US Supreme Court rejects states' efforts to overturn Colorado marijuana legalisation - Polidicks

[url]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/21/supreme-court-rejects-colorado-pot-law-overturn-efforts[/url] [quote]The supreme court on Monday rejected an effort by Nebraska and Oklahoma to have Colorado’s pot legalisation declared unconstitutional. The justices did not comment about their dismissal of the lawsuit that the states filed directly against their neighbour. The court also ordered Massachusetts’ top court to look again at the state’s ban on stun guns. Nebraska and Oklahoma argued that Colorado’s law allowing recreational marijuana use by adults ran foul of federal anti-drug laws. The states also said that legalised pot in Colorado was spilling across the borders, complicating their own anti-drug efforts and draining state resources. The Obama administration sided with Colorado, despite its opposition to making marijuana use legal.[/quote]

who the fuck would want to go to nebraska or oklahoma anyway

[quote]Nebraska and Oklahoma argued that Colorado’s law allowing recreational marijuana use by adults ran foul of federal anti-drug laws. The states also said that legalised pot in Colorado was spilling across the borders, complicating their own anti-drug efforts and draining state resources.[/quote] yes, like how "dry counties" (ones where alcohol sale is prohibited) sue other counties for their alcohol spilling over the border oh wait that's crazy and doesn't happen

"The states also said that legalised pot in Colorado was spilling across the borders, complicating their own anti-drug efforts and draining state resources." The war on weed/drugs is a stupidly failed system that wastes/drains state resources anyways, I'm not surprised to hear this being spouted as part of their reasoning

How arrogant and intrusive do you have to be to try and change other state's laws? These being conservative states, you'd think they would have heard of something called "states' rights".

[QUOTE=bitches;49978694]yes, like how "dry counties" (ones where alcohol sale is prohibited) sue other counties for their alcohol spilling over the border oh wait that's crazy and doesn't happen[/QUOTE] To be fair, there are quite a few other places where you can get alcohol. Colorado is one of the few places you can get pot without getting your shit kicked in by local PD. Still agree with your point though.

get rekt. sincerely, the Supreme Court.

This is pretty insensitive so soon after Scalia's weed overdose

[QUOTE=The Pretender;49978771]How arrogant and intrusive do you have to be to try and change other state's laws? These being conservative states, you'd think they would have heard of something called "states' rights".[/QUOTE] They're quick to say "stop big guvernent" when their own interests are at stake but when they disagree with another state suddenly they need the federal government again. Fucking moron hick states.

[quote]Nebraska and Oklahoma argued that Colorado’s law allowing recreational marijuana use by adults ran foul of federal anti-drug laws. The states also said that legalised pot in Colorado was spilling across the borders, complicating their own anti-drug efforts and draining state resources.[/quote] Maybe that's a sign that you're going after the wrong drugs.

[QUOTE=bitches;49978694]yes, like how "dry counties" (ones where alcohol sale is prohibited) sue other counties for their alcohol spilling over the border[/QUOTE] Alcohol isn't banned nationwide on a federal level, but legalized by a handful of states. Most of the replies in this thread seem to forget that weed is illegal by the federal government. These states aren't asking the federal government to step on another state's laws, they're asking the federal government to enforce its [i]own[/i] policies which by the Supremacy Clause override the states. This situation with the federal government deliberately not enforcing its own policies and leading to conflicts between the states and federal government is a huge clusterfuck that needs to be resolved one way or the other.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49978850]Alcohol isn't banned nationwide on a federal level, but legalized by a handful of states. Most of the replies in this thread seem to forget that weed is illegal by the federal government. These states aren't asking the federal government to step on another state's laws, they're asking the federal government to enforce its [i]own[/i] policies which by the Supremacy Clause override the states. This situation with the federal government deliberately not enforcing its own policies and leading to conflicts between the states and federal government is a huge clusterfuck that needs to be resolved one way or the other.[/QUOTE] This is true only superficially without regard to context. The current administration has made it very clear that they want to watch the states play this out themselves to find out how the new generation of voters feel about this collectively. Two states then appealing federally against this very democratic idea of letting states individually decide what substances are legal in void of federal action is very childish. In other words, this is about intentions and attitudes more than the literal letter of the law; see the above posts about "states' rights". edit: I'm saying that nobody is challenging the legality of the other states to complain about Colorado; the discussion in this thread is about the reasons they're doing it.

I love how Oklahoma is doing stupid shit like this when the state budget is so completely fucked that they're making cuts to various public works, including education and the department of health. Good job focusing on what's "important".

[QUOTE=catbarf;49978850]Alcohol isn't banned nationwide on a federal level, but legalized by a handful of states. Most of the replies in this thread seem to forget that weed is illegal by the federal government. These states aren't asking the federal government to step on another state's laws, they're asking the federal government to enforce its [i]own[/i] policies which by the Supremacy Clause override the states. This situation with the federal government deliberately not enforcing its own policies and leading to conflicts between the states and federal government is a huge clusterfuck that needs to be resolved one way or the other.[/QUOTE] Maybe the DEA should take marijuana off of the list of schedule 1 narcotics since realistically speaking they'll never be able to get rid of it and it's a waste of time, manpower, and taxpayer money.

[QUOTE=Killer900;49979648]Maybe the DEA should take marijuana off of the list of schedule 1 narcotics since realistically speaking they'll never be able to get rid of it and it's a waste of time, manpower, and taxpayer money.[/QUOTE] But then they would loose budget moneys The pot ban has always been about giving the DEA something to justify its existence

[QUOTE=Sableye;49979848]But then they would loose budget moneys The pot ban has always been about giving the DEA something to justify its existence[/QUOTE]Good, they should, they've ruined millions of lives all over a plant that we were told is more dangerous than it really is. They lied to the American people, tbh they should be thrown in jail.

[QUOTE=Sableye;49979848]But then they would loose budget moneys The pot ban has always been about giving the DEA something to justify its existence[/QUOTE] Yeah, because they're totally concerned with marijuana alone and not other drugs like cocaine, heroin, meth, prescriptions, et cetera. It's fairly likely that pot will be legalized on the federal level sometime in the future, but the DEA will still have quite a lot to "justify its existence".

[QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;49980097]Yeah, because they're totally concerned with marijuana alone and not other drugs like cocaine, heroin, meth, prescriptions, et cetera. It's fairly likely that pot will be legalized on the federal level sometime in the future, but the DEA will still have quite a lot to "justify its existence".[/QUOTE] so you mean jailing civilians for usage of addictive substances rather than directing them to centers for narcotic assistance

We need to rethink our whole scheduling act, it really makes little sense, especially when you consider the criteria for each class of drugs.

[QUOTE=bitches;49980402]so you mean jailing civilians for usage of addictive substances rather than directing them to centers for narcotic assistance[/QUOTE] The Drug Enforcement Administration is under the executive branch, which is concerned with enforcing the law. They're not the ones who pass the laws or sentence offenders, they just arrest them. If you want citizens directed to centers for narcotic assistance, then that's largely in the domain of Congress.

We should be fighting drugs by fighting addiction with treatment programs; the DEA needs to be repurposed to do that, or replaced.

[QUOTE=bitches;49978925]The current administration has made it very clear that they want to watch the states play this out themselves to find out how the new generation of voters feel about this collectively. [/QUOTE] Which is really an awful way to handle it, when people can be acting totally within the law in their home states but be legally required to disclose unlawful activity to the federal government. A person living in Colorado who [i]perfectly legally[/i] buys pot for his own use is barred from holding public office, receiving a security clearance, or buying a gun, because in the eyes of the federal government they have committed a serious crime. If the federal government wants to see what the people think, they should hold a referendum or at least some sort of internal vote. Letting the states make their own decisions, leading to wild inconsistency between the states and causing states to conflict with federal law, is currently a legal quagmire that is causing far more trouble than it's worth.

[QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;49980605]The Drug Enforcement Administration is under the executive branch, which is concerned with enforcing the law. They're not the ones who pass the laws or sentence offenders, they just arrest them. If you want citizens directed to centers for narcotic assistance, then that's largely in the domain of Congress.[/QUOTE] just following orders?

[QUOTE=bitches;49980871]just following orders?[/QUOTE] Generally it's seen as a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis_%28county_clerk%29]bad thing[/url] when government officials decide not to follow the law and take matters into their own hands. The DEA's job is to enforce the law as written, not to decide on their own which laws are valid and which to ignore. That's the job of the courts.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49980746]Which is really an awful way to handle it, when people can be acting totally within the law in their home states but be legally required to disclose unlawful activity to the federal government.[/QUOTE] Letting states decide is fine, but it federal law regarding it needs to be removed to avoid the issues you bring up.

[QUOTE=bitches;49980871]just following orders?[/QUOTE] Nicely done abiding by Godwin's Law, but the DEA isn't committing war crimes. The agency can't just subvert Congress and start letting offenders off the hook.

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49978674]who the fuck would want to go to nebraska or oklahoma anyway[/QUOTE] I live in Nebraska.... Also everyone and their dog smokes over here, and me.

I live in Nebraska and know plenty of people that do pot runs lol. But I've never heard of someone bringing back a whole lot, so I doubt it contributes significantly to drug use here.

[QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;49981152]Nicely done abiding by Godwin's Law, but the DEA isn't committing war crimes. The agency can't just subvert Congress and start letting offenders off the hook.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=catbarf;49981082]Generally it's seen as a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis_%28county_clerk%29]bad thing[/url] when government officials decide not to follow the law and take matters into their own hands. The DEA's job is to enforce the law as written, not to decide on their own which laws are valid and which to ignore. That's the job of the courts.[/QUOTE] It's called quitting your job. Nobody said rebelling against the government. Nobody would have cared if Kim Davis quit her job. Choosing to ruin harmless peoples' lives as your line of work is indefensible.

We need a supreme court ruling or amendment requiring all states to hold citizen ballot initiatives and recall of elected officials