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.”
LOL!
Medical need not required with recreational passage. Limit on number though.
Substitute firearm for joint, and see how that legal concept stands up. That’s no reason to give Oklahoma the final say over every other states laws.
If you can require Colorado to enforce Nebraska’s and Oklahoma’s drug laws within Colorado’s borders, then you can require Vermont to enforce Massachusetts’ gun laws within Vermont’s borders.
I thought the feds decriminalized this yesterday?
Yeah, we absolutely need more checkpoints. Be sure you have your papers in order, citizen.
Or the story right below this one. Cuomo in New York is banning fracking because it supposedly risks their health. When does New Mexico with strict fracking rules get to say Colorado and Texas are impacting them?
The possibilities are endless. And Oklahoma is supposed to be conservative.
This is a big move supporting the expansion of FedGov.
Except that Colorado’s Amendment 64 has nothing to do with Federal laws. It doesn’t strke down Federal laws, restrict Federal enforcement, or anything of the sort. If other states want to sue anybody, it should be the Federal Government for not riding herd on the States. A true conservative position. /s
This is typical of the “thinking” that such efforts create. If Oklahoma people are using Colorado pot. Lets say a On Okie pothead notices that ONLY Colorado plates are stopped and searched. What does one suppose said pothead might think of to do? Maybe use an Oklahoma car?
You're asking for a level of intellectual consistency that simply does not exist in the human mind.
Just set up border checkpoints between the states and confiscate any Mary Jane in possession, or turn them around.
Substitute firearm for joint, and see how that legal concept stands up. That’s no reason to give Oklahoma the final say over every other states laws.
________________________________________
That legal concept stands up just fine. Texas allows for concealed carry. Yet a private place of business has the right (under law) to prohibit carrying.
And Oklahoma has the right to deny harm and damages caused in Oklahoma by the citizens of Colorado.
You honestly want checkpoints between states? How does that sound like a good idea ever?? Exactly how does this resemble less government in our lives?
Imagine how twisted it could get with one state suing another for not performing homosexual weddings, and some states suing states that do perform them. In each case, the residents of each state may be impacted by the laws of the other state.
And what about speed limit laws? Drivers might not slow down when they cross from a state with a 75 mph speed limit into a state with a 55 mph speed limit.
It’s ridiculous to insist that the most restrictive laws should become the laws of every state by default, on the flimsy premise that restrictive states are harmed by other states not infringing as harshly on freedom.
This House of Representatives could impeach the damned obscenely arrogant narcissist, but the totally corrupt CRAT Senate wouldn't remove him from office (it takes 2/3 of the Members of the Senate present to remove this raw sewage from office) in a billion years, even if he is screaming Aluah-akbar while he is beheading white, hispanic, and black babies on the front of the White House lawn.
And there is no hope of removing this dictator with the new congress because there will never be, before the Sun runs out of fuel, a SINate that would dare ever vote (including the dispicable RINos ...Susan Collins of Maine for one, to remove this terorist from office no matter what he does or doesn't do,
And Oklahoma has the right to deny harm and damages caused in Oklahoma by the citizens of Colorado.
Oklahoma has every right to keep marijuana illegal in Oklahoma. They have every right to prosecute people who cause harm in Oklahoma because of being under the influence. They do NOT have the right to make a Colorado law illegal because they don't want it in their state. Otherwise, NY can make guns illegal in SC just because they don't like them. California could raise taxes in SC because our tax rates give us an economic advantage. That is incompatible with a federation of states.
I’m not necessarily for “less” government in our lives when it concerns STATE governments asserting their rights within their own state boundaries. I’m AM for drastically reduced, extremely limited government of the federal brand, as intended by the Constitution.
STATES most certainly SHOULD be able to monitor the people coming into their territory in the name of the danger and harm outside parties pose to state tranquility. If Coloradans don’t like it, they can stay out.
So is there some point to this string of links that is relevant to the actual issue?
I can see this backfiring and an activist court legalizes it nationally.
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.