DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Nebraska, Oklahoma File Federal Suit Against Colorado Over Marijuana Legalization

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/18...kusaolp00000592


Share
119
Tweet
22

Comment
0

The states of Nebraska and Oklahoma filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday, claiming that Colorado's legalization of recreational marijuana is unconstitutional under federal law.

"Federal law undisputedly prohibits the production and sale of marijuana," Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said Thursday in a statement. "Colorado has undermined the United States Constitution, and I hope the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold our constitutional principles."

But Colorado Attorney General John Suthers isn't backing down. In a statement, he said he intends to defend the state's marijuana laws.


“Because neighboring states have expressed concern about Colorado-grown marijuana coming into their states, we are not entirely surprised by this action," Suthers said. "However, it appears the plaintiffs’ 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.”

Bruning, along with Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, argue that under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, Colorado's legalization of recreational marijuana is unconstitutional because marijuana remains illegal under federal law. The clause states that in general, federal law takes precedence over state law.

The regulation of recreational marijuana -- as seen in programs currently in place in Colorado and Washington state, as well as those that will soon go into effect in Oregon and Alaska -- remains illegal under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. The states that have legalized marijuana or softened penalties for possession have only been able to do so because of federal guidance urging federal prosecutors to refrain from targeting state-legal marijuana operations.

Colorado voters approved Amendment 64, legalizing recreational marijuana in the state, in 2012. The first retail marijuana shops opened their doors on New Years Day 2014. To date, 23 states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for medical purposes. Four states have legalized recreational marijuana, along with voters in D.C. -- though the D.C. measure is the subject of a congressional Republican effort to block its implementation.

With a majority of Americans now supporting marijuana legalization, and with states continuing to pass legalization laws, it seems unlikely that the federal government would push back against the legalizations. But it's not impossible. If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Nebraska and Oklahoma, all state marijuana laws, in any form, could be in jeopardy of being unraveled.

Harvard economist Jeff Miron, a vocal supporter of marijuana policy reform, highlighted the precarious nature of state marijuana laws in a November op-ed for CNN, saying that Congress needs to act now on federal marijuana policy.

"Despite the compelling case for legalization, and progress toward legalization at the state level, ultimate success is not assured," Miron wrote. "Federal law still prohibits marijuana, and existing jurisprudence (Gonzales v. Raich 2005) holds that federal law trumps state law when it comes to marijuana prohibition. So far, the federal government has mostly taken a hands-off approach to state medicalizations and legalizations, but in January 2017, the country will have a new president. That person could order the attorney general to enforce federal prohibition regardless of state law."

Kevin Sabet, president of anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, applauded the action by Nebraska and Oklahoma.

"We support this action by the attorneys general of Oklahoma and Nebraska because Colorado's decisions regarding marijuana are not without consequences to neighboring states, and indeed all Americans," Sabet said. "The legalization of marijuana is clearly in violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act and is not implemented in a vacuum."

Mason Tvert, communications director for Marijuana Policy Project, told The Huffington Post that MPP agrees with Suthers' opinion that the suit is "without merit."

"Nebraska officials are acting like bullies, and they have no business trying to dictate Colorado's marijuana laws," Tvert said to HuffPost. "They are wasting their taxpayers’ dollars by filing this suit and forcing Coloradans to pick up the bill for defending our state against it. Colorado's top law enforcement officials have better things to do and you’d think Nebraska’s would, as well. These guys are on the wrong side of history."

Marijuana Industry Group's Mike Elliott echoed Tvert's sentiments, adding that despite the multi-decade federal war on drugs, marijuana remains "universally available" -- including in Nebraska and Oklahoma.

"If Nebraska and Oklahoma succeed, they will put the violent criminal organizations back in charge," Elliott said.

---------------

Always disliked Oklahoma when I was there. Add that to the list of reasons to never go back.

Funny how so many say they uphold states rights until it is something they object to. Then suddenly they uphold the meddling of the federal government.

Yep. And vise versa. A lot say they respect state rights until the states do something they object to. (Arizona and the federal government come to mind)

But it's just crazy how, it wasn't like the states just decided to do this. The VOTERS put this into motion. The people have spoken.

Isn't that the base line if our constitution and founding fathers everybody likes to quote and exaggerate all the time?

We don't smoke marijuana in Muskogee.

No, in Muskogee they still turn to their shine.

Wonder why Scott Pruitt (our attorney general) isn't bothering with these folks...

Since it's legal in DC now he probably hasn't heard about the lawsuit yet in the marijuana den he's holed up in.

I think that you misunderstand people, or take a simplistic view for the sole sake of being argumentative.

I think most everyone is in favor of State's Rights at every opportunity - meddling by the Feds should be minimalist, at best, but at the same time when there is a Federal law in place that precedes those Rights, then everyone can and should expect the Federal government to back and enforce that law. As long as there is a federal law, then it isn't simply a State's Rights issue.

Basically, people just want the freaking system to actually behave the way it was designed and intended.

Hopefully, this lawsuit will start a federal referendum on the federal marijuana laws that makes them go away completley, thus allowing this whole matter to truly revert to being a State's Rights issue.

I wonder if this is more about Nebraska and Oklahoma not wanting marijuana to be legalized in their state..

So they need to get rid of it in other states..

That's it entirely. They want the federal government to get involved before the evil known as marijuana infiltrates their borders.

And no PPE, they don't want it to work as intended. They wish to force the federal government to resume their war against marijuana. The federal government has already decided to ignore the law in states where it has been legalized. Yet these two states wish to change the federal governments current stand.

Maybe they should go back to trying to force the government to enforce immigration laws.

The OFFICIAL federal government stance is currently "It is illegal".

The Legislative branch has not changed that.
The Executive branch cannot make law on its own; its job is to simply enforce the laws.

What those states want is for either the Legislative side to change the law, or the Executive branch to actually do its job.

The Executive branch (supposedly) is not permitted to pick and choose which laws it will uphold. Any attempt for it to do so is technically illegal.



And yes, this is precisely the same argument as the immigration issue. Either change the laws, or enforce what you have. You are not allowed to simply decide to not enforce laws anymore because you don't like them and don't have the backing to change them.

They're slowly taking out its fangs at the moment.

It's kind of a roundabout waste of time, but it keeps them from having to put their name on anything.

The last smash through budget that just got passed set the Justice Department budget for pursuing charges against marijuana dispensaries at $0.

The states that are crying like little babies can just kiss my entire ass. and yes that will take them a lot of time if they are going to cover eery square inch. Here have some morphine, take an Oxy, try some vicodine, but for god sakes don't take something that works like POT My Lord what a=holes

Credit without accountability....how progressive!

I live to read posts like this on DT.

I really, REALLY want to share a few brews with you someday. I would mark that day on my calendar, and toast to you every year thereafter.

Laffs aplenty.

What a treasure.

For next year buddy

He's exactly the same in person. Nothing fake about GM! You would have a blast.