Pot Wars!

[bhsup]

Nebraska and Oklahoma sue Colorado over legal marijuana

Nebraska and Oklahoma have asked the US Supreme Court to nullify a 2012 law that made marijuana legal in the US state of Colorado.

The two states allege that Colorado's law is in violation of federal law.

They say that they are suing just Colorado, and not Washington state where marijuana is also legal, because they do not share a border with Washington.

Colorado's attorney general said their suit was without merit.

"Federal law undisputedly prohibits the production and sale of marijuana," said Nebraska attorney general Jon Bruning in a press release.

The war on drugs just got interesting. Because it is state vs state, it goes straight to the Supreme Court. No working its way up the food chain with this one. Personally, I hope Colorado wins.

"But B, I thought you were a law and order guy!"

Well I am, and pot is against federal law, but I don't see anything in the Consititution that gives the federalies the right to legislate mary jane.

"So then you agree with people that smoke pot now? They should be able to do it and frak the federalies?"

No, they're criminals. You will not find one instance of me advocating breaking the law because I happen to disagree with Supreme Court rulings that allow the feds oversight in areas where they don't belong. The S.C. is frequently wrong, but the way our system has evolved, they gave themselves the power to do this, so it sucks but there you go.

"That makes no sense, man! You're contradicting yourself."

Your mama's a contradiction. ( Worst your mama joke ever, amirite??)

NOTE: This thread is [RD] and is to be limited in discussion, if there is any at all, to the issues of federalism and the fact that it is state suing state, etc etc etc. Broad leeway within that area, but in no way does that mean we are to discuss the so called "immorality" of potheads not getting to smoke their wacky weed. Nor is this about slavery.

 

[CaptainF]

linky

But Colorado Attorney General John Suthers isn't backing down. In a statement, he said he intends to defend the state's marijuana laws.

“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.”

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), a vocal supporter of drug policy reform who has sponsored multiple bills seeking protection for state-legal marijuana businesses and advocated full-scale federal legalization of the drug, told HuffPost that Nebraska and Oklahoma attempting to overturn the will of Colorado's voters is "outrageous."

“Our federalist system is based on individual states being able to enact policies that benefit their citizens, without the interference of other states," Polis said.

I'm just wondering, has there ever been a case where "dry" counties or states have sued "wet" ones for the supposed nuisance they would be causing? Seems like it would be about as ridiculous.

 

[bhsup]

Excellent point, Dawg. I've never heard of one. That Polis fella touches on an aspect that has loads and loads of examples they can use. Should Kansas be able to sue Missouri because our ciggie tax is lower, prompting folks along the state line to skip across the border to buy cigs, causing Kansas to lose out on revenue? Heck no. Colorado IS a sovereign State in its own right and NE and OK really have no business telling it what laws it can or cannot pass.

 

[Colonel]

Excellent point, Dawg. I've never heard of one. That Polis fella touches on an aspect that has loads and loads of examples they can use. Should Kansas be able to sue Missouri because our ciggie tax is lower, prompting folks along the state line to skip across the border to buy cigs, causing Kansas to lose out on revenue? Heck no. Colorado IS a sovereign State in its own right and NE and OK really have no business telling it what laws it can or cannot pass.

Erm, I agree with everything you said except that whole sovereign state bit.

 

[onejayhawk]

It does look like that suit to enforce primacy of the Federal law has merit.

More is the pity.

J

 

[MobBoss]

linky
I'm just wondering, has there ever been a case where "dry" counties or states have sued "wet" ones for the supposed nuisance they would be causing? Seems like it would be about as ridiculous.

I'm not sure that counties would have the same types of powers that individual states would.

I grew up in a wet county in rural Arkansas. On every single county border, there were 2 to 4 liquor stores right on the road at the county line. Both coming and going.

Considering the issue of the lawsuit, I'm not sure the SCOTUS would even take the case up. This is something congress needs to fix, not the courts.

 

[JollyRoger]

The Supreme Court has less leeway in declining this as state on state action is their original jurisdiction. It does raise Constitutional issues that cannot be "fixed" by Federal legislation - such a "fix" would raise even more Constitutional concerns, this time in regards to Colorado's problems with a Federal legislative fix.

I think Colorado has the better argument here. It would be a closer call if the Feds were the plaintiffs - especially given how the conservatives on the Supreme Court lean pro-Fed in Supremacy Clause and preemption cases. The fix for Oklahoma and Nebraska is to enforce their own laws. If there are budget constraints, then use that prosecutorial discretion to spend more resources going after distributors than users.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm just wondering, has there ever been a case where "dry" counties or states have sued "wet" ones for the supposed nuisance they would be causing? Seems like it would be about as ridiculous.

the feds cancelled their war on booze so no supremacy conflict is at issue...maybe thats why NE/OK are using the supremacy clause to go after Colorado rather than "they're a source of pot".

 

[mrt144]

The Supreme Court has less leeway in declining this as state on state action is their original jurisdiction. It does raise Constitutional issues that cannot be "fixed" by Federal legislation - such a "fix" would raise even more Constitutional concerns, this time in regards to Colorado's problems with a Federal legislative fix.

I think Colorado has the better argument here. It would be a closer call if the Feds were the plaintiffs - especially given how the conservatives on the Supreme Court lean pro-Fed in Supremacy Clause and preemption cases. The fix for Oklahoma and Nebraska is to enforce their own laws. If there are budget constraints, then use that prosecutorial discretion to spend more resources going after distributors than users.

The voice of reason

 

[MobBoss]

The Supreme Court has less leeway in declining this as state on state action is their original jurisdiction. It does raise Constitutional issues that cannot be "fixed" by Federal legislation - such a "fix" would raise even more Constitutional concerns, this time in regards to Colorado's problems with a Federal legislative fix.

I think Colorado has the better argument here. It would be a closer call if the Feds were the plaintiffs - especially given how the conservatives on the Supreme Court lean pro-Fed in Supremacy Clause and preemption cases. The fix for Oklahoma and Nebraska is to enforce their own laws. If there are budget constraints, then use that prosecutorial discretion to spend more resources going after distributors than users.

As mentioned however, it would set a pretty dangerous precedent ala neighboring states with widely different sin taxes. Like the black market cigarette problem in NY where they have a large tax on ciggies while VA does not.

This could open a much larger door than SCOTUS is willing to crack open even if it is their jurisdiction.

I agree that the fix is for neighboring states to fix their own laws, and SCOTUS refusing to hear the matter would send that direct message to them.

 

[bhavv]

Legalize pot globally.

Its the best solution. Provide alternative safer ways of taking the drug other than smoking, e.g. the medicinal buccal fluid.

 

[KMRblue1027]

If SCOTUS does take the case it would be interesting to see which sides the justices will fall. You have the pro-legalization branch that would probably side with CO, and the anti-legalization side that generally would be siding with the opposition except they also are extremity pro states rights. You might have Ginsburg and Scalia agree on something.

 

[JollyRoger]

The anti-legalization side is often pro-preemption (Federal law takes over replaces any state law on the subject), particularly in areas that suit their conservative agenda (forbidding the use of state law based lawsuits in tort in such areas as medical devices and automotive safety)