Two Dumb States File Pot Lawsuit Against Colorado - Can You Believe It?

Question: Does the oft misrepresented principle of "states' rights"* mean that a couple states can overturn the voting preferences and state amendments cast by a neighbor state? If I represent Louisiana can I file a lawsuit against Mississippi for not using its educational funds properly - or building too many casinos? If I live in a gun control state like New York can I file a lawsuit against a state like Virginia because too many guns purchased there are ending up in NYC with dire consequences?  If I live in Nebraska and Oklahoma can I file a joint lawsuit against Colorado because "too much retail marijuana is flowing into our states and we can't control it....BWHAHAHAHHAA!"

Clearly not  - because if all those things could happen, then we'd have chaos from coast to coast. Each dumb state (that would actually believe it can inveigh on another's voting priorities- which entails issues of states' prerogatives* not rights) would demolish the fabric of the country by continually undermining the ballots cast by citizens in other states to promote or legalize assorted behaviors, actions..

Yet when I picked up The Denver Post Friday, there on the front page - midway down- was the headline:

'Nebraska, Oklahoma Sue Colorado Over Pot Law'

And even wifey, currently suffering from the H3 N2 variant of flu could only scream - mostly through her nose:

"ARE THEY NUTS!?"

Well, probably more dumb than nuts if they really think they can get this before the Supreme Court and win..  I mean, good god, what a couple of dumbo whiners! SO you're too cheap to spend the needed money to enforce your own repressive anti-pot laws and so you blame Colorado for your woes? What are YOU smoking?

Even the Post in its editorial yesterday called this effort bullocks since the two states couldn't even quantify the alleged damage they're suffering. For example, how many total ounces (or pounds)  exactly are transiting into their states from CO in a given month or year?  (Which would clearly disclose violation of the part of CO law prohibiting cross-state transport of MJ.) Unless they can quantify the extent of injury  it's basically an empty complaint and has no legal heft. I'd even go as far as to assert their evidence is wholly anecdotal, not even rising to the level of 'circumstantial'.

The technical wording of their grievance according to the Post::

"Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states, undermining Plaintiff' states own marijuana laws, draining their treasuries and placing stress on their criminal justice systems."

Oh, BWWAHHAHAHAHHAAAA! Mayhap you have too damn many laws to enforce, and IF - I say IF you backed off, especially on the pot laws, you'd need less money to lock people up or enforce your dumb, overly restrictive laws. (See my Dec 7th  post, 'Yes, We Have Too Damned Many Laws').

Fortunately, our attorney general, John Suthers(a Republican, btw) is prepared to go to the wall on this gibberish, even though he himself was never a fan of Colorado Amendment 64  which  gave the green light to set up pot retail shops two years ago. But at least Suthers respects the law and the will of the people (56 percent of CO voters affirmed the passage of 64, including a slim majority in conservative El Paso County).  As he noted (ibid.)

"It appears the plaintiffs' primary grievance stems from non-enforcement of 'federal laws regarding marijuana as opposed to choices made by the voters of Colorado'"

Which is spot on correct. But merely because those 2 regressive states - among many other Red states, choose not to challenge the federal law (placing MJ on the controlled substances list)  and refuse to put up their own amendments, doesn't mean they have license to take down Colorado's.  And if the funds are too steep for all the pot enforcement they desire, well hell, do what CO did and enact higher state and excise taxes to pay for the MJ you allow. But don't whine on about Colorado's amendment and how it's straining your treasuries.

Anyway, AG Suthers is prepared to go to the mat on this, as he should be - as defender of Colorado laws, even those with which he might disagree. Meanwhile, Robert Mikos of Vanderbilt University - an expert on the intersection of federal power and state MJ laws, has noted (ibid.)  that "Oklahoma and Nebraska can't simply force Colorado to join their fight" - e.g. against any use of MJ. He also added that "congress can't force states to criminalize marijuana".

As for the Supreme Court, it is more likely than not they are sane and rational enough (one hopes!)  to see things as Prof. Mikos does. If, OTOH,  they acknowledged these two states'  egregious claim of CO violating the "Supremacy clause" then all states had better watch out for what they put on ballots. My guess, like Suthers, is that the SC will dismiss this lawsuit for the empty bollocks it is and deal with real, substantive matters.

---
* States have prerogatives, not rights, because states exist as governmental entities not as persons-individuals. Prof. Garry Wills (‘A Necessary Evil: A History Of American Distrust of Government’, Simon & Schuster, 1999)

Advances on Many Fronts Following Passage of Colorado's MJ Law

Rep. Diana Degette has advanced the ‘Respect States’ and Citizens’ Rights Act’ to exempt states like Colorado and Washington from the Federal Controlled Substances Act provision governing marijuana

Multiple advances are being made following the passage of Colorado's Amendment 64 on November 6th, allowing for the recreational use of marijuana (1 oz or under) for those 21 years or older. While the initial implementation phase is still about 30 days from now, legal progress is being made as lawmakers, DAs, prosecutors grasp that the PEOPLE have spoken and with a 55%-45%  clarity FOR recreational use and state regulated retail outlets.

Among the more noteworthy initiatives with possible national implications is U.S. Rep. Diana Degette's bipartisan legislation, introduced on Friday which would ensure the marijuana-legalization passing states are not overrun by federal interlopers seeking to overturn the laws ('DeGette Pushes Pot Bill', The Denver Post', Nov. 17, p. 4A). As Ms. Degette put it:

"My constituents have spoken and I don't want the federal government denying money to Colorado or taking other punitive steps that would undermine the will of our citizens."

Bingo! And I imagine this savvy lawmaker also grasps that any such draconian strategies will not be lost on the many youth who voted for the Amendment - as well as Obama and the Dems! 

Degette's legislation is coined 'The Respect States' and Citizens' Rights Act'. 

Never mind the 'States' Rights' misnomer (states actually have prerogatives, not rights) the bill seeks to exempt states that have legalized pot from the marijuana provisions of the Federal Controlled Substances Act.  Interestingly, even one of the most conservative Republicans in Colorado, Rep. Mike Coffman, now stands behind the act where he once opposed it (prior to the election). As he noted (ibid.):

"I strongly opposed the legalization of marijuana, but I also have an obligation to respect the will of the voters given the passage of this initiative, and so I feel obliged to support this legislation."

All very noble and sincere-sounding, but I suspect a more powerful underlying reason is he saw the pro-initiative votes at 55% and realized they were more than most congressional reps up for re-election received, on either side of the aisle. Hence, those who joust against the implementation of the initiative are liable to be punished later - with their parties - at the polls!

Meanwhile, Degette's proposed legislation comes on the same day a handful of members from the state's congressional delegation were part of a coalition of lawmakers who sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, urging him to respect the new voter-approved laws in Colorado and Washington. In the letter, as the Post noted, all the lawmkers wrote that:

"it would be a mistake for the federal government to 'focus enforcement action on individuals whose actions are in compliance with state law".


Indeed. Of course, the subtext to that is Mr. Holder and his DOJ also showing they respect the rights of the voters proper.

As The Denver Post noted in its editorial 2 days ago, contrary to Gov. Hickenlooper's jokey take after 64's passage ("Let's not all go for the goldfish and cheetos now!") the citizens who voted for 64 were not loopy stoners, but stone-cold sober citizens who understood the prosecution of petty drug possession is a waste of resources, and additionally only adds terrible costs to not only enforcement but incarceration. Beyond that, it's hypocritical given MJ has not caused ONE single death while alcohol use in the state has caused hundreds of DUI incidents, more than half with fatalities. Beyond that, we all recognized that the legalized product in addition to the medical MJ dispensaries, provides badly needed revenues to the tune of over $170m a year.

Interestingly, 'Hick' (who has interests in a brew co.) wrote a letter to AG Holder, co-signed with Colorado AG John Suthers, not defending the voters' will like Diana Degette, but opting for a craven pitch that "emphasized punitive actions the feds could take like 'blocking the implementation of Amendment 64' and 'prosecuting growth and retail operations'" ('Kowtowing to Federal Authority', Vince Carroll in The Denver Post, today, p. 3D). Anyone wanna bet that Hick's tenure may not be overly long if he goes along with such a cowardly tack?

Finally, Degette's and Colorado lawmakers move comes two days after Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett made headlines when he announced his office "will dismiss any pending cases that deal with less than an ounce of marijuana. " (Denver Post, Nov. 16, 'Limits on Pot Prosecution', page 4A)  This was just before Denver prosecutors vowed to no longer charge those 21 and older for carrying less than an ounce of mairjuana.

Of course, the state still has its hardasses (as opposed to known conflict-of-interest clowns)  who will wait until the last minute and the last dog is hung to get off their keysters. One notable case is Weld County DA Ken Buck who said in a statement Thursday that his office has an obligation "to prosecute offenses that were crimes at the time they occurred". Recall this is the same character who ran for a Senate seat in '10 and insisted his same office would only prosecute rape cases if it could be shown they were "forcible rape". Hmmm.....anybody wondering why he lost?

Despite the usual state knuckledraggers like Buck,  progress is being made, and hopefully, once the law is fully implemented it will be seen that what has transpired was true citizen-mediated democracy in action. If our own democratic values and aspiration for other nations mean anything, this new law ought to stand!