Posted on 12/18/2014 2:20:21 PM PST by balch3
OKLAHOMA CITY – After legalizing the recreational use of marijuana, Colorado is at the heart of a lawsuit.
The Denver Post is reporting that Nebraska and Oklahoma have filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to strike down Colorado’s legalization laws.
The Colorado attorney general’s office says the lawsuit alleges “that Colorado’s Amendment 64 and its implementing legislation regarding marijuana is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.”
“Because neighboring states have expressed concern about Colorado-grown marijuana coming into their states, we are not entirely surprised by this action,” said Colorado Attorney General John Suthers. “However, it appears the plaintiff’s 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.”
Click here to read a copy of the lawsuit.
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.”
“illegal contraband”
The mere fact that you think there is such a thing shows just how far down the totalitarian gutter this nation has traveled.
OK, we’ll ban something then demand Nebraska and Oklahoma set up checkpoints to keep it out of Colorado. Morons.
Wait, on second thought, Colorado banned large capacity magazines, so perhaps Colorado should sue our neighbors and claim they haven’t set up checkpoints to keep them out of Colorado.
Do not murder.
Do not steal.
Do not rape.
Do not injure anyone unless in self defense.
Do not destroy anyone else’s property.
Do not commit fraud (see stealing).
Do not make false testimony against anyone.
Do not threaten anyone with physical harm unless in defense.
Pay your taxes.
The federal government shall abide by the constitution.
The state governments shall abide by their constitutions.
Levy taxes only for the things delineated in the constitution.
This covers the majority of actual offenses.
The balance, and I’m certain I passed over a goodly number of bona fide criminal activities since I just batted this out, can be handled by civil and contract law as opposed to criminal law. These should probably be pared down to their more fundamental than specific declarations.
God managed with ten commandments. We should be able to manage with less than 170,000 PAGES of laws.
If we actually followed the constitution as written, we would be far ahead of the game.
If congress had to read aloud, in the full session, every law beyond the first 10 or so, say every 2 - 6 years in order to keep them validated, we would probably be left with some sanity.
From the point of personal freedom the only correct solution of this problem is to have unlimited freedom to use every drug under the Sun. The only little catch with this solution is that it should also come with unlimited freedom to terminate on the spot anyone who, under influence of drugs, seriously interferes with one's life. Freedom cuts both ways.
Read ‘Grapes of Wrath’ by John Steinbeck and see what happened in the ‘30s to the Okies.
Lucy in the sky with dime-bags
A couple of ways (I know an attorney in western Nebraska).
A lot of people are buying dope in Colorado, driving to Nebraska, and then selling it. It has also led to an increase in drugged driving arrests (over 200 percent from before the legalization), and all the other social costs of high drug use. This county is rather thinly populated and next to a reservation. Lets just say the increased strain on the limited county resources was not appreciated.
The only problem with your logic is that people are already using every drug under the sun.
I fail to see how they are a lesser threat now than they would be if they were actually legal. But, having that knowledge, if you feel a strong need to terminate them, then that is your choice. I would argue that you, in most states, already have the right to defend yourself against threats to yourself, others, and property from those who would seriously interfere with one’s life.
A relatively small fraction of a very large number of people get arrested, convicted and sent to prison. That equals a large number of people.
They are now removed from making any sort of contribution to society, and instead become a $40,000 - $100,000 each per year drain on limited resources. And before you say that they were not contributing to society, I beg to differ. I have known scores of people who take recreational drugs, and hold down good jobs, pay taxes, and participate in the overall economy.
No, none of them were junkies or meth users, or crack users.
Yes, we should try to minimize the use of those. They are illegal now, and widely available. I’m sure there is no perfect answer.
We see “Gun Free Zones” and cities that have bans on firearms, and we scream out, “Don’t you idiots know that the criminals don’t pay attentions to those laws?” And then when it comes to drugs, we become lefties, thinking “Government should fix that”. It boggles the mind.
Being in the black market, they also learn to disrespect the law, distrust LEOs. And guess who loses their civil liberties? You and I. The druggies are already living the underground culture.
The ones that have been sent to prison on drug charges, not robbery, etc, just drugs, are virtually destined to become criminals for life by virtue of their conviction. Plus, they have learned all kinds of new tricks from their fellow inmates.
Believe it or not, since Colorado legalized, the Mexican pot farmers are complaining that it is no longer profitable for them to grow pot. That means fewer hardened smugglers with AK-47’s coming across our borders. That doesn’t seem like a bad outcome.
So, yes, we can rant and rave and call them scumbags, and make ourselves feel all superior, and give the State more power to search us all. Of course, we could try thinking of them as people, some of whom make choices that we disagree with.
We can judge them from our positions of righteousness. And we can forget about complaining when we are also judged. We can also try to love our neighbor as ourselves.
</rant#2>
Google the “bad actor” law that the Rose Bud and other reservations are suing the State of Nebraska over.
It amounts to just that. Booze, in Nebraska, is being bought and taken to the dry Rez. Not only does it violate local and state law of South Dakota, it also trips a treaty violation with the Sioux tribe (which is something that hasn’t been in a court for a long, long time).
It is winding its way through the courts, and will land in a Federal court, but there has been a few rulings stating that Nebraska must take steps to keep alcohol out of easy access of the Indians on the Reservation.
Looking forward to Kansas, Arizona, Utah, and Wyoming getting into it as well.
By a significant margin.
Very doubtful. Do you have any polls that support your assertion?
That is wrong. Most narcotics cross the southern border of the United States, and THAT alone makes is a federal jurisdiction.
That would be an exercise of the power of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations.
What does that have to do with CO exercising its 10th Amendment authority?
Actually, the good stuff wouldn’t have seeds, you would get a “clone” from a cutting and then grow your own.
I am not anti marijuana, but lets get the facts straight. The cash crop grown by George Washington et al was a strain that produced no high, commonly referred to as Indian hemp.
CHillax Dept Dawg. Look at the bright side, you just lost a big chunk of work load, and now you have so many more friends than before.
But still think that they are free. Just because that law doesn't affect them. They wouldn't dare pass laws against them, would they?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.