This just in... OK and NE sue COLO over Marijuana (Durango: sale, 2014)

[McGowdog]

I'm all for piling onto the stupidity of our underprivileged neighbors, but for the sake of us GOP and GOD-loving Coloradoans... WAA! to you and Merry Christmas to us!

[Champ le monstre du lac]

Originally Posted by Mezter

What BS... This is why we like Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona and Kansas better...

What I don't understand here is the fact that the Oklahoma/Colorado border is so insignificant and inconsequential. And the OK panhandle is also very isolated from the rest of the state. Nebraska has plenty of people coming and going between it and Colorado. But I suppose the green Colorado licence plate curse extends beyond bordering states like Idaho. Nonetheless, OK and NE are just playing politics and I don't have any doubt in my mind that this will eventually backfire on both states. This genie is not going back inside the bottle.

As for your neighbors to the south, we really don't care. Believe me, New Mexico cops have other issues to deal with...oyyy!

[Vistaian]

A TV station should use the following idea:

Get a surveyor to mark the precise border between Colorado and Oklahoma for a short distance. Setup a reporter on the Colorado side, with his toes right up against the border. Setup the cameraman right in front of him on the Oklahoma side.

Then have the reporter hold his hands out so he can cup a pile of buds in his hands.

The reporter can then report:

As long as I stand on this side of the border, I can hold these buds without consequence or harm to anyone. I can even smoke them without consequence or harm to anyone.

But if I step across this line, or hand the buds to my friend the cameraman, then we face the following consequences:

Jail time, maybe even prison.
Loss of job, career, and regular income.
Family torn apart as your kids are removed from your custody and placed in foster homes.
The loss of your car and your home because forfeiture laws come into effect.
Permanent criminal felony placed on your record.
Inability to get jobs in the future because of that record.
Inability to get loans or mortgages in the future because of that record.
Increased insurance premiums because of that record.
The emotional scars caused by suddenly being branded a criminal.

And it is the taxpayers that foot the bill for the cost of destroying the above mentioned life.

Shall I continue?

So what do you think? Does Colorado have it right, or does Oklahoma?

[Aganusn]

Can we sue them for being boring states?

[jazzlover]

Everyone posting in this thread has missed the significance of this. By filing suit in the Federal Court system (which would be the appropriate place for a lawsuit concerning a legal dispute among states to by filed) Kansas and Nebraska have effectively opened the question of Federal constitutionality of the Colorado MJ law. The odds will be in favor, in my opinion, of the Colorado law being struck down as unconstitutional. Here is why:

Conservative "constitutional" justices believe in a strict "constructionist" reading of the US Constitution. States enacting laws that violate Federal laws are a blatant defiance of clear wording in the US Constitution and that is what the Colorado MJ law does.

Liberal justices are loathe to rule in favor of a state law in any case where the powers of the Federal government are constrained. They believe that the Feds know best.

The easiest way for both conservative and liberal justices to pander to their constituencies is to strike the Colorado MJ law down.

For the record, I figured it would be some group in Colorado that would file a class-action suit in Federal Court to overturn the Colorado MJ law. That could take years to litigate up to the US Supreme Court. The Nebraska and Kansas lawsuit being filed directly to the US Supreme Court could easily just fast-track the whole process.

Oh, the common refrain that the Colorado MJ law is "popular" counts for little once constitutionality comes into play in Federal lawsuits such as this. The dustbin of history is filled with quite popular state laws that were summarily declared unconstitutional and thus voided by the Federal Courts. Also, the President and the US Attorney General will likely steer way wide of this one, for fear that the Supreme Court could severely rebuke them in the Court's decision for being derelict by ignoring the Constitutional issues with Colorado's law.

Finally, the Supreme Court could refuse to hear the case, but that would set a significant precedent for states to ignore federal law in state legislation, an outcome that could lead to all kinds of pernicious state laws being enacted that could have far more detrimental consequences to the "United" in United States that the MJ law does. Think about things like civil rights laws, voting laws, interstate commerce laws, freedom of movement laws, etc.

I'm glad that the lawsuit was filed and I'm hopeful that the Supreme Court will hear and rule on the case. Whatever that outcome, there will be a definitive ruling that will end the ambiguity and fundamental conflict between Federal and Colorado law concerning MJ.

[CosmicWizard]

And IF Jazzlovers prediction ever comes to pass, everyone will suddenly stop smoking pot in Colorado to be in compliance with the feds! That's what we live for right? Compliance with the feds is top priority on everyones bucket list.

[DurangoJoe]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Everyone posting in this thread has missed the significance of this. By filing suit in the Federal Court system (which would be the appropriate place for a lawsuit concerning a legal dispute among states to by filed) Kansas and Nebraska have effectively opened the question of Federal constitutionality of the Colorado MJ law. The odds will be in favor, in my opinion, of the Colorado law being struck down as unconstitutional. Here is why:

Conservative "constitutional" justices believe in a strict "constructionist" reading of the US Constitution. States enacting laws that violate Federal laws are a blatant defiance of clear wording in the US Constitution and that is what the Colorado MJ law does.

Liberal justices are loathe to rule in favor of a state law in any case where the powers of the Federal government are constrained. They believe that the Feds know best.

The easiest way for both conservative and liberal justices to pander to their constituencies is to strike the Colorado MJ law down.

For the record, I figured it would be some group in Colorado that would file a class-action suit in Federal Court to overturn the Colorado MJ law. That could take years to litigate up to the US Supreme Court. The Nebraska and Kansas lawsuit being filed directly to the US Supreme Court could easily just fast-track the whole process.

Oh, the common refrain that the Colorado MJ law is "popular" counts for little once constitutionality comes into play in Federal lawsuits such as this. The dustbin of history is filled with quite popular state laws that were summarily declared unconstitutional and thus voided by the Federal Courts. Also, the President and the US Attorney General will likely steer way wide of this one, for fear that the Supreme Court could severely rebuke them in the Court's decision for being derelict by ignoring the Constitutional issues with Colorado's law.

Finally, the Supreme Court could refuse to hear the case, but that would set a significant precedent for states to ignore federal law in state legislation, an outcome that could lead to all kinds of pernicious state laws being enacted that could have far more detrimental consequences to the "United" in United States that the MJ law does. Think about things like civil rights laws, voting laws, interstate commerce laws, freedom of movement laws, etc.

I'm glad that the lawsuit was filed and I'm hopeful that the Supreme Court will hear and rule on the case. Whatever that outcome, there will be a definitive ruling that will end the ambiguity and fundamental conflict between Federal and Colorado law concerning MJ.

They're trying to pee up a rope. Very little chance that SCOTUS will actually hear it. This is another "hail mary" by the Anti's, nothing more.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by DurangoJoe

They're trying to pee up a rope. Very little chance that SCOTUS will actually hear it. This is another "hail mary" by the Anti's, nothing more.

State Attorneys General are not usually the types to take on "Hail Mary" type lawsuits. You'll have to take my word on that one, since I worked with a couple of state AG's on some issues in my previous career. AG's don't like to take on "loser" cases, especially if it means getting their asses kicked in the US Supreme Court.

[Mike from back east]

IIRC about 27 state Attorneys General filed suit on Obamacare and lost. I suspect the OK/NE AGs will lose this one too. They don't care about taking on loser cases if it causes trouble for a DEM governor or president.

[interloper1138]

Going along with Mike's point, and I'm by no means whatsoever an authority on constitutional law, but if it means anything:

My state's (Indiana) AG, along with a handful of others, all got their asses handed to them earlier this summer when federal courts struck down regional state bans on gay marriage. (And rightfully so, IMO.)

So Jazz, I think that particular point of your speculation might be a little shakier than the others. I certainly understand the rest of your argument, though, and you do make some very good points. It will be interesting to see what plays out.

It seems we're at an interesting point in this country in terms of what federal laws are upheld and which ones aren't. Precedents are an important gauge, to be sure, but I think we'll see recreational marijuana stay in Colorado and Washington and start to pop up elsewhere. Times and attitudes are changing, and it wouldn't surprise me to see constitutional precedents skirted to keep Colorado's experiment alive.

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.