Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Coloradans become first to ask feds to block legalized marijuana
The Eugene Register-Guard ^ | February 19, 2015 | Kristen Wyatt (Associated Press)

Posted on 02/20/2015 11:54:50 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

DENVER — Colorado already is being sued by two neighboring states for legalizing marijuana. Now, the state faces groundbreaking lawsuits from its own residents, who are asking a federal judge to order the new recreational industry to close.

The owners of a mountain hotel and a southern Colorado horse farm argue in a pair of lawsuits filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Denver that the 2012 marijuana-legalization measure has hurt their property and that the marijuana industry is stinky and attracts unsavory visitors.

(Excerpt) Read more at registerguard.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Colorado; US: Nebraska; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: bigbrother; businesses; cannabis; children; denver; dontbogartthatjoint; drugs; families; lawfare; lawsuits; legaldope; legalization; libertarian; libtardians; marijuana; nannystate; pot; prohibition; warondrugs; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-131 next last
To: Bubba_Leroy

Exactly.


81 posted on 02/20/2015 2:16:17 PM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
The right wants NECESSARY government.

Negative. The right wants ALL KINDS of big gov, as long as it's THEIR big gov. Government that governs best governs least. It's evidenced every single day!

82 posted on 02/20/2015 2:16:48 PM PST by dware (The GOP is dead. Long live Conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom; DiogenesLamp

Does requiring me to enter enter into a contract with a health insurance agency constitute slavery?


83 posted on 02/20/2015 2:19:43 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy, and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

If you are going to use that logic— that which is harmful to people—we should be banning alcohol. Colorado has already made their decision. The fed should stay out of their business.


84 posted on 02/20/2015 2:19:52 PM PST by Vermont Lt (When you are inclined to to buy storage boxes, but contractor bags instead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
I just like seeing the true colors of so many “Conservatives”.

What's to see? You want to change existing society to something you think is more to your liking.

That has "Liberal" written all over it.

85 posted on 02/20/2015 2:20:29 PM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
I really don't care what kooks think about anything.

Ha! We see eye to eye on this.

86 posted on 02/20/2015 2:21:50 PM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom
The U.S. Constitution as duly amended rules that out - as it does not do with pot legalization.

So you mean states can't just make up their own laws which are violations of Federal law?

Well that's what *I* thought too!

87 posted on 02/20/2015 2:23:06 PM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
“This land means a great deal to me,” said Reilly, who says the pot facility mars “spectacular views” of the Rocky Mountains.

You don't own that land or the view, Ms. Reilly - stop trying to use the courts to steal.

88 posted on 02/20/2015 2:26:25 PM PST by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
So states are required to ban such practices? Suppose they don't. Then what?

The consequences wreck the state.

Given the reverence of the Founders for the document, I'm sure Adams was including people who piss all over the Constitution.

I agree, so you people need to quit pissing on the constitution by trying to argue that the Tenth Amendment encompasses drug usage and perverse sex.

No it doesn't.

89 posted on 02/20/2015 2:27:10 PM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
The U.S. Constitution as duly amended rules that out - as it does not do with pot legalization.

So you mean states can't just make up their own laws which are violations of Federal law?

Where did I say that? States can't violate restrictions placed on them by the Constitution, which includes "no slavery" but not "no pot."

90 posted on 02/20/2015 2:27:56 PM PST by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Or do you dispute the idea that the Federal government has the authority to interdict dangerous substances, especially those coming from outside our borders?

Nope. Anything coming from outside the U.S. clearly falls under "commerce with foreign nations" and is within the intended scope of the Commerce Clause.

OTOH, if someone wants try to mine uranium in Colorado, enrich it in Colorado, and manufacture a nuclear bomb in Colorado, using equipment and parts all manufactured and purchased solely within Colorado, then it would not fall within Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause (although trying to detonate it clearly would, unless it is a really small nuclear bomb with no fallout).

Of course, even if the Commerce Clause does not apply, manufacturing, selling or purchasing any sort of weapon of mass destruction (even if entirely intrastate) would still fall within Congress' authority under several of the other enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, including the power to "provide for the common defense" of the United States.

The point is that the Commerce Clause is not Congress' only enumerated power and it should not be construed so broadly that the other enumerated powers are moot and the federal government has the power to regulate every transaction.

91 posted on 02/20/2015 2:30:50 PM PST by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: dware
Negative. The right wants ALL KINDS of big gov, as long as it's THEIR big gov. Government that governs best governs least. It's evidenced every single day!

Government exists to serve fundamental needs, among them is enforcing necessary laws and protecting people from external and internal threats to their lives and safety.

Your pet pastime represents a threat to the lives of a significant portion of the populace, and is therefore within the mandate of necessary and justifiable government action.

92 posted on 02/20/2015 2:31:16 PM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
Does requiring me to enter enter into a contract with a health insurance agency constitute slavery?

Yes.

93 posted on 02/20/2015 2:32:37 PM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“”2: Washington has no legitimate intrastate authority over a plant.”
Or nuclear material. Or Biological material. Or Toxic Material.”

I would agree with all of those things, If a state wishes to control any domestic activity it must do so thou state & local laws not Federal edicts.

If your so conserned about nuclear menterials or Bioligical materials there is no reason in the world every state can’t craft its own set of laws on the subject.

I would wager many states would be a bit less unreasonably restrictive, and in any cases the really bad stuff that makes it thou the cracks will do so with or without Washington’s edicts.

Indeed do you know how Washington restricts the supply of fissionable materials? They buy it all up. Otherwise they have no control over the supply anywhere in the world, and the truth is they don’t really have fully control of it here in the US either.

The problem with building a nuke is obtaining a sufficient amount of the fissionable materials along with all the required skill sets and technology. Up until now at least that’s been difficult for even state funded actors to do.


94 posted on 02/20/2015 2:33:40 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I agree, so you people need to quit pissing on the constitution by trying to argue that the Tenth Amendment encompasses drug usage and perverse sex.

So you want fedgov to dictate such issues if the state gets it wrong? Under what Clause?

If not fedgov, then who?

95 posted on 02/20/2015 2:34:13 PM PST by Ken H (What happens on the internet, stays on the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I agree, so you people need to quit pissing on the constitution by trying to argue that the Tenth Amendment encompasses drug usage and perverse sex.

So you want fedgov to dictate such issues if the state gets it wrong? Under what Clause?

If not fedgov, then who?

96 posted on 02/20/2015 2:34:13 PM PST by Ken H (What happens on the internet, stays on the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
If you are going to use that logic— that which is harmful to people—we should be banning alcohol. Colorado has already made their decision. The fed should stay out of their business.

If we are going to use *YOUR* logic, we shouldn't ban anything. I noticed you didn't answer the question. Can Colorado legalize Heroin and Meth?

97 posted on 02/20/2015 2:34:43 PM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom
States can't violate restrictions placed on them by the Constitution, which includes "no slavery" but not "no pot."

But with pot, the slavery isn't put on the users so much as on those of us who have to pay for them to sit around all day drawing welfare instead of working.

I am firmly against slavery, and so we shouldn't let any drug addicts make us into slaves.

98 posted on 02/20/2015 2:37:21 PM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: SaxxonWoods
My Colorado town outlawed all pot grows/shops/etc. by citizen vote. Which is perfectly legal too.

Grand Junction and Mesa County (Unincorporated areas) have done so as well. I hope that means they also don't get the tax revenues for the schools.

99 posted on 02/20/2015 2:43:08 PM PST by dware (The GOP is dead. Long live Conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy
Nope. Anything coming from outside the U.S. clearly falls under "commerce with foreign nations" and is within the intended scope of the Commerce Clause.

I don't think you can call it "commerce" when it is illegal.

OTOH, if someone wants try to mine uranium in Colorado, enrich it in Colorado, and manufacture a nuclear bomb in Colorado, using equipment and parts all manufactured and purchased solely within Colorado, then it would not fall within Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause (although trying to detonate it clearly would, unless it is a really small nuclear bomb with no fallout).

How would detonating a nuclear bomb fall under the "Commerce Clause"? What part of it is "commerce"?

No, the authority for interdicting this sort of stuff is the Defense Clause.

Of course, even if the Commerce Clause does not apply, manufacturing, selling or purchasing any sort of weapon of mass destruction (even if entirely intrastate) would still fall within Congress' authority under several of the other enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, including the power to "provide for the common defense" of the United States.

Thank you. My point exactly.

The point is that the Commerce Clause is not Congress' only enumerated power and it should not be construed so broadly that the other enumerated powers are moot and the federal government has the power to regulate every transaction.

I agree. The Commerce Clause has been interpreted over broadly, but sufficient justification exists from other constitutionally delegated powers to allow the interdiction of dangerous substances which are deemed a threat to the nation.

100 posted on 02/20/2015 2:44:10 PM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-131 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson