Neighboring states challenge Colorado pot laws in top U.S. court

[Jhhnn]

It's a carefully orchestrated attack on retail cannabis, leaning heavily on the intent of congress wrt marijuana law. It's why congress has disallowed funding for enforcement against mmj, to show their intent. In all other particulars, MMJ is really subject to the same federal law as retail MJ. I hope nobody thinks they did that out of the goodness of their hearts, certainly not the conservative authoritarians among them. It's a setup for this lawsuit. A conservative SCOTUS majority can assert that congress intends for MMJ to be treated differently, even though the law draws no distinction. They're really trying to thread the needle with this attack.

The suit belabors the point that CO makes no enforcement effort to stop the export of retail quantities of cannabis. While true, it's immaterial, simply because interstate commerce is exclusively the realm of the federal govt. We'd be in violation of federal law if we tried. It is illegal, I believe, to purchase retail cannabis in CO for the purpose of export, which is all we can really do.

If successful, the suit would deny CO the right to regulate retail cannabis at all, likely resulting in shutdown of the industry. If we can't regulate it we can't have it because federal enforcement guidelines demand that we do. It's dangerous ground for the legalization movement, for sure.

Beyond the blatant states rights flipflop, it's also a flipflop on one of the so-called values of right authoritarians, "personal responsibility". Colorado's responsibility ends at the border, but the personal responsibility to obey state law always rests with the individual.

 

[NumbSkulled]

The main opponents to the legalization of marijuana are; the ignorant; the just plain stupid; drug dealers; & corrupt officials & politicians.
Wherever drugs can be freely found there has to be an element of corruption. Legalization deprives the corrupt from a source of income.
Therefore I can't help wondering if this law suit was instigated, or to what degree encouraged, by the corrupt who are starting to lose money?

 

[dddaver]

genes

 

[WaittillIdie]

dc

 

[2 Legal Co]

Personally I think that the 'controlled substance statutes' are Unconstitutional.

I'm thinking that if any suites are filed it should be 'we the people' vs. U.S. Congress, in the matter of Cannabis/controlled substance statutes. Further that the U.S. Congress, shall pass no legislation impinging the Constitutional Rights of the people.

Yup, I'm in favor of 'State's Rights' too.

 

[2 Legal Co]

The main opponents to the legalization of marijuana are; the ignorant; the just plain stupid; drug dealers; & corrupt officials & politicians.
Wherever drugs can be freely found there has to be an element of corruption. Legalization deprives the corrupt from a source of income.
Therefore I can't help wondering if this law suit was instigated, or to what degree encouraged, by the corrupt who are starting to lose money?

It does make you wonder if politicians in Nebraska and Oklahoma don't get kick backs from the Mexican Cartels. eh?

 

[bigAl25]

Dear Oklahoma and Nebraska lawmakers: Fuck the hell off you backwards ignorant assholes.

 

[Betterhaff]

“It’s beyond infuriating,” Oklahoma mother furious about legalization lawsuit<?xml:namespace prefix = "o" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

OKLAHOMA CITY – State leaders in Oklahoma are battling to ban the legalization of marijuana in Colorado.
<o></o>
Amy Hilterbran’s son Austin has Dravet Syndrome, a catastrophic form of epilepsy that causes him to have up to 15 grand mal seizures a day even while on medication that is available here in Oklahoma.<o></o>

“Every seizure, he would quit breathing. He would go into respiratory distress,” said Hilterbran.<o></o>

Since Colorado has alternative medicines like medical marijuana that aren`t available here in Oklahoma, Hilterbran decided to leave everything behind to find a plant that could save her son’s life.<o></o>

“We didn’t have any hope. There were no prescription pills that they could have given Austin. He’s not even a candidate for brain surgery. This was his last hope and it’s working tremendously better than we could have ever dreamed,” Hilterbran said.
<o></o>
She says she was furious with leaders in Oklahoma for weeding out all options of bringing the medicine to the state and keeping it from people like Austin.<o></o>

Austin is one and half weeks into the cannabis oil treatment and has gone three days without a seizure.
<o></o>
“Unheard of in our life, unheard of,” she said.

However, news of a lawsuit filed by Oklahoma and Nebraska that asks the Supreme Court to strike down Colorado's legalization laws has Hilterbran furious.

“It’s helping children with seizures and my state, our home state, wouldn’t allow us access. It’s beyond infuriating. This is America in 2014 and it’s a plant,” she said.
<o></o>
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt issued the following statement about the lawsuit:<o></o>

“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.”<o></o>

“If a plant saves my son’s life, then there’s no reason it shouldn’t be legal,” Hilterbran said in September.

http://kfor.com/2014/12/21/its-beyo...ma-mother-furious-about-legalization-lawsuit/<o></o>

 

[BOMBAYCAT]

When A-64 was in the works, the state Attorney General here was against it. Since it passed he has done a lot of good things to defend A-64. It sounds like he is going to make a good defense for it coming up in the future. Something like "Go to hell and take your horse with you. It is a Colorado law and nobody else's business".

 

[igrowone]

It's a carefully orchestrated attack on retail cannabis, leaning heavily on the intent of congress wrt marijuana law. It's why congress has disallowed funding for enforcement against mmj, to show their intent. In all other particulars, MMJ is really subject to the same federal law as retail MJ. I hope nobody thinks they did that out of the goodness of their hearts, certainly not the conservative authoritarians among them. It's a setup for this lawsuit. A conservative SCOTUS majority can assert that congress intends for MMJ to be treated differently, even though the law draws no distinction. They're really trying to thread the needle with this attack.

The suit belabors the point that CO makes no enforcement effort to stop the export of retail quantities of cannabis. While true, it's immaterial, simply because interstate commerce is exclusively the realm of the federal govt. We'd be in violation of federal law if we tried. It is illegal, I believe, to purchase retail cannabis in CO for the purpose of export, which is all we can really do.

If successful, the suit would deny CO the right to regulate retail cannabis at all, likely resulting in shutdown of the industry. If we can't regulate it we can't have it because federal enforcement guidelines demand that we do. It's dangerous ground for the legalization movement, for sure.

Beyond the blatant states rights flipflop, it's also a flipflop on one of the so-called values of right authoritarians, "personal responsibility". Colorado's responsibility ends at the border, but the personal responsibility to obey state law always rests with the individual.

i wondered about that MMJ enforcement funding
thought i crossed into a twilight zone episode
if true, the intent to derail commercial should be doomed to fail
as i understand it, it's about the intent at the time the law was passed
tweaking enforcement funding reflects current attitude, but not the original intent
otherwise congress could pass funding items to reinterpret existing laws as it liked
which doesn't seem like sound legal reasoning

 

[Jhhnn]

i wondered about that MMJ enforcement funding
thought i crossed into a twilight zone episode
if true, the intent to derail commercial should be doomed to fail
as i understand it, it's about the intent at the time the law was passed
tweaking enforcement funding reflects current attitude, but not the original intent
otherwise congress could pass funding items to reinterpret existing laws as it liked
which doesn't seem like sound legal reasoning

I can't argue, other than to point out that corporations are now people. Right wing authoritarians know what they want & will go to extraordinary lengths to justify having it.

They have an agenda impervious to reason. It runs deeper than that, something Sinclair Lewis described long ago-

But he saw too that in America the struggle was befogged by the fact that the worst Fascists were they who disowned the word 'Fascism' and preached enslavement to Capitalism under the style of Constitutional and Traditional Native American Liberty.

 

[MJPassion]

When A-64 was in the works, the state Attorney General here was against it. Since it passed he has done a lot of good things to defend A-64. It sounds like he is going to make a good defense for it coming up in the future. Something like "Go to hell and take your horse with you. It is a Colorado law and nobody else's business".

I seem to recall California taking a similar stance AGAINST THE FEDs attacks on mmj patients in their state a few years back.

If Cali can tell the Feds to FOD then CO should have no problems telling other States to FOD.

 

[MJPassion]

True dat!!! AZ, too...they just don't want a pest invasion in their crops. Don't blame them. Always sailed through check points in AZ, CA....nary a problem (with reek in the vehicle....ya know what I mean??)....so don't understand previous post on checkpoints. already been done in Cali with the fruit/vegi checks


Oh well.....I guess I need to stand up (sailing over my head) or more coffee.

What will it take to make yall realize we are all living within a federal police state?
Actually going to prison?

Check points are a Constitutional violation perpetrated by governing entities... it makes no difference whether they are run by a State or the Fed.

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.

The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional Rights.

 

[MJPassion]

Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public.

Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependant upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than tp afford them.

Take from these quotes what you will.

 

[Jhhnn]

Meh. The lawsuit very carefully avoids the issue that it's the president's job to enforce federal law & nobody else's. It demands nothing from the executive branch of govt.

It demands that the SCOTUS order CO to cease & desist in actions it represents as harmful to NE & OK by nullifying sections of A64 that are the state constitutional foundation for retail cannabis. The SCOTUS can invoke penalties against CO should we not comply. It attempts to usurp the prerogatives of the President by bringing in the SCOTUS against his intentions.

Under federal law, the president, any president, can shut down all state sanctioned marijuana sales. Period. He has but to command that the DoJ do so under the established precedents of supremacy of federal law. Medical vs recreational makes no difference, despite the fact that Congress de-funded enforcement against MMJ.

Neither the SCOTUS nor Congress has the ability to force him to act one way or the other short of impeachment & conviction but real world outcomes can vary, obviously.

Should they prevail, we'll have to do things differently. I'd suggest that we make it all MMJ- merely assert that you're buying it for medicinal purposes & you're good to go.

Like aspirin, only with an age limit.

 

[MJPassion]

Jhhnn,

What about the clause in the Constitutiin that says all states have to respect the right of citizens of other states?

I'm looking for it... will edit it in after while...

 

[Allendawg]

The taxes is what gets me unglued! I agree we live in a police state, I wouldn't be surprised if the real oppression to begin after legalization!

 

[Hydrosun]

Jhhnn,

What about the clause in the Constitutiin that says all states have to respect the right of citizens of other states?

I'm looking for it... will edit it in after while...

The equal protections clause of the US Constitution is probably what you are thinking of.

 

[Betterhaff]

Oklahoma Republicans Want To Snuff Out Their State's Lawsuit Over Colorado Marijuana
<?xml:namespace prefix = "o" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
Several Oklahoma lawmakers are calling for state Attorney General Scott Pruitt to drop his lawsuit against Colorado over its legalization of recreational marijuana, arguing that it's the "wrong way to deal with the issue."<o></o>

In a letter sent to Pruitt's office last week, seven Republican state lawmakers, led by state Rep. Mike Ritze, expressed their concern that the case could significantly undermine states' rights, including Oklahoma's.<o></o>

The lawsuit, titled States of Nebraska and Oklahoma v. State of Colorado, was filed in December by Pruitt and Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning. They contend that newly legal marijuana from neighbor Colorado is being illegally trafficked across their borders and that they're seeking to protect the health and safety of their states' residents. They argue that under the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause, Colorado's decision to legalize and regulate the sale of recreational marijuana cannot stand so long as cannabis remains illegal under federal law.

The supremacy clause defines the Constitution, federal laws and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It has been interpreted to mean that federal laws generally supersede state laws, although there are limits depending on the subject matter of the laws and how they're written.<o></o>

The Oklahoma lawmakers fear that a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court against Colorado -- lawsuits between states go directly to the high court -- could sweep far more broadly than cannabis laws.<o></o>

"If the federal government can force Colorado to criminalize marijuana," the letter reads, "using the exact same arguments, it could also force Oklahoma to criminalize a wide range of goods and activities that would be an anathema to the citizens of Oklahoma that we are sworn to serve."<o></o>

The lawmakers argue that the best move would be for Pruitt's office to "quietly drop the action against Colorado, and if necessary, defend [Colorado's] right to set its own policies as we would hope other states would defend our right to govern ourselves."
<o></o>
Were the Supreme Court to rule against Colorado, Oklahoma lawmakers said they also have "deep concern" over the potential implications for the "national sovereignty of [the] entire country." They note that the lawsuit points to United Nations drug conventions that ban marijuana to strengthen its case -- an argument that the Oklahoma lawmakers said equates U.N. treaties with federal laws.<o></o>

"If the argument in the lawsuit were successful, the federal government could, in theory, adopt any UN treaty, then force the states, including Oklahoma, to help impose it," the letter reads.<o></o>

The state lawmakers said that many of their constituents have already asked them to file a brief in defense of Colorado if the court hears the case -- not because these Oklahomans want legal access to recreational marijuana, but because they fear their state's rights would be "put in jeopardy."
<o></o>
<o>Recreational marijuana -- now legal under Colorado and Washington state laws, as well as those that will soon go into effect in Oregon and Alaska -- remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. The states that have legalized marijuana or softened penalties for its possession have relied on Justice Department guidance urging federal prosecutors to refrain from targeting state-legal marijuana operations.</o>
<o><o></o>
The voters in the District of Columbia also legalized recreational marijuana this past November, but that measure is the subject of a congressional effort to block its implementation.<o></o>
</o>
<o>“This is not about marijuana at its core -- it is about the U.S. Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, and the right of states to govern themselves as they see fit,” said Rep. Ritze in a statement about the letter. "Our Founding Fathers intended the states to be laboratories of self-government, free to tinker and experiment with different ideas. The founders, from Jefferson to Madison, were also strong proponents of states nullifying unconstitutional federal actions. If the people of Colorado want to end prohibition of marijuana, while I may personally disagree with the decision, constitutionally speaking, they are entitled to do so."<o></o>
</o>
<o>Joining Ritze in signing the letter were Oklahoma state Reps. Lewis Moore, John Bennett, Mike Christian, Dan Fisher and state Sens. Ralph Shortey and Nathan Dahm, all Republicans.<o></o>
</o>
<o>Pruitt's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.</o>
<o><o></o>
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers has said that the suit is "without merit" and that he will "vigorously" defend his state's marijuana laws before the Supreme Court, if necessary.

<o>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...suit_n_6418534.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592</o>

<o></o>

</o>

 

[2 Legal Co]

Oklahoma Republicans Want To Snuff Out Their State's Lawsuit Over Colorado Marijuana
<?xml:namespace prefix = "o" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
Several Oklahoma lawmakers are calling for state Attorney General Scott Pruitt to drop his lawsuit against Colorado over its legalization of recreational marijuana, arguing that it's the "wrong way to deal with the issue."<o></o>

In a letter sent to Pruitt's office last week, seven Republican state lawmakers, led by state Rep. Mike Ritze, expressed their concern that the case could significantly undermine states' rights, including Oklahoma's.<o></o>

The lawsuit, titled States of Nebraska and Oklahoma v. State of Colorado, was filed in December by Pruitt and Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning. They contend that newly legal marijuana from neighbor Colorado is being illegally trafficked across their borders and that they're seeking to protect the health and safety of their states' residents. They argue that under the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause, Colorado's decision to legalize and regulate the sale of recreational marijuana cannot stand so long as cannabis remains illegal under federal law.

The supremacy clause defines the Constitution, federal laws and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It has been interpreted to mean that federal laws generally supersede state laws, although there are limits depending on the subject matter of the laws and how they're written.<o></o>

The Oklahoma lawmakers fear that a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court against Colorado -- lawsuits between states go directly to the high court -- could sweep far more broadly than cannabis laws.<o></o>

"If the federal government can force Colorado to criminalize marijuana," the letter reads, "using the exact same arguments, it could also force Oklahoma to criminalize a wide range of goods and activities that would be an anathema to the citizens of Oklahoma that we are sworn to serve."<o></o>

The lawmakers argue that the best move would be for Pruitt's office to "quietly drop the action against Colorado, and if necessary, defend [Colorado's] right to set its own policies as we would hope other states would defend our right to govern ourselves."
<o></o>
Were the Supreme Court to rule against Colorado, Oklahoma lawmakers said they also have "deep concern" over the potential implications for the "national sovereignty of [the] entire country." They note that the lawsuit points to United Nations drug conventions that ban marijuana to strengthen its case -- an argument that the Oklahoma lawmakers said equates U.N. treaties with federal laws.<o></o>

"If the argument in the lawsuit were successful, the federal government could, in theory, adopt any UN treaty, then force the states, including Oklahoma, to help impose it," the letter reads.<o></o>

The state lawmakers said that many of their constituents have already asked them to file a brief in defense of Colorado if the court hears the case -- not because these Oklahomans want legal access to recreational marijuana, but because they fear their state's rights would be "put in jeopardy."
<o></o>
<o>Recreational marijuana -- now legal under Colorado and Washington state laws, as well as those that will soon go into effect in Oregon and Alaska -- remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. The states that have legalized marijuana or softened penalties for its possession have relied on Justice Department guidance urging federal prosecutors to refrain from targeting state-legal marijuana operations.</o>
<o><o></o>
The voters in the District of Columbia also legalized recreational marijuana this past November, but that measure is the subject of a congressional effort to block its implementation.<o></o>
</o>
<o>“This is not about marijuana at its core -- it is about the U.S. Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, and the right of states to govern themselves as they see fit,” said Rep. Ritze in a statement about the letter. "Our Founding Fathers intended the states to be laboratories of self-government, free to tinker and experiment with different ideas. The founders, from Jefferson to Madison, were also strong proponents of states nullifying unconstitutional federal actions. If the people of Colorado want to end prohibition of marijuana, while I may personally disagree with the decision, constitutionally speaking, they are entitled to do so."<o></o>
</o>
<o>Joining Ritze in signing the letter were Oklahoma state Reps. Lewis Moore, John Bennett, Mike Christian, Dan Fisher and state Sens. Ralph Shortey and Nathan Dahm, all Republicans.<o></o>
</o>
<o>Pruitt's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.</o>
<o><o></o>
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers has said that the suit is "without merit" and that he will "vigorously" defend his state's marijuana laws before the Supreme Court, if necessary.

<o>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...suit_n_6418534.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592</o>

<o></o>

</o>

That is Good news. I was hoping that they'd 'see the light'.

1. Individual Rights

2. State's Rights

3. Federal Legislation.

That the pecking order, as it should be. JM.02