Interesting and could have political ramifications beyond pot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...usaolp00000592

Interesting, would have thought Nebraska liked all the extra income from drug possession arrests/fines from those leaving Colorado.

Clearly DOJ expected CO to put magnets in all the pot they sold, and have extremely strong magnets near the borders to prevent any pot from leaving the state?

should be popcornworthy to watch rwn attorneys general arguing against states rights

Two things:

1. As a Republican ... let me rephrase that ... As a guy who used to smoke a lot of weed and has always voted R, I'm pissed. What happened to smaller federal govt. and states rights?
These people are not R's. At least I don't count them. They are the epitome of RINO.

2. I'm not a lawyer. I hope a lawyer can chime in here. If NE and OK are suing CO based on the supremacy clause, then aren't they suing the wrong entity? Shouldn't they be suing the federal govt. for not enforcing the law? One state can't overturn the 10th amendment of the constitution because they don't like what another state did. That's not how this system works (to the best of my knowledge).

If you want to see the actual paperwork I've only found it posted at the bottom of this article: http://www.thecannabist.co/2014/12/1...lawsuit/25568/

****, how would these work?

Welcome to the modern Republican Party: where state and individual rights are given only lip service

A+ thread title despite lack of "tragic death."

Well... technically they're right. Feds just haven't been willing to actually enforce. But lol Red States' "states' rights!" stance.

Surprised this hasn't happened already with gay marriage

Lol. "States' rights" is and always has been about states wanting to oppress their citizens more than the federal government allows.

Can NY sue GA over their gun laws?

I mean, every way you look at it, this lawsuit is stupid

Sadly this appears to be true.

Not all R's are hypocritical about states' rights beliefs.

Wow. I guess I'm not cynical enough for this sub-forum. I always thought states rights were precisely for what CO did (vote in something they wanted).

Agreed. That was kind of my point. I'm not a lawyer; but I just don't see how this lawsuit could ever win. I just thought it was funny that they seemingly wasted money on it after complaining about spending money.

Sounds like you haven't been paying attention to the actual Republican party. The Republican party you're describing sounds pretty amazing actually, too bad they are a figment borne of good marketing and a lot of hard-spent propaganda.

I've been mad at my own party since Bush took the presidency. I honestly always thought the R's had bad marketing really (other than Fox News - I'm not a fan of the pure opinion stuff on there for the record). The people I talk to locally (in my state) are all on the same page. It just seems like someone runs for office and then sells us out. [Insert new face pic on old govt. body here]

yea this is bull**** and just another example of right wing/republican double speak re: liberty and states' rights, nothing more to say at this point

I fail to see how they have any standing all.

Maybe the feds might, but they have chosen not to do anything. Tough crap.

hahahahahahahahahahaha

****ing Nebraska

standing? surely there's an actual case or controversy here. they're going to claim colorado is causing criminal activity in their state by allowing marijuana to cross state lines. that seems pretty redressable to me (order colorado to change its law).

not saying this suit is a winner (federalism demands that neighboring states simply can't have the authority to force others to change their laws every time their criminal codes differ). just saying the problem isn't standing.

(i am a lawyer (he added for the noobies).)

Apples and oranges. There's nothing equivalent in federal gun law to the federal ban on marijuana. In addition, there is no constitutional amendment explicitly protecting the right to keep and bear weed.

To me this is the crux of the problem. I don't see how anyone can honestly keep all the people with pot from crossing state lines. Track them by their cell phones? I would hope that would be illegal without a warrant. Of course keeping it in the state was part of amendment 64 (the legal weed amendment in CO). I'm just worried that they will make a list of recreational pot buyers. Not to mention that this was happening long before pot was sold over the counter at recreational stores.

It just seems like the timing is funny to me. This is is the 2nd year that CO has had legal weed. 2014 was the first year of recreational shops. These lawsuits could have come out a while ago. I think it's funny that they waited until after the election. If they think that this is a red/blue issue they have made a big mistake IMHO. Sure it has more (official) support on the blue side; but when you add up the growing % of red state supporters, surely they combine for a majority. Just my 2 cents.

Is there a precedent with regard to alcohol in a case like this?

I suppose that is a fair point.

Seems as though these states should be suing the feds rather than CO, though, if that's the line they're taking.

Colorado's law simply asserts that growing or selling marijuana is not a criminal offense under Colorado state law. In order for the court to address this issue, it would basically be hijacking Colorado's legislature and regulatory system, which it would seem is explicitly prohibited by NY v. US? (I admit in advance that my education on federal standing is lacking).

www.mpp.org/about/history.html

This is a direction I had hoped this would go.

The feds are using Selective Non-Prosecution – as long as no state laws are broken they stay away.
Additionally, to allow this the IRS has had to create tax law for these companies since none existed for these types of businesses to get federal EIN numbers for withholding, tax deductions for expenses and so on.
The Treasury has attempted to create law allowing exceptions to money laundering laws to allow banks to do business with them.

It goes to the heart of many of the conservative claims about Obama and executive over-reach, selective as those claims are though.