) to hold the line are frustrated and flailing around.

Here's the details about Nebraska's laws, by the way:

Penalty Details

Possession

Possession of less than 1 oz. is an infraction which is punishable by a maximum fine of $300. The judge may order the offender to complete a drug education course.

A second conviction for possession of 1 oz. or less is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum sentence of 5 days imprisonment and a maximum fine of $400.

Third and subsequent convictions for possession of 1 oz. or less are a misdemeanor and are punishable by a maximum sentence of 7 days imprisonment and a maximum fine of $500.

Possession of 1 oz.- 1 lb. is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum sentence of 3 months imprisonment and a maximum fine of $500.

Possession of more than 1 lb. is a felony which is punishable by a maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment and a maximum fine of $10,000.

See:

28-416 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes Web Search


CONDITIONAL RELEASE

The state allows conditional release or alternative or diversion sentencing for people facing their first prosecutions. Usually, conditional release lets a person opt for probation rather than trial. After successfully completing probation, the individual's criminal record does not reflect the charge.

DECRIMINALIZATION

The state has decriminalized marijuana to some degree. Typically, decriminalization means no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount for personal consumption. The conduct is treated like a minor traffic violation.

HEMP

This state has an active hemp industry or has authorized research. Hemp is a distinct variety of the plant species cannabis sativa L. that contains minimal (less than 1%) amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. Various parts of the plant can be utilized in the making of textiles, paper, paints, clothing, plastics, cosmetics, foodstuffs, insulation, animal feed, and other products. For more information see NORML's Industrial Use section.

-- http://norml.org/laws/item/nebraska-penalties-2

[Indy Vidual]

A case like this could take years. Maybe they will refuse to hear it?

[surf]

"However, it appears the plaintiffs' primary grievance stems from non-enforcement of federal laws regarding marijuana, as opposed to choices made by the voters of Colorado. We believe this suit is without merit and we will vigorously defend against it in the U.S. Supreme Court."kinda scary

[invisible]

http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_27163543/nebraska-and-oklahoma-sue-colorado-over-marijuana-legalization

Nebraska and Oklahoma's complaint argues that Colorado does not have authority to pass laws that conflict with the federal prohibition on marijuana. Doing so, the states claim, violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

But much of the complaint focuses on harms the two states say have come to them as a result of legal pot sales in Colorado. The lawsuit says the states have suffered increased costs from arrests, the impoundment of vehicles, the seizure of contraband, the transfer of prisoners, and other problems associated with marijuana — which is strictly illegal in the two states — flowing into Nebraska and Oklahoma. The states say the problems amount to "irreparable injury."

http://kfor.com/2014/12/18/oklahoma-nebraska-suing-colorado-over-legalization-of-marijuana/

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt issued the following statement about the lawsuit:
“Fundamentally, Oklahoma and states surrounding Colorado are being impacted by Colorado’s decision to legalize and promote the commercialization of marijuana which has injured Oklahoma’s ability to enforce our state’s policies against marijuana. Federal law classifies marijuana as an illegal drug. The health and safety risks posed by marijuana, especially to children and teens, are well documented. The illegal products being distributed in Colorado are being trafficked across state lines thereby injuring neighboring states like Oklahoma and Nebraska. As the state’s chief legal officer, the attorney general’s office is taking this step to protect the health and safety of Oklahomans.”


So instead of taking note of what CO did right and emulating it, NE and OK try to sue. It's awful funny how OK AG pruitt is all about states' rights when it comes to gay marriage, common core, and obombacare. But when it comes to something like this that creates a positive economic impact in a neighboring state that we aren't going to benefit from unless we do the smart thing ourselves, well suddenly he wants the federal gov't to "protect" us against states' rights. Go figure.

[unknown]

The supremacy clause pre-supposes that the laws assumed to be supreme are actually Constitutional to begin with. Federal drug laws are not Constitutional, therefore there is no supremacy.

Tom Woods does a good job making this point:

What Did the Supremacy Clause Mean? (http://tomwoods.com/blog/what-did-the-supremacy-clause-mean/)