What opinions do you guys have on this article? It seems like he completely ignored the concept of the 10th amendment, and the fact that the feds can't force a state to enforce cannabis prohibition. He also neglected to mention that this lawsuit does not seek to completely repeal amendment 64, only the sales and regulatory aspect of it. But he goes on to make it out like legalization's days are numbered and that the supreme court's verdict has already been decided. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Loretta Lynch sides with Oklahoma and Nebraska on this case, but I hope that SCOTUS ends up ruling in Colorado's favor and doesn't completely base their ruling off of her opinion. They need to realize that ruling in Oklahoma and Nebraska's favor would just make things worse and turn Colorado into a wild west scenario just like DC. I also heard that a ruling in their favor would also have implications on the other recreational states and also medical states as well. http://www.thecannabist.co/2015/06/26/nebraska-okl... <h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: -0.35em; margin-bottom: 1em; direction: ltr; font-family: Lora, Georgia, Times, serif; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); line-height: 1.25; font-size: 1.6875em;">Law professor Zachary Bolitho says Attorney General Loretta Lynch must side with Nebraska and Oklahoma in their quest to kill Colorado's ongoing experiment with legal marijuana</h3>Law professor Zachary Bolitho, a former federal prosecutor with the Department of Justice, wrote a compelling op-ed in the Los Angeles Times earlier this week saying that, if the letter of the law is followed, legal American marijuana's days are numbered. In his new opinion piece, Bolitho argued that Nebraska and Oklahoma have the unquestionable right to squash Colorado's legal pot system with their proposed case in the U.S. Supreme Court - and he thinks it might just happen, given that new Attorney General Loretta Lynch is looking to “distinguish herself from her lightning rod of a predecessor, Eric H. Holder Jr.†Here's how Bolitho got started: <blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1.25em; padding-top: 0.5625em; padding-right: 1.25em; padding-left: 1.1875em; direction: ltr; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); line-height: 1.6; color: rgb(111, 111, 111); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Nebraska and Oklahoma claim that the federal Controlled Substances Act, or CSA, preempts Colorado's marijuana law. Because the case involves one state suing another, it falls within a special category of lawsuits that go straight to the Supreme Court. Typically, the federal government would be the entity seeking to enforce federal law against a state. But because the Department of Justice under Holder refused to challenge Colorado's law, Nebraska and Oklahoma - neighboring states that say marijuana is flowing across their borders and burdening their criminal justice systems - have taken on the task. The Supreme Court recently asked the federal government to file a brief explaining its position on the issue, which is expected shortly. From a legal standpoint, the correct opinion is obvious: Lynch must side with Nebraska and Oklahoma. </blockquote>That's when Bolitho took a step back to point out that this isn't about America's policy on cannabis. That's a legitimate conversation, he says, but it has nothing to do with the game of chicken going on between Colorado's groundbreaking, first-of-its kind weed laws and the Controlled Substances Act. He argued that the supremacy clause is all that is needed in situations like this. When federal law conflicts with state law, federal law wins - “that is true regardless of whether the federal law is bad policy or outdated or draconian,†Bolitho wrote. “And it is true regardless of whether the federal law aligns with the political preferences of the current presidential administration.†He continued: <blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1.25em; padding-top: 0.5625em; padding-right: 1.25em; padding-left: 1.1875em; direction: ltr; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); line-height: 1.6; color: rgb(111, 111, 111); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Put simply, Colorado treats marijuana dealers like legitimate entrepreneurs. But the reality is that every state-licensed marijuana dispensary in Colorado is in direct violation of the CSA. Every dollar that Colorado's state-licensed marijuana dispensaries generate is forfeitable under the CSA as criminally derived property. If states are free to disregard federal laws they don't like, then our entire governmental structure is at risk. What's next? Could a state that doesn't like the federal Clean Water Act pass a law authorizing the pollution of its waterways? Could a state that doesn't like the federal Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act pass a law authorizing gun dealers inside its borders to sell handguns without conducting background checks? Are congressional enactments simply suggestions that the states may accept or reject at their pleasure? That's not how our system is supposed to work. </blockquote>Bolitho then looked at what former Attorney General Eric Holder's Department of Justice did with Arizona's controversial immigration law a few years ago. It successfully argued that federal law preempts state law, and Bolitho finished his comparison with a simple statement condemning Colorado's legal marijuana experiment to the unknown: “The situation in Nebraska and Oklahoma should receive the same treatment.â€
The difference in this case is the majority of the people in the state of Colorado want legal Cannabis. All those scenarios in the article about a state passing laws polluting waterways is a ridiculous comparison. However, in a democracy, if that's what the people want, that's what they will get. The Supreme Court could rule in favor of Nebraska and Oklahoma based on the supremacy clause, however, It would be interesting to see how the federal government goes about enforcing it. With four legal states, and like 30 medical states, enforcement could prove problematic on an issue that 56% percent of the American population supports. That's when the feds decide to legalize and regulate.
I'm almost certain that's how it's going to go down. DC forced to finally make a call by a giant pissing contest between states. Kind of exciting to think two of the biggest tightwad states in the union could trigger federal legalization by trying to trash a right they frequently cling to whenever it's convenient for them. The tears of legal irony on that day will be so delicious....
Yeah I agree, and we all know that the majority of Americans want Colorado to be the one who wins this lawsuit. I think we're all expecting Loretta Lynch to side with Oklahoma and Nebraska as well, it'd be more surprising if she sided with Colorado. But that's an interesting take on it, it would take a lot of money and resources from the Feds to enforce it if Oklahoma and Nebraska win, and I don't know if they'll want to spend that much to enforce it.
Yeah that definitely could be possible. The Supreme Court hasn't even officially announced wether or not they'll take the case and according to some news articles I've read, it could take years to reach a verdict if they do decide to take the case. Lawsuits can be a very slow moving process and by that time, more states will have legalized for both medical and recreational use. If more states legalize, the Feds might not have any other choice but to reform the federal law. Especially if California legalizes, they say that would be a huge impact on ending prohibition. I'm guessing it's because it's both the most populous state in the country and also the biggest pot producing state in the country as well. California passing legalization in addition to any other states that could legalize next year would definitely have an impact at the federal level.
I love when he tried to compare it to water pollution like its somehow in the same category. And yes, the cultivators are entrepreneurs. You can cite whatever you'd like from your backwards ass laws but that won't change in my eyes.
<h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: -0.35em; margin-bottom: 1em; direction: ltr; font-family: Lora, Georgia, Times, serif; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); line-height: 1.25; font-size: 1.6875em;">"In response to law professor Zachary Bolitho's recent op-ed, which predicted a death sentence for legal weed in America, law prof Sam Kamin says quite the opposite is happening..."</h3> "For it simply does not follow from the fact of federal supremacy that the states are obligated to pass laws similar to the Controlled Substances Act or to keep such prohibitions on the books if they wish to remove them. With this even the states of Oklahoma and Nebraska agree; their complaint against Colorado in the Supreme Court says as much. But just as obviously, the federal government (or, more fundamentally, the states of Oklahoma and Nebraska) cannot force any state to administer a federal program or to enforce a federal law. Mr. Bolitho writes about the Clean Water Act and the Brady Gun laws, but it is unmistakably clear that the federal government cannot force state officials (cannot commandeer them, to use the constitutional term) to enforce those laws. This is what ultimately dooms the Oklahoma and Nebraska suit and is the crux of my disagreement with Mr. Bolitho. Furthermore, this case is fundamentally different from Bolitho's other principal example: the federal lawsuit against Arizona to keep that state from creating its own immigration laws. There, it was important that the United States have a single, uniform immigration policy. The federal government expressed that view by filing suit against Arizona and the Supreme Court agreed, striking down key provisions of the Arizona law. In the context of marijuana law reform in the states, things are quite different. The federal government has thus far been willing to accommodate state law experimentation, largely because the Controlled Substances Act by its own terms provides room for inconsistent state laws even while prohibiting marijuana at the federal level. In passing the Controlled Substances Act, Congress stated its intent to preempt only those state laws that present a positive conflict such that the state law and the federal law cannot be read together... " http://www.thecannabist.co/2015/06/29/pot-marijuana-oklahoma-nebraska-lawsuit-colorado/37014/
This just seems like a big ass waste of time. Colorado in effect has said that it is not going to enforce federal marijuana laws. The federal government could still come in tomorrow and shut it all down. However, the federal government under this administration has already said that it is not going to prioritize marijuana enforcement in states that have legalized it. I have no idea what could possibly happen. The Court overturning legalization in Colorado? Alright, but who's to say CO won't continue to not enforce the federal laws? Again, just seems like a waste of time. The other states need to get over themselves.