Nebraska and Oklahoma Sue Colorado Over Marijuana Law

[Logical]

Here we go, nutty red states trying to stop Colorado!

DENVER — Two heartland states filed the first major court challenge to marijuana legalization on Thursday, saying that Colorado’s growing array of state-regulated recreational marijuana shops was piping marijuana into neighboring states and should be shut down.

The lawsuit was brought by attorneys general in Nebraska and Oklahoma, and asks the United States Supreme Court to strike down key parts of a 2012 voter-approved measure that legalized marijuana in Colorado for adult use and created a new system of stores, taxes and regulations surrounding retail marijuana.

While marijuana remains illegal under federal law, officials have largely allowed Colorado and other states to move ahead with state-run programs allowing medical and recreational marijuana. But the lawsuit from Nebraska and Oklahoma, where marijuana is still outlawed, argues that Colorado has “created a dangerous gap” in the federal drug-control system.

“Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states,” the suit says, undermining their marijuana bans, “draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice systems.”

More......

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/politics/nebraska-and-oklahoma-sue-colorado-over-marijuana-law.html?rref=us&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&pgtype=article

[Dont call me Shirley]

1. Get over it neo-cons, evolve with the times instead of fighting healthy change.

[SnakeEyes]

6. I wouldn't call it a "healthy change"

[Cha]

9. I would.

[Dont call me Shirley]

12. The numerous medical benefits of marijuana is very healthy indeed.

[SnakeEyes]

21. Science doesn't support "numerous" medical benefits

It is however good for some symptoms of illness and conditions such as pain. That doesn't mean it's "healthy".

[demigoddess]

24. hey, I have a severely handicapped daughter who

needs mj. without it she hits herself almost constantly, and has given herself bloody noses, and bitten the inside of her mouth. She can be like a wild woman doing these things. No medical medicine has been able to help. She is presently taking two dr prescribed pills and it is almost worthless. she is severely handicapped and will never go out and score drugs on her own, therefore why should it be forbidden to her?? She has taken it for a couple of years now, and it has done her good and my husband and I have no interest in trying the stuff. We also don't drink. When you have walked in our boots for a few years you can criticize, until then, butt out!!

[SnakeEyes]

76. I'm not sure whose post you were responding to

Certainly couldn't be mine given the content of yours compared to what I posted. They don't really seem to be related

[Dont call me Shirley]

30. Yes, science does support numerous medical benefits

http://m.ibtimes.com/%E2%80%98medical%E2%80%99-marijuana-10-health-benefits-legitimize-legalization-742456

That's only 10. There are many more. The states' lists of allowed diseases treatable by MMJ continue to grow every year.

[SnakeEyes]

75. Says that guy.

Just because someone is a Dr doesn't mean they are necessarily a qualified expert. I'll rely on science based medicine and peer reviewed papers.

[Dont call me Shirley]

37. It is healthy. Taken raw, not heated mj helps to heal the endocrine, nerve and immune functions.

[SnakeEyes]

74. Can you share the peer reviewed paper

That backs this up?

[DiverDave]

85. can YOU show any peer reviewed

Study's saying it's worthless?
Nice dog whistle. Maybe you'd be more at home on a right wing
website.
Please listen to Tom Hartmans show from Friday.
All the people were lying,you'd say
Go away troll

[SnakeEyes]

116. Dog whistle?

I'm not sure it means what you think it means.

I can't imagine any way possible that stating a preference for science and peer reviewed work is a dog whistle. Also, we all know the right wing doesn't trust science and believes peer review is somehow a politically biased scam.

Did Tom Hartman have peer reviewed scientists on or people with anecdotal stories? Because you do know anecdotal stories is not science nor does it necessarily prove anything due to a variety of possible factors, placebo effects, and other things that could create a false correlation. That's why you need controlled scientific studies and peer reviewed work that hold up those studies up to scrutiny from scientific peers in your field.

I'm actually really surprised I'm getting flack. I'd have expected respect for someone requesting scientific proof.

[Dont call me Shirley]

117. The studies are all locked up in JSTOR.

[kelliekat44]

121. Did someone say "States' Rights?" Good, let the Feds stay out of it and the states will ruin their

standing with each other and weaken themselves. Then the Feds cam make pot legal and the RW funddies will be muted.

[Jesus Malverde]

2. Interesting case.

The power of one state to change the law of another might present some interesting precedents.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. A 10th Amendment defense, perhaps?

[meow2u3]

38. More like an 11th Amendment defense

The 11th Amendment forbids out-of-staters to sue another state.

[treestar]

96. Yeah, that issue bugs me

Hearing about this, my first thought is that a state can't sue another state. The 11th Amendment refers to individuals though.

[madville]

17. They are arguing that federal law must be followed

And technically they are correct and the Supreme Court backs that up. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

[Comrade Grumpy]

18. The Supreme Court can't make a state recriminalize marijuana.

It may possibly be able to screw up any efforts to tax and regulate the commerce, but Colorado is under no obligation to prohibit marijuana. In fact, legalization is now written into the state constitution, thanks to Amendment 64.

[joeglow3]

32. Federal law supersedes state laws/constitution all the time.

Doesn't matter if the state put it into their Constitution if the Federal government outlaws it. The Federal government has just chosen to not enforce their laws as it relates to these states. This is a situation where they may be forced to.

[Comrade Grumpy]

41. The feds can enforce federal law; they can't make Colorado recriminalize weed.

They don't have enough DEA agents to bust all of Colorado's pot smokers.

As I said, they may be able to destroy taxed and regulated marijuana commerce, but then they're left with untaxed, unregulated marijuana commerce.

[joeglow3]

53. I agree. It may force the federal govt to decriminalize.

But I don't see how they can rule against nebraska and Oklahoma.

[Sunlei]

80. President O could mandate to decriminalize the plant

[rollin74]

68. Nebraska and Oklahoma aren't suing the federal government

they are suing Colorado

Colorado cannot be forced by another state to criminalize something it doesn't want to

the federal government is charged with enforcing federal law and, in this case, has chosen not to

Colorado is under no obligation to enforce federal law in this matter when the feds themselves
have decided not to

this lawsuit is highly unlikely to be successful

[joeglow3]

69. Not how it works

If someone breaks a law and, as a result, I am economically harmed, I don't sue the federal government. I sue the party that broke the law.

[avebury]

77. Colorado did not break Oklahoma law.

What you may not understand is that that Oklahoma Attorney General's office has a history of filing frivolous law suits, many of which really have no merit. And when they go down in flames, they will appeal to the next level. There is nothing that they won't file a suit over. It boggles the mind.

[joeglow3]

81. No the broke federal law, which supersedes all states

If a state is harmed as a result of another states violation of federal law, they do sue that state

[avebury]

82. Given the fact the the prison system is big business

in Oklahoma, one might make the argument that legalizing pot in other states actually results in more business for the Oklahoma prison system.

[treestar]

97. They could litigate whether the feds have the power to criminalize it

Or about whether Congress preempted the field. The fed doesn't win every time - there's some standard.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/PreemptionDoctrine.aspx

[joeglow3]

106. True

However, I have a hard time seeing how a court could say criminalizing pot violates the federal constitution.

[Aerows]

44. I eagerly await the folks that praise

State's rights, including such figures as Jimmy Carter, when it comes to gay marriage to praise State's rights when it comes to marijuana. Because, you know, if it isn't officially federal law ... oh wait.

[postatomic]

4. I remember when coming to Colorado meant buying cases of Coors

If Nebraska and Oklahoma want to live in the dark ages, so be it. I seriously doubt this suit is going anywhere. Background checks on people buying pot? Definitely a WTF.

Nebraska and Oklahoma economies aren't so great and they get pissed at Colorado for using their limited funds to pull over innocent people carrying a little weed and throwing them in jail. That's their problem. They made the decision to begin this Pot Crusade and they should live with the consequences of their actions.

The police in these states should fire up a blunt and chill the fuck out.

[Dont call me Shirley]

13. And dump out their cans of reich-wing coors.

[Just for Fun]

86. Real Coloradans don't drink Coors. We all know it's moose piss.

We'd rather drink something from New Belgium...

Fat Tire FTW!

[truebluegreen]

113. Bear piss, actually.

[world wide wally]

5. Colorado should counter sue the rest of the country to stop their ludicrous war on drugs

Talk about a total waste of money!

[tblue37]

7. When I first came to Kansas in 1970, it was still a dry state. To have wine with a dinner party,

people had to drive to Missouri to purchase it, but cops would wait at the state line to catch cars with Kansas license plates that might be illegally smuggling booze into Kansas. We even had an attorney general, Vern Miller, who raided an Amtrak train for serving alcohol, and in doing so and promising to go after airlines, too, he scared airlines into ceasing all liquor sales whenever they crossed into Kansas airspace.

If Kansas managed to stay dry and handle being surrounded by all those boozin' states on its borders, I think Nebraska and Oklahoma can handle the Colorado potheads leaking into their precious states.

A brief article about Kansas liquor laws when they were on the verge of changing:
http://www.examiner.com/article/liquor-laws-changing-kansas

[Logical]

10. Wow, that is interesting, I live here and didn't know that story. Thanks! nt

[tblue37]

11. Are you too young to have been around during that benighted period? nt

[Logical]

14. Moved here in 1992. Nt

[tblue37]

16. Ah--I see. I came here in 1970, and the 1970s were Vern Miller's period in office.

He was a remarkably eager anti-alcohol warrior.

[Logical]

19. Wow, the airplane story is interesting. nt

[Dont call me Shirley]

15. And the liquor cards we had to buy to have a drink at the clubs. And the 3.2 18 bars.

[ButterflyBlood]

20. Whoa, Kansas had Prohibition that late?

When did it finally legalize alcohol?

[tblue37]

22. Kansas prohibited on-premises liquor sales until 1987!

The Kansas liquor laws were always very convoluted, even after they eased them a bit. In fact, 13 Kansas counties remained dry until 2012.

Considering Kansans' propensity to elect the most extrem RWers to run the state, you'd think they were imbibing pretty much all the time, wouldn't you?

[Aerows]

51. My sister got married in LA in 1991

They had to hold the reception in a different county so that they could have champagne at the wedding! I kid you not. There are some backwards people and some backwards counties in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_county

There are still some.

[Major Nikon]

57. There's still lots of places that still have prohibition

Not by an entire state, but by counties or municipalities.

[demigoddess]

25. I lived in Kansas in the 50s and 60s

and my parents didn't have any trouble getting beer. Of course, it was just 3.2% beer.

[tblue37]

28. Right--but not regular beer, not wine, not hard liquor.

Kansas alcohol laws were convoluted, and they divided alcoholic beverages into 6 different categories, with different rules for each category.

And even 3.2 beer was not available to just anyone.

[dems_rightnow]

79. Kansas has allowed liquor stores since 1948

My grandfather owned one of the early ones- selling wine and hard liquor.

It was on a county by county basis, but did not allow liquor to be sold by the drink.

[Cha]

8. Oh boo hoo..

[fizzgig]

23. anyone else catch this?

They also criticized Colorado for not tracking marijuana once it is sold, and for not requiring marijuana buyers to undergo criminal background checks (under Colorado law, anyone 21 or older can legally purchase recreational marijuana). Colorado’s rules have no way to prevent “criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels from acquiring marijuana inventory directly from retail marijuana stores,” the lawsuit says.

fuck you, very much.

[edhopper]

47. So background checks for MJ

but guns, no way.

nice priorities.

[Joe Worker]

26. Did it ever occur to them that there is an easy solution?

Legalize it!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. But if it's banned it goes away.

[Rex]

27. “draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice systems.”

Yeah and who decided to make it illegal in the first place!? Why we live in 2014 and MJ is still illegal, only shows how fucked up our priorities are in this country!

You want to save money? Then MAKE IT LEGAL AND STOP BEING ASSHOLES.

There I said it.

[joeglow3]

33. As a Nebraskan, I agree with them

The issue is NOT Nebraska and Oklahoma. It is the Federal government. Nebraska and Oklahoma are following Federal law and Colorado is not. The answer is for the Federal government to change its law.

[Rex]

35. Then those two states need to take it up with the federal govt.

They shouldn't bully Colorado into doing something, just because things are now inconvenient, better yet just legalize it and be done with it at the state level.

[joeglow3]

36. That is how our legal system works

They have to show economic harm being perpetuated by someone not following the law. If Colorado is the party not following the law and causing subsequent economic harm to states that are following the law, the appropriate party to be sued is Colorado.

[Aerows]

46. Like the economic harm

of having to perpetually go to court, spend millions of state dollars to try cases in an attempt to make the marriages people have in other states illegal?

Uh-huh. Tell me more about this economic harm and hardship.

[joeglow3]

56. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Gay marriage is not against federal law. Thus, if a state chooses (incorrectly, IMHO) to outlaw gay marriage, it is their economic cross to bear. Nebraska and Oklahoma are following federal law and Colorado is not. The federal government needs to either enforce their laws or overturn them.

[Just for Fun]

89. The feds has chosen NOT to go after Colorado or Washington in this matter.

So your argument is invalid.

Next!

[joeglow3]

104. Not the way it works. The law still exists until it is overturn.

[Just for Fun]

88. Please show me economic harm when MJ is already all over your state, joeglow3

Here's why:

Marijuana grows everywhere - hell, the ditchweed grows wild (Cannabis rudica) everywhere, and it's even found in your state.

You got other issues besides nosing in our business - like getting rid of your right-wing crazies.

And you got meth labs. Nebraska and Oklahoma are #1 and #2 respectively in meth labs and destroying the environment.

You're welcome to stay the hell out of my state if you got problem with cannabis.

[joeglow3]

103. Not my job to prove economic harm

Reread what I said. I addressed the legal system and how it works. Through your belligerence, you are posting based on emotion and putting words in my mouth.

[Aerows]

45. Do you agree with them draining their treasuries

to fight gay marriage laws, too? That's not federally enforced, either.

You can't argue against one type of state's rights and then argue for another.

Doesn't work that way.

[joeglow3]

55. Gay marriage is not against federal law

I support it be legal in all 50 states. That is not what we are discussing here. This is about a state violating federal law and it costing neighboring states money. I am not saying it is morally right. I am just saying it is legally right.

[NutmegYankee]

107. It doesn't have to cost those states a single dime.

Stop enforcing that law. Problem solved. It's like flogging oneself and complaining your back hurts. Stop flogging yourself!

[joeglow3]

109. Legally, they are obligated to.

[NutmegYankee]

111. I don't see the law enforcement in Colorado doing it.

Appears to not have any penalty. I have no sympathy for police in surrounding states. They can stop their pain at any time.

[joeglow3]

112. Federal govt said they would allow it if 8 conditions were met

One of them was to ensure it stayed within their borders. Given the Colorado purchased edibles showing up outside of Colorado, would you agree they are failing to meet their requirements?

[NutmegYankee]

114. No. They shouldn't be responsible for what people do after they buy it.

I'm sure they make the rules clear, but people are well, people. Once again though, police in neighboring states don't need to setup checkpoints and drug interdiction patrols either. They are willingly choosing to do so.

[joeglow3]

101. Difference is your blind tirade is based on emotion and not law

There is a reason we don't let your line of reasoning prevail in court.

[marble falls]

118. He had me till the 'r'word.

[joeglow3]

120. I get his personal feelings

I am more in line with his thinking (minus the belligerence). However, I am more interested in discussing the law and how it relates to this case than how people think it should be (that has been discussed MANY times here over the years).

[Brickbat]

31. Nebraska, really? *cough*WHITECLAY*ahem*

http://www.hightimes.com/read/nebraska-complains-about-colorado-weed-while-enabling-south-dakota-alcoholism

Meanwhile, have you ever heard of the tiny town of Whiteclay, Nebraska, population 10? It holds the distinction of being the US town with the greatest beer sales per capita of any American town. This town of 10 has four licensed off-sale beer stores that sold 3.6 million cans of beer in 2013, or almost 10,000 cans of beer per day.

How is that possible? Well, Whiteclay, you see, lies on the northern Nebraska border with South Dakota, where it directly abuts the Oglala Sioux (Lakota) Indian Nation on the Pine Ridge Reservation. And Pine Ridge has maintained absolute alcohol prohibition -- sale and possession -- since its creation in 1889 (except for a brief time in the 1970s). Illegal whiskey peddlers had already been pushing alcohol to the Lakota for years and alcoholism was devastating the nation. President Arthur in 1882 designated a 50-square-mile extension south of Pine Ridge into Nebraska and in 1889, Congress included that dry buffer zone, which encompassed Whiteclay, as part of the reservation.

But in 1904, liquor lobbyists convinced President Teddy Roosevelt to use an Executive Order to open up 49 of those 50 square miles to a land grab by white settlers, over the protests of the Lakota elders and the federal Indian Agent charged with oversight of Pine Ridge. Soon, Whiteclay became the home of bootleggers serving the Lakota who could easily walk across the border to get some liquor. By the 1950s, Nebraska licensed two bars in Whiteclay and since the 1970s, Nebraska has licensed four businesses in this town of 10 to sell beer to be taken off site. Those businesses have repeatedly been found to be selling to minors and bootleggers and allowing onsite consumption.

Lakota activists have repeatedly called on president after president to reverse Roosevelt’s Executive Order, which many think isn’t technically legal in the first place, but to no avail. The governor of Nebraska, David Heineman, has said there’s nothing he can do about it, since most of the people purchasing Whiteclay’s alcohol are from South Dakota. Oh, sure, I suppose he could direct his state liquor licensing officials to no longer license off-sales beer stores in, oh, I don’t know, towns with more alcoholics passed out in the streets in the morning than actual residents. But then the state wouldn’t pull in roughly $350,000 to $400,000 a year in alcohol taxes from Whiteclay alone.

[joeglow3]

34. Are alcohol sales against Federal law?

[Aerows]

42. No, but jurisdictions where

it can be sold are very strict in many counties in all three states, so if they can't afford to enforce their laws in their own damn state, they need to find a way to get more tax revenue.

Whiners that want to shut down every possible means of vice taxes by regulating the vices in such a draconian fashion should start investigating what exactly their taxes ARE paying for, since clearly they aren't capable of enforcing their own state laws.

That's the way the cookie crumbles.

If you choose not to profit off of vice taxes, stop complaining when you can't afford to enforce your own state's (or county's) stupid laws.

Oh, and P.S. - Neither are Gay Marriage laws Federal. Sucks to be people in OK and NE that love state's rights when it profits them, but detests them when it doesn't.

[joeglow3]

54. I am speaking from a legal standpoint, not an ethical one.

[marble falls]

119. I used to live in Thuston county and we were a mini Whiteclay (Pender, Ne)to the Winnebago Res....

so I have a sort of first hand of what your writing about. I found a little more details about Whiteclay:

About Whiteclay, Nebraska

Whiteclay is an unincorporated village of 14 people in northwest Nebraska bordering the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, home to the Oglala Lakota (also known as the Oglala Sioux Tribe). The Pine Ridge lies almost entirely in South Dakota.

Whiteclay lies on disputed land, merely 200 feet from the official reservation border, and less than 2 miles from the center of Pine Ridge, South Dakota, the largest town on the reservation.

The number of people living on the Pine Ridge has long been controversial. The 2000 census reports 15,521 residents, but in 2005 the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) revised the figure to 28,000. The Oglala Sioux tribal government maintains that the true population of the Pine Ridge is around 40,000.

Sale and possession of alcoholic beverages on the Pine Ridge is prohibited under tribal law. Except for a brief experiment with on-reservation liquor sales in the early 1970s, this prohibition has been in effect since the reservation lands were created.

Whiteclay has four off-sale beer stores licensed by the State of Nebraska which sell the equivalent of 4.5 million 12-ounce cans of beer annually (12,500 cans per day), mostly to the Oglalas living on the Pine Ridge.

http://battleforwhiteclay.org/?page_id=140

There were serious court fights and dueling arrests from both sides when I lived there '90 - '96.

[Major Nikon]

39. Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick, they are dummer than a sack of hammers

Did they ever stop think and ask themselves why the fuck someone would want to buy legal marijuana, which is far more expensive, and then illegally transport it across state lines?

There whole case seems to be built on the claims of rube sheriffs saying basically, "We're seeing a lot more o' that wacky tobaccy showin' up and we're sure it must be comin' from Colorado."

In other words, not only have these dipshits been getting federal and state money to fight a stupid fucking drug war, now they want to raid the states who have conceded the drug war was fucking stupid, instead of just telling their rube cops to focus their attention on more meaningful things, like rounding up stray dogs.

[Just for Fun]

90. Or handling their methheads

Nebraska is #1 ranked in meth lab and explosions and damaging their enviornment.

Cannabis is great for the environment and can be used in many different ways.

Meth has only one use and it is extremely dangerous to make.

[Aerows]

40. "Do you have state's rights and state laws?"

"Then don't whine to us, exercise your state's rights, have your State police enforce your state laws and enjoy your puritanical laws. If you can't pay for your State Police to enforce your laws, maybe you might want to think of an alternative means of tax revenue."

[Renew Deal]

43. What about fireworks and strong alcohol?

I'm sure that has been litigated before. PA sells fireworks which creep into NY and NJ. Can NY and NJ sue? This seems like a stretch.

[Aerows]

49. *ahem* Gay Marriage

Glad to waste millions in court to make people from other state's marriages illegal in theirs, but heaven forbid pot from which could either be a dubious source in their own state or a legal purchase from CO causes an uproar.

[joeglow3]

59. Are fireworks against federal law? How about strong alcohol?

Pot IS against federal law. The federal government needs to enforce the law or overturn it. Until then, Colorado is breaking the law and causing economic harm to others because of it. Seems like a slam dunk.

[Just for Fun]

91. Not anymore..

Pot has been decriminalized under the CRominbus bill.

Therefore, the federal anti-pot laws has been severely weakened.

[joeglow3]

105. It is still against the law

Your emotion doesn't change that.

[Horse with no Name]

48. So if this carries...which I don't think it will

can the states that have Obamacare sue the ones that don't?

[Aerows]

50. And dozens of other things

It would make me laugh if it wasn't so tragic.

[Logical]

52. Great point. nt

[joeglow3]

58. Are those states violating federal law?

[Horse with no Name]

60. Yes my darling.

Obamacare is the law of the land.

[joeglow3]

62. And the law allows them to elect to use the federal exchange

You might want to reread the law.

[True Blue Door]

61. It's just a money-grab.

These empty, no-account Red States know the Supreme Court can't order Colorado to reinstate a state ban on marijuana.

They know the Supreme Court can't force Colorado police to arrest marijuana users.

So clearly their plan is to make Colorado pay them to enforce their own stupid, dead-ender cancervative laws.

[Just for Fun]

92. Colorado should counter-sue

and be victorious and take even more money from those two states for wasting Colorado's time to defend their legal law.

[True Blue Door]

94. Yup. Make the pricks pay a "WATB tax."

[SomethingFishy]

63. Yeah, bring that shit on you clueless fucks..

Pot smokers in Colorado have spent the last year getting high without having to look over their shoulder. When I need weed, I go to the fucking store to get it. No worries, no fuss, no finding a guy who has something, no worries about transporting it, I buy my weed, and I go home and smoke it.
If another state thinks that we are going to let them send us back to the stone age they can kiss our ass. This wasn't some law passed in the State House, this was a referendum voted on by the people of Colorado. The law was changed through the Democratic process set forth in the Constitution of the United States.

If Nebraska and Oklahoma are so against Democracy maybe they should pack up and head for China.

[kentuck]

65. Hear ye! Hear ye!

I just got my medicine to help me thru the holiday season.

[SomethingFishy]

66. I'll be making my weekly run today at some point..

Pandoras box is open and there is no closing it.

[Just for Fun]

93. And I'm stuck in New York

and forgot my charger for my vape pen...

I'm heading to Manhattan to see if I can locate one. MJ is the only thing that is helping keep the pain tolerance for my spinal stenosis down.

[joeglow3]

67. Problem is federal law supersedes state law

[SomethingFishy]

70. The Feds have already said they won't

interfere with states that legalize.. And while Federal Law may supersede state law this was voted on by the people of the state. Anyone who goes against the will of the people will just open themselves up to being "haters of Democracy".

[joeglow3]

71. Then the federal government needs to overturn the law

So long as the law exists, it is still everybody's responsibility to follow it, even it the government doesn't enforce it. IF a party can show economic harm as a direct result of someone violating a law (regardless of if the government actively enforces it or not), then the government needs to award damages to the injured party or follow the correct governmental procedures to overturn the law.

And, I doubt you say the same thing about democracy when states vote down abortion rights.

[SomethingFishy]

72. Yeah they do..

And until then they can stay the fuck out of my business.

And you don't know me so don't even think to presume you have any fucking idea what I would say or think about anything.

Nice knowing you.

[joeglow3]

73. What. What a juvenile response

All I did was intellectually counter you weak arguments and you respond with this post? Grow up.

[TheKentuckian]

84. Any and all harm here is fully self inflicted. They are not forced to incur them even if they

Federal law.

I am also dubious on how they can actually even prove the harm espoused even if you buy their argument with such a limited data set or that another state even if they are not under the color of Federal law is liable if your costs increase because you decided in response to step up your enforcement and penalties, aka what is actually the cause of the increased cost and what proof can be provided that the legalization is actually what increased your costs? A lot of pot in Kansas and Nebraska was probably imported when it was illegal too, the standard of harm would seem more than "we chose to spend more money and want to be compensated".

I'd like to see the supporting precedents here, I think the argument is in left field to the point of shaky standing, it is the Feds law to enforce or not rather than their's.

[joeglow3]

98. I agree the burden of proof is to show the economic harm

We (Nebraska) have tried to pass gambling multiple times and it fails every time. We bear the economic brunt of all the casinos in council bluffs, but don't/can't sue because it is a legal activity.

Pot, on the other hand, IS illegal under federal law. If a state chooses to allow its sale and a neighboring state has to i cure additinal economic costs because of this, they have a basis to sue and I can't see how they would lose.

[TheKentuckian]

108. Nobody is making Nebraska incur the expenses even if they can be proven.

If Nebraska had so elected, they could have reduced their expenditures or even eliminated them and advised the Federal government if they want to enforce their laws then they would have the bear the expense and do so with respect and compliance with jurisdiction.

You want a bailout for stubborn backwardness, I say you don't even have standing to demand another state enforce Federal Law or compensate you because you do. The entire matter is between the individual states and the Federal government.

[joeglow3]

110. Would you agree colorado has violated federal guidelines to sell pot?

They are supposed to ensure it doesn't cross borders. Clearly, law enforcement are finding lots of Colorado purchased edibles in routine stops.

[TheKentuckian]

115. Yes and it is the Federal government that has standing to seek compliance or remedy not Nebraska

who elects to spend more money to enforce those guidelines of their own volition and I strongly suspect any increase is mostly because they also chose to increase enforcement efforts as a response to Colorado's decision on enforcing these laws.

You guys need to tell your government to stop wasting your money on this fetishism and let the Feds enforce it if they feel it is important on their own dime.

[Just for Fun]

95. Let me ask you this: What economic harm has Nebraska and Oklahoma been suffering?

Hint: It's not weed.

It's METH.

Now go away, and don't come back until you have a plausible solution for both of the state's problems.

Oklahoma is ranked #9 and Nebraska is ranked #1 based on available information on the Web.

There, that's your biggest moneymaker - busting down the meth labs and cleaning it up, then sticking the bill at the chemist.

[joeglow3]

99. Flawed logic.

A sign that someone has lost their position is when they resort to the "this is worse so clean that up first and THEN come to me" argument. Spend ten minutes studying law and you will see how that argument is a loser. And all I have addressed is the law and NOT how i personally think it should be.

[avebury]

83. States like Oklahoma refuse to believe anything trumps their laws.

I am not saying that is a rational thought but that is the way it is.

Edit to add: You have no idea how many lawsuits that the Oklahoma AG will file. Given the fact that we live in the 21st Century, Oklahoma is way behind the times in the area of social causes as well as civil and human rights issues.

[joeglow3]

100. I never disputed that point

I am just saying they have clear cause to file in THIS case and if they can prove economic harm, they will win.

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. ROFL

I don't think gun nut shithead states should be barking too loudly about lax or non-existent state laws affecting crime in neighboring states! They want to scratch that itch? Give us the same treatment Illinois to Indiana.

[Sunlei]

78. what do they want? more Americans Federal money to seize brownies and happy people?

[Turbineguy]

102. But...

"we don't smoke marijuana in Muskogee..."