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 ...
Wrong again. BUT...the people spoke. They amended the Constitution. Therefore, government has spoken.
I am firmly against slavery, and so we shouldn't let any drug addicts make us into slaves.
Pot bans also affect non-welfare recipients; your goal can be accomplished with no collateral damage by conditioning welfare on the passing of drug tests - or, for that matter, an end to welfare.
If you are asking about totally intrastate manufacture, sale and use, then yes, Colorado should be able to legalize Heroin and Meth.
I am not saying that they should legalize Heroin or Meth. I am not even saying they should legalize marijuana. Personally, I am opposed to all three.
What I am saying is that Colorado and every other state should have the right to legalize, regulate or prohibit the intrastate manufacture, sale or use of any drug, food or other ingestible substance as the majority of their citizens see fit. If someone in Colorado does not like the laws that Colorado chooses to enact over intrastate commerce, then they are free to go to another state with different laws. When the feds control everything, then that right is lost.
It is called federalism. All laws and regulations should be enacted at the most local level possible, so that citizens have a say in how their rights are restricted.
Um, if it is not "commerce" then how can Congress make it illegal under the Commerce Clause?
How would detonating a nuclear bomb fall under the "Commerce Clause"? What part of it is "commerce"?
The part where the blast or the fallout disrupts commerce in neighboring states.
Anthrax is a lot easier.
Do that first, and then come talk to me about legalizing that crap. As it stands now, I already have to pay into the kitty for the potheads I know on welfare.
How about counterfeiting just so long as the fake dollars stay in Colorado?
I don't think you are grasping the notion that the consequences of some things won't remain within a state.
Now let me point out this. At some point in our history, pot usage was much lower than it is now.
Let us even speculate that at some point it was only a few thousand people using this drug. How many do you think there are out there using it now?
I do not think they have to use the commerce clause to declare it illegal, I think the commerce clause is only used in such a manner because Liberal Judges on the Supreme Court during the Roosevelt era made it convenient for them to use the commerce clause in such a manner.
As we have both noted, justification exists elsewhere.
The part where the blast or the fallout disrupts commerce in neighboring states.
And now who's stretching the commerce clause? :)
“Anthrax is a lot easier” Yes it is, but even the U.S. Government has not been able to keep that out of malicious hands, much less find the ‘malicious’ hands that uses it.
Fortunately for us most psychopaths don’t have the pacents or money to develop and uses weapons like Anthrax when a simple gun, knife, or bomb will do the same trick far more efficiently.
Even still we know from experence that Federal law has not prevented attacks, nor can it prevent such an attack. State law might enjoy small amount of greater success given greater numbers and local knowledge but even that won’t stop an intelligent madman.
If your smart enough & inclined to develop an Anthrax weapon your smart enough to do it without being detected before its too late.
Once again, your ignorance and contempt for the Constitution is on display. Congress is delegated power over money by I.8.5. and I.8.6.
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
As a young boy in Colorado, I lived down the street, from the sugar beet “factory” as it was called. The 24/7 smell was awful.
Since then I have lived in/near 3 other such facilities in Heilbronn, Germany, Huntington Beach, California and Santa Ana, California.
Every time I saw those facilities, it brought back memories of that plant in Colorado.
Once again, your ignorance and contempt for the Constitution is on display. Congress is delegated power over money by I.8.5. and I.8.6.
One wonders what such types are doing on this "pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights" site.
Actually I am pretty much against the war on drugs. It has been a miserable failure.i am open to trying just about anything at this point. Do you think there would be a lot more addicts? In countries that have done this, the results have been empty jails and fewer addicts.
>>At some point in our history, pot usage
>>was much lower than it is now.
Why did George Washington separate the male and female cannabis plants he was cultivating?
In that SP clip ep Randy and Sharon Marsh has a fond reminiscent flashback of their party days in the 1960s ata free concert where Randy is drunk and keeps on puking and slurring his speech and staggering, while Sharon also high and letting every guy hippie at the concert take her on the ground.
Classic 1960s good time.
Thanks for the ping!
“Another effort to equate indulgent drug usage with necessary production. We must have food. We can live without weed.”
And that’s another effort to justify government overreach when it suits your biases. We can live without donuts shops (bad for your health) and car washes (bad for the environment). Want to ban them? Somebody does, or will, you can count on it, and you can count on them wanting the government to be their enforcer. Your position that using marijuana does not help anyone under any circumstances has no connection to reality.
An appropriate foundation for a civil suit, but not for overturning a law
and that the marijuana industry is stinky
Not a reason to overturn a law
and attracts unsavory visitors.”
Not a reason to overturn a law.
They're 0-for-3
I’m not even really arguing in favor of legalized weed. I’m arguing that constitutionally, the Feds are supposed to leave most issues of lawmaking to the states. And I think we should support states that vigorously make that case, even when we are not particularly thrilled with the specific law which is being argued.
The domain of the Feds is laid out in the Constitution and marijuana laws are not in that domain.
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.