Colorado Sued By Neighboring States Over Legal Pot 484
A reader notes that Nebraska and Oklahoma are suing Colorado over marijuana legalization. The attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma sued Colorado in the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, arguing state-legalized marijuana from Colorado is improperly spilling across state lines. The suit invokes the federal government's right to regulate both drugs and interstate commerce, and says Colorado's decision to legalize marijuana has been "particularly burdensome" to police agencies on the other side of the state line. In June, USA TODAY highlighted the flow of marijuana from Colorado into small towns across Nebraska: felony drug arrests in Chappell, Neb., just 7 miles north of the Colorado border have skyrocketed 400% in three years. "In passing and enforcing Amendment 64, the state of Colorado has created a dangerous gap in the federal drug control system enacted by the United States Congress. Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states, undermining plaintiff states' own marijuana bans, draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice systems," says the lawsuit. "The Constitution and the federal anti-drug laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local pro-drug policies and licensed distribution schemes throughout the country which conflict with federal laws."
Simple answer... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And give up all those extra federal enforcement dollars they hope to get as a result of this suit. You're hopped up crazy, man.
Re: Simple answer... (Score:2, Insightful)
Legalize itnand tax it and make up the difference many times over
Re: Simple answer... (Score:4, Insightful)
The money is the icing on the cake.
The militarized enforcement and unchecked abuse of power against the populace is the real goal.
Re:Simple answer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Simple answer... (Score:5, Informative)
And taxes are good, right? Not like that's stealing or anything.
And it all goes to a good cause.
Yeah, because shit like highways, water and land management, law enforcement and public infrastructure is self-sustained, for free, with nothing but bunnies' farts and pixie dust magically coming out of Tinkerbell's ass.
Re: Simple answer... (Score:5, Funny)
Has Tinkerbell been fucking bunnies [b]again[/b]! Honestly you'd think she'd learn after last time. (Bunnies with wings :rolleyes: )
[John]
Re: (Score:3)
Oh go eat a taco, you pissy sarcastic twat.
I bow to your excellent display of 3rd grade come backs.
Re: Simple answer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hahahahahaha you think tax money goes to pay for water and highways. No. Tax money goes to pay for stuff like this [washingtonpost.com], this [nationalreview.com] and this [csmonitor.com].
I know that *some* (not all) taxes go to stuff like that. If you are claiming that NO TAXES go ever to public infrastructure, then you are going to have to do better than just pointing at counter examples.
I never claimed that ALL TAXES go to public infrastructure. I claim that taxes PAY for infrastructure. That claim does not says "ALL TAXES go to infrastructure" or that "infrastructure gets funded PROPERLY by ALL TAXES."
As a result, your reply, by logical necessity, is misplaced and inadequate. Unless you can prove anywhere that I've said anything that warrants your reply, you have to admit, if you are honest, that you are simply building a strawman.
Haven't you noticed that America's infrastructure is crumbling?
Yes.
Now why is that?
Because its maintenance and expansion is not funded properly. This is no proof that taxes never go there. It is certainly not proof of the following statement:
And taxes are good, right? Not like that's stealing or anything.
People shouldn't expect not to be challenged when they post asinine shit like that without a context or at least some thought behind it.
Giving more tax income for the government is no better than giving a crackhead more money.
There is not one government. There is federal government, there is state and local government, and depending on the region, tribal government. Each operates differently, with different levels of efficiency and honesty (or lack thereof) when it comes to collecting taxes (and putting them to good use.)
In this specific context, this thread, taxation is being referred to state and local taxation. It is not accurate to describe taxation and public spending in such over-generalized terms. It is great from the point of rhetoric.
It has been a long time since the US government has made effective use of its money. Besides - all tax revenue is barely enough to cover the INTEREST on the deficit (even at these low low rates) - let alone the deficit. A few hundred million here or there will make zero difference to the ocean of pork.
Here you are properly elaborating a good point (finally). It still does not explain what states are to do with pot legalization, the war on drugs, state rights over their own taxation, their relation on that topic to the federal state, the nature of interstate commerce, free passage of citizens from one state to another to purchase an item and the arbiter role of federal government in such activities.
There are the goddamned subjects of this threat. Alcohol is already taxed with different sale taxes across the states, so logically legalization of pot by a state will imply its taxation by said state.
Inefficiency of (or even corruption during) taxation of an item by a government, be it local, state or federal, does not preclude a government, in particular a state government from exercising that sovereign power. If you oppose a state from taxing pot as a condition for legalization, you are going to have to do better than saying "taxation is bad or badly done."
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not against allowing adults to shoot, snort, sniff, smoke, drink or otherwise wallow in whatever they can want BUT...
Coming from a state where moonshine has been a long time pasttime, I can tell you that if push comes to shove, you'd rather deal with the DEA than the BATF.
Not just flaming here, but remember Waco [wikipedia.org]? That whole thing was initiated over alleged tax issues. That's really what the permits are in the end. Tax issues. Don't forget that the BATF is the enforcement arm of Treasury. They don't fuc
Re: Simple answer... (Score:3)
I keep hearing this argument. Our infrastructure is crap and getting worse. And yet, when the roads need repaved, somehow they are being repaved. When a storm comes through and knocks down utility lines, someone comes and repairs them. When some idiot digs up a fiber optic line and cuts it, otherwise known as backhoe fade, someone repairs that too.
Statements like this make it sound like our roads, electrical lines, and telecommunications are on the verge of collapse due to neglect. Our did you mean so
Re:Simple answer... (Score:4, Interesting)
By mot doing so, Congress makes itself look weak..er. I have heard rumors in the county next to me in OR (I'm in WA) that last year there were a a lot of instances of jury nullification brought up in some marijuana cases. They either never carried all the jury or judges lied and intimidated the jury beforehand or after...illegally...but still effective. Not too long after that Measure 91 passed. Even just the rumor is an indication of a shifting awareness, go with the flow, D.C. and not look any wimpier than you already do.
the REAL solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
strip the DEA of scheduling authority!
here's a simple thought experiment:
you just awoke from a 50 year coma and in playing around with this new-fangled interweb thingy you learn that final authority over the legality of a given substance rests NOT with the FDA (an army of PhDs) or the AMA (an army of MDs) but with this new agency called the "DEA" - a bunch of frakin' COPS! "wait? say that again?!?" you say "a bunch of COPS who know as much about chemistry, biology & medicine as my dead cat have VETO POWER over armies of MDs & PhDs on the legality of ingesting a given chemical?!? what rocket surgeon came up with that bright idea?!?"
we need to abolish the DEA not just b/c we happen to disagree with them on THC (and MDMA, etc) but b/c the basic model is IDIOTIC!!!
Re:the REAL solution: (Score:4, Informative)
On paper, sure. But in reality the DEA makes law. (Score:5, Informative)
Going back at least as far as the 1980s, the DEA has used their "emergency scheduling" powers to ban various substances by fiat.
Drugs like MDMA, GHB, "bath salts", and various synthetic cannabinoids were all summarily placed in Schedule I by unelected DEA bureaucrats. All they have to do is wave their pen, and any substance they want to ban is made illegal.
Yes, such actions are theoretically open to review by congress, but in reality Congress has never denied any DEA action of this nature, and simply rubber stamps whatever the DEA does.
So the DEA has the ability to CREATE drug laws, as well as ENFORCE them.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, such actions are theoretically open to review by congress, but in reality Congress has never denied any DEA action of this nature, and simply rubber stamps whatever the DEA does.
So what you're saying is that it isn't really a failure of the DEA, but a failure of Congress?
Re: (Score:3)
Now if only something this logical had any chance of getting done by
Re:Simple answer... (Score:5, Insightful)
But if 100g or less is legal, why is 101g illegal? What is the purpose of such a law?
What do you actually expect it is protecting us from?
Do you feel some responsibility to violent gangs like....we created them with bad laws, and now we have to nurture them? Why do you not want legal production in the daylight where product can be weighed and inspected. Where people who defraud their customers or violent thugs who would prey on honest businessmen and their wares can be brought to justice instead of left out in the cold to the wolves....over what?
Seriously....what the fuck justifies arrest and incarceration over pot? What justifies AT ALL interfering with the lives of consenting adults over this flower? I really want to know because in 20 years of being a pot smoker the worst negatives I have seen have all been the result of these stupid laws.
Honest people being robbed and held at gunpoint with no recourse, nobody to call. Dishonest dealers who rip off their customers. Families torn apart, jobs lost, all over... some mad obsession with moralistic laws against what is, at worst, a minor vice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But if 100g or less is legal, why is 101g illegal? What is the purpose of such a law?
That's not unusual at all. It draws a clear line between what is allowed and what is not. Would you prefer vague guidelines like "for private consumption" vs. "for sale", or "small amounts"? Having strict and easily to check guidelines also avoids wasting time on law enforcements and court costs. 100 grams, and the police lets you go. 101 grams, the hold you and take you to court. Whether you're guilty or innocent, it is _clear_ which one, and that is a good thing Obviously you shouldn't try to go to the extreme limit of what's allowed. If your scales say you have 100 grams, but your scales are off and you really have 101, that's no excuse. Just stay below 90 and you're fine.
I think parent was questioning why any limit at all, as in what makes possessing 101g turn you into an evil anti-american, versus an upstanding 99g toter.
Re: (Score:3)
Because there are obvious safety issues with crossing a road outside a crosswalk, whereas you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a similar rationale for carrying ±2 grams of pot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Simple answer... (Score:2, Informative)
Nobody said you have to smoke it or that smoking is even a good way to ingest it.
Re: (Score:3)
Perfect. Colorado will just let them free BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL THERE.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
How about ignoring it? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about not enforcing the laws there since doing otherwise is a stupid waste of law enforcement time and resources? I can't believe anyone can be stupid enough to think cannabis is dangerous enough to merit criminalization. You have to be basically live up your own ass for decades to come up with that opinion.
Re:How about ignoring it? (Score:4, Funny)
You are obviously a part of Satan's cabal, attempting to spread his grip to God-fearing communities through the insanity-inducing devil-weed known as marajawana...
Re:How about ignoring it? (Score:4, Informative)
How about not enforcing the laws there since doing otherwise is a stupid waste of law enforcement time and resources? I can't believe anyone can be stupid enough to think cannabis is dangerous enough to merit criminalization. You have to be basically live up your own ass for decades to come up with that opinion.
There are lots of examples of this in action. Many states have laws against adultery, cohabitation, and consensual oral sex. Yet when was the last time someone got a felony rap for carpet munching?
On a even less serious note, many states have ridiculous laws which were put on the books back during the Jurassic period of American jurisprudence. So, as an example, in Washington state it is illegal to sell bedding or meat on a Sunday. You will recall the wave of busts against Bed Bath and Beyond, Pottery Barn, and Safeway. Yeah, right...
Re: (Score:3)
Are you serious? Most of the felony cases prosecuted are done so by states. Most of the felonies that you can name are state laws.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't believe anyone can be stupid enough to think cannabis is dangerous enough to merit criminalization.
What you can or cannot believe isn't important, the truth is that canabis can have a devastating effect on the developing teenage mind. Even if you don't consider that enough to warrant criminalization, that does not justify insulting those of us who do.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't believe anyone can be stupid enough to think cannabis is dangerous enough to merit criminalization.
What you can or cannot believe isn't important, the truth is that cannabis can have a devastating effect on the developing teenage mind. Even if you don't consider that enough to warrant criminalization, that does not justify insulting those of us who do.
By that measure, so is alcohol, or any number of other drugs that are sold over the counter. Yes it should be age restricted, but the point is that it is not any more dangerous than plenty of other substances that are legal. It's certainly less dangerous than cigarettes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, pot has more harmful chemicals in the smoke you inhale than cigarettes do. And since the goal of smoking pot is to hold the smoke in for longer, it makes it worse.
Show me anybody in the world who smokes 40-60 marijuana cigarettes per day.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How about ignoring it? (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember this Nancy Reagan talking point. Proved to be 100% bullshit.
Look, I believed all the BS I was taught in my childhood as well. I believed it until I was in my late 40's. Then I finally tried the devil weed.
My life has improved greatly since I became a regular "pothead" at age 48 ( I'm now 51). I'm happier, I sleep better, I get more things done, I'm a nicer person. I smoke weed almost every evening after work.
You should try it.
Re: (Score:3)
So that's certainly something, but absolutely not 100% bullshit. "Mostly bullshit," perhaps.
Enforcing pot laws is big business (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Enforcing pot laws is big business (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Enforcing pot laws is big business (Score:5, Informative)
still, legalizing it would be the better option, Colorado already proved that with the tax revenue they brought in from legalized marijuana, plus it frees up law enforcement to pursuit more serious crimes, empties jails and prisons of otherwise law abiding citizens that were only merely in possession or smoking a small amount of herb, i hope this forces the federal Govt to finally realize that marijuana should be legalized just like alcohol (legal for any adult, and no driving under the influence)
The problem is that federal Byrne grants are very lucrative and legalized marijuana is probably a losing proposition financially for states. Or, at least, for police agencies. Ever wonder why the officers on COPS turn into raving lunatics looking for drugs every time they pull some poor guy over? I mean, seriously, they act like addicts looking for a fix. The reason is that if they find drugs they make money from the feds, so every little joint is worth money.
We've set up a system of perverse incentives. Apparently in Nebraska it's reached the point that subsequent arrests for drugs aren't yielding more federal dollars so it's not worth it to them.
Re:Enforcing pot laws is big business (Score:5, Insightful)
"Colorado already proved that with the tax revenue they brought in from legalized marijuana"
Colorado probably got significantly increased business from being the first, surrounded by neighbours where it is still illegal. They probably even have increased secondary trade from people travelling in to get marijuana and then buying other stuff. Also, there's probably the effect of the novelty. I'm not saying there isn't a permanent increase, but it will be less if Nebraska and Oklahoma also legalise it.
Re:Enforcing pot laws is big business (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, there's probably the effect of the novelty. I'm not saying there isn't a permanent increase, but it will be less if Nebraska and Oklahoma also legalise it.
True, that's why the fundamental reason for legalizing marijuana should be: "Its safe for society at large and the people want it so"
Taxes are just a happy side effect.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
False. Colorado brought in 20% of the promised revenue from legalization [yahoo.com] and the prospects of them meeting their initial projections are about as likely as Steve Ballmer running Linux.
Before you then say, "Well, they at least got something," I would like to remind you of this article [slashdot.org] wherein people on here were claiming Chicago's use of red light cameras a failure when they only got 44% of the initial proj
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
THIS is the problem. It needs to be made totally legal, so we can end this dangerous nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone doesn't agree with you, therefore they must have an agenda aligning with a corporate / government cabal?
I do hear that cannabis makes you paranoid...
astroturf (Score:4, Insightful)
As you can see, the moderation converged on a more proper +5 Insightful
I've read the post carefully and it doesn't qualify as Flamebait IMHO. It states a controversial political opinion and thus invites a discussion, which may lead to flamage, but does not itself lead with a flame.
So this looks like someone who doesn't like the position trying to suppress it, by hitting it with the most plausible -1, in the hope that one more like-minded person will have mod points and get it suppressed before very many people see it. That works for "politically incorrect" subjects (such as criticisms of the "heat death of the Earth, everybody panic and suppress technology" interpretation of climate data), where a crowd of like-minded free speech haters are ready to suppress opposing opinions. But pro-pot doesn't appear to attract that much system-gaming opposition.
Right now it only takes two downmods to hide a non-anonymous itme. It seems to me that we have enough people willing to moderate that it's time to scale up the mod system, so a small astroturf operation can't shut down debate. Say: double it: Mods get 10 points, -2 hides, non-anynomous starts at +2, high-karma at +4, doulble everybody's current karma and readjust the cutpoints for bonuses, caps, and the like. That would mean it would take two moderators to suppress a anonymous post and four for authors willing to risk reputation. (It would also mean more work for those who are willing to moderate - but they might be more willing to spend a point if they had more to spend.)
Re:Enforcing pot laws is big business (Score:5, Funny)
And what means are used to detect drivers who are high on pot?
Show them a clip of a Pauli Shore movie on YouTube. If they laugh, they're driving under the influence.
Re:Enforcing pot laws is big business (Score:5, Interesting)
From my point of view any compromise in the belief that it is morally wrong to ....
This is why the states rights model makes more sense than overbearing federal laws.
Reading your position, I think you and the people of the bible belt would get along just fine. Nothing negative against you or them is meant or implied in any way. While I may not agree on this specific point, you're promoting personal responsibility, which I support completely.
However, I'm also positive that the people of California and the people of Tennessee have some pretty significant differences of opinion on several legislative topics. There's nothing wrong with either side, the people just need to respect that others may believe differently and not try to force it down each others throats.
If more laws were handled at city and state levels and fewer at federal levels, the discussion could be a lot more rational. i.e., there are people who use marijuana recreationally and there are people who carry loaded guns in public. Both of these groups are generally not going around hurting anyone, so I don't have a problem with either of them. However, those should remain two separate groups and it seems reasonable for people to choose one or the other, not both, just like we do with alcohol today.
The people who are bringing pot from Colorado into the neighboring states are committing a handful of crimes. Those states could pass laws requiring high restitution fees for those crimes to support the increased enforcement costs. Or they could decriminalize or legalize it. Each state should make their own choices and deal with enforcement accordingly. If it's not cost effective to prosecute people who have small amounts of pot and those people are generally not hurting anyone, a good business decision is to look the other way, just like with the other hundreds of thousands of laws on the books that are selectively enforced today.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And what means are used to detect drivers who are high on pot?
You've never seen anyone high before, have you? Detecting such drivers won't be any more difficult than detecting drivers who are drunk. The same laws most likely apply, as well, since "Driving Under the Influence" probably isn't specifically limited to alcohol.
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem, if the other states don't want to lose the revenue from drug enforcement (which I believe is certainly true), that this increase in arrests and subsequent convictions/asset forfeiture would be welcomed.
Re:Enforcing pot laws is big business (Score:4, Insightful)
It would seem, if the other states don't want to lose the revenue from drug enforcement (which I believe is certainly true), that this increase in arrests and subsequent convictions/asset forfeiture would be welcomed.
Yea, but now they also want a paycheck from Colorado. See how that works?
Re: (Score:3)
How is it hard to harass someone on drug charges, if they are not using or possessing drugs at the time of a police stop?
"Can I search your vehicle / bag?"
"Affording my constitutional rights, No."
Now the police either has to show a judge probable cause to get a warrant, or they let you go. So called "reasonable suspicion" doesn't even work because there has to be some form of evidence for that - if you don't have dilated pupils, slurred speech, or loss of coordination / balance they don't have that either.
Dry Counties? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this any different than counties that don't allow the sale of alcohol adjacent to counties that do? Do the dry counties sue the wet counties because they have to be on the lookout for drunk drivers on their borders? Looks like a way to get some attention or maybe some cash to me...
Re:Dry Counties? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm posting anonymously on purpose. I work in Scottsbluff, Nebraska and in my profession need to work with various law enforcement agencies. What they have been telling me is that since Colorado legalized pot, they have seen a huge increase in people bringing pot into the state. That is the difference from a dry to wet county. Those counties have existed for some time and police are accustomed to dealing with it. At least in Nebraska, the police reports I've seen show quite a large increase in the number of people trafficking pot within the state.
I spoke with one officer a couple of weeks ago and he said to me, "I don't care if you go to Colorado and smoke pot, but it's still illegal here and if I catch you with it, I have to arrest you." Law enforcement officers I know are mixed on whether they think pot is okay or not, but they all agree that if you're caught with it, they can't just let you go. I would also estimate that probably 70 percent of the folks I know in the area are against legalization.
Now, the folks they are stopping are being stopped for other things first, such as speeding. These folks also aren't bringing back a little for themselves. They bring so much that it's obvious that it's for sale. I know of one stop earlier this year near Kimball, Nebraska of folks that were trying to take pot back to Minnesota to sell. They were originally stopped for speeding.
Also in western Nebraska is the Wing Drug Task Force. Think of what their sole existence is for. We have a problem with meth in western Nebraska. There's lots of wide open spaces here, so a meth lab is easy to hide, yet I always read more about pot busts than meth with the task force.
We also have police officers who do outreaches to the schools. They talk about railroad safety (because kids still think they can beat the trains) and not doing drugs. While all drugs are covered in their talks to students, meth and pot are the main focus.They tell the kids about these big studies that tell how bad pot is and then detail the awful things pot does to you.
I personally wish Nebraska would just legalize pot, but I'm pretty sure the state government wants the title of "last state to legalize pot."
Re:Dry Counties? (Score:5, Interesting)
"I don't care if you go to Colorado and smoke pot, but it's still illegal here and if I catch you with it, I have to arrest you." Law enforcement officers I know are mixed on whether they think pot is okay or not, but they all agree that if you're caught with it, they can't just let you go.
But the police have argued all the way to the Supreme Court that "discretion" is a right of the cops, and they are *never* required to enforce any law.
Re: (Score:3)
Well I am not going to post anonymously.
While I don't believe that marijuana is without it's risks, if police are telling children that meth and weed are the same then they are doing a disservice to the children. There is absolutely no comparison between the impact of the two drugs on peoples lives. Meth is highly addictive, and will make your body slowly melt into death. I should know, I watched it happen to my uncle. I on the other hand have stayed away from all drugs (including alcohol) for years, but ha
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't really call that a "difference" - The exact same thing happens in "dry" counties/town. Maybe somewhere in the deep, dark South you can find a town or two that really believe in all that "dry" bullshit, but in practice, prohibitions against alcohol work just as well as prohibitions against pot - ie, not at all
Re: (Score:3)
I'm posting anonymously on purpose. I work in Scottsbluff, Nebraska and in my profession need to work with various law enforcement agencies. What they have been telling me is that since Colorado legalized pot, they have seen a huge increase in people bringing pot into the state. That is the difference from a dry to wet county.
Now, the folks they are stopping are being stopped for other things first, such as speeding. These folks also aren't bringing back a little for themselves. They bring so much that it's obvious that it's for sale. I know of one stop earlier this year near Kimball, Nebraska of folks that were trying to take pot back to Minnesota to sell.
You have no clue what you are talking about. The prices of "legitimate" cannabis purchased in Colorado are around 35% higher than black market cannabis you can purchase in neighboring states due to increased overhead and high taxation levels. While I have absolutely no doubt in my mind there is an uptick in college kids carrying across a single ounce or two, no dealer or wholesaler in their right mind would procure from the legitimate market and transport vs. obtaining it on the black market or producing it
Re: (Score:3)
They bring so much that it's obvious that it's for sale.
And how much would that be? I know that federal statutes have rules in them where if you have more then X amount it's 'obvious' you intended to sell them, then lowered said amounts because the dealers simply started carrying less, stashing their stuff in small amounts. The only ones with large amounts were the mules. There are recorded cases of tolerant people where a week's worth of their habit busted those limits easily.
If you're an individual user driving the 200 miles from Denver to Scottsbluff, or t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Why is this any different than counties that don't allow the sale of alcohol adjacent to counties that do?"
I think the difference here is that marijuana is illegal under federal law. It is not a law the states created, and so they are complaining about the disproportionate burden placed on them.
A.
Re:Dry Counties? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What county has alcohol freely available? I need to move there...
Re: (Score:2)
It's harder to carry a trunkful of "gambling" back across the border to sell to the people back home.
Pot is a noun. Gambling is a verb.
Let me FTFY ... (Score:3, Insightful)
... this is similar in nature to same sex marriage, and women's reproductive rights.
It's legal some places and banned in others.
America needs to make up its mind. Which way are we going to go?
The decision should be based on case law and public need and citizen's rights.
Legalize all that shit and let's play spin the bottle and stuff.
yw
Marijuana is still illegal everwhere in the US (Score:3)
... this is similar in nature to same sex marriage, and women's reproductive rights.
It's legal some places and banned in others.
No, it's not. Marijuana is still illegal throughout the United States due to federal law. In no state (including Colorado) is it legal. It's simply that Colorado has removed any state law criminalizing it. The federal prohibition remains. That is not the case with same sex marriage and women's reproductive rights. The next president could easily tell the DEA to go in and shut down every marijuana dealer and grower in Colorado if he/she orders it.
Re: (Score:3)
... this is similar in nature to same sex marriage, and women's reproductive rights.
It's legal some places and banned in others.
No, it's not. Marijuana is still illegal throughout the United States due to federal law. In no state (including Colorado) is it legal. It's simply that Colorado has removed any state law criminalizing it. The federal prohibition remains. That is not the case with same sex marriage and women's reproductive rights. The next president could easily tell the DEA to go in and shut down every marijuana dealer and grower in Colorado if he/she orders it.
You're neglecting the fact that the DEA doesn't have the resources to enforce that. The DEA relies on local law enforcement to do almost all of their work. They only become involved in very big cases. So yes, they could take out the stores and maybe the larger farms, but the real change is the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people growing it in their back yards. What I'm really surprised about is that the price hasn't really gone down yet. The prices you see at those dispensaries are still higher
Re: (Score:2)
Supply, demand, taxes, and regulations all combine to control the prices. If people are willing to pay X, and you're selling all your product, why would you reduce prices? All it would do is lower their profits; if they're even making any.
My guess is there are a lot of hidden factors, like big insurance costs. Most insurance policies have an exemption so they don't pay out if you're doing something illegal. This means they may have to self-insure, or find a company willing to take on the risk of a federal b
Re: (Score:3)
Under what authority does the federal govt have to regulate pot? It doesn't.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup... [cornell.edu]
Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, about that Constitution Thing (Score:2)
Attn Border States:
The Interstate Commerce Clause. Read up on it, and how it means you can't do jack about what a neighboring state does or does not legalize. The feds certainly can, and do, have anti-drug laws, but states have no jurisdiction over federal law enforcement priorities.
Arrest increase because they're looking for it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Chappell, NE is a don't-blink-or-you'll-miss-it town of 929 on I-80 between North Platte, NE and Cheyenne, Wyoming. A 400% increase in felony drug arrests sounds like a lot, but how many felony drug arrests could there ever have been in a town of 929? Did we go from 1 to 4?
I also wonder how many shitkicker rural sheriffs in neighboring states went on full batshit alert once Colorado legalized it and began pulling over every car they could with out of state license plates coming from Colorado, knowing that they would hit paydirt on at least some of them? You can pretty easily create your own crisis if you start looking for it.
To be fair to the sheriffs, I don't doubt there is some increased amount of pot leaving Colorado -- it's a tourist destination even without pot and it wouldn't surprise me at all if people who go there for other reasons (like skiing or other outdoor activities) decide to bring some home.
It also wouldn't surprise me if some people went there specifically to bring some home, although from what I've been told the retail pricing isn't all that competitive on a dollar basis with black market pot and the economics of driving cross-country to pick up a couple of ounces of weed don't seem to lend themselves to a lot of people deciding to make that trip.
I don't think you can factor in any kind of organized criminal enterprises into these complaints -- that was a "problem" *before* it was legalized. Bitching about it now because you're frothed up about pot legalization and seeing it everywhere you look just seems paranoid.
Re:Arrest increase because they're looking for it? (Score:4, Interesting)
I also wonder how many shitkicker rural sheriffs in neighboring states went on full batshit alert once Colorado legalized it and began pulling over every car they could with out of state license plates coming from Colorado, knowing that they would hit paydirt on at least some of them? You can pretty easily create your own crisis if you start looking for it.
As someone with several friends in Colorado who frequently leave the state by car I'm gonna go by what they've told me which is that since day one of legal cannabis in Colorado cops in neighboring states have pretty much been camped out at the state line stopping cars for pretty much no reason at all ("You were going 3 mph over the limit, DO YOU HAVE ANY DRUGS IN THE VEHICLE?").
Re: (Score:2)
That is common whenever the laws change when passing an unseen line. They do that in my city during New Years an July 4th since we aren't allowed fireworks in the city. Firework stands are set up right outside city limits and cops right inside city limits.
Only the city and big / influential businesses are allowed to shoot off fireworks in San Antonio.
Same with highways that drop to 15 miles an hour to sustain small towns via tourist tickets
Re: (Score:3)
From 1 to 4 would be a 300% increase. You suck at math.
Nope, his math is fine. It is you who does not understand political math. In politics, 1 to 4 is a 400% increase ;-)
Solution is End Federal Ban (Score:2)
Unlike the dry county / wet county and guns references (or gay marriage, etc), this particular case uses the fact that marijuana remains illegal under federal law.
The suit should prod US Congress to pass a law explicitly allowing Colorado and Washington to self regulate marijuana.
If that happens, it's all good, the Nebraskas actually move the ball forward by removing the legal dichotomy.
I'd think Congress could do that. They might be chicken to actually remove the federal law, but they could explicitly cr
Re:Second Hand Smoke? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A gap? (Score:2)
There is a gap in the program, and fortunately, Colorado, Washington, Alaska are leading the way through it.
good luck with that.. (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/12/department-justice-congress-war-medical-marijuana
The $1.1 trillion federal spending bill approved by the Senate on Saturday has effectively ended the longstanding federal war on medical marijuana. An amendment to the bill blocks the Department of Justice from spending money to prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries or patients that abide by state laws.
Dear Nebraska and Oklahoma.... (Score:4, Funny)
Fuck off losers
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If this is true please answer this.
Where are Hearst vast forests? Plesae give coordinates so far there is more proof of the elephant graveyard. However you can easily find receipts of his newspaper companies purchasing large quantities of paper and of the paper companies purchasing wood.
Since there are no vast Hearst forests he then had to be the stupidest business man in history since he was throwing away a resource that would of resulted in cheaper production costs for him.
The
Commerce clause abuse (Score:5, Informative)
The stupid thing is: it may well work. The federal government regularly twists the Commerce Clause beyond all recognition. The most egregious case, the one that really set the ball rolling, was the one where the federal government claimed the right to regulate farmers feeding their own grain to their own livestock [wikipedia.org]. Why? Because that meant that they bought less grain from elsewhere, some of which might, potentially come from out of state. Hence, the Commerce Clause allowed the regulation.
Given that sort of precedent, the federal government can justify essentially any regulation that it wants. Certainly including telling Colorado that it's state-wide laws are invalid, because they happen to indirectly affect neighboring states.
Colorado could require state ID (Score:2)
If Colorado simply required a state ID for purchasers that would seem to mute the issue. Purchases by out of state people would be illegal like anywhere else and CO would have done nothing to impact NE and OK. Of course, we tourists would be infuriated and might try our own suit claiming unfair impact.
The case of Idaho is particularly interesting (Score:3)
The state is libertarian, not Bible Belt, and yet Idaho police organizations are incensed over pot legalization in neighboring Oregon and Washington. There have been a number of well-publicized cases of Bad Cop behavior exercised against out-of-state pot users, even to the extent of spying by Idaho cops in the pot-legal states in hopes of entrapping legally operating businessmen passing through Idaho.
Idaho has such a large population of anti-government types that I can see it not only legalizing pot, which they regard as basically a side issue, but being the first state to seriously cut back on law enforcement property seizure powers. Based on this year's headlines, this will start an even more popular serious of referenda across the country than pot legalization.
How long has the War on Drugs lasted? (Score:2)
Decades?
Trillions spent on it? And I can still go down the street & score. Why are people crossing into Colorado to score when Billy next door grows it? This really makes no sense.
Stressing their law enforcement resources my ass... Nebraska is making money on these busts, we know that. Now they want to double dip & get some of Colorado's tax windfall.
Why not a purge? (Score:3, Informative)
WTF happended to "small gubmint and freedom fries" (Score:5, Interesting)
The attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma sued Colorado in the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, arguing state-legalized marijuana from Colorado is improperly spilling across state lines
Seriously, wtf. Oklahoma is way up there among the meth'iest states in the Union, and in Nebraska, LEO's report 1 meth lab incident per 200K people (compared to 1 incident per 376K people in Colorado.) Meth is far more dangerous than pot, I would think these two states should get their shit together before trying to drag another state to federal court.
Furthermore, Colorado is doing far better in almost all indicators than these two states. Not because of pot legalization obviously, but because of a variety of reasons (many of them social).
So, Oklahoma and Nebraska, butt off. Get your shit together. Then worry about legal consequences, if any, that you might be experiencing because Coloradoans are baking brownies the type your granny used to eat back in Woodstock (yes, either she did that there or in a barn, get over it.)
Re: (Score:3)
No because 2nd Amendment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also because more guns, less crime.
Re:Hope they win this case. (Score:4, Interesting)
None of the gun rights guys are standing up for the blacks who were shot merely because they had real or toy guns with them. I am sure there will be tons of comments demonizing the dead victims. Will NRA stand up for the blacks to own guns for self protection and to fight against the tyranny of the police?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They won't. States are allowed to pass whatever laws they like, as long as the laws don't interfere with Interstate Commerce or other applicable parts of the Constitution.
A law saying it was legal to raise and sell pot, but NOT in Interstate Commerce, would be clearly unconstitutional (the Feds can decide that, the States, not so much).
Similarly, the State next door whinging about your local laws would be unconstitutional (note Nevada's gambling laws going way back)....
Re:Hope they win this case. (Score:4, Informative)
I kind of doubt it. States enjoy sovereign immunity thanks to the 11th Amendment and generally can't be sued by other states.
Without this, you would have all manner of lawsuits about neighboring states tax laws, liquor and cigarette control regimes, abortion, etc. Bigger states could dominate smaller states via sheer resources.
Re: (Score:2)
The SCOTUS has the sole jurisdiction to hear disputes between US States. In joining the union they delegated authority to that court as the sole arbiter of inter-state disputes.
So states can sue each other, but only before the Supreme Court of the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yup. (Score:4, Informative)
Same thing happened when they outlawed dancing.
I thought you were joking, but its true [people.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yup. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:10th amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. And why did alcohol prohibition require a Constitutional amendment, but not marijuana prohibition? The answer is, during alcohol prohibition, the constitution was being followed. Under marijuana prohibition, they wiped their asses with the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Another ignored amendment: the 2nd. And just about every other recently by the Obama administration.
Say what you want about republicans, but they don't shit over the constitution like the dems do.
Yeah, because suspending habeus corpus indefinitely is so constitutional. And reading everyone's email doesn't violate the fourth amendment. I'm also pretty sure that torture violates the fourth and fifth amendments.
Please.