Nebraska and Oklahoma Sue Colorado Over Legal Cannabis

[Libertarian01]

So OP... Why should the lawsuit not be successful given our nation of laws?

how do you defend in federal court against a federal crime that you are legalizing?

To Hoosierdoc (et alia),

I think Prof Mikos says it best from the article, --- ""Congress can't force states to criminalize marijuana," Vanderbilt law professor Robert Mikos, an expert on the intersection of federal power and state marijuana laws, wrote in a blog post. Oklahoma and Nebraska "cannot simply force Colorado join their fight," Mikos wrote." (Link: Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform)

Just because Ohio makes a thing or act illegal places no obligation on Indiana to follow suit. While I agree with you that we are a nation of laws State Laws stop at the State LINE!

On the argument for Federal supremacy I agree with this. However, just because the federal government makes a thing or action illegal doesn't compel the sovereign states to follow suit. Consider the Lacy Act which makes the possession of a Honduran bony fish illegal under federal law (16 U.S.C. S3370). Indiana has no law on the books to copy this federal law, nor is it compelled to do so, nor should it be. Indiana may not interfere with US marshals enforcing this law, but we hoosiers are not compelled to also make the act a crime.

What if Indiana were to, oh, I don't know, pass a Right to Work law in hopes of drawing business to Indiana from nearby states, like Illinois and Ohio? Would those states then have standing to sue Indiana because they were financially impacted by Indiana's desire to draw business away from them? I do not believe so.

One thing I find funny is the articles comment that, "The lawsuit does not cite any figures to back up the claims." How on earth can they even begin to claim damages if they present ZERO evidence to back it up??? This is the near the height of silliness to me. (To reach the peak of the silliness mountain we must travel either to Brussels or Washington DC, I'm not sure which.)

Regards (and Happy Holidays),

Doug

 

[hoosierdoc]

Doug, you are clearly more versed in law than I am. But... Why do no states make it legal to own automatic weapons without paperwork and federal approval? What is stopping Indiana from passing a law in flagrant violation of federal law?

the right to work argument doesn't apply here since there is no state violating federal law empowering unions. We are talking about a state permitting citizens to violate federal law without intervention. That is a terrible precedent and should not happen. We are a nation of laws. Change the law, or enforce it.

 

[ModernGunner]

This was predictable. Perhaps potheads are just complaining because they're not readily getting everything they demand?

Not 'everyone' is in favor of drug legalization, and not everyone believes the hype that 'drugs are harmless, pot is harmless'.

So, Nebraska and Oklahoma don't want the headaches in their backyard. Gee, that's 'surprising'. MOST folks don't want a drug dealer living next door to them, either. Duh...

And 'just for the record', though it's most certainly common knowledge, 'guns' and gun ownership is specifically cited in the U.S. Constitution. Pot (and other drugs) are not. There is NO "Constitutionally protected right" to drugs. So any comparison is ludicrous, at best.

 

[cobber]

I read the article and I believe one of the complaints is the state is paying overtime to officers to attend court. I assume both states are receiving an exponential increase in fines which help fill their coffers and also help defray the personnel costs. I'm sure the cops are thrilled with all of the overtime pay - and that spendable income is being distributed throughout the various communities.

heck, if anyone should be suing anyone it should be the counties most distant from Colorado that aren't getting to stop as many suspected drug mules as the counties that are closest to the border. (apply purple if applicable)

Ah the fines! How much money flows into the coffers of your county through fines associated with criminal acts? You might be surprised that fines are almost always suspended. (Along with jail time.) A county makes more money off of speeding tickets than fines associated with the war on drugs...

 

[Libertarian01]

Doug, you are clearly more versed in law than I am. But... Why do no states make it legal to own automatic weapons without paperwork and federal approval? What is stopping Indiana from passing a law in flagrant violation of federal law?

the right to work argument doesn't apply here since there is no state violating federal law empowering unions. We are talking about a state permitting citizens to violate federal law without intervention. That is a terrible precedent and should not happen. We are a nation of laws. Change the law, or enforce it.

To Hoosierdoc,

Regarding the question of states and automatic weapons - that is out of my area of knowledge and more of a Kirk or Guy question. My guess would be that either federal law requires it or the states are simply being lazy and copying federal law to avoid future lawsuits.

Several examples of the states allowing things that the feds did not. #1 - gay marriage. It was against illegal under DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) at the federal level for two (2) people other than a man and a woman to be married. Passed in 1996 under President Clinton it refused to acknowledge same-sex marriages. It was in 2000 that Vermont passed a law to allow same-sex marriage. Due to the numbers of states signing onto this movement it eventually reached SCOTUS and the SC struck down section 3 of DOMA in 2013.

In example #2 it was 2001 when President Bush limited funding for stem cell research and the number of stem cell lines. While not strictly illegal at the statutory level, it was defacto at the administrative level. Then in 2004 California voters passed Proposition 71 with the sole purpose of allocating $3 Billion for stem cell research without limiting the lines used. Again a state went against federal policy.

Going back to my initial example it is clearly illegal for me to own a Honduran bony fish - under federal law. However, Indiana is completely silent on the issue. I don't believe that any of the LEO on these boards could arrest me for owning a Honduran bony fish, although they could certainly contact the FBI if they found me with one. So, owning a Honduran bony fish is 100% illegal at the federal level and 100% legal at the State level. The state has never followed federal law on this issue because Indiana really doesn't have the power to do so under the Section 8 of the Constitution, by means of treaty. While I am certain it is well within Indiana's power to make owning a Honduran bony fish illegal I don't think it is a high priority with the current administration. By the way I have absolutely NO IDEA what a Honduran bony fish is, other than Professor James Duane mentions one in his presentation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik (Honduran bony fish mentioned at about 5M50S)

The mention of the Right to Work law was simply pointing out that many states pass laws that may(?) be considered economically detrimental to other states. However, under the NLRA employees have the protected right to engage in collective bargaining. This is federal law. Indiana does not have a similar state law. Just because the federal law exists does not compel Indiana to do the same. There are many labor laws at the federal level that do not exist at the state level. An employer could take action against an employee and suffer no consequences under state laws which simply don't exist while getting into very hot water with current federal laws.

Maybe we can meetup on the 10th of Jan down at the get together in Speedway and solve all of these and other world problems...?

Regards and Happy Holidays,

Doug

 

[hoosierdoc]

State silence on a issue is different than condoning it.

also, CO is taxing and profiting from a federally illegal substance. That in itself should be problematic. The stores are having problems with the banks and IrS because MJ is federally illegal.

 

[cobber]

State silence on a issue is different than condoning it.

also, CO is taxing and profiting from a federally illegal substance. That in itself should be problematic. The stores are having problems with the banks and IrS because MJ is federally illegal.

So where's the FDIC and Choke Point on this?

 

[AA&E]

This was predictable. Perhaps potheads are just complaining because they're not readily getting everything they demand?

Not 'everyone' is in favor of drug legalization, and not everyone believes the hype that 'drugs are harmless, pot is harmless'.

So, Nebraska and Oklahoma don't want the headaches in their backyard. Gee, that's 'surprising'. MOST folks don't want a drug dealer living next door to them, either. Duh...

And 'just for the record', though it's most certainly common knowledge, 'guns' and gun ownership is specifically cited in the U.S. Constitution. Pot (and other drugs) are not. There is NO "Constitutionally protected right" to drugs. So any comparison is ludicrous, at best.

Not everyone that is in favor of legalization is a pothead... no more so then people against reissuance of prohibition laws of the last century are raging alcoholics. Generalize much?

 

[AA&E]

State silence on a issue is different than condoning it.

also, CO is taxing and profiting from a federally illegal substance. That in itself should be problematic. The stores are having problems with the banks and IrS because MJ is federally illegal.

Actually the federal government recently backed away from forbidding FDIC insured banking institutions from conducting business with the medical marijuana businesses. I am not sure how/if they deal with the recreational market providers. Nor am I sure if they aren't all one and the same.

 

[Leadeye]

Sounds like the law firms involved will be the big winners either way.