Pubdate: Sat, 20 Dec 2014
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2014 The Denver Post Corp
Contact:  http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122

A MEDDLING LAWSUIT ON AMENDMENT 64

No one has ever doubted the federal government has the power to shut 
down Colorado's commercial marijuana outlets, as well as its 
manufacturing and growing facilities.

Federal agents could close every medical marijuana facility, too. But 
they have chosen not to, wisely deferring to the popular will in 
Colorado and other states that have legalized marijuana for 
recreational or medicinal use.

Yet that decision obviously rankles the attorneys general of Nebraska 
and Oklahoma, who seem to have a lot of time on their hands. They've 
filed a lawsuit whose goal seems to be to prod the federal government 
into a crackdown on Colorado's commercial pot businesses, or at least 
prompt a court order against continued implementation of Amendment 64.

These two Republicans seem to have a highly selective appreciation of 
federalism-which is to say no appreciation whatsoever when it comes 
to drug laws.

Their excuse is that Colorado's laws undermine the U.S. war on drugs 
and create enforcement problems for their own states.

"In passing and enforcing Amendment 64," the lawsuit said, "the state 
of Colorado has created a dangerous gap in the federal drug control 
measures enacted by the United States Congress. Marijuana flows from 
this gap into neighboring states, undermining [their] own marijuana 
bans, draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal 
justice systems."

You'd think those two states had never known an illegal pot market 
until Colorado changed its laws. And if Colorado's laws have put so 
much stress on their criminal justice systems, why weren't they 
willing to quantify it in their brief? Is the U.S. Supreme Court, 
which must decide whether to take this case pitting two states 
against a third, simply supposed to accept their word?

Let's hope the court refuses to take up the case, thus ending this 
meddling legal venture. As Colorado Attorney General John Suthers - 
no fan of Amendment 64 himself-correctly notes, "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."

It's hard to believe the Supreme Court would want to act as the 
enforcer of federal supremacy on marijuana law when the executive 
branch itself has shown so little interest in asserting its 
authority. Nebraska and Oklahoma are straining to find arguments 
against a law that they don't like in a neighboring state. Sorry, but 
it's none of their business.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom