Slashdot Mirror
Colorado Sued By Neighboring States Over Legal Pot
SternisheFan notes that Nebraska and Oklahoma are suing Colorado over marijuana legalization. The attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma sued Colorado in the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, arguing state-legalized marijuana from Colorado is improperly spilling across state lines. The suit invokes the federal government's right to regulate both drugs and interstate commerce, and says Colorado's decision to legalize marijuana has been "particularly burdensome" to police agencies on the other side of the state line. In June, USA TODAY highlighted the flow of marijuana from Colorado into small towns across Nebraska: felony drug arrests in Chappell, Neb., just 7 miles north of the Colorado border have skyrocketed 400% in three years. "In passing and enforcing Amendment 64, the state of Colorado has created a dangerous gap in the federal drug control system enacted by the United States Congress. Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states, undermining plaintiff states' own marijuana bans, draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice systems," says the lawsuit. "The Constitution and the federal anti-drug laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local pro-drug policies and licensed distribution schemes throughout the country which conflict with federal laws."
How about not enforcing the laws there since doing otherwise is a stupid waste of law enforcement time and resources? I can't believe anyone can be stupid enough to think cannabis is dangerous enough to merit criminalization. You have to be basically live up your own ass for decades to come up with that opinion.
in many states, and they don't want to lose that revenue. It is not about right or wrong, legal or illegal, it is really about money. But as the various other states see revenue flow into states like Colorado in the form of pot taxes, they may change their minds, just like all states changed their minds about gambling and lotteries.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
Why is this any different than counties that don't allow the sale of alcohol adjacent to counties that do? Do the dry counties sue the wet counties because they have to be on the lookout for drunk drivers on their borders? Looks like a way to get some attention or maybe some cash to me...
And give up all those extra federal enforcement dollars they hope to get as a result of this suit. You're hopped up crazy, man.
... this is similar in nature to same sex marriage, and women's reproductive rights.
It's legal some places and banned in others.
America needs to make up its mind. Which way are we going to go?
The decision should be based on case law and public need and citizen's rights.
Legalize all that shit and let's play spin the bottle and stuff.
yw
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Also because more guns, less crime.
Legalize itnand tax it and make up the difference many times over
or they could you know, legalize and tax, making money legit instead of stealing it to use against good americans
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
strip the DEA of scheduling authority!
here's a simple thought experiment:
you just awoke from a 50 year coma and in playing around with this new-fangled interweb thingy you learn that final authority over the legality of a given substance rests NOT with the FDA (an army of PhDs) or the AMA (an army of MDs) but with this new agency called the "DEA" - a bunch of frakin' COPS! "wait? say that again?!?" you say "a bunch of COPS who know as much about chemistry, biology & medicine as my dead cat have VETO POWER over armies of MDs & PhDs on the legality of ingesting a given chemical?!? what rocket surgeon came up with that bright idea?!?"
we need to abolish the DEA not just b/c we happen to disagree with them on THC (and MDMA, etc) but b/c the basic model is IDIOTIC!!!
Hahahahahaha you think tax money goes to pay for water and highways. No. Tax money goes to pay for stuff like this, this and this.
I know that *some* (not all) taxes go to stuff like that. If you are claiming that NO TAXES go ever to public infrastructure, then you are going to have to do better than just pointing at counter examples.
I never claimed that ALL TAXES go to public infrastructure. I claim that taxes PAY for infrastructure. That claim does not says "ALL TAXES go to infrastructure" or that "infrastructure gets funded PROPERLY by ALL TAXES."
As a result, your reply, by logical necessity, is misplaced and inadequate. Unless you can prove anywhere that I've said anything that warrants your reply, you have to admit, if you are honest, that you are simply building a strawman.
Haven't you noticed that America's infrastructure is crumbling?
Yes.
Now why is that?
Because its maintenance and expansion is not funded properly. This is no proof that taxes never go there. It is certainly not proof of the following statement:
And taxes are good, right? Not like that's stealing or anything.
People shouldn't expect not to be challenged when they post asinine shit like that without a context or at least some thought behind it.
Giving more tax income for the government is no better than giving a crackhead more money.
There is not one government. There is federal government, there is state and local government, and depending on the region, tribal government. Each operates differently, with different levels of efficiency and honesty (or lack thereof) when it comes to collecting taxes (and putting them to good use.)
In this specific context, this thread, taxation is being referred to state and local taxation. It is not accurate to describe taxation and public spending in such over-generalized terms. It is great from the point of rhetoric.
It has been a long time since the US government has made effective use of its money. Besides - all tax revenue is barely enough to cover the INTEREST on the deficit (even at these low low rates) - let alone the deficit. A few hundred million here or there will make zero difference to the ocean of pork.
Here you are properly elaborating a good point (finally). It still does not explain what states are to do with pot legalization, the war on drugs, state rights over their own taxation, their relation on that topic to the federal state, the nature of interstate commerce, free passage of citizens from one state to another to purchase an item and the arbiter role of federal government in such activities.
There are the goddamned subjects of this threat. Alcohol is already taxed with different sale taxes across the states, so logically legalization of pot by a state will imply its taxation by said state.
Inefficiency of (or even corruption during) taxation of an item by a government, be it local, state or federal, does not preclude a government, in particular a state government from exercising that sovereign power. If you oppose a state from taxing pot as a condition for legalization, you are going to have to do better than saying "taxation is bad or badly done."
As you can see, the moderation converged on a more proper +5 Insightful
I've read the post carefully and it doesn't qualify as Flamebait IMHO. It states a controversial political opinion and thus invites a discussion, which may lead to flamage, but does not itself lead with a flame.
So this looks like someone who doesn't like the position trying to suppress it, by hitting it with the most plausible -1, in the hope that one more like-minded person will have mod points and get it suppressed before very many people see it. That works for "politically incorrect" subjects (such as criticisms of the "heat death of the Earth, everybody panic and suppress technology" interpretation of climate data), where a crowd of like-minded free speech haters are ready to suppress opposing opinions. But pro-pot doesn't appear to attract that much system-gaming opposition.
Right now it only takes two downmods to hide a non-anonymous itme. It seems to me that we have enough people willing to moderate that it's time to scale up the mod system, so a small astroturf operation can't shut down debate. Say: double it: Mods get 10 points, -2 hides, non-anynomous starts at +2, high-karma at +4, doulble everybody's current karma and readjust the cutpoints for bonuses, caps, and the like. That would mean it would take two moderators to suppress a anonymous post and four for authors willing to risk reputation. (It would also mean more work for those who are willing to moderate - but they might be more willing to spend a point if they had more to spend.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
But if 100g or less is legal, why is 101g illegal? What is the purpose of such a law?
What do you actually expect it is protecting us from?
Do you feel some responsibility to violent gangs like....we created them with bad laws, and now we have to nurture them? Why do you not want legal production in the daylight where product can be weighed and inspected. Where people who defraud their customers or violent thugs who would prey on honest businessmen and their wares can be brought to justice instead of left out in the cold to the wolves....over what?
Seriously....what the fuck justifies arrest and incarceration over pot? What justifies AT ALL interfering with the lives of consenting adults over this flower? I really want to know because in 20 years of being a pot smoker the worst negatives I have seen have all been the result of these stupid laws.
Honest people being robbed and held at gunpoint with no recourse, nobody to call. Dishonest dealers who rip off their customers. Families torn apart, jobs lost, all over... some mad obsession with moralistic laws against what is, at worst, a minor vice.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
But if 100g or less is legal, why is 101g illegal? What is the purpose of such a law?
That's not unusual at all. It draws a clear line between what is allowed and what is not. Would you prefer vague guidelines like "for private consumption" vs. "for sale", or "small amounts"? Having strict and easily to check guidelines also avoids wasting time on law enforcements and court costs. 100 grams, and the police lets you go. 101 grams, the hold you and take you to court. Whether you're guilty or innocent, it is _clear_ which one, and that is a good thing
Obviously you shouldn't try to go to the extreme limit of what's allowed. If your scales say you have 100 grams, but your scales are off and you really have 101, that's no excuse. Just stay below 90 and you're fine.
But if 100g or less is legal, why is 101g illegal? What is the purpose of such a law?
That's not unusual at all. It draws a clear line between what is allowed and what is not. Would you prefer vague guidelines like "for private consumption" vs. "for sale", or "small amounts"? Having strict and easily to check guidelines also avoids wasting time on law enforcements and court costs. 100 grams, and the police lets you go. 101 grams, the hold you and take you to court. Whether you're guilty or innocent, it is _clear_ which one, and that is a good thing Obviously you shouldn't try to go to the extreme limit of what's allowed. If your scales say you have 100 grams, but your scales are off and you really have 101, that's no excuse. Just stay below 90 and you're fine.
I think parent was questioning why any limit at all, as in what makes possessing 101g turn you into an evil anti-american, versus an upstanding 99g toter.
The money is the icing on the cake.
The militarized enforcement and unchecked abuse of power against the populace is the real goal.