This just in... OK and NE sue COLO over Marijuana (real estate, lawyers)

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

Colorado is leading.

Colorado isn't "leading" anything. If they were, they would have challenged the Federal law prohibiting MJ in the Federal Courts. Or, they could have demanded that their elected US Representatives and Senators introduce legislation in Congress to either a) legalize MJ outright, or b) delegate the regulation of MJ to the states. Colorado had the courage to do neither.

[Colorado Rambler]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

My emphasis bolded above. Sorry to rain on your parade, but there has NEVER been a successful challenge to the Federal constitutionality of regulating drugs. The pro-MJ crowd continually beat this dead horse, completely ignoring the legal record.

There is also wide legal precedent to this concept: Just because a million people break the law and one person gets prosecuted, that does not justify breaking the law to let the one being prosecuted get away with his crime. Boiled down, it is the concept that two wrongs can't make a right. You don't make a guilty person innocent just because a bunch of other guilty people get away with it.

Go read up on some law.

Well, I'm not getting out my umbrella yet. There most certainly has been "a successful challenge to the Federal constitutionality of regulating drugs." It was called the repeal of Prohibition. People are so used to having alcohol around that many forget it is a powerful, addicting drug with far more ill effects than marijuana. People who can persuade a physician that they have ADD can get legal prescriptions for amphetamines or even meth, never mind the widespread use of opiods that Idunn mentioned which are prescribed by dealers (AKA MD's) and provided by one of the largest drug cartels in the world (AKA Big Pharma). The hypocrisy of "the war on drugs" is incredible.

[Timmyy]

If I lived in Nebraska or Oklahoma I would be pissed my state government is spending my tax dollars on this a silly lawsuit. Oklahoma is weird anyway. I have family there and we visit very infrequently because of how backwards it seems to me. Then again I might be the one that is backwards.

I don't smoke the pot but I voted for its legalization only because of the tax money it would bring in.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler

Well, I'm not getting out my umbrella yet. There most certainly has been "a successful challenge to the Federal constitutionality of regulating drugs." It was called the repeal of Prohibition. People are so used to having alcohol around that many forget it is a powerful, addicting drug with far more ill effects than marijuana. People who can persuade a physician that they have ADD can get legal prescriptions for amphetamines or even meth, never mind the widespread use of opiods that Idunn mentioned which are prescribed by dealers (AKA MD's) and provided by one of the largest drug cartels in the world (AKA Big Pharma). The hypocrisy of "the war on drugs" is incredible.\

Well, your first statement is incorrect. The 18th Amendment to the US Constitution, aka Prohibition, could never have its constitutionality questioned because it was part of the US Constitution once it was ratified. Prohibition was a practical failure, but the law itself was not constitutionally flawed. And it took ANOTHER Amendment to the US Constitution to repeal it.

And, people can whine about big pharma, the AMA, and lots of other stuff (and I don't disagree with some of the opinions), nor do I disagree with the notion of "hypocrisy" of all kinds of laws and government regulations, but NONE of that changes the fact that the authority of the federal government to regulate drugs has yet to be successfully declared unconstitutional.

[Colorado Rambler]

^^^

Well, I'm no Constitutional scholar, but that seems like splitting hairs to me. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Idunn]

'And now back to Bonnie Jonas-Boggioni, who was pulled over in Tennessee in 2013 on her drive from Ohio to Texas — all because of a Buckeye sticker on her car.' [1] (Note: because the Ohio State football decals apparently look like marijuana leafs)


'Before they let her go on her way, the officers advised Jonas-Boggioni to remove the decal from her car.

“I said, ‘You mean in Tennessee?’ and he said, ‘No, permanently.’

“I didn’t take it off. . . . This little old lady is no drug dealer.”' [1]


After the fact the Tennessee Highway Patrol had no comment on the unwarranted traffic stop. Which, yes, would also be an infringement on Ms. Jonas-Boggioni's first amendment rights as well.

So anyone looking to add states to their list—other than Oklahoma and Nebraska—might consider Tennessee. Or perhaps commiserate with tourists (refugees?) visiting from these states.

1) '‘Are those pot leaves on Ohio State’s helmets?’ Yes, others thought so, too,' The Denver Post
'Pot leaves on Ohio State's helmets?' Others thought so, too

[CosmicWizard]

Idunn wrote: the wicked drug pushers are in fact pharmaceutical corporations and their cohorts in the federal government.

Yet another inconvenient truth! This is a good example of the government enabling outright criminal insanity.

[Rainbow Demon]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Just because the federal government refuses, for whatever reason, to ENFORCE a law does not change the fact that the law is there. Under that flawed logic, murder would be "legal" as long as no one was arrested or prosecuted for it. People can't seem to figure that one out.

As for "enshrined in the State Constitution," get this right: THAT DOESN'T MEAN SQUAT IF THE LAW IS FOUND TO BE FEDERALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The filing of the Nebraska and Kansas lawsuit in Federal Court, likely by design, will very possibly force the US Supreme Court to rule on Federal constitutionality of the Colorado law. If Colorado's law is ruled Federally unconstitutional, the law's presence in the State Constitution is irrelevant--it's gone.

Growing/smoking pot being compared to murder? Get real. Talk about flawed "logic". Pfffffttt.

The bottom line is that pot has been and will be grown, sold, and smoked on CO no matter if the FEDS give the nod or not. (same as it has always been) The commercial side will take the hit (no pun intended) if the law were to be challenged by the Fed, but the Fed already stated when the law was passed that they in NO WAY have the manpower to police individual grows. This means they aren't coming door to door to check...and that what we do in our homes has little bearing on what the Fed does about these laws, if anything.

>>>IF<<< the Fed does challenge the law, all that will happen is the tables will again turn and rather than the retail side making the cash and taxes being paid on sales, the Black Market will (again) make the cash and NO taxes will be paid. Just because the Gov't says "NO" doesn't mean things will change anywhere but on the surface. In the end the game will still be played. It's up to the States/Gov't to decide if they want a cut of that game...or not.

It will be interesting to see what happens with this suit. It has no bearing to me because I am a mere individual with no business interests in any of it, just a desire to be left alone to do what I want in the privacy of my own home.

be safe all

[VileTat]

People have been smoking weed in all 50 states for decades, long before medical laws.

The fact is MJ was only even banned initially due to racism, and the only reason it remains illegal today is our government is ran in the interest of big corporations and not the people (and their honest well-being and mental and physical health)

These neighboring states are also lying to citizens by putting up fake "Drug Checkpoint" signs along major highways leading out of Colorado, in the hopes of tricking some of them to pulling off of the highway and being harassed and arrested by waiting K9 units. DUI checkpoints (terry stops) are legal but drug checkpoints are decidedly illegal; but it is legal for police to blatantly lie, even to the point of fake road signs to try and trap people to squeeze a few thousand bucks in court fees, or better yet forced slave labor working for pennies in jail, from anyone they can trick. What a great alternative to the utter chaos and madness taking place daily in Denver thanks to all this legal devil weed.

[Sonic_Spork]

Originally Posted by Idunn

Admittedly I am no lawyer (nor the desire to be one). Nevertheless, I believe the U.S. Constitution is clearly on my side on this one, and all feeling the 'war on drugs' not only an abomination but basically illegal.

Just because there has been no successful challenge to the Feds mandate on this, means nothing. So what? They make and break their own laws with impunity. Nor is looking to the Supreme Court necessarily guaranteed to bring any measure of justice, let alone wisdom. It should be painfully obvious to all Americans that they are not always correct in their decisions. Or, in example, the same bunch that once declared slavery perfectly sound and legal.

No, we have it right in Colorado. While the big-wigs might like to postulate and think that all emanates from the king (as basically our intermediary to God), in fact they are more figureheads that reflect common sentiment across the land. If not always in real time, to be sure. So they might actually thank us in helping them to see the right path forward on this issue.

Blinders off.

I'm pretty solidly on the pro-legal-weed side of things as many here may know. But when that "legality of Amd. 64" thread was going strong, I finally was like "why am I sitting here arguing, I'll just Google it!" So I did. I went and read the most solid point that Jazzlover kept falling back on, the Supremacy Clause.

The SC does not say that states can't overrule federal law as long as it's enacted by Constitutional Amendment. It says that states cannot overrule any duly enacted Federal legislation. Which means any law made in a legal manner by our elected representatives is duly enacted and the states can't just say, "No thank you" and nullify it within that state. However. I saw nowhere that anything said that states are obligated to enforce them either.

So no, the "war on drugs" is not illegal, although in many people's minds it is indeed abomination.

I am eagerly watching, in the hopes that the Federal gov't will further encourage Colorado's experiment in personal freedom, by telling Nebraska and Oklahoma to sit down and shut up. But we are definitely approaching a day where the Fed won't be able to tiptoe around the matter and they're going to have to rule on the Nation's stance with regard to weed, one way or the other. They already nudged through a non-interference policy with regard to MMJ on the back of the spending bill. So yeah...I'm just waiting and watching.

I don't always agree with jazz but I do defend his correctness on that point of the law.

One thing I wonder (and jazzlover might even be the one to ask)...because the law that makes MJ a prohibited substance was not a Constitutional Amendment, do you figure it is maybe easier for the federal government to reschedule or modify its legal status, as opposed to the procedure involved to put another amendment in place the way they had to do with alcohol prohibition? Like...which do you suppose is more difficult to reverse? I would think that amending the Constitution would be more of a hassle to get done than the other. So maybe those in support of legalization can view that as a silver lining?