Oklahoma, Nebraska ask Supreme Court to overturn Colorado marijuana law

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rob

    DINO Extraordinaire
    Oct 11, 2010
    3,099
    Augusta, GA
    Oklahoma, Nebraska ask Supreme Court to overturn Colorado marijuana law
    From the Washingon Times:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/18/oklahoma-nebraska-ask-supreme-court-to-overturn-co/

    This scares me.

    The basic argument they are making is that Drugs are flowing from one state (legal) to another (illegal) and therefore should be made illegal in the source state. Granted, Federal Law is still in play in this one.

    Couldn't a States Attorney General make the same argument for guns? For example: I could imagine Frosh arguing, "Assault rifles are illegal in MD, but legal in PA & VA. We can't control their influx into our state, so they must be made illegal in the source states".

    Should we be watching this? It seems like this could result in a huge blow to states rights.

    Rob.
     

    Traveler

    Lighten up Francis
    Jan 18, 2013
    8,227
    AA County
    Heaven forbid we actually enforce the laws we already have, like marijuana, immigration, and killing people. New laws are sure to help.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    Should we be watching this? It seems like this could result in a huge blow to states rights.

    Rob.

    We should be watching. It shouldn't be a huge blow to states rights, because the commerce clause has already decimated them.

    Consequentially, Colorado can use the Commerce Clause since Washington, and Alaska legalized recreational MJ to kill the FDA's narcotic list.
     

    traveller

    The one with two L
    Nov 26, 2010
    18,261
    variable
    NE and OKs problem is with the Obama administration which is derelict in its duty to enforce the federal drug laws in an even-handed manner. All of these 'dispensaries' should be raided by the DEA and their stocks and facilities destroyed.

    I am btw. all for the full legalization of MJ, opiates and cocaine. But this has to be done at the federal level. If individual states wish to have stricter rules, they should be free to pass and enforce them, no different from alcohol and tobacco regulations. Selective non-enforcement of federal law in intolerable. What's next ? No IRS enforcement of federal income tax laws in New Hampshire ?
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Couldn't a States Attorney General make the same argument for guns? For example: I could imagine Frosh arguing, "Assault rifles are illegal in MD, but legal in PA & VA. We can't control their influx into our state, so they must be made illegal in the source states".

    Guns. Immigration. pollution. You name it.


    Selective support of states rights is extremely dangerous and this could backfire.

    On the other hand, what if CO wins? It could rock the foundation of federal drug laws. Nebraska and OK could lose, and open the door to more challenges of the controlled substances act. Either way, they may wish they never went down this path.

    I think SCT will unceremoniously dismiss though.
     

    Drmsparks

    Old School Rifleman
    Jun 26, 2007
    8,441
    PG county
    A win by the neighboring states would definitely end the anti federal gun control laws they passed in Montana and other states.
     

    lsw

    לא לדרוך עליי
    Sep 2, 2013
    1,975
    Really don't Oklahoma and Nebraska have more important things to do? Like for instance crack down on meth labs and sellers?
     

    dontpanic

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 7, 2013
    6,631
    Timonium
    Really don't Oklahoma and Nebraska have more important things to do? Like for instance crack down on meth labs and sellers?

    Meth not so big anymore. Heroin is the heartland's new drug of choice.

    They are just concerned with the money they have to spend to enforce thier own laws. If they were for strong state's rights, they would shut up and do what they need to do.

    They will not do that though. They will cry to the fed because they are all talk.

    The Federal govt will not act on this for another 5-10yrs. What they decide to do remains to be seen. The public is leaning towards legalization but that does not mean our govt will go that way.
     

    Fishguy

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 30, 2009
    5,080
    Montgomery County
    The issue is marijuana is still illegal at the federal level.

    There are some who argue that the federal laws prohibiting drug use are unconstitutional since, in their opinions, the constitution doesn't expressly give that authority to the fed. That is where the 10th amendment argument comes into play. A power not expressly granted the fed automatically reverts to the state and/or people.
     
    Feb 28, 2013
    28,953
    There are some who argue that the federal laws prohibiting drug use are unconstitutional since, in their opinions, the constitution doesn't expressly give that authority to the fed. That is where the 10th amendment argument comes into play. A power not expressly granted the fed automatically reverts to the state and/or people.

    Some folks won't like it, but your point is a valid one.

    And the commerce clause argument shouldn't hold water either if the marijuana is grown, sold, and used within the borders of one state.
     

    newq

    101st Poptart Assault BSB
    Mar 6, 2011
    1,592
    Eldersburg, MD
    There are some who argue that the federal laws prohibiting drug use are unconstitutional since, in their opinions, the constitution doesn't expressly give that authority to the fed. That is where the 10th amendment argument comes into play. A power not expressly granted the fed automatically reverts to the state and/or people.

    Wouldn't this imply that the FDA has no place declaring drugs safe for the public and that any drug even one that could possibly kill on the first trial remain legal? Or is it just because Pot heads are generally offended by being called drug addicts even if their habits follow addiction to the feeling not any sort of addictive properties of the drug.

    Are there worse things to be addicted to? Sure. Are there far better things to arrest for? Sure. Would I want them legalizing marijuana? **** no, there are enough rotten douche bags that can't stop drinking or getting high and getting behind the wheel, I wouldn't want it to be anymore available. Druggies will always argue for their exception.
     
    Feb 28, 2013
    28,953
    Wouldn't this imply that the FDA has no place declaring drugs safe for the public and that any drug even one that could possibly kill on the first trial remain legal?

    The many examples of gooberment redundancy aside, this is an apples and oranges comparison. Name one person who has died from an overdose of marijuana.

    Or is it just because Pot heads are generally offended by being called drug addicts even if their habits follow addiction to the feeling not any sort of addictive properties of the drug.

    Very funny.:rolleyes:

    "Pot heads", in my opinion, can be addicted to whatever the hell they want, as long as they partake at home like most responsible folks do with alcohol.


    Are there worse things to be addicted to? Sure. Are there far better things to arrest for? Sure. Would I want them legalizing marijuana? **** no, there are enough rotten douche bags that can't stop drinking or getting high and getting behind the wheel, I wouldn't want it to be anymore available.
    :bs:

    So in other words, intoxicated drivers are a problem, a statement with which I wholeheartedly agree. But DRUNK drivers are less of a problem because THEIR drug of choice comes with the blessing of the Feds?

    This is not intellectually honest. To follow your logic, we should also outlaw alcohol, correct?

    Well, we know how well that worked in the past, yet I don't see you suggesting it. Why's that?:cool:


    Druggies will always argue for their exception.

    I speak from past experience on this subject, but anyone here who knows me would hardly brand me with the "druggie" description. Marijuana takes effect quicker, wears off faster, and doesn't leave you sick in the morning.

    So save for a hell of a lot of Puritanical moral relativism that was likely installed in the minds of some here by the very same gooberment 99% of us emphatically distrust, I'm not seeing the problem with the "exception" which you condescendingly refer to as being argued for by "druggies".:cool:
     

    nedsurf

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 8, 2013
    2,204
    ...
    Couldn't a States Attorney General make the same argument for guns? For example: I could imagine Frosh arguing, "Assault rifles are illegal in MD, but legal in PA & VA. We can't control their influx into our state, so they must be made illegal in the source states".

    Should we be watching this? It seems like this could result in a huge blow to states rights.

    Rob.

    IMHO, no. MJ is illegal at federal level whereas "assault weapons/rifles" are not. It is a different situation and not comparable. I could also image frosh doing that out of his zeal to ban all weapons and his view that Virginia is like the "wild west". If so, I would enjoy watching the public laugh at his expense.

    NE and OKs problem is with the Obama administration which is derelict in its duty to enforce the federal drug laws in an even-handed manner.
    I am btw. all for the full legalization of MJ, opiates and cocaine. But this has to be done at the federal level. If individual states wish to have stricter rules, they should be free to pass and enforce them, no different from alcohol and tobacco regulations. Selective non-enforcement of federal law in intolerable. What's next ? No IRS enforcement of federal income tax laws in New Hampshire ?

    Agreed.

    Selective enforcement at the executive level or agency-wide is unacceptable as it presents a slippery slope leading to many justice system problems. It allows the executive branch to circumvent both the legislative and judicial branches. Ignoring laws eliminates the legislative power to make laws of the land. Ignoring or declining to prosecute laws keeps the judicial branch from a fresh look at determining if the law is enforceable, constitutionally or otherwise. On the street, the enforcement officer needs to have a good, articulable reason for selective enforcement of law. "That's not constitutional" is a good example.

    This practice also allows laws to stay on the books, enabling prosecution to lean on a defendant to get him/her to plead by charging those laws. Getting a defendant to plead to avoid a charge with a stiffer sentence is not the execution of justice through trial. Going higher than what you really want needs to stay in the realm of haggling for carpets at the bazaar and out of charging document and courtroom strategy. We should see more cases go to trial than what happens now. (>99% plea out)

    In general, states can go stricter than federal but not more permissive.

    Lincoln said the best way to get bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly... or something to that effect.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    In general, states can go stricter than federal but not more permissive.

    Lincoln said the best way to get bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly... or something to that effect.

    That is the fallacy.

    States do not have to have stricter laws, that is part of the buyoff lingo when the federal government bribes the states into something.

    The states can say something is perfectly legal, while the federal government has stated differently. The CLEO at the county level decides which is more important, constitutionally. The perfect example is the Bundy/BLM episode.
     

    Fishguy

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 30, 2009
    5,080
    Montgomery County
    Wouldn't this imply that the FDA has no place declaring drugs safe for the public and that any drug even one that could possibly kill on the first trial remain legal?

    So the states are not capable regulating the safety of the drugs being sold within their borders? There needs to be a giant Federal Agency to save the children? Where have I heard that before?

    Regardless of whether one has an affinity for the FDA or other similar wonderful federal programs and agencies such as the National Endowment for the Arts, the Department of Education or ATF, there still remains a constitutional question. Does the Constitution grant the Federal government the power to prohibit the legal use of marijuana?

    Many folks feel that Federal prohibition of alcohol caused more harm than good and would never think of mandating a return to the gangs and violence that prohibition caused. However, we at least had a government then that respected the Constitution and alcohol prohibition was enacted in accordance with such.

    Or is it just because Pot heads are generally offended by being called drug addicts even if their habits follow addiction to the feeling not any sort of addictive properties of the drug.

    I have never in my life touched marijuana nor do I plan to if it were to become legal. I honestly don't care if people want to destroy their own lives with the stuff, it's a free country (at least it used to be). Yet I can't help but notice the apparent correlations between federal drug prohibition, police militarization, for profit jails and the imprisonment of non violent offenders, and the ever expanding and out of control Federal spending and bureaucracy.


    Are there worse things to be addicted to? Sure. Are there far better things to arrest for? Sure. Would I want them legalizing marijuana? **** no, there are enough rotten douche bags that can't stop drinking or getting high and getting behind the wheel, I wouldn't want it to be anymore available. Druggies will always argue for their exception.

    Saying that outlawing marijuana stops driving while impaired is the same as saying outlawing private ownership of guns will stop crime. Just like criminals need guns to do their jobs and prohibiting them to law abiding citizens only serves to make citizens less safe, people who have an affinity for getting high will get high regardless of the law. But we've seen where the drug prohibition costs law abiding citizens too much money, freedom, and trust in government.
     

    MrNiceGuy

    Active Member
    Dec 9, 2013
    270
    I could imagine Frosh arguing, "Assault rifles are illegal in MD, but legal in PA & VA. We can't control their influx into our state, so they must be made illegal in the source states".

    So PA and VA just need to pass a law stating that it's illegal for Frosh to speak, then get the SCOTUS to stick Frosh in prison because they can't control his stupid mouth.

    Code:
     

    tall.guy88

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 9, 2013
    1,227
    West Virginia
    It would b e a problem if gun ownership was not constitutionally protected. But the 2nd amendment protects us. Weed is not protected. I say ban weed and alcohol. Thats my 2 cents.

    Oklahoma, Nebraska ask Supreme Court to overturn Colorado marijuana law
    From the Washingon Times:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/18/oklahoma-nebraska-ask-supreme-court-to-overturn-co/

    This scares me.

    The basic argument they are making is that Drugs are flowing from one state (legal) to another (illegal) and therefore should be made illegal in the source state. Granted, Federal Law is still in play in this one.

    Couldn't a States Attorney General make the same argument for guns? For example: I could imagine Frosh arguing, "Assault rifles are illegal in MD, but legal in PA & VA. We can't control their influx into our state, so they must be made illegal in the source states".

    Should we be watching this? It seems like this could result in a huge blow to states rights.

    Rob.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,925
    Messages
    7,259,312
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom